All Global Research articles 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 investigation of Office for National Statistics data has revealed that since the Covid-19 vaccine began to be rolled-out to teenagers there has been a 53% rise in the number of deaths due to all-causes among males aged 15-19, and each spike in deaths correlates perfectly with a spike in administration of the first, second, and third doses of the Covid-19 injection to this age group.

Further investigation has also found that whilst Covid-19 deaths remained low among this age group following Covid-19 vaccination, they were still considerably higher than the negligible amount of deaths that had occurred before the Covid-19 vaccination was introduced.

Suggesting Covid-19 vaccination may have in fact had a negative effect on the immune systems of the teenage boys, or deaths may have been misattributed as Covid-19 deaths, as has been so easily done since March 2020, to cover up the fact that the Covid-19 injections may have played a roll in the deaths.

The above graph has been plotted from data found within the 2020 edition of ‘Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales’, which can be downloaded here, and accessed on the ONS website here, and the 2021 edition of ‘Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, which can be downloaded here, and accessed on the ONS website here.

The graph shows the number of deaths registered each week throughout 2020 and 2021 among teenage boys aged 15-19, and we can clearly see that from week 18 onwards in 2021 there was a noticeable rise in deaths due to all causes among teenage boys compared to 2020, with things taking a turn for the worse from week 23.

For instance in week 26, despite the Covid-19 virus allegedly reaking havoc throughout the UK, there were just 2 deaths registered among male teens aged 15-19 in England and Wales. But fast forward one year and we can see that there were 19 deaths registered among male teens aged 15-19 in England and Wales during week 26. That represents a 850% increase.

The reason the increase in deaths among male teens occurring from week 18 onwards is concerning is because according to the following chart provided by the UK Health Security Agency in the Vaccine Surveillance reports, this is the point where a spike in vaccinations of 18 and 19 year-olds began, and around the same time some 16 and 17-year-olds began to be given the Covid-19 injection.

Source

Overall, according to the ONS reports there were a total of 434 deaths due to all causes among males aged 15-19 in England and Wales between week 1 and week 52 in 2020. However, between week 1 and week 52 in 2021 there were a total of 577 deaths among males aged 15-19 in England and Wales.

But what’s concerning here is that the number of deaths between week 1 and 17 in both years are almost identical, with 170 deaths occurring in 2020, and 172 deaths occurring in 2021.

The concerning difference in deaths only occurred after the Covid-19 vaccine was introduced to this age group. With 264 deaths occuring among males aged 15-19 between week 18 and week 52 in 2020, but 405 deaths occuring among males aged 15-19 between week 18 and week 52 in 2021.

This means deaths among males aged 15-19 increased by 53% following the introduction of the Covid-19 vaccine to this age-group compared to the same period in 2020.

Many people may try to shoot this statistic down by claiming Covid-19 was actually to blame, so we also analysed the number of Covid-19 deaths registered weekly among Males aged 15-19 in England and Wales throughout the whole of 2020 and 2021.

The following graph has again been plotted from data found within the 2020 edition of ‘Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales’, which can be downloaded here, and accessed on the ONS website here, and the 2021 edition of ‘Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, which can be downloaded here, and accessed on the ONS website here.

As we can see the number of Covid-19 deaths among males aged 15-19 in England and Wales has been pretty scarce over a period of two years. No more than 3 deaths have been registered in a single week. So therefore we can clearly see that Covid-19 does not play a major part in the 53% increase in deaths between week 18 and week 52 in 2021.

But this data does show something rather concerning, in that whilst Covid-19 deaths remained low they did actually increase significantly following the introduction of the Covid-19 vaccine to this population.

Between week 12 (start of Lockdown 1 in 2020) and week 17 in 2020 there were a grand total of 4 Covid-19 deaths among males aged 15-19 in England and Wales. During the same period in 2021 there was only a single death registered.

However, look at the difference between week 18-52 in 2020 and in 2021.

There were 2 Covid-19 deaths registered between week 18 and week 52 during 2020, but there were 11 Covid-19 deaths registered between week 18 and week 52 during 2021, despite the Covid-19 vaccination being introduced to this age group.

