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

***

First published on February  4, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They are only the beginning of an unraveling Big Picture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See this.

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Police making mass arrests in Ottawa where the Freedom Convoy

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

Maverick Multimedia

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Video Viva Frei

Independent Media

Police move in on protesters in Ottawa

Click image to access CBC live coverage. Bear in mind this is the government’s official  news source.

CBC

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

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

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

Who are the Criminals 

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

Extensive crimes against humanity have been committed.

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

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

Trudeau does not have the support of the provincial governments. 

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

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

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

All COVID mandates must be immediately suspended.  

The evidence is overwhelming.  

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

Very Summarized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For details see my E-Book (13 chapters)

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

Spread the word. In solidarity with the Freedom Convoy.

Michel Chossudovsky,

Global Research, February 18, 2022

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

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

There are three possible scenarios: 

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

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

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

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

Unprovoked Russian invasion

This seems to be the least likely outcome. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ukrainian escalation of civil war   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing happens

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion 

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image is from commons.com.ua/

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

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

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

-Friedrich Schiller, Wilhelm Tell’s Rutli Oath

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

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

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

But here it is.

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

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

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

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

Emergency Measures Act invoked

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

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

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

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

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

Fissures Across the Establishment

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom Convoy Nightmares for Technocrats in USA and Europe

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

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

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

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

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

One thing is certain.

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

*

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

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

All Global Research articles 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.

***

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

The No-Evidence Rule

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

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

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

Dangerous Farce 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russian Proposals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Featured image is from The Progressive

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

Athletes Are Dying on the Field in Large Numbers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Are These Athletes?

Click here to watch the video.

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

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

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

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

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

Vaccine Injured Unlikely to Get Help

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Officials Try to Discredit VAERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VAERS Is Overwhelmed With Reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Notes

¹ Open VAERS, COVID-19 Data

² YouTube, July 17, 2019

³ The Desert Review, February 7, 2022

⁴ Red Voice Media, January 14, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹¹ Reuters, November 29, 2021

¹² Rumble, January 26, 2022

¹³ Rumble, January 26, 2022, 00:48

¹⁴ Fortune, May 3, 2021

¹⁵ Health Resources & Services Administration January 2020

¹⁶ Congressional Research Service, October 20, 2021

¹⁷ Public Law 99-660

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

¹⁹ Federal Register, March 17, 2020

²⁰ Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System

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

^22, 26 VAERS, About

²³ About David Martin

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

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

²⁷ Twitter, January 5, 2022, Min 1:40

²⁸ BitChute, December 18, 2021

²⁹ Odysee, January 20, 2022

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

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

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

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immortal organisms found in vaccines

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

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

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

*

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

Featured image is from Vaccines.news

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

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

Whoops!

I mean Scotland WAS one of the most transparent.

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

Because they work so well.

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

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

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

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

SOURCE

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

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

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

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

The authorities know the truth as well as anyone else.

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

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

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Featured image is by Kaboompics.com from Pexels

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from an RT News video

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

World Economic Forum’s “Young Global Leaders” Revealed

Jacob Nordangard, February 12, 2022

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

Weaver, February 16, 2022

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

Major Stephen Chledowski, February 11, 2022

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

Mike Whitney, February 15, 2022

Graphene COVID Kill Shots: Let the Evidence Speak for Itself

Dr. Ariyana Love, February 16, 2022

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

Michael Lord, February 13, 2022

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

F. William Engdahl, February 13, 2022

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

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 13, 2022

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

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 18, 2022

Bombshell Document Dump on Pfizer Vaccine Data

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 13, 2022

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

The Daily Expose, February 14, 2022

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

Walter Gelles, February 13, 2022

The COVID Mandates Are Leaving Europe. Is Freedom Winning?

Joanna Miller, February 16, 2022

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

David John Sorensen, February 6, 2022

A National Emergency AGAINST Trudeau’s “COVID Mandates” Which “Seriously Endanger the Lives, Health or Safety of Canadians”

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 15, 2022

The COVID Narrative and “Conspiracy Theories”: A Physician’s Perspective

Michael C, February 12, 2022

Video: Grand Jury Day 1: Attorney at Law Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, Germany, for the “PCR Plandemic Trial” Before a Grand Jury

Reiner Fuellmich, February 11, 2022

Worldwide Freedom Movement against Covid Mandates, QR Codes and Restrictions: The Global Elite’s Technological Coup d’État Against Humanity

Robert J. Burrowes, February 14, 2022

Video: Up to Seven Years in Prison for Four Year-old Facebook Posts?

Resistance GB, February 14, 2022

Video: World Awakening – Freedom Convoys

Marcel Irnie, February 15, 2022

Video: Breaking News: Justin Trudeau Accuses Jewish Member of Parliament for Supporting Nazis

By Jamie Schmale, February 18, 2022

Instead of answering questions, he resorted to accusing Melissa Lantsman, a Jewish Member of Parliament and a descendant of Holocaust survivors, of supporting those waving swastikas. There were many on the opposition side of the House who immediately came to her defence. However, the Liberal benches were silent on the Prime Minister’s demeaning comments.

Video: Dr. Charles Hoffe Speaks Out to the World

By Dr. Charles Hoffe, February 18, 2022

Dr. Charles Hoffe is a family physician in British Columbia. “I have been horrified to see what the COVID shots have done to my own patients. I have a small country practice with about 2,000 patients and amongst those people, I now have 12 in my own practice who are disabled since their COVID shots.”

Video: #FreedomConvoy2022 to Veterans and Civilians: “Please Come. Your Country Needs You.”

By Bridge City News, February 18, 2022

They addressed a narrative circulating around mainstream media regarding the removal of a fence around the National War Memorial. They also asked for other veterans and civilians to come support the Freedom Convoy, saying “Please come. Your country needs you.”

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

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 18, 2022

The latest developments suggest that the COVID-19 narrative is crumbling amidst major protests worldwide. A mass movement against the COVID mandate is unfolding coast to coast across Canada in solidarity with cross-border truck drivers. Tens of thousands of people have joined the truck drivers in Ottawa.

Justin Trudeau’s Swastikas. “Democracy with Neo-Nazi Characteristics”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 18, 2022

Justin Trudeau is unceasingly referring to swastikas intimating that the Freedom Convoy organizers are not only supportive of  Nazi symbols but are anti-Semitic. And on February 16, he directed these wild accusations against the Conservative Party of Canada.

NATO Insists on Russian Invasion Narrative to Justify New European Battlegroups

By Paul Antonopoulos, February 17, 2022

The predicted February 16 Russian invasion of Ukraine came and passed without incident. In fact, not only did Russian soldiers begin demobilization on February 15 with the end of defense exercises, but Russian officials even took the opportunity to mock the West for their bold announcement on when exactly the supposed invasion of Ukraine would begin.

Video: War with Ukraine Cancelled Due to Bad Weather

By South Front, February 17, 2022

Russian General Staff officers woke up on Wednesday morning and were surprised to find that their tanks were not yet in Kharkov, and the troops were not in Odessa. It turned out that the United States decided to cancel Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 16.

Video: Fired 20-year Global News, News Director Anita Krishna Speaks Out

By Anita Krishna, February 17, 2022

Anita Krishna tells everyone how things changed in 2020…when Justin Trudeau’s Liberals handed out 600M dollars to “news” organizations, calls out some specific bad actors, her former news rivals/colleagues and more.

Canada’s Emergency Act — We All Need to Contact Our MPs and Senators Now

By Shirley Guertin, February 17, 2022

It’s essential that every one of us telephones their MP (BOTH offices – local & Ottawa) and as many other MPs and senators (105, so suggest to begin with Independent — they listen and read) as possible now to protest the Emergencies Act.

Pfizer, BioNTech Seek COVID Biologic Emergency Use Authorization for Infants as Young as Six Months Old

By Natasha Hobley, February 17, 2022

A statement from Pfizer states that the “rolling submission” application was submitted on Feb. 1, 2022 at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “in response to the urgent public health need in this population.”

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Truck driver James Doull discusses the fate of the Canadian trucker ‘Freedom Convoy’ as PM Justin Trudeau vows to freeze protesters’ bank accounts, arguing he doesn’t see the PM’s efforts ‘making any difference.’

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

During question period, the Conservative Party upheld their parliamentary obligation to hold the Prime Minister accountable for enacting the Emergencies Act.

Instead of answering questions, he resorted to accusing Melissa Lantsman, a Jewish Member of Parliament and a descendant of Holocaust survivors, of supporting those waving swastikas. There were many on the opposition side of the House who immediately came to her defence. However, the Liberal benches were silent on the Prime Minister’s demeaning comments.

Prime Minister Trudeau should immediately apologize and focus on unifying the nation rather than stoking divisions for political gain.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Here are my impressions of Canada’s Freedom Convoy:

Despite the government-declared “emergency”, the Freedom Convoy remains very strong and is a potent force against the current Canadian dictatorship. The convoy is entirely peaceful, and everywhere I look I see widespread support. Awareness of what is really happening to us in Canada (and globally) is increasing exponentially, and we can thank the truckers and their supporters for this.

The Ottawa police commissioner resigned today, but in terms of policing, I would say the police have mostly handled the situation well. People I talked to seem to be of the same opinion. — M. Taliano, February 15, 2022

*

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

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. Visit the author’s website at https://www.marktaliano.net where this article was originally published.

All images in this article are from the author

Voices from Syria

Author: Mark Taliano

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-9-1

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Former RCMP sniper, Daniel Bulford and veterans, Eddie Cornell and Vincent Gircys held a press conference in Ottawa Wednesday afternoon.

They addressed a narrative circulating around mainstream media regarding the removal of a fence around the National War Memorial. They also asked for other veterans and civilians to come support the Freedom Convoy, saying “Please come. Your country needs you.”

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

Note: All Global Research articles are now accessible in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website Drop Down Menu on the top banner of our home page.

If you want to become a member of Global Research, click here.

***

In this posting, Global Research is providing real time video reports from Ottawa on the Freedom Convoy Movement.

On February 17, the application of a National Emergency directed against The Freedom Convoy 2022 was debated at the House of Commons.

The House of Commons is divided. The NDP has signified that it will be siding with the Liberal minority government.

Meanwhile, a major police initiative against the Freedom Convoy involving a high tech “Nazi style” special forces operation is contemplated by the Prime Minister Trudeau.

We stand in Solidarity with the Freedom Convoy 2020

Global Research, February 17, 2022

This is the Bloomberg  Coverage focussing on an Impending Police Operation

From the Ottawa Citizen: 

• Police are handing out notices to downtown demonstrators warning that if they continue to block streets, they are committing a criminal offence and face arrest
• A convoy organizer threatens to call the police and RCMP on local counter-protesters who have been challenging the occupation in Ottawa’s streets
• An injunction ordering “Freedom Convoy” truckers to stop blowing their air horns has been extended for 60 days
• Residents still advised to avoid non-essential travel in the downtown core as traffic and transit disruptions, closures continue
• Ottawa City Council meets to discuss the impact of the truck convoy demonstration on the city’s residents and businesses at 4 p.m.
• Steve Bell, formerly a deputy chief, takes over as Ottawa’s interim police chief after the abrupt departure of Peter Sloly

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The predicted February 16 Russian invasion of Ukraine came and passed without incident. In fact, not only did Russian soldiers begin demobilization on February 15 with the end of defense exercises, but Russian officials even took the opportunity to mock the West for their bold announcement on when exactly the supposed invasion of Ukraine would begin.

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova requested on February 16 for Bloomberg, The New York Times and The Sun “to publish the schedule for our upcoming invasions for the year” so that, as she said, “plan my vacation.” A day earlier she said: “February 15, 2022 will go down in history as the day of the failure of western war propaganda. Humiliated and destroyed without firing a shot.”

Meanwhile, Lugansk defense militias accused pro-Kiev forces of firing in their area of control four times. Although it is not yet clear how serious these incidents are, there has been no reaction for now from Kiev or the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), which is monitoring the situation in eastern Ukraine but has withdrawn in recent days some of its observers from the region.

Representatives of the self-proclaimed People’s Republic of Lugansk said in a statement on February 17 that Ukrainian forces used mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns in four separate attacks. This shows that although the ridiculous invasion prediction obviously failed to materialize, with much humor, Kiev’s continued violations of the Minsk agreement is certainly no laughing matter.

In fact, this latest violation of the Minsk agreement is made all the more dangerous as the Anglo Alliance (US-UK-Australia, or AUKUS), refuses to backdown from its Russian invasion narrative. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson told United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres on February 16 that there was “currently little evidence of Russia disengaging” from its military buildup near Ukraine.

Boris was backed up by British Lieutenant General Sir Jim Hockenhull, the Chief of Defence Intelligence, who said in a rare statement that they “have not seen evidence that Russia has withdrawn forces from Ukraine’s borders. Contrary to their claims, Russia continues to build up military capabilities near Ukraine.”

In unison with Britain, US State Department spokesman Ned Price said they had in fact seen “more Russian forces” and “not fewer” along the Ukraine border. When asked why Moscow would claim to be withdrawing troops when US intelligence, commercial satellite photos and social media videos showed no evidence of that, Price said: “This is the Russian playbook, to paint a picture publicly… while they do the opposite.”

Perhaps the Anglo officials, intelligence agencies and media missed videos freely available of Russian troops and heavy equipment withdrawing following the end of their defense exercises.

It was NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg who revealed on February 16 the likely reason why the Anglo Alliance is maintaining a Russia invasion narrative despite the major humiliation they experienced recently. After claiming that NATO is not a threat to Russia but that it must bolster its collective militaries because of the supposed Russian threat, he said the alliance was thinking about “establishing new NATO battlegroups in central and eastern, south-eastern Europe.”

In effect, rather than reciprocating Russia’s demobilization, NATO announced its consideration of new battlegroups geographically located with the obvious intention of surrounding and pressuring Russia.

With the Anglo Alliance failing to provoke Russia into war with Ukraine, it is now trying to find new justifications to increase troop numbers on Russia’s border. The only palatable way in the current climate for this to be achieved is to maintain a Russia invasion threat narrative, no matter how many times the Kremlin announces it has no intentions of this and no matter how many times the Anglo Alliance is humiliated with botched intelligence and failed predictions.

For this reason, Kiev will continue violating the Minsk agreement and attack Donbass defense forces knowing that there will be continued silence from the Anglo Alliance, NATO and the OSCE. Moscow is left in a difficult position as it attempts to navigate the manufactured Ukraine crisis with a diplomatic approach, but at the same time cannot tolerate and allow the Ukrainian military and its Far-Right militia allies to target and kill Russian passport holders in Donbass.

*

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

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Freedom Convoy 2022: Live Coverage from Ottawa, where Ottawa Police appear ready to make their move and take action to disperse demonstrators.

Join hosts Rick Walker, Brendan Kennedy, and Carla Olson for LIVE VIDEO from Parliament Hill, analysis, interviews, and commentary.

Tonight’s special guest: Brian Everaert PPC Canadidate and political analyst.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

There was one key point that he made that deserves further attention and that’s his claim that “Neither the U.S. nor NATO have missiles in Ukraine. We do not — do not have plans to put them there as well.”

US President Joe Biden updated the American people on the ongoing Russian-NATO tensions following Moscow’s announcement on Tuesday that many of its troops will be returning to their barracks as scheduled due to the impending completion of military drills. That development led to the collapse of the US’ information-terrorism campaign fearmongering about a so-called “Russian invasion of Ukraine” and prompted American intelligence agencies to deploy their Russophobic back-up plan of once again ridiculously claiming that Russian spies secretly run English-language websites in a desperate attempt to distract their targeted audience from the aforesaid.

His speech on the undeclared US–provoked missile crisis in Europe was a bunch of malarkey (a word that he’s fond of using that literally means “nonsense”) that mostly aimed to paint Russia as a contemporary Nazi-like threat that thankfully blinked under unprecedented American-led Western pressure and thus seems to have pulled the world back from the brink of another global conflict. That bulk of his remarks was nothing but information warfare and should accordingly be ignored by all objective observers, but there was one key point that he made that deserves further attention and that’s his claim that “Neither the U.S. nor NATO have missiles in Ukraine. We do not — do not have plans to put them there as well.”

Biden’s obviously lying since Russian President Vladimir Putin very clearly articulated such concerns from his country’s intelligence agencies while speaking at an “Expanded Meeting of the Defense Board” on 21 December according to the official Kremlin website. Up until this point, however, the US – whether its officials, “experts”, or “perception managers” in the media – had refused to acknowledge its rival’s worries. Instead, the entire crisis was deliberately misportrayed as being over Donbass, a sliver of deindustrialized and war-torn territory along the Russian-Ukrainian border. The very fact that Biden finally felt compelled to at least deny these concerns is a major narrative development.

It might not lead to sea change in America’s discourse on this crisis but it could at the very least make it “acceptable” to publicly discuss Russian intelligence’s concerns, even if only to remind their target audience that Biden simply denied their credibility. Without realizing it, Biden – or whoever it was that wrote his speech – inadvertently undermined the US’ strategic communications campaign and thus afforded Russia a narrative victory in the sense of finally raising awareness of this hitherto “taboo” topic among the Western public. Another interpretation though is that this was deliberate and thus implies that some relevant agreement might eventually be reached between the US/NATO and Russia on this.

After all, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had said earlier that same day that “The swiftness with which NATO has changed its position suggests that not everything is lost in relations with this bloc; [It indicates] that they can admit the obvious when they really want it”, which was mentioned in reference to the US and NATO’s response to his country’s security guarantee requests from late December. While Russia still deems it insufficient, it nevertheless believes that it’s a pragmatic starting point for continuing diplomatic negotiations as evidenced by President Putin’s public commitment to diplomacy following his meetings with Lavrov and Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu Monday evening.

What that key tidbit from Biden’s speech seemingly reveals is that the US and the NATO bloc that it controls are finally coming around to realizing the seriousness of the missile crisis that they provoked with Russia after the American leader belatedly acknowledged his counterpart’s concerns even if only to insincerely dismiss them in public at this point in time. This signifies a step in the direction of revising the European security architecture that had gradually eroded against Russia’s interests following the US’ unilateral expansion of military infrastructure closer to that Eurasian Great Power’s borders driven by Washington’s unstated attempt to eventually undermine Moscow’s nuclear second-strike capabilities.

This observation doesn’t mean that the crisis has finally ended, just that diplomacy is once again a hot topic behind the scenes ahead of Russia passing along its planned 10-page response to the US and NATO’s own response to its initial security guarantee proposals that Lavrov seemed cautiously optimistic about on Tuesday. It’ll of course remain to be seen whether the US sincerely has the political will to seriously pursue whatever proposals Russia is expected to put forth in that document, but this development is nevertheless a positive one when all things are considered since it suggests that the crisis is somewhat de-escalating, at least for the time being barring any provocations in Donbass.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Russian General Staff officers woke up on Wednesday morning and were surprised to find that their tanks were not yet in Kharkov, and the troops were not in Odessa. It turned out that the United States decided to cancel Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 16. CNN complains that due to the warm weather and mud, the equipment of the Russian Armed Forces will not be able to offense. Previously, the soil was “still soft”, but now it is “already soft”. Probably, according to CNN’s soft brains, the Russians were going to attack not in tanks, but in Lada Kalina cars.

Probably, that’s why the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation issued a statement on February 15, claiming the beginning of a planned withdrawal to the places of permanent deployment of military personnel of the Western and Southern military districts bordering Ukraine after the annual exercises.

It is obvious to all progressive humanity that it was the weather conditions that turned out to be stronger than the “insurmountable aggressive ambitions” of Mr. Putin. The CBS channel went further. While the Russian units taking part in the exercises were already hundreds of kilometers from the Ukrainian border, returning to their home stations, and Russian Defense Minister Shoigu was in Syria, the CBS correspondents reported on the night of February 16 that Russian troops allegedly moved to attack position.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba immediately stated at a briefing that Ukraine “managed to restrain Russia from further aggravating the security situation,” … with the power of thought. At that time, the anthem of the USSR sounded on the central square of Kiev…

On February 15, the Russian Parliament decided by an overwhelming majority to send a request to Russian President Vladimir Putin to recognize the independence of the DPR and the LPR. The deputies believe that this would ensure security guarantees and protect the locals “from external threats”

Kiev responded that it would consider Moscow’s recognition of the self-proclaimed DPR and LPR as Russia’s withdrawal from the Minsk agreements. French President Macron urged Putin not to recognize the independence of the republics.