Therefore, following Covid-19 vaccination, Covid-19 deaths increased 450% compared to the number of Covid-19 deaths during the same time-frame in 2020 when there was no Covid-19 vaccine available.

This data therefore suggests that the Covid-19 vaccines have either had a negative effect on the immune systems of 15-19-year-old males, or deaths among this age-group have wrongly been misattributed as Covid-19 to cover-up the fact the Covid-19 vaccine may have had a roll in the deaths, and we can safely conclude that the Covid-19 vaccine is to blame for those deaths because of the following correlation we have unearthed.

The following three charts are taken from the UK Health Security Agency’s Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 1 – 2022, and they show the cumulative weekly vaccine uptake by age for dose 1, dose 2, and dose 3 of the Covid-19 vaccine.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-117-1024x629.png

What we can see here is that there was a clear spike in 1st doses administered among 18 and 19 year-olds between week 22 and week 27, and a clear spike in 1st doses administered among 16 and 17-year-olds between week 31 and week 36.

What we can see here is that there was a clear spike in 2nd doses administered to 18 and 19-year-olds between week 31 and week 37, as well as the start of 2nd doses being administered to vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds from week 18 onwards.

We can also see a clear spike in 2nd doses being administered to 16 and 17-year-olds between week 39 and 46, and between week 46 and 51.

What we can see here is a clear spike in 3rd doses being administered to 18 and 19-year-olds, between week 49 and 51, as well as the start of 3rd doses being administered to 16 and 17-year-olds from wek 49.

This is concerning because of the fact there were clear spikes in deaths among males aged 15-19 in England and Wales between week 23-30, week 33-36, week 39-46, and week 48-51.

Therefore the spikes in doses of Covid-19 vaccine being administered correlate perfectly with the spikes in deaths among males aged 15-19 during 2021, as we have shown in the following chart –

We’re sure there will be those who argue that correlation does not equal causation, but if you are going to argue that then please explain in as much depth as we have why deaths among teenage boys were virtually the same between week 1 and 17 in 2020 and 2021 but then increased by 53% between week 18 and 52 following the introduction of the Covid-19 vaccine to this age group.

*

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

Featured image is from The Last Refuge

After Kazakhstan, the Color Revolution Era Is Over

January 17th, 2022 by Pepe Escobar

All Global Research articles 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 year 2022 started with Kazakhstan on fire, a serious attack against one of the key hubs of Eurasian integration. We are only beginning to understand what and how it happened.

On Monday morning, leaders of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) held an extraordinary session to discuss Kazakhstan.

Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev framed it succinctly. Riots were “hidden behind unplanned protests.” The goal was “to seize power” – a coup attempt. Actions were “coordinated from a single center.” And “foreign militants were involved in the riots.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin went further: during the riots, “Maidan technologies were used,” a reference to the Ukrainian square where 2013 protests unseated a NATO-unfriendly government.

Defending the prompt intervention of CSTO peacekeeping forces in Kazakhstan, Putin said, “it was necessary to react without delay.” The CSTO will be on the ground “as long as necessary,” but after the mission is accomplished, “of course, the entire contingent will be withdrawn from the country.” Forces are expected to exit later this week.

But here’s the clincher: “CSTO countries have shown that they will not allow chaos and ‘color revolutions’ to be implemented inside their borders.”

Putin was in synch with Kazakh State Secretary Erlan Karin, who was the first, on the record, to apply the correct terminology to events in his country: What happened was a “hybrid terrorist attack,” by both internal and external forces, aimed at overthrowing the government.

The tangled hybrid web

Virtually no one knows about it. But last December, another coup was discreetly thwarted in the Kyrgyz capital, Bishkek. Kyrgyz intel sources attribute the engineering to a rash of NGOs linked with Britain and Turkey.

That introduces an absolutely key facet of The Big Picture: NATO-linked intel and their assets may have been preparing a simultaneous color revolution offensive across Central Asia.

On my Central Asia travels in late 2019, pre-Covid, it was plain to see how western NGOs – Hybrid War fronts – remained extremely powerful in both Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan.