Two days before the “scheduled invasion”, President Zelensky declared February 16, 2022, the day of Ukrainian unity. The success of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, which “stopped the aggressor”, needs to be celebrated with a festival.

“We are told that February 16 will be the day of the attack. We will make it a Day of Unity. On this day we will hang out national flags, put on blue and yellow ribbons and show the whole world our unity,” Zelensky said.

Zelensky’s euphoria has very specific consequences. As there is still no invasion, Ukraine continued to build up its forces and materiel near the line of contact. In addition to the hundreds of pieces of equipment and heavy weapons already available on the front lines, the Kiev regime has begun advancing medium- and long-range air defense weapons to the borders of the unrecognized republics and Belarus.

Up to two battalions of S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems were deployed in the areas controlled by Kiev.

The other day, the Armed Forces of Ukraine (UAF) received Stinger portable anti-aircraft missile systems from their Anglo-Saxon patrons. According to available data, more than a hundred of such systems were delivered to Kiev. Ukraine has also requested from NATO more than a hundred SUVs, as well as means of mine clearance and radiation, chemical and biological warfare reconnaissance. On February 14, the OSCE SMM patrol found 22 Ukrainian, not Russian, T-72 tanks near the Podlesnoe village. They were deployed in the immediate vicinity of the contact line and were aimed at striking Pervomaisk or Zolotoye which are under the LPR’s control.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said that Kiev had sent more than half of the UAF personnel to Donbass. Moscow expressed concern over the transfer of NATO military equipment to the Russian borders and the increase in the number of Western instructors in the Donbass. The United States, Great Britain and its European satellites continue the large-scale transfer of weapons to the Kiev regime for use against regions in the east of the country.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Anita Krishna tells everyone how things changed in 2020…when Justin Trudeau’s Liberals handed out 600M dollars to “news” organizations, calls out some specific bad actors, her former news rivals/colleagues and more.

Watch the video below.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Time is of the essence on this call to action: Today and tomorrow. The House of Commons is on break by Friday so the debate will be rushed.

***

Hello Freedom Fighters,

Here’s some more information and encouragement to act now. Bless you all.

It’s essential that every one of us telephones their MP (BOTH offices – local & Ottawa) and as many other MPs and senators (105, so suggest to begin with Independent — they listen and read) as possible now to protest the Emergencies Act.

Letters/emails show our views, but phoning is far more powerful.

Follow-up call with an email please so it’s documented.

The EA was proposed on Monday, Feb. 14, but must be confirmed or withdrawn by a motion within seven days. Trudeau wants that motion made this week, before the House of Commons goes on a break for a week on Friday. We have only today or tomorrow to contact the members.

This is a crucial moment in the history of Canada. Speak up now. You can make a difference to the peace and freedom of this country.

Thanks for your phone calls and follow-up emails. May Canada be free and at peace.

*

Suggestions on what to say to MPs and Senators

The Emergencies Act is for a crisis which threatens the entire country of Canada. There is no threat to the country. The truckers are completely peaceful, both in Ottawa and at the border protests.

The Emergencies Act would give Justin Trudeau totalitarian power, obliterating human rights and allowing him to arrest and imprison anyone without trial. This is totally unjustified by anything that has happened in recent weeks.

Here is the section which defines “National Emergency”. The current situation does NOT qualify as a National Emergency.

“National emergency

3 For the purposes of this Act, a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that

(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or

(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada

and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.”

Emergencies Act – description: click this link.

Emergencies Act – text: click this link.

*

Feds bringing emergency declaration to Parliament ‘imminently’

See this.

“As part of the parliamentary oversight requirements in invoking these powers, the government must table a motion in both the House and Senate within seven sitting days outlining why federal officials feel the powers are required and detailing what specific measures will be taken, to allow the two parliamentary bodies to confirm it.”

*

Here are a few suggested points to make when speaking with and follow-up email to your MP in both offices (local & Ottawa).

1. Section 3 of the Emergencies Act spells out the circumstances under which it may be invoked.

These are:

a. A national emergency that seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or

b. A national emergency that seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity of Canada.

Neither of these conditions are met.

*

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

A frequent flyer grounded because he medically can’t tolerate wearing a face mask filed for summary judgment today asking a U.S. district judge to strike down the Federal Transportation Mask Mandate ordered by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, advancing the case into final proceedings after a legal battle that began in early June. The motion was filed only hours after Texas became the first state to sue the federal government to halt the mask requirement.

Plaintiff Lucas Wall, 44, of Washington, D.C., argues CDC’s mask mandate is illegal and unconstitutional. He charges CDC and its parent agency, the Department of Health & Human Services, with eight counts of violating the Constitution and federal law by imposing a requirement that all passengers and employees throughout the nation’s entire public-transportation system obstruct their oxygen intake. Wall also charges the agencies with four constitutional and statutory violations for the International Traveler Testing Requirement, which mandates that all airline passengers flying to the United States – but not travelers entering the country by land or sea – submit a negative COVID-19 test within one day of departure.

“The Court should vacate the Federal Transportation Mask Mandate and International Traveler Testing Requirement as well as permanently enjoin CDC and HHS from issuing any future orders mandating transportation passengers and workers don face masks as well as that passengers flying to the United States present a negative COVID-19 test prior to check-in,” Wall asserts in the motion. “The Biden Administration has issued numerous mandates related to the COVID-19 pandemic attempting to coerce Americans to wear masks, get vaccinated, and/or endure regular virus testing. … Every significant Executive Branch pandemic mandate has been blocked in the courts except for three: The FTMM, ITTR, and HHS’ requirement that all healthcare workers at facilities accepting Medicare and Medicaid get inoculated.”

Wall lodged an amended complaint Dec. 26 after U.S. District Judge Paul Byron ruled Dec. 18 that his claims against CDC, HHS, the Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, and the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority could proceed to a final determination, refusing to dismiss those charges. He has been stranded in Florida since Southwest Airlines and the Transportation Security Administration, enforcing CDC’s order, refused to let him board a flight maskless June 2, 2021, at Orlando International Airport. The federal mask mandate is currently in effect until at least March 18, 2022.

His motion contends CDC failed to take into account that the mask mandate discriminates against passengers with medical conditions who can’t tolerate having their breathing blocked, the voluminous scientific and medical research showing masks have proven to be totally ineffective in reducing COVID-19 spread and deaths, and that masks pose serious health risks to humans forced to wear them.

Wall, chairman of Americans Against Mask Mandates, asks Byron to declare both the FTMM and ITTR contrary to statute and unconstitutional, vacate the orders, and permanently enjoin their enforcement worldwide. He also demands an order that CDC and HHS “immediately ensure all federal agencies remove all signs informing passengers of the requirement to wear a mask from all airports, transportation hubs, and other locations worldwide as well as to remove from its website and in all of its publications any references to the” mask mandate and testing requirement.

His court filing came on the same day a federal judge in Boston instructed American Airlines and Southwest Airlines to stop discriminating against a 4-year-old boy with autism who can’t wear a face covering, a major win for Americans Against Mask Mandates members who have brought 11 lawsuits against CDC, HHS, TSA, and nine airlines. And Thursday the Health Freedom Defense Fund will also move for summary judgment against the FTMM in a case at the federal court in Tampa, Florida.

Read more and download Wall’s motion for summary judgment at www.lucas.travel.

*

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

Featured image is from Mercola

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

In the past month, this column has twice addressed the unbridled propensity of federal intelligence agencies to spy on Americans without search warrants as required by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

These agencies believe that the Fourth Amendment — which protects the individual right to privacy — only regulates law enforcement and does not apply to domestic spying.

There is no basis in the constitutional text, history or judicial interpretations for such a limiting and toothless view of this constitutional guarantee. The courts have held that the Fourth Amendment restrains government. Period. Last week, Congress got burned when the CIA released a heavily redacted summary of its current spying in the United States.

Here is the backstory.

When the CIA was created in 1947, members of Congress who feared the establishment here of the type of domestic surveillance apparatus that the Allies had just defeated in Germany insisted that the new CIA have no role in American law enforcement and no legal ability to spy within the U.S. The legislation creating the CIA contains those limitations.

Nevertheless, we know from statements of former governors of several states that CIA agents claim to be physically present in all 50 statehouses in the United States.

The agents who have infiltrated state governments didn’t arrive until after Dec. 4, 1981. That’s the date that President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12333, which purports to give the CIA authority to spy in America — supposedly looking for narcotics from foreign countries — and keep from law enforcement whatever it finds.

Stated differently, while Reagan purported to authorize the CIA to defy the limitations imposed upon it by the Constitution and by federal law, he insisted on a “wall” of separation between domestic spying and law enforcement.

So, if the CIA using unconstitutional spying discovered that a janitor in the Russian Embassy in Washington was really a KGB colonel who abused his wife in their suburban Maryland home, under E.O. 12333, it could continue to spy upon him in defiance of the Fourth Amendment and the CIA charter, but it could not reveal to Maryland prosecutors — who can only use evidence lawfully obtained — any evidence of his domestic violence.

All this changed 20 years later when President George W. Bush demolished Reagan’s “wall” between law enforcement and domestic spying and directed the CIA and other domestic spying agencies to share the fruits of their spying with the FBI.

Thus, thanks to Reagan and Bush authorizing it, and their successors looking the other way, CIA agents have been engaging in fishing expeditions on a grand scale inside the U.S. for the past 20 years. Congress knows about this because all intelligence agencies are required by statute to report the extent of their spying secretly to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

This, of course, does not absolve the CIA of its presidentially authorized computer hacking crimes; rather, it gives Congress a false sense of security that it has a handle on what’s going on.

What’s going on is not CIA lawyers appearing before judges asking for surveillance warrants based upon probable cause of crime, as the Constitution requires. What’s going on is CIA agents going to Big Tech and paying for access to communications used by ordinary Americans. Some Big Tech firms told the CIA to take a hike. Others took the CIA’s cash and opened the spigots of their fiber optic data to the voracious federal appetite.

If the CIA went to a judge and demonstrated probable cause of crime — for example, that a janitor in the Russian Embassy was passing defense secrets to Moscow — surely the judge would have signed a surveillance warrant. But to the CIA, following the Constitution is too limiting.

Thus, by acquiring bulk data — fiber optic data on hundreds of millions of Americans acquired without search warrants — the CIA could avoid the time and trouble of demonstrating probable cause to a judge. But that time and trouble were intentionally required by the authors of the Fourth Amendment so as to keep the government off our backs.

Not to be outdone by its principal rival, the FBI soon began doing the same thing — gathering bulk data without search warrants.

When Congress learned of this, it enacted legislation that banned the warrantless acquisition of bulk data. Apparently, Congress is naive enough to believe that the CIA, the FBI and the National Security Agency, their cousin with 60,000 domestic spies, actually comply with federal law.

Last week, that naivete was manifested front and center when the CIA sent a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee documenting the extent of its domestic acquisition of bulk data on Americans.

Two senators who should have known better claimed they were “shocked” at what they read. They read an admission of continued CIA warrantless bulk acquisition of personal data on unsuspecting and unsuspected Americans, and they saw large portions of the letter redacted so that the senators do not know the nature of the data received.

So, notwithstanding the persistent efforts of members of Congress from both parties to limit and in some cases to prohibit the warrantless acquisition of bulk data by the CIA from Americans, the practice continues, the CIA defends it and presidents look the other way.

In 1947, Congress created a monster which today is so big and so powerful and so indifferent to the Constitution and the federal laws its agents have sworn to uphold that it can boast about its lawlessness, have no fear of defying Congress and always escape the consequences of all this largely unscathed.

I suspect the CIA and its cousins get away with this because they spy on Congress and possess damning personal data on members who regularly vote to increase their secret budgets. When will we have a government whose officials are courageous enough to uphold the Constitution?

*

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

In October of 2021, I observed that “our governments are no longer legitimate.” I directed particular attention to the chaotic mess created in our country by Justin Trudeau once he decided in 2020 to transform the job of Canadian Prime Minister into that of National Vaccine Czar. See this.

Right now Trudeau is trying to take over Canada’s Parliament. In the words of US journalist Leo Hohmann, his goal is “essentially to declare himself supreme dictator over the nation on our northern border.” See this.

Many prominent voices are being raised to declare Trudeau’s invocation of the modern version of the War Measures Act to be both “unconstitutional and factually unsupported.” These voices are receiving mainstream coverage in the United States at, for instance, Newsweek and the New York Post. See this.

I have pointed out the irony of the obsessive addictions of our governments in Canada and throughout the world in making declarations of emergency. This pattern kicked in with a vengeance after 9/11 and then became even more outrageous beginning with the massive publicity showered on the celebrity virus beginning in early 2020.

This massive and pervasive government overreach has been causing economic disasters, civil liberties disasters, astronomical suicides, medical disasters, education disasters and a plague of mental illness from the ruthless psychological warfare of media conglomerates often funded by the Bill Gates crime family. In light of all this I ask in my latest commentary published today, February 16, “Is Justin Trudeau Waging a War on the National Security of Canada and Canadians?” See this.

This article comes closely on the tails of my previous essay, “Trudeau and the Truckers.”

One of the major players in this coup being attempted by the Trudeau Liberal in in Canada is Chrystia Freeland. Freeland doubles as both Canada’s Finance Minister and as a top Board member of the Swiss-based World Economic Forum. She collaborates closely with Justin Trudeau and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh who are also disciples of the WEF Founder Klaus Schwab WEF. Schwab and his Canadian kindergarten are seeking to impose a “Great Reset.”

We are now getting more proof that the Great Reset is, in its Canadian context, a power grab led by the Schwab/Freeland/Trudeau/Singh set of co-conspirators. The radical character of this power grab becomes especially clear from Freeland’s description of the new regime of terrorist banking laws being rushed into force. The assumption is made that the Truckers are terrorists, occupiers, and insurectionists who must be stopped through radical alterations in the structure of our core financial relationships in Canada. The bankers, it seems, are involved in this coup.

The Act would empower banks with huge new authorities to seize accounts of those customers who they suspect of being “terrorist” Truckers. The new powers could also be applied to the partners, friends, family, allies, and associates of those unilaterally declared to be Trucker terrorists by the bankers who are subject to no judicial oversight whatsoever.

This process of financially wrecking the targets of Trudeau’s war on dissidents can take place completely at the discretion of bankers who essentially are now being deputized to wage play a central role in the ascent to the emergency measures dictator. Like the makers of the deadly COVID injections, the Canadian bankers in league with Trudeau are to be indemnified in their new role as a financial police force. They can’t be sued by the victims of the reign of financial terror being pushed by Freeland and her WEF co-conspirators.

It is becoming increasingly clear that globalist forces including the WEF are directing the effort by the legacy media and government to smear and criminalize the large constituency that identify with the agenda of the Canadian Freedom Convoys. The Canadian brach of the global coup want to extend the US Biden regime’s preoccupation with ruining the lives of political opponents by smearing the descendants of the “Deplorables” as “domestic terrorists” and “White supremacists.”

Faked Evidence?

Trudeau’s effort to institute the Emergency Act has no factual basis to back it up. The main supposed evidence being offered points to a police claim in Alberta about a supposed cell being of terrorists being discovered at the Coutts protest just south of Lethbridge where I live. A report from Global News lays out the claims of police along with pictures of the weapons that they claim to have discovered among the protesters.

Of course none of this has been litigated. It seems, however, that court proceedings are increasingly irrelevant in this era. We live in a time when there is plenty of evidence that trial-by-media is all that is required to destroy people seeking to blow the whistle on crime and corruption. This scenario is being played out in spades in the war of smear and disinformation directed at the Truckers and at their allied lawyers, scientists and medical practitioners. See this.

The possibility that the emerging police state in Canada might not be above planting weapons on Truckers to accuse them of terrorism has already been raised by former RCMP officer, Danny Bulford. After condemning the “authoritarian” character of Canada’s vaccine policies, Bulford left the RCMP where he was for a time a sniper in the unit assigned to protect Justin Trudeau. Listen to his warnings about the possible intentions of possible saboteurs inside the government who might be seeking to smear and criminalize the Canadian Truckers who have courageously taken a bold stance in defence of Canadian democracy and the rule of law.

*

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Americans live from threat to threat. Now that the “covid threat” and the “Russian threat” have played out, we have the “inflation threat,” but is it any more real?

It is true that the Central Bank has poured out unprecedented amounts of money for more than a decade.  The excuses were:  to cause a 2% annual inflation that would stimulate economic growth, and to save the economy from the banks financial speculations. 

I didn’t think the Federal Reserve could create so much new money without driving up inflation and interest rates and driving down the dollar and equities.  But the money went into the prices of financial assets–stocks and bonds–and into home prices.  If you were loaded up with stocks and bonds and residential real estate, the Fed made you rich.  The money also went into bank reserves as the Fed bought troubled assets from the banks and put them in the Fed’s portfolio.  

So the expected inflation in consumer goods and services did not occur.

Now suddenly here is inflation with some measures knocking on double-digit doors. Judging by high stock and bond prices, this is not inflation from previous money-printing being drawn out of stocks and bonds to spend on consumer goods.  Some claim that the checks sent to locked-down people to substitute for missing pay checks are at fault, but this money, at best, only replaced the money in the missing pay checks.

So what is the cause of the inflation?  Or, more precisely, is it really inflation, that is, prices driven up by excessive spending, or is it a reduction of supply in relation to demand? If the latter, the solution is to increase supply, not reduce demand with higher interest rates or higher tax rates.

The better part of the rise in prices is the direct result of the foolish and counterproductive lockdowns. The lockdowns reduced supply.  Much work came to a halt.  Supply chains were adversely impacted. Many businesses failed and have not reopened.  Real GDP declined, but money didn’t.  

With the flow of goods and services reduced while money wasn’t, prices rose.  Many service businesses, such as pool services, heating and air, jumped at the chance to raise prices. Supermarkets have to bid for items in short supply, and this has pushed food prices up.  

Other idiotic policies of governments, such as vaccine mandates for truckers, have tied up delivery trucks in protests. The California governor banned half of the US trucking fleet from entering the state, because it doesn’t meet emission standards.  This means the docks at the ports can’t be unloaded, which means the ships waiting to unload can’t unload.

The fake “Russian threat” sent up the oil prices. The extraordinarily low interest rates caused a house building boom, driving up prices of construction materials. 

Equity valuation driven by money creation is not a good thing.  But the Fed has been at it for so long, how does the Fed stop without unwinding values based on Fed liquidity?  Washington’s abusive misuse of the dollar as reserve currency by imposing sanctions on other countries has led to Russia and China organizing their own system of international payments.  This will cause the use of dollars, and therefore the demand for dollars to drop, leaving the Fed with the problem of dollar depreciation, which will add to inflation. A less valued dollar raises import prices.

To sum up, the sources of today’s rising prices are three.  The Fed quantitatively eased to save the banks and went on from there to make the rich richer by driving up stock, bond, and real estate prices, and rents rose with real estate prices.  Washington undermined the dollar by discouraging countries from its use with sanctions.  The lockdowns shrank supply and set back the ability to produce, resulting in supply and demand sending prices up.

The solution to this problem is not higher interest rates. There is no doubt that interest rates are artificially low because of the Fed’s bond purchases, but raising interest rates will not repair the damage to supply caused by the lockdowns and caused by the financialization of the economy that the Federal Reserve has aided and abetted. 

A financialized economy is one in which debt service–mortgage, car, credit card, student loans–uses up a large percentage of monthly income, leaving little discretionary income to drive economic growth. Financialization was worsened by the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.  The repeal permitted commercial banks to be investment banks. This changed the nature of bank lending and behavior. Instead of lending for new plant and equipment, the banks finance takeovers of existing assets and engage in financial speculation.

The solution to the causes of the current inflation is to remove the policies that restrain the growth of output. There has to be a supply-side solution.  In the early Reagan years the solution was a reduction in the high marginal tax rates that restricted output.  Today the supply-side solution is policies that move the economy away from the absorption of income in debt service and toward supporting the expansion of output. 

*

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

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The current security crisis in Ukraine fueled by Kiev and its western allies is on the verge of triggering a new wave of violence in the Donbass region. Recent statements by Russian officials have warned about the possibility of a resurgence of large-scale clashes, which would be a consequence of the extreme militarization promoted in the conflict zone by Ukrainian forces. However, Kiev’s government continues to ignore all the warnings made by Moscow, boosting the aggressiveness of its measures day after day.

In a recent statement, Deputy Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Mihail Popov stated that the current situation of concentration of troops and weapons on the Donbass border is generating a process of “oversaturation”. This process, in addition to the belief in unrestricted Western support in any circumstance, can take both the Ukrainian regular armed forces and the paramilitary nationalist militias to an illusion of invincibility, pushing them into conflict whose violence is expected to reach unprecedented levels.

Earlier, the head of Russian foreign intelligence service, Sergey Naryshkin had already made a statement claiming that Kiev is preparing its forces for a new attack on Donbass. Naryshkin mentioned he has data that proves that the combat units of the Ukrainian army are already concentrated in the line of contact with the autonomous republics, ready to start a new wave of attacks, whose objective seems to be not only to fight the rebels, but also to try to bring Russia into the conflict.

In the same vein, the deputy head of the Donetsk’s Militia Department, Eduard Basurin, stated that Kiev transferred its S-300 anti-aircraft artillery division to Donbass, as well as several rocket launch systems, which undoubtedly indicates that there is an offensive plan in progress. The popular media of the autonomous republics also denounced that several service points of guidance for aviation are being installed by the Ukrainian armed forces in the line of contact in the Donbass, which raises the concern about possible air attacks with high power of destruction.

Another news that has also raised concern among people in Donetsk and Lugansk is the sending to the border of Ukrainian soldiers from the 24th Brigade, which is a special group of the armed forces, trained in the use of advanced weapons, such as the Swedish anti-tank systems NLAW and a wide list of American grenade launchers. This indicates that that Ukrainian forces are preparing for a really brutal and violent attack, the aim of which will be to provoke a Russian intervention to protect the local population.

In this third week of February, most of the Russian troops on the border were demobilized. In the West, media agencies are spreading a series of fake news, alleging absurd hypotheses to reconcile the discourse of the “invasion plan” with the retreat of the soldiers. In fact, what happened was simply the conclusion of a series of Russian military exercises in the region, which had several objectives, including preparing the troops for an eventual emergency and also demonstrating strength in the face of external threats (considering that it is NATO that represents a threat to Russia with the occupation of the entire border). If it had been at all concerned about peace, the Ukrainian government would take advantage of the moment the Russian troops were withdrawing and would also start a demilitarization. But, apparently, Kiev’s plans are different.

There is nothing rational or strategic in trying to induce Russia into direct combat with Ukrainian forces, but Kiev’s officials are deluded about a possible victory, as they believe they will receive unrestricted Western support in such a situation. Indeed, the West foments chaos sending money and weapons, trying to provoke Russia to intervene and thus fulfill the prediction of the “invasion”.

*

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

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

Featured image is from balticword.com

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Pfizer and BioNTech have requested emergency use authorization (EUA) for doctors to administer two doses of their mRNA COVID-19 biologic to infants as young as six months old. A statement from Pfizer states that the “rolling submission” application was submitted on Feb. 1, 2022 at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “in response to the urgent public health need in this population.”¹ Ten days later the company withdrew the request to gather more data on the vaccine’s effectiveness, which was suboptimal in two to four year olds, and provide evidence for a three dose primary series, rather than two doses.²

Pfizer Vaccine Fails to Elicit Robust Immune Response in Younger Children

Pfizer’s own data³ demonstrates that the vaccine failed to elicit a strong enough immune response with just two three microgram doses for some within the age group making the EUA process unique from any other age group’s authorization thus far. Pfizer had originally sought authorization for two doses to allow parents of young children to begin the vaccination process while awaiting potential authorization of a third dose. The third dose is scheduled to be administered no earlier than eight weeks after the second dose.⁴

Some physicians and public health officials have expressed concern that such an unusual vaccine approval application will further deter parents from vaccinating their children.⁴ As it currently stands, the FDA has granted an EUA to Pfizer for five- to 11-year-olds to receive two 10 microgram doses of the COVID vaccine and also approved a 30-microgram booster dose for ages 12 and up.⁵

CDC Data Says Booster Less Beneficial to Younger People

Newly published data released from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirms that the rationale for booster doses is less compelling in terms of providing benefit to younger populations compared to adults.⁶ Dr. Dan Barouch, a virologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, stated:

I’m in favor of boosters, but I don’t want to overstate their importance. The benefit of a booster dose is clearly greater in the elderly. It is progressively less in the lower risk groups.”⁶

The FDA’s Vaccines & Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) had been scheduled to meet on Feb. 15 to review the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness data and discuss Pfizer’s request. The FDA authorized the two-dose vaccine for use in children five through 11 years old in October 2021. According to the CDC, approximately one third of children in that age group have received the vaccine.⁷

An article by VOX states that giving COVID vaccines to children will help stop the spread of the virus and relieve stress on hospitals and allow schools to stay open…

[Vaccines for young children] would also provide peace of mind to parents, caregivers, and teachers whose lives have been repeatedly disrupted as the highly transmissible omicron variant continues to rage.

The article continues stating that vaccination of this age group, which makes up more than 20 million children, would help to close one of the biggest remaining gaps in vaccine eligibility.⁴

Only 27 Percent of Parents Eager to Vaccinate Children Under 12

An October survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation⁸ found that only 27 percent of parents with children ages five to 11 years old were “eager” to get the vaccine for their children while 30 percent said they will definitely not allow the vaccine to be given to their young children. Parents cited concerns over potential long-term side effects as well as the desire to “wait and see” how the vaccine is working.

Some Physician Researchers Urge Caution in Giving COVID Vaccine to Children

A group of physician researchers who collectively pioneered several vaccines and experimental cancer drugs wrote an opinion piece⁸ for The Washington Times in October urging the public to apply the brakes in the hastiness of administering the new COVID vaccine to the pediatric population. The article outlines the existing disabling reactions in adults, the use of novel mRNA technology which releases pro-inflammation factors with no built in “off” switch, and the fact that COVID is rarely causing severe illness in children.

The authors also outlined the history of medicine and how we have seen “time and time again” tragic side effects which are not known until decades later. The article concludes:

There is a lot that we don’t know about the long-term safety of available COVID-19 vaccines. Bottom line, no health professional in good conscience can look a parent in the eye today and say these vaccines are unequivocally safe. As medical students, we took the Hippocratic oath, a promise to practice ‘primum non nocere,’ meaning ‘first, do no harm.’ Let us patiently wait for the completion of long-term safety studies before we rush ahead blindly with blanket public health solutions that may cause unintentional and irreparable harm.⁸

*

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

Notes

¹ Pfizer. Pfizer and BioNTech initiate rolling submission for emergency use authorization of their Covid-19 vaccine in children 6 months through 4 years of age following request from U.S. FDA.Feb. 1, 2022.

² Lovelace B. Pfizer postpones FDA request for Covid vaccine for kids under five. NBC News Feb. 11, 2022.

³ Lovelace B. Pfizer is testing a third Covid vaccine dose in young kids, delaying trial results. NBC News Nov. 4, 2021.

⁴ Irfan U. Why young children have waited so long for COVID-19 vaccines. VOX Feb. 3, 2022.

⁵ Pfizer. Pfizer and BioNTech receive US FDA emergency use authorization of COVID-19 vaccine booster for individuals 12 years of age and older.  Jan. 3, 2022.

⁶ Mandavilli A. Younger Americans benefited less from booster shots than older people. The New York Times Feb. 4, 2022.

⁷ U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Coronavirus (COVID-19) update: FDA advisory committee meeting request for authorization of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for children 6 months through 4 years of age. PR Newswire Feb. 1, 2022.

⁸ Hamel L et al. KFF COVID-19 vaccine monitor: October 2021. Kaiser Family Foundation Oct. 28, 2021.

⁹ Kwak L, Rosen S, Shachar I. Applying brakes on ‘warp speed’ COVID-19 vaccinations for children. The Washington Times Oct. 28, 2021.

Featured image is from The Vaccine Reaction

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The plandemic of the “fully vaccinated” rages on as the latest data shows that the vast majority of hospitalizations and deaths from the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) are occurring in people who took the jabs.

Public Health Scotland (PHS) is reporting that an astounding four out of every five covid hospitalizations and deaths are jabbed, meaning only 20 percent of hospitalizations and deaths blamed on covid are occurring in the unvaccinated.

According to the figures, cases were down overall in February compared to January. However, the bulk is still comprised of fully vaccinated individuals, including the triple-vaccinated.

The data shows that the latest “wave” of negative health outcomes is occurring in three-pricked people, a demographic in which the death rate soared by 495 percent in the month of January.

“Overall cases have dropped in the last month in all demographics significantly compared to the number of cases recorded between 11th Dec and 7th Jan 22, but in both months the vaccinated have accounted for the vast majority of cases,” reported the Daily Exposé.

“The main difference between the two months is that the double vaccinated accounted for the majority of cases between 11th Dec and 8th Jan 22; recording 145,890 cases, but the triple vaccinated accounted for the majority of cases between 8th Jan and 4th Feb 22; recording 46,951 cases.”

The plandemic would already be over were it not for the “vaccines”

It turns out that the case rate is dropping substantially among the unvaccinated while it continues to rise among the fully vaccinated, and especially among the fully-fully vaccinated who are getting three shots or more.

Between December 11 and January 7, the non-jabbed population accounted for just 15 percent of all new cases of the Fauci Flu. One month later from January 8 through February 4, that percentage dropped to less than 13 percent.

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

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

The withdrawal came one day before President Joe Biden‘s administration inexactly forecast a phantom incursion.

Panic was stoked to a perplexing degree. Atlantic Council representative Melinda Haring declared on February 11 that Russian President Vladimir Putin had “big weekend plans” forthcoming in Ukraine, including cutting off the nation’s power and heat, knocking out its entire navy and air force, killing a number of general staff in order to install a pro-Russian president, and resorting to “full-scale military invasion if Ukraine doesn’t give in.”

When none of this came to pass over the weekend, Haring meekly claimed emotions were “running high,” and she’d “let them get the better” of her. She said she would be “more judicious” in future.

Still, Haring complained of “Russian trolls,” and as Russia withdrew forces, she conveniently reframed the narrative. “We’ve been so focused on Russian troops and tanks that we missed Moscow’s strategy: strangle Ukraine’s economy and sap the resolve of its people.”

Almost as baffling and bizarre was British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss boldly asserting on January 22 that London possessed “information” indicating Moscow planned to forcibly install a puppet government in Kiev. Forces would invade Ukraine and mount a coup through the help of a quintet of Ukrainian politicians with alleged links to Russian intelligence.

“The information being released today shines a light on the extent of Russian activity designed to subvert Ukraine, and is an insight into Kremlin thinking,” Truss stated.

An Illogical Coup Leader

When asked to substantiate the claims, British officials were at a loss, and also refused to clarify how the information was obtained and verified.

These claims rapidly circulated. The New York Times praised Britain’s reckless inflaming of a highly volatile situation as “muscular.” But the media also acknowledged Truss “provided no evidence” to support the bombshell allegations.

In an ironic twist, Yevhen Murayev, a former Ukrainian MP named by London as the Kremlin’s pick for President, expressed amusement and dismay.

“You’ve made my evening. The British Foreign Office seems confused,” he told the Observer while laughing. “It isn’t very logical. I’m banned from Russia. Not only that, but money from my father’s firm there has been confiscated.”

Two days later, London followed the US lead in withdrawing its embassy staff from Kiev. Yet hours later, a senior European diplomat made clear European Union member states would not withdraw, adding snidely there was no need to “dramatize” the situation while talks with Moscow continued.

The Washington Post added to the confusion on January 29 when they quietly revealed that intelligence underlying Truss’ shock announcement was “collected and declassified” by the US, and the Biden administration had specifically asked British authorities to publicly expose the purported plot.

Oddly, details weren’t shared with allies, such as Germany, where officials consistently expressed skepticism toward the notion that Russia would invade Ukraine.

Nowhere in the Post’s coverage did the newspaper ask a very obvious question—why was the disclosure of the incendiary material outsourced in this manner?

An Obliging Client State

Britain’s laundering of US intelligence created the illusion that an ally had independently reinforced dodgy claims from US officials of an imminent Russian invasion. It allowed Washington to recast the December transfer of 90 tons of “lethal aid” to Ukraine as reactive.

What’s more, the ruse provided plausible deniability in the event that the false narrative unraveled, as it inevitably did.

The Biden administration knew very well that London could be relied upon. At the conclusion of World War II, a Foreign Office official ruefully concluded that a bankrupt Britain’s future lay in serving as “junior partner in an orbit of power predominantly under American aegis.”

Ever since, the UK government has consistently gone further than most countries in serving Washington interests.

In September 2021, Yahoo! News exposed how the CIA had “secret war plans” to kidnap or even assassinate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange if he attempted to leave the Ecuador embassy in London for Moscow. The report contained a shocking example of Britain’s willingness to do the bidding of US intelligence. (Note: Assange’s legal team says Assange was opposed to Ecuador’s proposal to assign him to a diplomatic post in Moscow.)

Scenarios to thwart Assange’s escape included “gun battles with Kremlin operatives on the streets of London” and “shooting out the tires of a Russian plane carrying Assange before it could take off for Moscow.” US officials reportedly “asked their British counterparts to do the shooting if gunfire was required, and the British agreed.”

The British also took the leading role in producing propaganda ahead of the US invasion of Iraq.  As far back as 1998, MI6 “black propaganda specialists” were involved in “psychological warfare” known as Operation Mass Appeal, according to former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter. The foreign spying agency circulated “intelligence” to media outlets “to help shape public opinion about Iraq and the threat posed by WMD [weapons of mass destruction].”

“We have some outlets in foreign newspapers – some editors and writers who work with us from time to time – where we can spread some material,” MI6 representatives told Ritter. “We just need to be kept informed on what you are doing and when, so we can time the press releases accordingly.”

A particularly controversial British intelligence assessment claimed Iraq President Saddam Hussein was capable of attacking Europe with WMD in just 45 minutes. It turned out the source was a lone Iraqi taxi driver.

The claim was repeated in a televised speech by President George W. Bush in September 2002 and proved fundamental to the war in Baghdad two months later.

British intelligence led the way in fomenting the US-led conflict against Syria in August 2013, after opposition-controlled Ghouta was allegedly struck by rockets fired by government forces containing the chemical agent sarin.

The incident had the hallmarks of a false flag operation. US officials were forced to concede evidence implicating the Syrian government was hardly a “slam dunk,” and communications intercepted by German spies indicated that whatever happened, Syrian President Bashar Assad’s  government had not sanctioned or been aware of the attack.

However, the British Joint Intelligence Committee possessed no such doubts and declared it was “highly likely that the Syrian regime was responsible,” and “there [were] no plausible alternative scenarios.”

This resulted in a parliamentary vote on launching military intervention in Syria (alongside Washington and Paris mere days later). But that failed, taking the question of Western military action against Damascus off the table.

British Influence Operations In Ukraine

Ukraine is a country where Britain consistently seeks to influence events in order to derive economic, political, and military benefits.

For example, leaked documents indicate London funded consultants to effectively market neoliberal labor “reforms” to the Ukrainian public, which would destroy employment rights and protections.

The Foreign Office also financed Ukraine’s StopFake, a purported “fact-checking” website with deep links to fascist elements in the country.

StopFake defended Ukrainian military training camps for children that are run by the Neo-Nazi militia Azov Battalion. They also defended Andrey Parubiy, a Ukrainian parliamentary speaker from 2016 – 2019

Parubiy is an avowed Adolf Hitler fan. When Parubiy visited Britain in 2018, local reporters sprang to his defence. He was implicated in a reported false flag massacre of Maidan protesters in February 2014.

Even more significantly, the Foreign Office is secretly co-opting journalists and media organizations in Kiev via funding, training, and the surreptitious production of anti-Russian, pro-Western, and pro-NATO content. “Girls on HBO…but in Ukraine” was one suggested example of programming to support in leaked internal files.

These efforts are a component of a £100 million clandestine drive by London to “weaken the Russian state’s influence” over its neighbors.

All of which is another facet of Britain’s bond with the US that has been absolutely fundamental: relations between Moscow and Washington must remain tense.

By presenting itself as a dependable bastion of European security, Britain can remain relevant globally, able to perpetually piggyback off its partner’s might.

For this reason, London was willing to circulate bunk US intelligence about an impending Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The West Keeps ‘Guessing’

Fittingly, in the wake of Moscow’s announcement that it would withdraw troop deployments from some annual military exercises, Britain’s notorious Sun tabloid published an “exclusive” stating Russia was still planning to invade at 1 am London time on February 16.

No “massive missile blitz” happened so the Sun updated the “exclusive” to say “Putin continued to keep the West guessing.”

The article quoted Truss at some length, who said officials were “preparing for the worst,” believed an invasion “highly likely,” and “over the next few days there could be an attempt to claim the Ukrainians are attacking them so the Russians have a justification for invading.”

“Certainly, our latest intelligence suggests that an invasion is imminent, that it’s highly likely, and that we’ve seen 100,000 troops stationed around the border,” Truss fulminated. “We would expect multiple sequenced attacks and not a single strike.”

“We could be on the brink of a war in Europe. That would have severe consequences not just for the people of Russia and Ukraine but also for the broader security of Europe,” Truss added.

Such fearmongering has been de rigeur since 1946, when British Prime Minister Winston Churchill delivered an iconic speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri.

Churchill warned that communism posed “a growing challenge and peril to Christian civilization.” Without “a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the US,” there may be another World War.

At the time, opinion polls indicated American citizens not only valued and trusted their Soviet ally far more than Britain, but they foresaw a much-reduced role for the latter in world affairs following the war.

Churchill’s comments were poorly received, but their impact was quickly apparent. Six months later, US-Soviet cooperation collapsed due to disagreements over the future of occupied Germany.

Washington became wedded to a hardline anti-Soviet policy, and the Cold War was launched.

*

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

Ukraine Invasion Scheduled for Wednesday Canceled

By Ray McGovern, February 16, 2022

Over recent weeks, AP’s ace reporter Matthew Lee and colleagues had been repeatedly led down the White House garden path by the likes of broken-record “the-Russians-are-coming-and-it-could-be-Wednesday” national security adviser Jake Sullivan.

Failure in Moscow: Liz Truss Loses Britannia’s Way

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, February 17, 2022

UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss is synonymous with Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s idea of groping diplomacy.  Graceless, all confusion, and much ignorance besides, she has been given the task of howling in the Kremlin’s direction, warning that no invasion of Ukraine will be tolerated by Global Britain.

Crafting Messages for Vaccine Compliance. “Guilt, Anger, Embarrassment or Cowardice — What Works Best?”

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, February 16, 2022

In a study sponsored by Yale University — and started before COVID-19 shots were rolled out — researchers tested different messages of how to best persuade people to get injected.

Biden Insists Russian Invasion “Distinctly Possible” Despite Troop Demobilization

By Paul Antonopoulos, February 16, 2022

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

Heroic GMU Law Professor Todd Zywicki Defeats Vaccine Mandate

By Jeff Deist, February 16, 2022

Heroic George Mason University law professor Todd Zywicki sued his employer last year over its vaccine mandate for faculty and staff. His argument was clear: he had existing (demonstrable) antibody immunity from an earlier covid infection, and thus his immunologist considered a vaccine both potentially harmful and medically unethical.

Biden’s Decision to Seize Afghan Assets Is Immoral and Inhumane

By Alex Shephard, February 16, 2022

This decision is a betrayal of all that, as well as a betrayal of Biden’s promise to build a foreign policy built on cooperation and mutual respect. It will have serious repercussions for Afghanistan’s financial future, preventing the country from establishing a sound monetary policy, possibly for years.

ISIS Prison Break: False Flag by Kurds to Keep US Forces in Syria

By Nauman Sadiq, February 16, 2022

High-security al-Sina’a prison is one of several detention centers in Syria’s northeast guarded by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). The facility hosted 3,000 ISIS militants who were captured by the Kurds after the fall of the ISIS caliphate in 2019.

Canada’s Digital Crackdown on Freedom. Trudeau Answers to the Davos Elites

By Leo Hohmann, February 16, 2022

With the stroke of a pen and an announcement from a podium, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has essentially declared himself supreme dictator over the nation on our northern border.

Is Justin Trudeau Waging a War on the National Security of Canada and Canadians?

By Prof. Anthony J. Hall, February 16, 2022

Justin Trudeau is a fitting embodiment of those who inhabit the peaks of privilege in this unjust society. His recent action personifies how some members of his dynastic class further their unbounded quest for power by disguising their actions behind a veneer of emergency measures.

In the Donbass, the Fuse Is Lit

By Manlio Dinucci, February 16, 2022

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Incompetent politicians and diplomats are on the level with ill-prepared generals fighting current wars with dated methods.  They err, they stumble, and they may well be responsible for the next idiotic slander, misfire or misunderstanding.  UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss is synonymous with Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s idea of groping diplomacy.  Graceless, all confusion, and much ignorance besides, she has been given the task of howling in the Kremlin’s direction, warning that no invasion of Ukraine will be tolerated by Global Britain.

Truss, former international trade secretary known for her “goofy public persona”, took over from the less goofy and somewhat severe Dominic Raab as foreign secretary in Johnson’s ministerial shake-up last year.  Her time at the Department of International Trade had been dubbed the “Department for Instagramming Truss”, given her insatiable appetite for social media platforms.

Ideology, not facts, interest her.  As she explained to Politico, “I’m probably one of the more ideological among my colleagues, in that that’s what motivates me.”  Her rapid immaturing has seen her moving ever more towards economic libertarianism, founding the Free Enterprise Group of Conservative MPs keen to savage and prune employment laws and regulations.

The placing of ideology before facts has somewhat dented her performance at critical points.  In foreign relations, notably when war might be peeking around the corner between Ukraine and Russia, this is telling.  During the course of the BBC’s Sunday Morning show, she claimed that “we are supplying and offering extra support into our Baltic allies across the Black Sea.”

Identifying the wrong sea enabled Russia’s foreign ministry spokesperson, the reliably stern ice queen Maria Zakharova, to move in for the kill.  “The Baltic countries are called so because they are located precisely off the coast of this [Baltic] sea.  Not the Black [Sea].”  A grave Zakharova could only reflect that, “If anyone needs to be saved from anything, then it is the world from the stupidity and ignorance of Anglo-Saxon politicians.”

During that now notorious closed-door meeting between Truss and Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow, ignorance basked gloriously, with Truss floundering with amateurish accomplishment.  Truss, so goes the account, demanded of the Russian Foreign Minister that his country move its troops away from the Ukrainian border.  Lavrov’s steely point was elementary: Moscow could do what it wanted to within its own borders.

Then came the grenade, pin removed.  Truss, having previously been interested in trade, probably had her mine on cheese or pork products.  The Foreign Secretary was asked (trap laid in full view) whether the UK recognised sovereignty over Rostov and Voronezh.  According to the Kommersant newspaper, Truss was defiant: the UK would never recognise them as Russian.  In the long tradition of the diplomatic corps, the UK ambassador to Moscow, Deborah Bronnert, had to aid Truss in correction.  Rostov and Voronezh were, well, Russian.

This gave Lavrov much ammunition in the press conference that followed.  He claimed that talking to Truss was like “speaking to a deaf person who listens but cannot hear”.  Spokesman Dmitry Peskov, when asked about Truss’s limited understanding of the region and, so it went, her brief, seemed to relish it.  “We are not in the position to answer this question.  It’s the Foreign Ministry’s competence.”

On Sky News, Russia’s deputy ambassador to the United Nations, Dmitry Polyanskiy, was brutally direct.  “There is always room for diplomacy but, frankly, we don’t trust British diplomacy.  I think in recent years British diplomacy has shown that it is absolutely worthless.”

The Truss ignorance show did not go down well in those quarters that still feel Britannia has a muscular role to play in foreign affairs.  Having cut his teeth as British ambassador to Moscow, Tony Brenton mourned the Truss Moscow “performance” as completing “the process of the UK  making itself irrelevant to serious diplomatic efforts to resolve the Ukraine crisis.”

Former editor of the Financial Times, Lionel Barber, homed in on Lavrov as “Putin’s Gromyko”, one who ate “Liz Truss alive on camera, dismissing her as an ignorant lightweight who spends too much time on social media.”

Martin Fletcher, former foreign editor of The Times, bemoaned Truss’s lass of serious preparation and her visit to Moscow as, for the most part, “a glorified photo opportunity”.  What he would have given for a harder, more disciplined engagement with the Russians, the sort that the late former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was rather good at.

Some British pundits were left scrounging for nuggets of justification.  James Forsyth clucked his way to suggesting that Lavrov’s rudeness was somehow a “sign that Liz Truss held the line in their meeting”.  Rallying support for Truss was the gossip columnist of the Spectator, who could not stomach the “Brit-poisoning Kremlin” to any degree. “For her part, Truss stayed calm and walked off after the snub, having used her meeting to re-emphasise the British government warnings about the build up of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border.”

The problem with Truss is fundamental, having little to do with showmanship or any proud display in the face of stupidity or a basic lack of understanding.  She may well be representing a power diminished, but the UK, billing itself as Global Britain, is doing poorly under her hollow, social media driven stewardship.  Former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating has even labelled her assessment of Beijing and Russian intentions (for Truss, these are inseparable) as “nothing short of demented.”

Writing for Spiked, Mary Dejevsky, having cut her teeth as Moscow correspondent for The Times between 1988 and 1992,  showed her talons in explaining why the Truss adventure was, diplomatically, all fizz and utter failure.  “Dispatched for little more than a day trip to Moscow, Liz Truss managed to confirm all of Russia’s negative preconceptions about British diplomacy – arrogance, coldness and an attachment to hypocritical sermonising about ‘values’ – while adding at least one more: ignorance.”  Punchy stuff, and accurate to boot.

*

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

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

Featured image is from TruePublica

Introducción 

En el transcurso de los últimos dos años a partir de principios de enero de 2020, he analizado la evolución de la crisis del coronavirus. 

Desde el principio, en enero de 2020, hubo una campaña de miedo en escala internacional. El objetivo era de convencer a toda la población de la existencia de una peligrosa epidemia. Una mentira. 

Estamos ante un proceso sumamente complejo. Estamos viviendo una de las crisis más graves en la historia de la Humanidad. 

El movimiento de protesta en Canadá

El Primer Ministro Trudeau califica al “Freedom Convoy” de los camioneros como un grupo de terroristas, racistas y antisemitas….

Véase la producción de Global Research:

Es un engaño

Poblaciones enteras en mas de 190 países miembros de Naciones Unidas han sido engañadas tanto por sus Gobiernos como por los medios de comunicación sobre las causas y las devastadoras consecuencias de la “pandemia” de COVID-19.

La verdad es que el nuevo coronavirus esun pretexto y una justificación a favor de poderosos intereses financieros y Gobiernos corruptos para precipitar al mundo entero en una espiral de desempleo masivo, bancarrota, y pobreza extrema.

Más de 7 mil millones de personas a nivel global han sido afectadas directa o indirectamente por la crisis del coronavirus.

“El pretexto global” 

Confirmado por destacados científicos, así como por organismos oficiales de salud pública, incluida la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) y el Centro para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC) de EE. UU. COVID-19 es un problema de salud pública, pero NO es un virus peligroso.

La crisis del COVID-19 está marcada por una “emergencia” de salud pública bajo los auspicios de la OMS que se está utilizando como pretexto y justificación para desencadenar un proceso mundial de reestructuración económica, social y política. La tendencia es hacia la imposición de un  Estado totalitario.

Se está aplicando ingeniería social. Se presiona a los gobiernos para que extiendan el confinamiento, a pesar de sus devastadoras consecuencias económicas y sociales.

No existe una base científica para implementar el cierre de la economía global como un medio para resolver una crisis de salud pública. Tanto los medios como los gobiernos están involucrados en la difusión de desinformación.

La campaña del miedo no tiene base científica. Los gobiernos MIENTEN. De hecho, se están mintiendo a sí mismos.

Capitulo II 

La cronología de la crisis del Coronavirus

Identidad Digital: La Alianza ID-2020 se reúne el 19 de septiembre de 2019

19 de septiembre de 2019:

L a Alianza ID-2020 celebró su Cumbre en Nueva York, titulada “Rising to the Good ID Challenge”. La atención se centró en el establecimiento bajo los auspicios de GAVI (Alliance for Vaccine Identity) de una vacuna con un pasaporte digital incorporado . El objetivo declarado era la creación de una base de datos digital mundial.

18 de octubre de 2019. Evento 201. El ejercicio de simulación de pandemia 201. El virus 2019-nCoV

El Foro Económico Mundial (FEM) se reúne en Davos, del 21 al 24 de enero de 2020

21-24 de enero de 2020: Consultas en el Foro Económico Mundial, Davos, Suiza, bajo los auspicios de la Coalición para Innovaciones en Preparación para Epidemias (CEPI) para el desarrollo de un programa de vacunas.

La evidencia sugiere que el proyecto de vacuna nCoV 2019 ya estaba en marcha en 2019. (Ver Capítulo VIII). Se anunció oficialmente en Davos, 2 semanas después del anuncio del 7 de enero de 2020 por parte de las autoridades chinas, y apenas una semana antes del lanzamiento oficial de la Emergencia de Salud Pública Mundial de la OMS el 30 de enero de 2020.

30 de Enero 2020. Emergencia de la OMS: ‘Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC)’

La “emergencia” de salud pública de COVID-19 bajo los auspicios de la OMS se presentó a la opinión pública como un “solución” para contener el “virus asesino”.

Si se hubiera informado a la opinión pública que el COVID es (según la definición de la OMS) “similar a la gripe estacional”, la campaña de miedo se habría derrumbado. 

La OMS lanzó la primera etapa de esta crisis (fuera de China) el 30 de enero de 2020 en un momento en que había 5 casos en EE. UU., 3 en Canadá, 4 en Francia y 4 en Alemania.

En total, 83 casos PCR positivos fuera de China, para una población mundial de 6,400 millones.  

El dia siguiente,

31 de enero de 2020: Decisión del presidente Trump de suspender los viajes aéreos con China

Al día siguiente (31 de enero de 2020), Trump anunció que negaría la entrada a los EE. UU. de ciudadanos chinos y extranjeros “que hayan viajado a China en los últimos 14 días” . Esto desencadenó de inmediato una crisis en los viajes aéreos, el transporte, las relaciones comerciales entre EE. UU. y China, así como las transacciones de transporte y envío.

El 20 y 21 de febrero de 2020 marca el comienzo de la crisis financiera de 2020

20 de febrero de 2020:  En una conferencia de prensa el jueves 20 de febrero por la tarde (hora CET) en una  sesión informativa en Ginebra, el Director General de la OMS.  El Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus , dijo que estaba

Estimaciones falsas, “Fake Science”, Mentiras 

La prueba RT-PCR no tiene sentido (ahora confirmada por la OMS y los CDC). Toda la base de datos de los llamados “casos confirmados de COVID” es inválida.

Estas son las estimaciones que se han utilizado para justificar TODOS las restricciones alrededor de la “pandemia” de COVID-19 desde marzo de 2020. Las cifras sobre la  mortalidad relacionada con COVID-19 también son inválidas (Véase Capítulo III).

Estas son las “estimaciones” falsas utilizadas para justificar la violación de derechos humanos fundamentales.

El SARS-CoV-2 es “similar a la gripe estacional” según los CDC y la OMS. No es un virus asesino . (Ver Capítulo III)

Los impactos económicos y sociales

Los impactos económicos y sociales de los confinamientos son devastadores: quiebras, endeudamiento desempleo, pobreza y desesperación.  El impacto destructivo de las restricciones relativas a la pandemia de COVID-19 (Ver Capítulos IV y V)

La vacuna

Las vacunas de ARNm de COVID-19 han derivado en una tendencia mundial al alza en la mortalidad y morbilidad que está ampliamente documentada (ver Capítulo VIII). Un informe confidencial de Pfizer hecho público bajo Freedom of Information (FOI) confirma que la inyección de COVID-19 es una “vacuna asesina”. 

Mortalidad ligado a la vacuna desde 1990. Base de datos del gobierno de EEUU (VAERS database).

“En un par de meses, los informes sobre fallecimientos derivados de las inyecciones de COVID superaron el recuento récord anual de cualquier otra vacuna en la base de datos. En menos de doce meses, el número de muertes relacionadas con las inyecciones de COVID superó el total de muertes reportadas en relación con todas las demás vacunas en los últimos treinta años.”

El  Impacto sobre la mortalidad (diciembre 2020 – febrero 2021)

Source: HeathData.org

5. Reportados y registrados

 para UE/Reino Unido/EE.UU.: 61654 muertes relacionadas con inyecciones de COVID-19 y 9 755 085 lesiones notificadas al 28 de enero de 2022  (solo se notifica y registra un pequeño porcentaje de muertes y lesiones).

La evidencia es abrumadora. Al momento de escribir (enero de 2022 ), las últimas cifras oficiales  apuntan a aproximadamente:

61 654 muertes relacionadas con inyecciones de COVID-19 y

9 755 085 lesiones para la UE, EE.UU. y el Reino Unido combinados.

Pero solo una pequeña fracción de las víctimas o las familias de los fallecidos pasarán por el tedioso proceso de informar las muertes y los eventos adversos relacionados con la vacuna a las autoridades sanitarias nacionales.

Además, las autoridades sanitarias están activamente involucradas en ofuscar las muertes y lesiones resultantes de la “vacuna” contra COVID-19 “no aprobada” y “experimental”.

Basado en datos históricos (Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS, p. 6) : 

Si bien no estamos en condiciones de establecer estimaciones precisas, podemos establecer el orden de magnitud.

Multiplique las cifras oficiales (registradas y registradas) por el parámetro correspondiente para obtener los NÚMEROS REALES de muertos y heridos.  

Números muy altos

Suponiendo que se informe un 10 % de las muertes y los eventos adversos (una suposición muy conservadora según  Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc , p. 6)

La “vacuna” del COVID-19 habría resultado en

610.000 muertes y casi 100 millones de “ eventos adversos” para una población combinada de aproximadamente 830 millones (Reino Unido, UE, EE. UU.). 

6. Pfizer tiene antecedentes penales en el Departamento de Justicia de los Estados Unidos. (Ver Capítulo VIII)  

7. Cuales son los intereses detrás de ese proyecto

Debate: ¿Se trata de un proyecto imperialista?

Gobernanza Global: Hacia un Estado Totalitario

Las personas y organizaciones involucradas en la Simulación 201 del 18 de octubre de 2019  ahora están involucradas  en la gestión real de la crisis una vez que se puso en marcha el 30 de enero de 2020 bajo la ‘Emergencia de Salud Pública de Preocupación Internacional’ (PHEIC) de la OMS, que a su vez estableció el escenario de la crisis financiera de febrero de 2020 y el cierre de marzo.

El confinamiento y cierre de las economías nacionales ha desencadenado varias olas de desempleo masivo junto con la quiebra diseñada (aplicada en todo el mundo) de las pequeñas y medianas empresas.

Todo lo cual está encabezado por la instalación de un Estado totalitario global que pretende romper todas las formas de protesta y resistencia.

El programa de vacunación contra COVID (incluido el pasaporte digital incorporado) es parte integral de un régimen totalitario global. (ver Capítulo VIII)

El infame ID2020 

Es un programa de identificación electrónica que utiliza la vacunación generalizada como plataforma para la identidad digital.

El programa aprovecha las operaciones existentes de vacunación y registro de nacimientos para proporcionar a los recién nacidos una identidad digital portátil permanente vinculada biométricamente. Zonas rojas, mascarillas, distanciamiento social, encierro” (Peter Koenig, 12 de marzo de 2020)

Debate: Construyendo un movimiento mundial contra la “tiranía del coronavirus”

Lo que está en juego es la creación de  un movimiento de masas (a nivel nacional y mundial) que cuestione la legitimidad y autoridad de los arquitectos de este proyecto insidioso que, en términos generales, emana de: Big Money, Big Pharma, los conglomerados de tecnología de la información, los aparatos de seguridad e inteligencia, el Complejo Industrial Militar, Big Energy y los medios de comunicación corporativos.

ID de reunión: 865 7058 1882
Código de acceso: 480061

Link de acceso directo:  https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86570581882?pwd=N1BYaS9MYm5iWUw1ZjFsVnNrN1ZMZz09 

Ariel Noyola R. le está invitando a una reunión de Zoom programada.

El 16 de febrero, 2022, 16.00 horas (hora de Mexico)

14.oo horas (Los Angeles)

17.oo horas (Nueva York, Montreal)

***

Detalles sobre el Libro de Michel Chossudovsky

La crisis mundial del coronavirus 2020-22 . Destruyendo la sociedad civil, Depresión económica diseñada Golpe de Estado Global y el “Gran Reinicio”  14 capítulos  (Traducción AI)

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

Capitulo XIII

¿Golpe de Estado mundial? El “Gran Reinicio”, la Deuda Global y el “Tratamiento de Choque” Neoliberal

Capitulo XIV

La Bastilla 2.0: “Cambio de régimen real”:

Construyendo protesta y resistencia contra la Agenda COVID-19

Archivo de artículos del Michel Chossudovsky  (español)

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Below are excerpts from articles published on Newsweek and New York Post.

Trudeau’s Power Grab Is Unconstitutional

By Ryan Alford, Professor of Law, Lakehead University

Published on Newsweek

On Monday, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced he would be invoking the Emergencies Act, giving him broad emergency powers to quash a nonviolent protest of truckers opposing vaccine mandates. It is only the second time the Canadian government has ever given itself such powers in peacetime.

….

First, the Emergencies Act specifies that only certain types of threats to public order can authorize emergency powers—which is why an order issued by the Governor General on Tuesday made the shocking allegation that the Freedom Convoy’s activities are “directed toward or in support” of terrorism.

It’s an astonishing claim for those who have been following the protests both in Canada’s capital and at border crossings closely. There is not a single violent incident that could possibly support a legally sufficient argument that the protests have been in support of or connected with terrorism.

Second, the new Emergencies Act required a “national emergency” to be invoked, something so serious that it cannot be resolved by means of any other law or combination of laws. And yet, the two most significant challenges to the government—the blockades of the Ambassador Bridge (from Windsor to Detroit) and the crossing from Sweetgrass, Montana to Coutts, Alberta—were both resolved peacefully, and without a single act of violence on the part of either the protesters or the police. At the end of the Coutts blockade, the demonstrators lined up to shake hands with law enforcement (the same ritual that ends every hockey game).

Only the protest in Ottawa remains, and evidence of terrorism, at least outside of the realm of mind-reading, remains rather thin. Moreover, Trudeau has refused to even meet with the truckers.

All of this means that Trudeau has failed to meet the requirements for invoking the Emergencies Act. His doing so is clearly unconstitutional.

Click here to read the full article on Newsweek.

*

Justin Trudeau’s Canadian injustice is just a naked grab for power

By James Bovard

Published on New York Post

To save Canadian democracy, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau must first destroy it.

Since the start of the pandemic, Trudeau has acted like COVID entitled him to unlimited power in the name of public safety — sort of like Gov. Andrew Cuomo on amphetamines. Now he claims he is entitled to use an iron fist to crush the trucker protest movement against a vaccine mandate.

Many of the protesters believe the risks of the vaccine outweigh the benefit and, more important, that they have the right to control their own bodies. Trudeau responded by vilifying the peaceful protesters: “There is no place in our country for threats, violence or hatred.”

Who’s really the threat? 

Except Trudeau seems to be doing most of the threats and hatred. He’s denounced the protesters, baselessly, as “racist” and “misogynistic.” And Monday, he invoked the Emergencies Act, effectively awarding himself martial-law powers to repress resistance. Trudeau said his edict will provide him “the ability to compel” tow-truck companies to remove protesters’ trucks.

He’s even designating protesters as “terrorists” in the name of cutting off their funding. Canada’s

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland announced Tuesday: “We are broadening the scope of Canada’s anti-money-laundering and terrorist-financing rules so that they cover Crowd Funding Platforms and the payment service providers they use.”

Click here to read the full article on New York Post.

*

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

In a study sponsored by Yale University — and started before COVID-19 shots were rolled out — researchers tested different messages of how to best persuade people to get injected

Messages designed to induce guilt, embarrassment, anger and “not bravery” were included

Psychological messages that involve community interest, reciprocity and embarrassment worked best, leading to a 30% increase in intention to get injected, a 24% increase in willingness to tell a friend to get injected and a 38% increase in negative opinions of those who decline to get the shot

The messages not only impact people on an individual level but are intended to further divide society, by encouraging people to pass negative judgment onto those who don’t get the shot and pressure others to comply with “social norms”

*

In a study sponsored by Yale University — and started before COVID-19 shots were rolled out — researchers tested different messages of how to best persuade people to get injected.

Officially titled, “Persuasive Messages for COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake,”¹ the researchers must have had some forethought that people would be wary of an experimental gene therapy, and set to work to decipher the best propaganda campaign to ensure their widespread uptake.

The study’s abstract starts out with questionable statements from the start, parroting the myth that “Widespread vaccination remains the best option for controlling the spread of COVID-19 and ending the pandemic.”² The authors do not, however, expand on how this is so, considering that just three months after the shot those who are injected are just as likely to pass COVID-19 to their close contacts as those who do not get the shot.^3,4

The reasons why people may be reluctant to get COVID-19 shots — such as safety and efficacy concerns — are also ignored by the study,⁵ which is only concerned with how to best use psychological tactics to get people on board with being injected.

Guilt, Anger, Embarrassment or Cowardice — What Works Best?

The full study, which was published in the December 3, 2021, issue of Vaccine,⁶ involved two experiments. The first tested “treatment messages” designed to affect people’s intentions about whether or not to get the shot. For the control group, subjects were exposed to a message about bird feeding, while others read the baseline vaccine message, as follows:

“To end the COVID-19 outbreak, it is important for people to get vaccinated against COVID-19 whenever a vaccine becomes available. Getting the COVID-19 vaccine means you are much less likely to get COVID-19 or spread it to others. Vaccines are safe and widely used to prevent diseases and vaccines are estimated to save millions of lives every year.”

For the experiment, the following messages were added to the baseline message:⁷

For example, the guilt message, which is designed to work by social pressure, reads:⁸

“The message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one’s family and community. The best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated and society must work together to get enough people vaccinated. Then it asks the participant to imagine the guilt they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.”

Never mind that this statement is false, since they can still spread the disease if they’re injected. Similarly misleading messages designed to demean, guilt and shame people into getting the shot include:⁹

• “If one doesn’t get vaccinated that means that one doesn’t understand how infections are spread or who ignores science.”
• “Those who choose not to get vaccinated against COVID-19 are not brave.”
• “[I]t asks the participant to imagine the embarrassment they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.”
• “[I]t asks the participant to imagine the anger they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.”

The researchers explained it this way:¹⁰

“One subgroup of messages draws on the idea that mass vaccination is a collective action problem and highlighting the prosocial benefit of vaccination or the reputational costs that one might incur if one chooses not to vaccinate. Another subgroup of messages built on contemporary concerns about the pandemic, like issues of restricting personal freedom or economic security.

We find that persuasive messaging that invokes prosocial vaccination and social image concerns is effective at increasing intended uptake and also the willingness to persuade others and judgments of non-vaccinators.”

Propaganda Messages Created With No Scientific Support

It’s ironic that the study includes a “trust in science” message, since the messages used in the study were created in early or mid-2020, before science was available to support them. Yet, as noted by a Children’s Health Defense (CHD) article, “The messages tested by the researchers have been woven into mainstream media narratives and public health campaigns throughout the world.”¹¹

In the second part of the study, the most effective messages from part one were tested on a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults. This included the baseline message along with community interest, community interest + embarrassment, not bravery, trust in science and personal freedom messages.

They found that, compared to the control group, psychological messages that involve community interest, reciprocity and embarrassment worked best, leading to a 30% increase in intention to get injected, along with a 24% increase in willingness to tell a friend to get injected and a 38% increase in negative opinions of those who decline to get the shot.¹²

The messages are designed to not only impact people on an individual level, but also further divide society by encouraging people to pass negative judgment onto others and pressure others to comply with “social norms.” According to the researchers:

“Viewing vaccination through the lens of a collective action problem suggests that in addition to increasing individuals’ intentions to receive a vaccine, effective public health messages would also increase people’s willingness to encourage those close to them to vaccinate and to hold negative judgments of those who do not vaccinate.

By encouraging those close to them to vaccinate, people are both promoting compliance with social norms and increasing their own level of protection against the disease. Also, by judging those who do not vaccinate more negatively, they apply social pressure to others to promote cooperative behavior.”

Shots as a ‘Morally Right Choice’

Since the pandemic began, conforming to confusing and questionable public health mandates has been made an issue of moral superiority — to the point that those who questioned mask mandates were labeled as “grandma killers.”¹³

In an article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2020, it’s further noted that “vaccination is a social contract in which cooperation is the morally right choice.”¹⁴ It further suggests that, under this social contract, people should change their behaviors toward those who choose not to get injected, and, indeed, people who are “especially compliant,” i.e., vaccinated, were less generous to those who were not.¹⁵ Further:¹⁶

“If so, vaccinated individuals should reciprocate by being more generous to a vaccinated other. On the contrary, if the other doesn’t vaccinate and violates the social contract, generosity should decline.”

Propaganda Aimed at Making People Feel ‘Disgusting’

CHD pointed out that one of the authors of the Yale study, Saad Omer, “has an extensive interest in public health messaging” and was behind the “Building Vaccine Confidence Through Tailored Messaging Campaigns” in 2020, which used social media to convince people to get COVID-19 and other shots.¹⁷

Working with the World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts Working Group on COVID-19 Vaccines, Omer detailed what worked in the past to increase the uptake of the HPV vaccine, and suggested it could work for COVID-19 shots. The solution, he said, involved appealing to values and stooping so low as to make a person feel disgusting while presenting vaccines as a form of purity. CHD quoted Omer, who said:¹⁸

“We wanted to test out, can we have a purity-based message? So we showed them pictures of genital warts and described a vignette, a narrative, a story, talking about how someone got genital warts and how disgusting they were and how pure vaccines are that sort of restore the sanctity of the body.

So we just analyzed these data. This was a randomized control trial with apriori outcomes. We found approximately 20 percentage point effect on people’s likelihood of getting an HPV vaccine in the next 6 months … We are trying out liberty-based messages or liberty-mediated messaging around this behavior related to COVID-19 outbreak.

That wearing a mask or taking precautions eventually make you free, regain your autonomy. Because if the disease rates are low, your activities can resume.”

This is similar propaganda to what’s being used to promote vaccine passports, with many willingly giving up freedoms that, once gone, may be difficult, if not impossible, to get back. By showing proof that you’ve received a COVID-19 shot, via a digital certificate or app on your phone, the hope is that you can once again travel freely, attend a concert or enjoy a meal in your favorite restaurant, just like you used to.

Except, being required to present your “papers” in order to live your life isn’t actually freedom at all — it’s a loss of freedom that you once had, one that disappeared right before your eyes and one that’s setting the stage for increased surveillance and control, and erosion of your privacy.

Propaganda Is the Real Misinformation

Carefully crafted messages that play on your emotions and moral compass are just one part of the campaign to ensure public compliance with the mainstream narrative. Fact checking is another tool being used in order to control virtually everything you see and hear online, in order to serve a greater agenda.¹⁹

Take the term “conspiracy theory,” which is now used to dismiss narratives that go against the grain. According to investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson, this is intentional, as the term itself was devised by the CIA as a response to theories about the assassination of JFK.

Debunked, quackery and antivaccine are all terms that are similarly being used as propaganda tools. “There’s a whole cast of propaganda phrases that I’ve outlined that are cues. When you hear them, they should make you think, ‘I need to find out more about it,’” Attkisson says.²⁰

Likewise, CHD explained, “The efforts to eliminate ‘misinformation’ resulted in unprecedented censorship of virtually anything that steps outside of state-sanctioned consensus and the creation of a captive audience primed to accept a singular narrative.”²¹

It’s important to remain aware that messages are being carefully crafted to mold human behavior to comply with COVID-19 shots and other public health measures — and to recognize that the use of propaganda is perfectly legal, even in the U.S.

As CHD continued, “And thanks to a multibillion-dollar budget from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we are under the influence of the best messages money can buy — whether or not those messages are true.”²²

*

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

Notes

^{1, 7, 8, 9} ClinicalTrials.gov, July 7, 2020, COVID-19 Vaccine Messaging, Part I

^2, 6, 10 Vaccine December 3, 2021, Volume 39, Issue 49, Pages 7158-7165

³ medRxiv October 15, 2021

⁴ Nature October 5, 2021

^{5, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22} Children’s Health Defense February 4, 2022

¹³ Steve Kirsch Newsletter November 7, 2021

^14, 16 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2020, 117(26) 14890-14899

¹⁹ The Epoch Times, American Thought Leaders video, January 20, 2022, 2:43

²⁰ The Epoch Times, American Thought Leaders video, January 20, 2022, 22:26

Featured image is from Mercola

All Global Research articles 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.

***

From the closing weeks of 2020 through February 1, 2022, more than sixty percent of the world’s population was injected with COVID-19 vaccines.

This means that in a period of less than fourteen months more than 4.7 billion people received at least one COVID shot. Tens of millions received as many as four doses.

The first clinical trial of COVID vaccines was launched in Germany on April 23, 2020 with the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine. The first country to authorize the use of the vaccine in the general population was the United Kingdom. The UK issued its authorization on December 2, 2020, and this move was quickly followed by dozens of other nations. The United States issued its emergency use authorization on December 11.

This means that the massive global vaccination campaign – which quickly reached a frenzied pitch – was launched less than 8 months from the start of the clinical trials.

To begin administering a vaccine to the general population within such a short trial period was wholly unprecedented in the annals of modern medicine.

To establish that a vaccine is safe, extensive long-term testing must be carried out. This process involves multi-phase clinical trials and observational studies which include large numbers of subjects over time periods measured in years. This thorough and involved process takes at least five years to complete and usually much longer. According to Johns Hopkins University:

“A typical vaccine development timeline takes 5 to 10 years, and sometimes longer, to assess whether the vaccine is safe and efficacious in clinical trials, complete the regulatory approval processes, and manufacture sufficient quantity of vaccine doses for widespread distribution.”

Only upon satisfactory completion of this involved regimen can a vaccine be considered reasonably safe for mass administration to the general public.

Yet even the completion of this long process does not guarantee that a vaccine is completely safe. After receiving full approval, vaccines continue to be carefully monitored for adverse events in case some vaccinal flaw may have escaped detection during the multi-year trial phase. There have been a number of vaccines that were pulled from the market after they received full approval due to unexpected safety issues. Some of these include vaccines for Rotavirus, Lyme Disease and Whole Cell Pertussis among others.

Therefore, for a vaccine to be justifiably declared “completely safe,” it must undergo at least five years of intensive testing in clinical trials and then several years of monitoring as it is administered in populations at large.

The COVID vaccines, however, were publicly declared to be “completely safe” less than 8 months after the start of human clinical trials. On the normal vaccine trial timeline, month 8 is in Phase 2 of the three-stage clinical trial regime.

The claim that the COVID vaccines were “completely safe,” was, therefore, completely unjustifiable and unsubstantiated. Those who made this claim engaged in a deliberate and unconscionable act of public deception.

And yet this claim was used as the basis for a worldwide campaign in which more than half of Earth’s inhabitants have been injected with experimental pharmaceuticals that did not undergo proper testing.

The phrase “safe and effective” became the de-facto slogan of the planet-wide vaccination enterprise. Believing that the vaccines were “completely safe,” billions of people willingly – and even enthusiastically – lined up to receive their COVID injections.

Needless to say, not everyone was ready to accept the propaganda. Disregarding all reasonable objections, however, many governments decided that universal vaccination was their goal and decided that the unwilling needed to be coerced. This they sought to do through direct vaccines mandates and COVID passports or digital certificates. That latter two were designed in such a way as to compel the hesitant to submit to the shots on pain of being excluded from the normal course of societal life.

Government and public health officials justified this drastic approach by repeatedly stating that the vaccines were “completely safe” and effective, and because of this it was okay to force the shots even on those who did not want to take them.

The claim “safe and effective” was thus used as a means of allurement and coercion for the planet-wide COVID vaccination crusade.

We need to pause here and contemplate the enormity of what the vaccinators have “accomplished.”

Less than 22 months after the beginning of the clinical trials, they have managed to inject the plurality of mankind with their inadequately tested products. If things were being done properly, right now the vaccine developers would have been gearing for Phase III of clinical trials. This stage normally takes place between months 24 and 48 after the initiation of the trial process. This is how Johns Hopkins University describes what this stage is about:

“Phase III clinical trials are critical to understanding whether vaccines are safe and effective.”

Phase III is where we now find ourselves on the timeline of vaccine development. In the case of the COVID vaccines, however, the testing of Phase III is not being conducted on a selected group of volunteers but on the world’s population.

The billions who have been lured and coerced to participate in this experiment have not been honestly advised of the truth of the situation, i.e., that that the COVID vaccines have not undergone proper trialing and testing and that their safety profile could not be established with any satisfactory level of accuracy. Instead, they were lied to and told that the vaccines were “completely safe.”

Under the normal schedule, the COVID vaccines Phase III trials would be completed in April of 2024. If this phase went without a hitch, April of 2024 would be the earliest that anyone could justifiably start saying that the COVID vaccines are “safe and effective.”

It is as astonishing as it is frightening that this wide-scale, lightning-fast vaccination campaign featuring insufficiently tested substances was allowed to be carried despite the fact that the injections contained a new gene transfer mRNA technology that had never been tried before. Because of the presence of this novel technology, these vaccines should have been approached with great caution and tested with maximum thoroughness and vigor. Astonishingly, this did not happen. Quite on the contrary, some of the most rudimentary components of the customary trial routine were casually dispensed with.

Some fourteen months into this global injectioneering operation, it is obvious that the claim of the vaccines being “complete safe” was not only unsubstantiated but outright false.

Shortly after the vaccinating commenced, reports of severe adverse reactions and deaths started pouring it. Please see the chart below which depicts the explosion of death reports to the US government’s VAERS database. This explosion began in late 2020 which was when the vaccinators began administering their COVID products to the public at large.

Within a couple months death reports garnered by the COVID injections exceeded the annual record count of any other vaccine in the database’s history. In less than twelve months, the number of deaths related to the COVID injections exceeded the death total recorded in connection with all the other vaccines in the last thirty years.

This is a gruesome count for vaccines that were supposed to be “completely safe.”

Although the vaccinators tried to cover and downplay the devastating side effects of their product, the reality could not be hidden. Myocarditis and pericarditis became a well-documented consequences of the Pfizer and Moderna shots. In December of last year, AstraZeneca scientists finally admitted something that had been known for many months, i.e., that their vaccine was causing deadly blood clots.

Trying to soften the news as much as they could, this is the headline with which the Mail Online announced this dire fact:

AstraZeneca uncovers what’s triggering blood clots after its jab: Vaccine acts like a magnet and attracts platelets which body mistakes for a threat and attacks

One can get a sense of just how dangerous and deadly these vaccines are from the fact that within twelve months of launching the vaccination campaign more than 1,000 articles and studies appeared in peer-reviewed scientific journals describing various side effects of these pharmaceuticals. Most of the discussed side effects are serious and deadly. They include:

• Fatal cerebral haemorrhage
• Venous thrombosis
• Immune thrombocytopenic purpura
• Myopericarditis
• Guillain-Barré syndrome
• Acute venous thromboembolism
• Lymphadenopathy
• Portal vein thrombosis
• T-cell lymphoma
• Aphasia
• Anaphylaxis
• Cardiomyopathy
• Thrombophilia

Injecting more than half of all humankind with inadequately tested, dangerous pharmaceuticals based on a never-before-tried technology while claiming that that they are “completely safe” constitutes probably the greatest crime against humanity ever committed.

Never before has any government, an international actor or a transnational cabal undertaken an act that would expose such a big swath of humanity to such serious danger.

This operation was carried out under false pretenses and those who initiated it knew that their claims were unsubstantiated and false.

The question that must be answered is this: How could something like this been allowed to happen?

Untold millions across the world have already suffered severe side effects from these injections in the short-term. And we do not yet know that the medium- or long-term consequences may be, since these vaccines have not been trialed for such time frames.

Please keep mind that the clinical trials for the COVID vaccines began only less than 22 months ago. In such a short period of time it is simply impossible to adequately assess the safety of any vaccine.

The COVID-19 vaccination crusade is a global crime the like of which the world has not yet seen.

Those complicit in this vast crime against humanity are the vaccine manufacturers, the leaders of the regulatory agencies, public health officials and politicians. Also complicit is the media which endlessly amplified the “completely safe” claim which became the mantra under which this enterprise has been carried out.

Those responsible for this must be called to answer for their deeds in legal settings so that their actions can be evaluated and judged in accordance with national and international laws and statutes.

*

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

Featured image is from Notes from the Twilight Zone

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

In January 2019, the WHO defined the growing number of vaccination critics as one of the top ten threats to global health, and since the unprecedented Corona vaccination fiasco, the number of vaccination refusers has truly multiplied.

Meanwhile, resistance is forming even within the orthodox medical establishment. But the masterminds of the WHO continue to insist on an unrealistic vaccination coverage rate of at least 70 percent.

In this article, Jan Walter describes, with extensive source citations, which techniques are possible to still vaccinate the population, when people are becoming increasingly critical of vaccinations. This is only fueled by the continuing pressure for mass “vaccination” against a non-lethal disease for 99.8% of people, with a new type of “vaccine” that is actually gene therapy by means of mRNA. It seems like science fiction and is chilling, but the metohodes and techniques are available. There question is how far do we let it get?

Vaccinations increasingly scrutinized and the chilling alternative

In January 2019, WHO [1] defined the growing number of vaccine critics as one of the ten greatest threats to global health, and since the unprecedented corona vaccination fiasco [2], the number of vaccine refusers has really multiplied. Meanwhile, resistance is emerging even within the conventional medical community. But the masterminds at WHO continue to insist on an unrealistic vaccination rate of at least 70 percent.

Now several experts and former mainstream journalists like John O’Sullivan are warning that the massive PCR testing campaign could be a WHO vaccination program in disguise. (see Principia Scientific) [3] O’Sullivan is referring to a new technology developed at Johns Hopkins University that is supposed to make it possible to carry out covert vaccinations through a PCR test. (See Johns Hopkins Universitiy) [4]

Inspired by a parasitic worm that digs its sharp teeth into the intestines of its host, Johns Hopkins researchers have developed tiny, star-shaped micro-devices that attach to the intestinal mucosa and can deliver drugs into the body.

These tiny devices, known as “Theragrippers,” are made of metal and a thin film that changes shape. They are covered with heat-sensitive kerosene wax and each no larger than a dust particle. (See Figure 1)

When the kerosene coating on the Theragripper reaches body temperature, the devices close autonomously and clamp onto the wall of the colon. Because of the sealing action, the tiny, six-pointed devices burrow into the mucosa and attach to the colon, where they are held and gradually release their drug load to the body. Eventually, the Theragripper lose their grip on the tissue and are removed from the colon through normal gastrointestinal muscle function.

Note: According to Johns Hopkins University, Theragrippers are actually administered with a cotton swab. (see Figure 2)

Figure 2: Theragrippers on a cotton swab

The Johns Hopkins University research team published positive results from an animal study as a cover article in Science Advances on October 28, 2020 [5], confirming that the new technology works flawlessly:

Here we report that GI parasite-inspired active mechanochemical therapeutic grabs, or theragrippers, can survive 24 hours in the gastrointestinal tract of live animals by autonomously adhering to mucosal tissue. We also observe a remarkable six-fold increase in elimination half-life when using ripper-mediated delivery of the model analgesic ketorolac tromethamine. These results provide excellent evidence that shape-shifting and self-locking microdevices improve the effectiveness of long-term drug delivery.

Fig.3: Shape-shifting Theragripper as self-locking drug delivery devices

Coincidentally, the PCR test in China is now also performed anally because the reliability of the results is said to be better and of course this practice is immediately supported in the Western mainstream media. (See Business Insider) [6]

Note: If you can’t imagine the government administering toxins to you against your will and without your consent, think of all the horrific experiments on humans that were admitted afterwards and which, according to Wikipedia, [7] have continued well into modern times. In 2007, the CDC [8] even admitted that between 1955 and 1963, 10-30 million citizens were infected with the carcinogen SV40 via polio vaccination.

The Vaccination that is Not a Vaccination, but Gene Therapy

In a revealing video conference [9] with Dr. Judy Mikovits, Robert Kennedy Jr. and Dr. David Martin, it is explained that the mRNA vaccine, by the legal definition, is not a vaccine at all. It is falsely called a vaccine to hide the fact that the purported vaccine is, in fact, a gene therapy. Experienced physician and epidemiologist, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, stated in a censored interview with Rubikon, “Actually, this ‘promising’ vaccine should be PROHIBITED for the vast majority of people because it is genetic engineering!”

Mary Holland, Vice President and Chief Advocate of the Children’s Health Defense Organization, warns, “New vaccine technologies will likely lead to new types of vaccine harms. Since there has never been an approved mRNA vaccine, we really don’t know what such damage will look like. Because vaccines have been developed so quickly and clinical trials are so short, the long-term damage is completely unknown.”

What is particularly chilling is that the vast majority do not even know what the mRNA vaccine is doing in their bodies. They simply allow themselves to be blindly vaccinated, and this despite the fact that more and more independent and even orthodox medical experts are warning against it. (See doctors from around the world warn against mRNA vaccination) [10] In this context, it should not be forgotten that the American company modeRNA Therapeutics was founded in 2010 not as a vaccine manufacturer, but as a GenTech company. The example of the many Monsanto scandals makes it crystal clear that genetic engineering does not serve to protect species, but rather to gain power. The hidden agenda is to genetically modify species in order to patent or own them. Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once said, “Whoever controls the seed controls the world.” (See Press Portal) [11]

What’s next? Are they going to patent our bodies after they genetically engineer us with the mRNA vaccine?

Dr. Carrie Madej, [12] a specialist in internal medicine with over 19 years of experience, states that the COVID-19 vaccine could actually be a Trojan horse to patent humans because it alters our DNA. According to an Article published in the British science journal Phys.org in January 2020 [13], it is confirmed that modified RNA has a direct impact on our DNA. The following passage is particularly alarming:

“Several research groups are now working together to investigate what effect this may have on the DNA molecule. We already know that R-loop regions are associated with DNA sequences that contain active genes, and that this can lead to chromosome breaks and the loss of genetic information.”

Also alarming is the fact that leading vaccine manufacturers such as Pfizer are warning their subjects not to reproduce after vaccination (see Pfizer, p. 132) [14 PDF] By doing so, the pharmaceutical company is confirming that the mRNA vaccine can have negative effects on human reproduction and is being vaccinated in spite of it!

Conclusion: Anyone who knows a little history knows that genetic experimentation and human experimentation are nothing new.

Although modern eugenics has its origins in the 19th century, the ideas, measures and justifications of state and social interventions and influences on reproduction have been known since ancient times. They can already be found in Plato’s “Politeia,” which, however, is limited to state selection and education.

In the Renaissance, corresponding lines of thought can be found in the social utopian writings “Utopia” by Thomas Morus, “Nova Atlantis” by Francis Bacon and “La città del Sole” by Tommaso Campanella. But because common sense instinctively resists such interventions, the establishment has always endeavored to disguise its true intentions with misleading labels. The Nazis, for example, disguised eugenics as “hereditary health science” or “hereditary care” to make it attractive to the masses, and today the same sick agenda is sold to us with a new “vaccine” to save us from a supposed “pandemic”.

*

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

Notes

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200812085538/https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019

[2] https://www.legitim.ch/post/schockierende-bilder-beh%C3%B6rden-verschweigen-massenhaft-corona-impfsch%C3%A4den

[3] https://principia-scientific.com/are-pcr-tests-secret-vaccines/

[4] https://hub.jhu.edu/2020/11/25/theragripper-gi-tract-medicine-delivery/

[5] https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/44/eabb4133

[6] https://www.businessinsider.com/microbiology-professor-china-anal-swab-test-covid-19-makes-sense-2021-1?r=MX&IR=T

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_subject_research

[8] http://web.archive.org/web/20110307094146/http:/www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/updates/archive/polio_and_cancer_factsheet.htm

[9] https://www.bitchute.com/video/4fVFgHXPELoO/

[10] https://tinyurl.com/y32qpl74

[11] https://www.presseportal.de/pm/62556/3331518

[12] https://banthis.tv/watch?id=5f176746677a7f01e9302af6

[13] https://phys.org/news/2020-01-rna-effect-dna.html

[14 PDF] https://pfe-pfizercom-d8-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/2020-11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020.pdf

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

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

Doubling down on the weak leak about the imminent invasion, Western media even missed the sarcasm of Ukrainian President Volodimyr Zelensky when he referred to the report. Not realizing Zelensky’s irony, Western media reported his “confirmation” about Russia’s February 16 invasion day.

When being interviewed by Die Welt, Russia’s ambassador to the EU Vladimir Chizhov sarcastically said:

“Wars in Europe rarely start on a Wednesday.” For his part, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on February 15, “Do we want this [war] or not? Of course not.”

After weeks of propagating about an inevitable Russian invasion of Ukraine, news of troops being demobilized from the border region with the end of exercises disappointed even the most eager war mongers. It was hoped that the Russian invasion narrative would at least provide justification for harsher economic sanctions.

Yet, despite the withdrawal of Russian troops following the end of the exercises, US President Joe Biden is attempting to maintain the invasion narrative. Biden said he would “give […] diplomacy every chance,” but provocatively added that Russian forces remain “very much in a threatening position” and that “an invasion remains distinctly possible.”

With Biden seemingly unrelenting on letting go of the imminent invasion narrative, the situation surrounding Ukraine still remains dangerous and volatile despite Russian troops demobilizing. Ukraine, without intervention from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), continues to deploy its armed forces along the Line of Contact with Donbass. So long as the Ukrainian military threatens to reignite the war in Donbass, whether there is a Russian troop presence on the border or not, the West will maintain a narrative that Moscow is the aggressor.

None-the-less, Zelensky is left with little choice but to continue on this path. Time magazine reporter Simon Shuster, tweeted on February 14:

“Source close to Zelensky told me the US first warned his team of a Russian invasion last fall, putting the chances at 80%. The Ukrainians didn’t buy it, but they saw an opportunity – ‘more aid, more attention’ — and played along. Now they have regrets. Too much attention.”

Yet, Western thinkers, such as Professor Jorge Guira in writing for The Conversation, are attempting to twist the narrative and argue that “it’s possible this whole tense affair may be a bluff to weaken the Ukrainian economy and sow European discord.” This argument ignores the near daily statements from Moscow that stressed there were no plans of invading Ukraine. However, now it is claimed that this whole crisis was manufactured by Russia to target Ukraine’s economy and create division within the EU.

This line of thinking not only disregards Russia’s continued statements that it has no intentions of invading Ukraine, but also ignores that there are no such divisions in the EU, with only the three minnow Baltic states and Poland breaking consensus. These four countries hardly represent the 27-member bloc, or its two most important countries – France and Germany.

As has already been heavily scrutinised, the Ukrainian economy is actually the biggest loser because of the incursion narrative which Kiev helped concoct and promote. With the unintended and unforeseen economic consequences of the Russian invasion allegations, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced on February 15 “a sovereign loan guarantee to Ukraine” of up $1 billion to support the country’s economic reform agenda and continued engagement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

“This offer – combined with the strong partnership between Ukraine, the IMF, other international financial institutions, the G7 and other bilateral donors – will bolster Ukraine’s ability to ensure economic stability, growth, and prosperity for its people in the face of Russia’s destabilizing behavior,” Blinken said.

In turn, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said on Twitter “another call with Blinken. We keep actively coordinating efforts to protect Ukraine. Grateful to the US for the decision to provide Ukraine with macro-financial assistance.”

Zelensky allowed the Russian invasion scenario to get out of hand, and what turned into a short-sighted opportunity to get more military aid from the West is now one that has economically indebted Ukraine to the US and under more IMF control. Kiev’s hostilities with Moscow will see it lose billions in transit fees when the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline is activated, and now its propagation of an imminent Russian invasion sees foreign businesspeople, companies and diplomats flee the country.

None-the-less, even with Russian troops demobilizing after finishing their defense exercises, it appears that the imminent incursion assertions will be maintained, especially as Ukraine continues to provocatively deploy troops to the border of Donbass, with the OSCE remaining silent.

*

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

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image: Zelensky in 2019, photo by President.gov.ua, licensed under CC BY 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.

***

British soldiers will leave Ukraine – informed James Heappe. UK Minister of the Armed Forces.  The United States also confirms readiness to evacuate its own citizens as well as the troops in case of a full-scale Russian-Ukrainian conflict.  Is this already capitulation?  Too early for joy.  The Western media still bomb the audience with the next dates of alleged Russian aggression, and the voices of reason are still drowned out by Goebbels-like screams about “Putin’s influence agents”.

BJ In Maggie’s shoes

The British newspapers, both related to the ruling Tories and the Labour Party play a special role in fuelling the war hysteria.

Threatening with Vladimir Putin takes on grotesque proportions, which observers associate with the weaking position of the Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

One can believe that in this situation, following the example of the infamous Mrs Thatcher, some short victorious war could possibly reverse the polls and cover up the scandals of the Conservative Government.  

The problem is that even a single British soldier’s coffin returning from Ukraine could be the coffin of the entire Cabinet.

The international embarrassment of the UK Foreign Minister, Liz Truss, echoed in the UK as well.  When B. Johnson is each week weaker – this politician has already been announced among the War Hawks as the new Iron Lady.

Meanwhile, during talks with Minister Sergey Lavrov, she was not only treated as an under-educated teenager, but also confirmed her own ignorance how the Russian-Ukrainian border runs.

All war provocations and Tory gaffes are publicised by the growing anti-war movement, cooling down the mood.  They are condemned by i.a. the popular blogger George Galloway, the leader of the radically anti-imperialist Workers Party of Britain.

Peace efforts are becoming increasingly effective across Europe. NATO’s military intervention in Ukraine is supported by less than half of the population of the UK. Proportions in Germany and France are quite similar.  Interestingly, the position of the Britons is the most negative what must be considered by the Tory Government. Europeans do not want to die for the neo-Nazi-oligarchic Kiev junta, neither the City nor the Wall Street another bloody businesses.

The Scots don’t want to fight for the Empire anymore

However, the war scarecrow is still used, also to mitigate UK centrifugal tendencies. “Scottish independence supporters leave us at Putin’s mercy!” – the Tory newspapers attacked couple days ago. MPs of the Scottish National Party (turning more and more towards the Liberal establishment) obediently participated in mission to Ukraine, de facto legitimising the Kiev junta politics.  This met with strong criticism from the pro-independence but opposition ALBA Party, distancing itself from the vision of the future sovereign Scotland’s membership in NATO.

“I have been watching with growing concern the apparent and increasing appetite for conflict in Ukraine. In recent days this has developed into a determined hyping of impending conflict with many weekend newspapers running front-page headlines that lacked any credible evidence to support such alarm in the copy below. What we have repeatedly heard is assertions from UK and US sources of intelligence that such a conflict is imminent, but again there has been a distinct lack of evidence beyond those assertions when the matter has been pressed. Memories may be short in some journalistic and political circles, but I know that many have not forgotten the catastrophic consequences of the dodgy dossier that took us to war in Iraq. We must not repeat such mistakes and we cannot go to war based on assertions” – declared in the House of Commons Neale Hanvey, ALBA Party MP.

“I don’t want to see an independent Scotland turn into an uber-bellicose NATO cheerleader, just to prove our European credentials. Independence allows Scotland to chart its own course. Naturally, we will be internationalists because we want to be good neighbours. But that does not mean we should run blindly into other people’s conflicts” – George Kerevan, a popular publicist and the undisputed authority of the Scottish national left, is of a similar opinion.

“Putin is going to invade Ukraine [he] is the new Saddam who can deploy WMD in 45 minutes. And precisely the same mainstream media puppets who sneered at us for not believing the first lie, are still in their jobs to sneer at us for not believing the second” – mocked Craig Murray, a very popular Scottish writer and columnist, former diplomat and recently political prisoner of the Johnson’s regime.

The Scots are fed up with dying for the glory of the British Empire and the City’s profits.  But why are other Western societies so easily terrorised by war psychosis?

Final Alternative

Well, we all know these sects waiting for subsequent dates of the End of the World. Did the believers draw any conclusions as the date passed and the World did not end?

No, they just adapted smoothly to another one, again quite certain and final. Reactions to the next “absolutely certain and final dates of the Russian invasion” come straight from the same madhouse.

And yet it is still worth catching propagandists on lies and manipulations on every such occasion, extending the front for the peace and common sense.  Above the historical divisions into Left and Right, in the face of a much more important today alternative: for the life and survival of mankind – or for war, destruction, exploitation and tyranny.

*

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

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

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Heroic George Mason University law professor Todd Zywicki sued his employer last year over its vaccine mandate for faculty and staff. His argument was clear: he had existing (demonstrable) antibody immunity from an earlier covid infection, and thus his immunologist considered a vaccine both potentially harmful and medically unethical. The New Civil Liberties Alliance successfully represented Zywicki in US District Court, forcing school administrators to grant a medical exemption. You can hear my interview of Professor Zywicki here  beginning at the 10:15 mark, and read the NCLA press release concerning his legal victory here.

“NCLA is pleased that GMU granted Professor Zywicki’s medical exemption, which we believe it only did because he filed this lawsuit. According to GMU, with the medical exemption, Prof. Zywicki may continue serving the GMU community, as he has for more than two decades, without receiving a medically unnecessary vaccine and without undue burden. Nevertheless, NCLA remains dismayed by GMU’s refusal—along with many other public and private universities and other employers—to recognize that the science establishes beyond any doubt that natural immunity is as robust or more so than vaccine immunity.” — Jenin Younes, NCLA Litigation Counsel and lead counsel in Zywicki v. Washington, et al.

“I am gratified that George Mason has given me a medical exemption to allow me to fulfill my duties this fall semester in light of unprecedented circumstances. Thanks to NCLA, we have increased public awareness that vaccinating the naturally immune is medically unnecessary and presents an elevated risk of harm to Covid-19 survivors. I speak for tens of millions of Americans in the same circumstances I am in, and I call on leaders across the country to develop humane and science-based approaches as opposed to one-size-fits-all policies.” — Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School

*

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

Featured image is from Shutterstock

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

“’Foiled again!’ rose the cry from those expecting Russian President Vladimir Putin to step out of character and risk war, just as he finally succeeds in getting the U.S. to take Russia’s security concerns seriously – and even address them.” Today we can simply recycle the above lede sentence from our article four weeks ago: Godot Likely To Arrive Before Russia Invades Ukraine.

New this time, and so far unique, is the lack-of-spin headline and lede that the AP promptly used yesterday in reporting on the significance of the talks held in Moscow by Russian President Vladimir Putin and visiting German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. (Headline and lede sentences follow.)

Russia ready to discuss confidence-building measures, Putin says after talks with Germany’s Scholtz

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that Moscow is ready for talks with the US and NATO on limits on missile deployments and military transparency, in a new sign of easing East-West tensions. The statement came after Russia announced it is pulling back some troops from exercises that have raised fears of a potential invasion of Ukraine.

Has AP Learned a Lesson?

Over recent weeks, AP’s ace reporter Matthew Lee and colleagues had been repeatedly led down the White House garden path by the likes of broken-record “the-Russians-are-coming-and-it-could-be-Wednesday” national security adviser Jake Sullivan. Might it be that, this time, at least one AP honcho became so weary of this drivel, that s/he decided to go ahead and publish before receiving the customary Guidance Memo from the powers that be, telling the Establishment media how to spin major events?

This time, the “guidance” came from President Joe Biden himself, who stuck to Sullivan’s ad nauseam alerts that a Russia invasion “remains distinctly possible.”

Reuters, too, apparently got the Memo in time and dutifully reported:

The Kremlin sought to portray its moves as proof that Western talk of war had been both false and hysterical.

“February 15, 2022 will go down in history as the day Western war propaganda failed. Humiliated and destroyed without a single shot fired,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said.

Russia’s defence ministry published footage showing tanks and other armoured vehicles being loaded onto railway flatcars. But Western military analysts said they needed more information to judge the significance of the latest troop movements.

Putin With Scholz

At yesterday’s press conference, Chancellor Scholz at times played straight man for Putin, calling the announcement of the Russian troop pullback a “good signal” and agreeing that diplomatic options are “far from exhausted”, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had reported to Putin on Monday. Here’s what’s important (and was given appropriate prominence in AP’s reporting).

Putin at the presser with Scholz:

“… as [Lavrov] reported yesterday, the [US and NATO] responses still contain a number of considerations that we are not only ready to discuss but that we have actually suggested to our partners over the years. I am referring to our proposals on European security, certain weapons systems, notably, intermediate and shorter-range missiles, and military transparency. We are ready to continue this joint work. … [Emphasis added.]

So far, the NYT has omitted that statement by Putin, which, coming yesterday together with the troop pullback, is highly significant. That the Times“forgot” to include it is yet another sign that even the most sensible, rudimentary negotiations on key matters of concern to Russia will be resisted tooth and nail by the MICIMATT (Military-Industrial-Congressional-MEDIA-Academia-Think-Tank) complex in which the NYT is right there in the middle, the fulcrum – the key “M.”

Still, some Times editor apparently insisted on slipping in the important acknowledgment by Mr. Biden today that:

“Neither the US or NATO have missiles in Ukraine. We do not, do not have plans to put them there as well.” [Emphasis added.]

Biden made this commitment to Putin during the telephone call of Dec. 30 that Putin had urgently requested. It amounts to a major concession and enabled Moscow to conclude that at least one or two of Biden’s retinue – or Biden himself – have their heads screwed on right.

In sum, at the risk of boring Antiwar.com readers who have heard this many times before, this issue represents the most fruitful negotiating path. A key remaining question is whether the MICIMATT can thwart it. All in all, yesterday gave a glimmer of hope that if others of the MEDIA follow AP’s example, US citizens will become better informed of the realities and thus be chary of giving credulity to officials like Jake Sullivan. As President Eisenhower warned 61 years ago, only “an informed citizenry” can prevent inordinate accretion of power by the MIC, the Military-Industrial-Complex.

*

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

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President’s Daily Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Featured image is licensed under the public domain

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Last summer, amid America’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, a dispute with France over nuclear submarines, and a speech to the United Nations in which President Biden declared, “America is back,” one criticism started appearing again and again: Joe Biden is just like Donald Trump.

If you squinted, you could see the broad outlines of a comprehensible critique—but it took a serious commitment to squinting to divine it. It went something a little like this: Biden was withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan, something Trump, who was often falsely labeled an isolationist, had set in motion. “America is back” kind of sounded like a friendlier version of “America First,” the Lindbergh-era slogan that Trump had revived—and Biden was putting America first by handing Afghanistan over to the Taliban. (Never mind that leaving Afghanistan was broadly popular with the public, that the last three presidents had pledged at various points to end U.S. involvement in the country, and that two decades of occupation had done little to prepare the country for life without the presence of American troops.)

On one point, however, there was some merit: On both the Afghanistan withdrawal and the conflict with France over a submarine deal, the Biden administration got tagged with the demerits associated with bungled execution and the creation of needless chaos—and in the case of the troop pullout, horrific suffering to boot. But Biden’s critics were mostly making the comparison because, well, at the time, what could be more damaging than glibly comparing the current president to his immediate predecessor?

But the foundation of Trump’s foreign policy wasn’t isolationism, it was graft. Trump wanted to use the military as a kind of hyped-up gang: running a protection racket in Europe while robbing nearly everywhere else blind—and encouraging a small universe of like-minded kleptocrats to do the same. If anything sums up Trump’s approach to foreign policy, it was his oft-repeated insistence that America’s biggest mistake in Iraq was our failure to “take the oil.” For Trump, the presence of the United States anywhere in the world demanded that we looted whatever was available to a strongman-backed military.

If those critiques of Biden’s foreign policy were a stretch back then, however, they have in recent days become considerably more apt. Shortly after the Taliban seized power in August, the United States froze $7 billion in assets that the previous Afghan government had at New York’s Federal Reserve. Last week, it announced that it would be dividing those assets, instead of handing them back to those who need them most, while skimming off some plunder: $3.5 billion would go to humanitarian aid for the people of Afghanistan, who are currently suffering through a horrific famine, with nearly 20 million at risk of going hungry. And the other $3.5 billion would be redistributed to the families of victims of the September 11 attacks.

This last point is an outrage—it’s particularly unconscionable given that the current humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan is perhaps the largest in the world right now. Throughout the two-decade-long conflict, the United States has taken pains to insist that it was fighting terrorist groups and the Taliban in Afghanistan over their role in facilitating a base of operations for Al Qaeda. It was the regime, and not the people of that country, who bore some responsibility for the September 11 attacks. The ostensible mission behind the continued involvement of the U.S. military in Afghanistan was to help those blameless people lead better lives.

This decision is a betrayal of all that, as well as a betrayal of Biden’s promise to build a foreign policy built on cooperation and mutual respect. It will have serious repercussions for Afghanistan’s financial future, preventing the country from establishing a sound monetary policy, possibly for years. But it will be especially damaging to the people of Afghanistan, who are currently in the throes of extraordinary suffering—nearly the entire country could be experiencing famine by the end of this year. “The decision would create a problematic precedent for commandeering sovereign wealth and do little to address underlying factors driving Afghanistan’s massive humanitarian crisis,” Human Rights Watch executive director John Sifton wrote in a statement.

There is no foreign policy argument for seizing this money; it seems only to come down to domestic political considerations. The Biden administration fears the repercussions of handing money over to the Taliban, but it also fears the potential political cost of redistributing it via humanitarian assistance—something that Donald Trump and his various disciples would likely seize on. The Biden administration has insisted on placing onerous financial restrictions on Afghanistan that make it nearly impossible to send money into the country, another decision that has been disastrous for the Afghan people.

It’s true that no one has any guarantee that the Taliban won’t use that money to enrich itself—but that can’t be squared with the decision to risk half the $7 billion kitty. Was the idea to simply steal as much as the Taliban might have done? This is not a decision guided by an authentic interest in ameliorating the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan.

All of this seems like some kind of cynical midterm election decision, designed to make up for the fact that the administration couldn’t or didn’t come through on a whole slew of popular policies to which it had been previously committed. If Biden’s administration goes through with this plan, it would be a moral black mark on top of previous bungles. Biden entered office vowing to restore America’s standing in the world. Stealing billions of dollars from some of the poorest people in the world is a strange way of fulfilling that promise.

*

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

Alex Shephard is a staff writer at The New Republic.

Featured image: An Afghan man and children, suffering hardships from America’s longest war, pose for a portrait in Kabul, Afghanistan, on March 19, 2021. [Source: theintercept.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.

***

A fortnight before the killing of ISIS leader Abu Ibrahim al-Qurayshi in Syria’s northwest Idlib enclave in a Delta Force raid on Feb. 3, hundreds of heavily armed ISIS militants allegedly attempted an audacious prison break in the Kurdish-held northeastern city al-Hasakah on Jan. 20, ferociously freeing hundreds of prisoners.

High-security al-Sina’a prison is one of several detention centers in Syria’s northeast guarded by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). The facility hosted 3,000 ISIS militants who were captured by the Kurds after the fall of the ISIS caliphate in 2019.

The ensuing ten-day manhunt to re-capture the escaped inmates and subdue the insurrection inside the prison lasted until Jan. 30, just two days before the killing of the ISIS leader. The death toll in the clearance operation was 500: 121 fatalities among the SDF, 374 suspected members of the Islamic State and four civilians, according to SDF sources.

Regarding the killing of the ISIS chief in the outskirts of Atmeh across the Turkish border, just 15 miles from Barisha village where his predecessor al-Baghdadi was killed in a similar Special Ops night raid in Oct. 2019, the Washington Post reported [1] on Feb. 10 that the hideout of the ISIS leader was disclosed on a tip-off from Kurdish sources of SDF, which President Biden effusively praised in the official announcement of the killing of al-Qurayshi following the raid.

The information regarding the whereabouts of the ISIS leader was obtained last fall, several months before the raid, the Delta Force commandos began preparing for the operation late Sept., and President Biden authorized the raid on Dec. 20.

The report notes:

“The officials said Qurayshi — distinctive because of the leg, which CIA analysts think was amputated after injuries suffered in a 2015 airstrike — was sometimes spotted outside the house, or when taking brief strolls through the olive trees.

“Word eventually made its way to informants who work for the Syrian Democratic Forces, a mainly Kurdish militia group closely allied to the United States, current and former U.S. officials said. Intensive surveillance began immediately afterward, with Kurdish watchers following the arrivals and departures of armed men who trudged upstairs to meet with Qurayshi.”

Thus, the Kurdish leadership of SDF was frequently consulted by the US forces in Syria during the months-long manhunt for the ISIS chief and was kept informed of the movements of al-Qurayshi’s couriers.

A glaring contradiction in the Kurdish account of the events leading to the jailbreak in al-Hasakah is that if the US claims the ISIS leader remained in operational command via a network of couriers who were closely monitored and their communications intercepted by the CIA, then how is it possible that the fugitive ISIS chief staged a brazen prison break at al-Hasakah, hundreds of miles from his northwestern Idlib hideout, without the knowledge of the US forces tracking him down?

The report adds:

“After a two-year manhunt, the elusive Qurayshi had been spotted, first by informants on the ground, and then that tip was confirmed by the drone’s telescopic lens. For U.S. officials involved in the search, two questions remained. One was how to kill or capture him while minimizing risk to U.S. forces and to the more than a dozen women and children who lived in the same building. The other: whether to strike quickly, or to wait and try to gather more information about Qurayshi’s far-flung network of underground terrorist cells.

“The waiting, which ultimately stretched over several months, proved to be worthwhile […] There was foot traffic: couriers and communication between cells,’ said a former senior intelligence official briefed on the events. ‘They milked it, to collect as much data as they could. They had to see who he was talking to.’

“The picture of Qurayshi that emerged from the surveillance is that of a hands-on commander who was firmly in charge of his organization and harbored ambitions for re-establishing the self-declared Islamist caliphate that once controlled a territory the size of England. His intensive involvement in operational planning made Qurayshi especially dangerous, officials said. But over time, it also made him more vulnerable.

“‘He was very much in command,’ a senior Biden administration official said of Qurayshi, a 45-year-old Iraqi who was born Amir Mohammed al-Mawli al-Salbi […] ‘His lieutenants and couriers were very active,’ the official said, in ‘making sure that his commands and orders were known.’”

Clearly, either there are inaccuracies in the Washington Post report pieced together from insider accounts of the details of operational planning of the raid revealed to the paper by “credible” Biden administration officials on the condition of anonymity and the fugitive ISIS leader wasn’t in command, or if he was actively directing the operational planning of the terrorist organization through a web of couriers tracked by the CIA, then how did the premier intelligence agency overlook his orders to mount an audacious jailbreak in al-Hasakah and didn’t give forewarning to the Kurdish SDF allies of imminent storming of the detention center by hundreds of heavily armed ISIS militants?

According to Syrian sources who refused to divulge identities due to fear of repercussions, what really transpired at the high-security al-Sina’a prison was that the Kurdish guards of the penitentiary incited an insurrection on the night of Jan. 20 and let hundreds of prisoners escape. Then the SDF forces mounted a ten-day manhunt for the fugitives and killed hundreds of unarmed prisoners who were hiding in adjacent areas.

US air support was occasionally requested to mount random airstrikes on indiscriminate targets often hosting the escaped ISIS militants and sometimes civilians. The whole orchestrated show was led by irregular SDF militias while a handful Special Ops units assisting the Kurds were kept at safe distance to avoid unnecessary loss of precious American lives.

Although the SDF might have suffered negligible casualties in skirmishes with the fugitives, majority of the death toll was among the prisoners, which the SDF refused to host in the first place and was asking third countries for their repatriation.

Biden’s abrupt withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan last August and consequent overrunning of the country by the Taliban is indicative of his inclination to disengage from myriad conflicts of the Middle East and bring troops back to the US.

The false-flag prison break by the SDF was a desperate attempt by the Kurds to keep the specter of the ISIS resurgence alive after the fall of the militant group’s caliphate in 2019 and the killing of both the caliphs, and to keep the US forces engaged in the Syrian conflict, the Kurds’ only assurance against overrunning of their newly acquired territories in eastern Syria by organized and well-armed Turkish and Syrian security forces.

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, in Syria’s northwest Idlib enclave controlled by the regional US ally, Turkey.

Thus, the principal rationale for keeping the US forces in Syria is no longer valid. Biden would’ve withdrawn troops long ago, not only from Syria but also from Iraq, whose legislators passed a parliamentary resolution asking the US to withdraw its forces from the country following the killing of venerated commander of IRGC’s Quds Force General Qassem Soleimani who was assassinated in an American airstrike on a tip-off from the Israeli intelligence at the Baghdad airport on January 3, 2020.

Following the dismantling of the ISIS caliphate in 2019, Biden would’ve withdrawn US forces from Iraq, which have repeatedly come under rocket fire from Iran-backed Iraqi militias, as soon as he was inaugurated president in Jan. 2021. The only reason he cannot withdraw troops from Iraq is because the US forces in Iraq have been deployed in support of contingents of American troops stationed across the border in Kurdish-held regions in eastern Syria and at al-Tanf.

Al-Tanf military base is strategically located in southeastern Syria on the border between Syria, Iraq and Jordan, and straddles a critically important Damascus-Baghdad highway, which serves as a lifeline for Damascus. Washington has illegally occupied 55-kilometer area around al-Tanf since 2016, and several hundred US Marines have trained thousands of Syrian militants at the sprawling military base.

Rather than battling the Islamic State, the foremost purpose of continued presence of the US forces at al-Tanf military base is to address Israel’s security concerns regarding the expansion of Iran’s influence in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

Nevertheless, it’s worth pointing out that the orchestrated jailbreak wasn’t the only incident when the Kurdish-led SDF has shown utter disregard for civilian casualties in its all-out war on Syrian Arabs.

Five years following a potentially catastrophic incident that could’ve inundated Islamic State’s former capital Raqqa and many towns downstream Euphrates River in eastern Syria and caused more deaths than the deployment of any weapon of mass destruction, the New York Times reported last month [2] that at the height of US-led international coalition’s war against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, US B-52 bombers struck Tabqa Dam with 2,000-pound bombs, including at least one bunker-busting bomb that fortunately didn’t explode.

In March 2017, alternative media was abuzz with reports that the dam was about to collapse and entire civilian population downstream Euphrates River needed to be urgently evacuated to prevent the inevitable catastrophe. But Washington issued a gag order to the corporate media “not to sensationalize the issue.”

The explosive report noted that the dam was contested between the US-backed and Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, the Syrian government and the Islamic State. A firefight broke out in which SDF incurred heavy casualties. It was then that a top secret US special operations unit Task Force 9 called for airstrikes on the dam after repeated requests from the Kurdish leadership of the SDF.

“The explosions on March 26, 2017, knocked dam workers to the ground. A fire spread and crucial equipment failed. The flow of the Euphrates River suddenly had no way through, the reservoir began to rise and authorities used loudspeakers to warn people downstream to flee.

“The Islamic State group, the Syrian government and Russia blamed the United States, but the dam was on the US military’s ‘no-strike list’ of protected civilian sites, and the commander of the US offensive at the time, then-Lt. Gen. Stephen J. Townsend, said allegations of US involvement were based on ‘crazy reporting.’”

*

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

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] With watchers on the ground and spy drones overhead, U.S. zeroed in on Islamic State leader’s hideout

[2] A dam in Syria was on a ‘no-strike’ list. The US bombed it anyway

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

Voices from Syria (Second Edition) (PDF)

Author: Mark Taliano

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-9-1

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Price: $5.00

Click here 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.

***

On Saturday, February 12, military tensions between the West and Russia reached a new peak after the Russian Navy confirmed the sighting of an American submarine near the Kuril Islands, sailing in Russian waters without authorization. The submarine was detected by Russian observers during military exercises in the region and led Moscow to release a note discouraging the US government from this type of maneuver and reaffirming the Russian right to self-defense.

The sighting was made on Saturday morning, in the Urup region. The American Virginia-class submarine entered an area where routine military exercises were being operated by the Russian Pacific Fleet. When approached by the Russian Navy, the submarine’s crew ignored requests made in both Russian and English languages to return to the surface, which led the Russian naval command to fire the frigate “Marshall Shaposhnikov” and use appropriate methods to force the submarine to retreat as quickly as possible.

The news of the submarine’s entry into Russian waters quickly spread, generating outrage and demanding responses from Washington. The attitude of the US Navy, however, was only to deny that violation of Russian territorial waters had actually taken place. These were the words of Navy Capt. Kyle Raines, spokesperson for the United States Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM): “There is no truth to the Russian claims of our operations in their territorial waters. I will not comment on the precise location of our submarines but we do fly, sail, and operate safely in international waters”.

Interestingly, the spokesperson did not provide any details about the submarine’s exact location, only stating that the Russian report was false, without any counterargument. No other explanation statement has been made by American officials so far. The Russian Defense Ministry issued a note to the US military attaché in Moscow stating that the Kuril Islands’ submarine incident represents a serious violation of international law that cannot be tolerated, but there has yet been no response.

From a purely realistic point of view, the Russian allegations seem more likely to be true than the American ones, considering that the Russian Navy provided precise details about the incident, while American forces were only concerned with denying the case, without offering any data, explanations, or conclusive answers. As Russia first took the floor in claiming the violation of its territory, it is up to the US to prove, with plausible evidence, that such an episode is really “Russian fake news”.

Obviously, the hypothesis of an involuntary territorial waters violation cannot be ruled out. There are many factors, both technical and natural, that can cause vessels to deviate from their routes and enter unknown or unwanted areas. It is possible that the American submarine entered Russian waters due to an involuntary deviation from its original routes, especially considering the region’s proximity to Japan, a country where the US Navy routinely carries out war exercises. However, the reason for the silence of the crew in the face of the attempted contact made by the Russian ship remains unexplained in this hypothesis.

Ignoring contact attempts by military personnel from other countries is a major breach of decorum among armed forces around the world. It is very unlikely that such a lack of response to Russian contact would occur if the American crew were actually “distracted” from their original route. There seems to have been no good faith on the part of the US Navy, whose attitude was simply to ignore the call and flee.

The real intent of the American submarine is still an unanswered question. It is possible that an espionage mission was taking place, with the US Navy trying to collect data on Russian fleet exercises in the Pacific. But it is unlikely that such an indiscreet method would be used for this type of situation. What seems more plausible, indeed, is that there was a public provocation with the sole purpose to trigger a violent reaction from Russian forces which would be promptly condemned by the US and would “justify” an American response. In the current moment of polarization and tensions between the West and Russia, Washington would try to argue that Moscow maintains an aggressive posture in the Pacific, justifying new sanctions.

However, the Russian attitude has been peaceful, just inducing the invasive submarine to retreat, which makes it clear that the US Navy adopts an aggressive and illegal posture in the Pacific.

It is also necessary to mention that the Virginia is a class of nuclear submarines, which makes the case even more serious.

*

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

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

Featured image: The USS John Warner, a nuclear-powered submarine of the type Australia will soon be developing. Source: US Navy

All Global Research articles 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.

***

With the stroke of a pen and an announcement from a podium, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has essentially declared himself supreme dictator over the nation on our northern border.

We now have a full-on totalitarian regime adjacent to the United States. This is no small development. So let’s break it down.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has condemned Trudeau for invoking the Emergencies Act, claiming in a tweet that the Canadian federal government “has not met the threshold necessary” to do so.

The Emergencies Act can only be invoked when a situation "seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada" & when the situation "cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada."

— Canadian Civil Liberties Association (@cancivlib) February 15, 2022

“The Emergencies Act can only be invoked when a situation “seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada” and when the situation “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada,” the Twitter thread continues.

By invoking this Act, the first time it’s ever been done in Canadian history, Trudeau has essentially declared a form of martial law. This petty dictator has apparently made himself available to the global predators and offered up his country to be the first in the formerly Free World to transition from freedom into the grand utopia of the Great Reset.

And we thought it would take a war or an economic collapse to get the Western democracies to implement the Great Reset. No. It can be done with the stroke of a pen under the guise of a fake “emergency.”

This form of martial law targets a select group of Canadians who are exercising their right to peaceful protest under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but now they have been branded as criminals. Bank accounts are being frozen with no due process, licenses suspended, people arrested.

But according to the Civil Liberties Association, Trudeau is illegally invoking the Act because the nation has not met the threshold laid out in the law to qualify as a legitimate national emergency.

Lori Williams, a politics professor at Mount Royal University in Calgary, told Reuters that “there’s the danger this could create more problems,” calling the powers “enormous.”

“That’s why this has to be done with the cooperation of premiers and if they don’t want help, then the federal government needs to hang back.”

Leah West, an assistant professor at Carleton University in Ottawa, doubted the move met the standards, posting on Twitter that the country’s sovereignty is not endangered by the largely non-violent protests.

So who is the real criminal here?

This should be a lesson for all Americans and citizens of other Wester nations. Trudeau is obviously not the person in charge of making such drastic decisions, no more than Biden is in charge here in Washington, D.C., or Macron is in charge in Paris or Johnson in London.

Trudeau answers to the Davos elites committed to the agenda of the World Economic Forum.  We have already covered that in our recent three-part series here at LeoHohmann.com and if you haven’t read those yet, I encourage you to do so.

• Globalists are coming for your cars, your cash and your bodily integrity
• Globalists aren’t just coming for your cars and your cash; they also want your steaks, burgers and bacon
• Klaus Schwab’s puppet Young Global Leaders revealed

The World Economic Forum globalists play dirty. That’s why we call them global predators. They hire and train politicians who are known psychopaths like Trudeau in Canada and Macron in France, or sell outs like Obama/Biden in the U.S. and Ardern in New Zealand.

None of Trudeau’s actions should be viewed as that of a national leader. He is simply implementing the tactics he learned at WEF founder Klaus Schwab’s Young Global Leaders program, from which he is a graduate.

Hence, any of the other Western nations now being “led” by politicians also committed to the WEF vision of the world would act exactly the same way given the same set of circumstances in their countries.

We know Biden is one of their cronies. He even named his landmark piece of legislation after the WEF slogan, “Build Back Better.”

The global predators knew their forced masking and mandated injections would eventually lead to worldwide uprisings and civil unrest. They predicted it in the Rockefeller Foundation document from 2010 called Lockstep. How to handle these popular uprisings was all discussed and rehearsed ahead of time – label them as criminals and hit them where it hurts, shut down their finances.

This is the Great Reset, in our faces. You obey, you get to keep a semblance of your normal life, though it will be nothing like your pre-Covid life. You disobey your new masters and you get otherized and canceled from society. We’ve been talking about the Great Reset in theory for a year and a half. Now we have a clear example of how it works, right over our northern border.

In some ways, Trudeau’s invoking of the Emergencies Act is worse than a military martial law. This is digital/economic warfare against the Canadian population. At least with the military you can see the enemy. This is worse.

Trudeau didn’t even have to stage a false flag attack like Hitler did with the Reichstag fire. All he had to do was use his state-run media to label his political opponents, who are entirely peaceful, as white nationalist extremists. The state-funded Canadian media happily went along with his game plan. The U.S. media would do the same.

Trudeau has empowered banks to go after his political opponents while releasing these banks from all legal liability for their actions. This man is a traitor to his nation and his people. A monster.

We have the same NWO freaks in every Western capital, ready to follow Trudeau’s example should their people get out of line.

We also have them in the churches.

Bergoglio in the Vatican is another one of their henchmen, willing to advocate any policy, no matter how anti-God and anti-human, if the order is given by the right elitist power broker. We know he’s friends with Schwab.

Lest you think only the Catholics have their players in this realm, think again. On the Protestant side they’ve got preachers like Franklin Graham, Tim Keller, Rick Warren, Robert Jeffress, TD Jakes and many others willing to whore themselves out for the New World Order.

Knowingly or unknowingly, the leaders of almost every 501c3 church, when push comes to shove, will toe the line of the new world order’s Great Reset and Fourth Industrial Revolution. Many are signing up now for Mark Zuckerberg’s Metaverse church services. Zuck is another graduate of Schwab’s Young Global Leaders program.

Take heed, Patriots. They are coming after your bank account.

Tribulation is here, folks. Whether you want to assign a capital “T” or a small “t” to that word, it’s here. God have mercy. Christ have mercy.

*

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

Featured image is from LeoHohmann.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.

***

While the situation in the Donbas becomes more and more scorching, on the eve of the talk with Putin, Biden convened on 11 February what is in fact NATO and the European Union war council: the Secretary-General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg, the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the French President Emmanuel Macron, the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, the Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, the Polish President Andrzej Duda, the Romanian President Klaus Iohannis, the Canadian Premier Justin Trudeau, flanked by the President of the European Council Charles Michel and the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen. The NATO-EU war council made it clear that “if Russia carries out a further invasion of Ukraine, the United States together with its Allies and partners will respond decisively and impose immediate and severe costs on Russia”.

This is what Biden said the day after to Putin on behalf of the United States but also of NATO and the European Union. It was a total rejection of any negotiation, in fact, a war declaration signed by Italy at the hands of Mario Draghi under the eyes of a silent and consenting Parliament.

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

The Pentagon is withdrawing 160 military instructors from Ukraine who have trained the forces in Kyiv. However, there remain military advisers and instructors belonging to the US and NATO Special Forces, who are in fact  Kyiv Army and National Guard direction.

In the front row the neo-Nazi Azov battalion, which was already distinguished for its ferocity against the Russian populations of the Donbas, and was promoted for its merits as a special forces mechanized regiment armed and trained by NATO. It has the same insignia as the SS Das Reich Panzer Division, one of the 200 Hitler’s divisions that invaded the Soviet Union in 1941.

They were defeated, but the price paid by the Soviet Union was very high: about 27 million deaths, over half of the victims were civilians corresponding to the 15% of the population (compared to 0.3% of  US human losses in the whole  World War Two); about 5 million deportees were sent to Germany; over 1,700 cities and large settlements, 70,000 small villages, 30,000 factories were destroyed.

All this is dangerously forgotten, while Russia continues to uselessly repeat that it does not intend to attack Ukraine, and denounces the growing concentration of troops in Kyiv in front of the Donbas area inhabited by Russian populations. Here, Kyiv has deployed over 150,000 soldiers.

They are equipped with Grad rocket vehicles, each is capable of firing up to 40 kilometers in 20 seconds time, forty 122 mm rockets with high-explosive warheads which deflagrating cover a large area with thousands of sharp metal fragments or small delayed blast bombs. A large-scale attack with weapons of this type against the inhabitants of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions would cause a massacre and could not be stopped by the local forces made of about 35,000 men.

War might break out with a false flag operation.

Moscow denounces the presence in Donbas of US mercenaries with chemical weapons. The fuse could be a provocation such as an attack on a Ukrainian town attributed to the Donbas Russians who would be attacked by the overwhelming Kyiv forces. The Russian Federation has warned that in such a situation it would not stand by and watch, but would intervene in defense of the Donbas Russians destroying the attacking forces.

Thus, a war would explode in the heart of Europe to the benefit of the United States which through NATO – 21 nations out of  27 EU countries belong to NATO – and through the collaboration of the European Union would bring Europe back to a similar but even more dangerous situation than the Cold War, strengthening  US influence and presence in the European region.

*

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

This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The US and its allies have already set the scene for Revolution 2.0 in Syria. The question is whether their plan is to extract concessions from Russia over Ukraine, or to go full out and risk a West Asia-wide conflagration.

With new political, military, and economic tensions escalating between the United States and its NATO allies on the one hand, and China, Russia, North Korea and Iran on the other – including the Taiwan front in East Asia, and Ukraine in central Europe – we are now witnessing accelerated plans to activate new crises in West Asia, from Syria to Iraq to the war on Yemen.

Let us leave the situation in Iraq and Yemen aside, temporarily, and focus on Syria. The country has experienced an atmosphere of relative calm, or rather a ‘stalemate,’ in the past few years, after the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) regained more than 70 percent of its territory.

This period of calm has also seen the decline of the so-called Syrian opposition, both politically and militarily, in the city of Idlib and its vicinity, as well as in other areas in northeastern Syria, currently under the umbrella of US forces.

There are, however, several international and regional indications that the dormant Syrian ‘opposition’ is on its way to being reactivated again.

*

It is likely this reactivation may appear in a more ferocious form than the militancy that was unleashed at the beginning of the Syrian crisis in March 2011. Numerous indications of this have already emerged:

First, Russian foreign intelligence on Tuesday unveiled US plans to support armed groups in Syria, and ‘Islamic’ extremists in particular, to intensify their attacks against Syrian, Russian and Iranian forces in Tawaz, while igniting and encouraging ‘peaceful’ protests deep within Syria.

Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) reported that US government agencies are “planning to task extremist ‘sleeper cells’ in Damascus…and Latakia province [by] staging pinpoint attacks against Syrian law enforcers, and Russian and Iranian military personnel.”

Russia’s Deputy Envoy at the UN Gennady Kuzmin told the UN Security Council on Wednesday that

“The problem of terrorist threats in northeastern Syria is pressing. The US troops that are illegally deployed there cannot bring order. Or they don’t want to.”

In what appears as a reference to the mass ISIS jailbreak in Hasakah from a US-controlled area in late-January, Kuzmin added that “the atmosphere of a power void and impunity around the US forces’ deployment areas serves as a nourishing ground for terrorists of all stripes.”

The second indicator points to the statement issued by the Russian Intelligence Service, which says that the US administration is seeking to maintain its military presence in northeastern Syria, prevent the stability of Syria, rehabilitate the leadership of the Syrian opposition, and unite its ranks, Kurdish or Arab.

The US plan will be carried out through the exploitation of the current decline in economic conditions, basic services, and a significant weakening in the price of local currency, due to the suffocating US blockade.

According to the statement, the US will launch a “vast media campaign” on Arabic-speaking social media to incite Syrians to again take to the streets and squares, in the capital Damascus, and the cities of Aleppo, Homs and Latakia to push the regime to use the ‘violent’ iron fist in the face of ‘peaceful’ protests.

In other words, a re-play of the Deraa scenario in early 2011.

The third indicator was the two-day conference that took place last Saturday in Qatar’s capital city, Doha, which re-united various Syrian opposition figures on the subjects of reform and the future of Syria.

The conference – a culmination of a series of workshops held in a selection of European capitals – was launched by the renegade former Syrian prime minister, Riad Hijab, and included the representatives of Qatari, Arab, and international research centers, as well as more than 60 Syrian opposition figures.

Qatari authorities provided full support for this seminar, which Al Jazeera and its sister channels covered with remarkable intensity.

The fourth indicator relates to Algeria’s multiple efforts to hold an Arab summit in which Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will participate, and Syria’s seat in the Arab League will be restored. These efforts have failed, in part because Qatar has been the most fierce opponent to the rehabilitation of Syria at the Arab League.

And finally, fifth, is the out-of-the-blue assassination of the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi, at the hands of US special forces in Turkish controlled areas in Syria.

Al-Quraishi was attacked in his home, in the north of Idlib, in an attack that has no documented audio or image evidence, similar to the previous assassinations of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and, before him, Osama bin Laden – but entirely unlike the execution of Saddam Hussein and the killing of his two sons.

This ‘assassination’ may, of course, just be a cover for the new US plan to restart covert communications with and support for radical Islamist militants, while publicly suggesting that the US continues to target them as ‘terrorist organizations.’

*

Quraishi’s sudden killing in Syria during the dangerous stand-off between NATO and Russia raised some questions in Washington as well. Former US Air Force Special Operations Joint Terminal Attack controller, Ethan Brown, pondered aloud in The Hill about “its “timing and the curious proximity to the crisis in Ukraine.”

Brown asks whether “the execution of a [US] military operation outside of a declared was zone in the Middle East…is somehow a credible deterrent to Russian actions elsewhere.” Then straight-out declares: “Make no mistake, the two unique situations are intertwined.”

On Tuesday, Lt. Gen. Erik Kurilla, tapped to be the next commander of the US Central Command (CENTCOM), told the Senate Armed Services Committee that if Russia invades Ukraine, it could create broader instability in West Asia, including Syria.

This week, the Israelis struck Syria heavily again, just two weeks after the Russians and Syrians launched their first joint jet patrols over the Syrian-Israel border. This time, Moscow reacted strongly, calling Tel Aviv’s actions “a crude violation of Syria’s sovereignty” that “may trigger a sharp escalation of tensions.”

The escalation in Syria, likely connected to Washington’s Ukraine strategy, has already started. The question is whether the protagonists will merely stage some events as a threat – or go all out.

*

The Syrian opposition launched its first ‘movement’ 11 years ago in Doha, and it seems that the attempt to revive it will also take place in the same place.

The official statement of the meeting outlined its “aims to try to find mechanisms of action to promote the performance of the opposition and discuss how to get the political transition out of the current global warming.”

“The Biden administration wants 2022 to be the year of qualifying Syrian opposition forces to be ready to replace the regime in any change that may occur,” Syrian opposition media outlet Orient Net stated in a report broadcast two months ago.

The report also revealed that US Deputy Secretary of State Eitan Goldrich had met with Syrian opposition leaders in Istanbul, Qamishli, and Gaziantep late last year to prepare for the new US scenario in Syria.

Will this new US plan work in Syria? Has the suffocating US blockade on Syria, imposed for this purpose 11 years ago, reap its harvest? Will this attempt fare any better than the first? Will funding come from Gulf financiers themselves? And how will the axis of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and Syria respond?

We leave the answer for the coming weeks and months.

*

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

Featured image is from The Cradle

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

How they must be laughing in the Kremlin. Western policy towards Ukraine is evolving from the ridiculous to the positively surreal. Thus the latest demonstration of the West’s unbreakable commitment to Ukraine and to future Ukrainian NATO membership is — to evacuate Western diplomats from Kiev, before a single shot has been fired, and while Russia continues to deny that it has any intention of invading. At this rate, Russia will have no need whatsoever to do so. President Putin can enjoy a quiet cup of coffee while Western governments run around squawking hysterically, and NATO’s credibility collapses along with the Ukrainian economy.

The United States, Canada, and Britain — the countries that have been among the loudest in their calls for a strong line against Russia — have withdrawn their military and civilian officials from the OSCE mission monitoring the ceasefire line between Ukrainian and pro-Russian separatist forces in the Donbas. Military trainers from these countries have also been withdrawn, and airlines are cancelling services.

What sort of signal of Western resolve does this decision send? And much more importantly, what does it say about the present character of Western civilization? NATO is beginning to resemble a confederation of capons — emasculated roosters who in this case have unfortunately retained the ability to strut and crow.

Nobody is suggesting that Western diplomats should fight, let alone give up their lives in some desperate last stand against Russian tanks. What we can ask is that they stay in their embassies and continue to do their duty, in the face of some small amount of risk. Individual diplomats are not to blame for this shameful flight — but the governments and official cultures of their countries most certainly are, especially after the way in which Western embassies fled from Kabul.

Apart from the effect on what is left of the West’s reputation for courage and discipline, the consequences of this route for Ukraine and supposed Western interests there will be severe; for the effect is to undermine still further the already faltering Ukrainian economy and currency. Hence the tragicomic sight of the Ukrainian government, which has spent years talking up the Russian military threat to Ukraine, now desperately trying to talk it down again. On the other hand, this attempt by Kiev to reduce tension does reflect the feelings of the Ukrainian population, most of which seems vastly calmer than Western capitals.

However humiliating and contemptible, the evacuation of the diplomats (and the advice to all other Western citizens to leave Ukraine) could have one good result, assuming that Western political elites, media, and citizens are still capable of occasionally looking at themselves honestly in the mirror. For what it demonstrates beyond all possible remaining doubt is that the Western offer one day to admit Ukraine to NATO is totally empty.

From its very beginning, the expansion of NATO was predicated on the conviction that NATO would never have to fight to defend its new members. To take Ukraine into NATO however means being prepared to fight hard to defend it against Russia — and that is something that NATO is completely, innately incapable of doing.

The Ukrainian government, and Ukrainian citizens should also pay attention. For all that Ukraine’s search for NATO membership is doing, has done, and will continue to do is to create a terribly damaging and dangerous crisis with Russia without strengthening Ukrainian security or real Western commitment to Ukraine in the slightest. To drop this manifestly pointless pursuit would be good for Europe, the world, and above all Ukraine itself.

*

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

Featured image: Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in Kyiv, Ukraine, on May 6, 2021. [State Department photo by Ron Przysucha]

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

While the administration of President Joe Biden is consistently escalating tensions between the Russian Federation and the United States over the status of Ukraine, the people of Afghanistan are condemning the expropriation of billions of dollars by the White House in an ongoing attempt to cripple the government in Kabul.

Although it does not appear that the majority of people in Ukraine, both within and outside the government, wants war with Moscow, the international community is reminded of the coup which occurred in February 2014 when the administration of former President Barack Obama engineered a removal of the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych.

The withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Afghanistan in August 2021, weakened the image of the White House under Biden. Perhaps Biden is attempting to regain a portion of the perceived military prowess of Washington by provoking an incident with Moscow over the independence of Ukraine.

With specific reference to Afghanistan in the aftermath of the Pentagon, State Department and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) removal, the Biden administration has sought to starve the population. The assets which rightfully belonged to the Afghan people were confiscated by the U.S. at the time of the rapid retreat.

Just recently the Biden administration announced that it will redirect half of the $7 billion of Afghanistan funds being held in U.S. banks to victims of the attacks on September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Yet there has never been any substantiated proof that the Taliban, the ruling organization in Kabul, was directly responsible for these hijackings and crashes.

Moreover, there has never been any mention by Biden of the horrendous crimes committed by the U.S. occupation forces during their 20-year stint in Afghanistan. Thousands of Pentagon troops and contractors were killed along with hundreds of thousands of Afghan fighters and civilians. It was the U.S. which invaded and occupied Afghanistan in an effort to remake the country as an outpost of imperialism in Central Asia.

An article published by Newsweek on February 15 said:

“’[The attacks on] 9/11 had nothing to do with Afghans,’ said one sign at a protest attended by more than 3,000 people. ‘Shame Shame Mr. Biden, you kill us, you bomb us and now you steal our money.’ The legality of such a move has also been questioned by Afghans, including financial adviser Torek Farhadi. ‘These reserves belong to the people of Afghanistan, not the Taliban,’ Farhadi told the Associated Press. ‘Biden’s decision is one-sided and does not match with international law. No other country on Earth makes such confiscation decisions about another country’s reserves.’ This is a belief that many Afghans who have been protesting the reserve split have agreed with. One of the core messages of the recent protests was that Afghanistan, as a country, was not responsible for the September 11 attacks. Thus, they should not have to pay the victims of the attack or their families.”

Such decisions by the Biden White House can only aggravate the existing tensions between Washington, its allies, and Kabul. The withholding of even more Afghan funds from the Taliban government undoubtedly lessens the prospects for normalization of relations.

The Deteriorating Humanitarian Crisis

During the course of the two decades of U.S. occupation in Afghanistan, the people of the country suffered immensely. Even prior to 2001, the U.S. had been involved in destabilizing the former socialist-oriented government since the late 1970s.

Therefore, successive administrations in Washington are responsible for the current humanitarian crisis involving the lack of a functioning monetary system and food insecurity impacting the overwhelming majority of the population. Rather than seizing control of Afghan assets, the U.S., in fact, owes huge sums of money in reparations to the country.

The redeployment of Pentagon troops and all U.S. personnel coincided with the further weakening of Afghanistan’s national infrastructure. The banking system was dislodged by the fleeing U.S. occupation forces while thousands of people employed by the apparatus established to facilitate the war operations, lost their jobs. Existing businesses and public institutions have been left without the ability to deposit and withdraw funds to pay employees.

Estimates suggest that 97% of the Afghan population are living below the poverty line with no immediate hope for a rise in income. 23 million people, more than half of the population of nearly 40 million, are facing extreme food deficits leaving the country on the brink of famine.

The International Rescue Committee (IRC) issued a report on February 15 warning of a potentially horrendous situation in Afghanistan. This agency does relief work in some of the most distressed geo-political regions in the world. The organization has been involved in Afghanistan since 1988 during the concluding period of Soviet intervention in support of the former socialist-oriented government.

Since the exit of tens of thousands of U.S. troops, State Department functionaries and assistants from the occupied territory, the Biden administration has literally turned its back on the country. This lack of interest or engagement could be aimed at removing the specter of the Afghan military failure from the political consciousness of the people in the U.S. and their western allies. It could also be a method of punishing the Taliban government for its defeat of the U.S. which had placed enormous resources in what inevitably became a resounding failure.

Afghanistan crisis infographic (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

In a statement issued by IRC Afghanistan country director Vicki Aken in regard to the humanitarian crisis, she emphasized:

“The IRC works across dozens of crisis and conflict settings, but we have not seen an entire country deteriorate this fast in recent years. Since August, the international community has cut off non-humanitarian funding, which amounted to 40 per cent of GDP and propped up 75 percent of public spending, including basic services. This economic crisis is contributing to a catastrophic humanitarian emergency that has left a quarter of the population facing the risk of famine – the largest population experiencing such extreme levels of hunger in the world. Afghan families are being forced into more and more desperate measures of survival. Mothers and their children are sitting in snowfall, begging for money; parents are forced to sell their daughters into early marriage to bring cash for their families.”

Aken believes that the looming famine could result in the deaths of more people than during the twenty years long occupation by the Pentagon and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Unless action is taken in the short term, the outcomes will compound the nature of the war crimes committed by the U.S. in Afghanistan. The IRC says emphatically that the current situation in Afghanistan is a direct result of the foreign policies of the U.S. and its allies.

Britain has announced that it will co-host with the United Nations a donors’ conference to support Afghanistan. The conference will seek to fulfill what is the largest ever UN appeal for a single country, $4.4 billion.

Foreign Secretary Liz Truss outlined the purpose of the conference emphasizing:

“The conference is a critical moment for the international community to step up support in an effort to stop the growing humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. The scale of need is unparalleled, and consequences of inaction will be devastating. The UK is determined to lead the global effort. We will bring international allies together to raise vital aid to deliver food, shelter and health services, protect women and girls and support stability in the region.”

The U.S. Should Not Be Allowed to Avoid Responsibility for the Crisis

As the British government makes an announcement of its intentions to support Afghanistan, historically several different Conservative and Labor administrations in London have followed Washington’s lead in waging war in Central Asia. British troops served and died as well in the failed Afghan war that destroyed the country.

However, the major culprit in the decades of war and underdevelopment is the U.S. These interventions, including and by no means limited to Afghanistan, is the major source of much of the instability in the world.

At present the world is experiencing unprecedented levels of dislocation. The number of refugees, internally displaced and stateless persons exceeds 82 million. This figure represents far more than those who were forced from their homes during World War II. (See this)

Over the previous three decades, the U.S., NATO and their allies have deployed millions of troops to destabilize, rob, bomb, maim, kill and occupy peoples from Iraq to Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Haiti, among other states. The only solution to this crisis is the defunding of the Pentagon and the dismantling of Pentagon military bases internationally.

*

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

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

Featured image is from OffGuardian