Yet, they are just one nexus in a western nebulae of Hybrid War fog deployed across Central Asia, and West Asia for that matter. Here we see the CIA and the US Deep State crisscrossing MI6 and different strands of Turkish intel.

When President Tokayev was referring in code to a “single center,” he meant a so far ‘secret’ US-Turk-Israeli military-intel operations room based in the southern business hub of Almaty, according to a highly placed Central Asia intel source.

In this “center,” there were 22 Americans, 16 Turks and 6 Israelis coordinating sabotage gangs – trained in West Asia by the Turks – and then rat-lined to Almaty.

The op started to unravel for good when Kazakh forces – with the help of Russian/CSTO intel – retook control of the vandalized Almaty airport, which was supposed to be turned into a hub for receiving foreign military supplies.

The Hybrid War west had to be stunned and livid at how the CSTO intercepted the Kazakh operation at such lightning speed. The key element is that the secretary of Russian National Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, saw the Big Picture eons ago.

So, it’s no mystery why Russia’s aerospace and aero-transported forces, plus the massive necessary support infrastructure, were virtually ready to go.

Back in November, Patrushev’s laser was already focused on the degrading security situation in Afghanistan. Tajik political scientist Parviz Mullojanov was among the very few who were stressing that there were as many as 8,000 imperial machine Salafi-jihadi assets, shipped by a rat line from Syria and Iraq, loitering in the wilds of northern Afghanistan.

That’s the bulk of ISIS-Khorasan – or ISIS reconstituted near the borders of Turkmenistan. Some of them were duly transported to Kyrgyzstan. From there, it was very easy to cross the border from Bishek and show up in Almaty.

It took no time for Patrushev and his team to figure out, after the imperial retreat from Kabul, how this jihadi reserve army would be used: along the 7,500 km-long border between Russia and the Central Asian ‘stans’.

That explains, among other things, a record number of preparation drills conducted in late 2021 at the 210th Russian military base in Tajikistan.

James Bond speaks Turkish

The breakdown of the messy Kazakh op necessarily starts with the usual suspects: the US Deep State, which all but “sang” its strategy in a 2019 RAND corporation report, Extending Russia. Chapter 4, on “geopolitical measures”, details everything from “providing lethal aid to Ukraine”, “promoting regime change in Belarus”, and “increasing support for Syrian rebels” – all major fails – to “reducing Russian influence in Central Asia.”

That was the master concept. Implementation fell to the MI6-Turk connection.

The CIA and MI6 had been investing in dodgy outfits in Central Asia since at least 2005, when they encouraged the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), then close to the Taliban, to wreak havoc in southern Kyrgyzstan. Nothing happened.

It was a completely different story by May 2021, when the MI6’s Jonathan Powell met the leadership of Jabhat al-Nusra – which harbors a lot of Central Asian jihadis – somewhere in the Turkish-Syrian border near Idlib.

The deal was that these ‘moderate rebels’ – in US terminology – would cease to be branded ‘terrorists’ as long as they followed the anti-Russia NATO agenda.

That was one of the key prep moves ahead of the jihadist ratline to Afghanistan – complete with Central Asia branching out.

The genesis of the offensive should be found in June 2020, when former ambassador to Turkey from 2014 to 2018, Richard Moore, was appointed head of MI6.

Moore may not have an inch of Kim Philby’s competence, but he does fit the profile: rabid Russophobe, and a cheerleader of the Great Turania fantasy, which promotes a pan-Turk confederation of Turkic-speaking peoples from West Asia and the Caucasus to Central Asia and even Russian republics in the Volga.

MI6 is deeply entrenched in all the ‘stans’ except autarchic Turkmenistan – cleverly riding the pan-Turkist offensive as the ideal vehicle to counter Russia and China.

Erdogan himself has been invested on a hardcore Great Turania offensive, especially after the creation of the Turkic Council in 2009.

Crucially, next March, the summit of the Confederation Council of Turkic-speaking States – the new Turkic Council denomination – will take place in Kazakhstan. The city of Turkestan, in southern Kazakhstan, is expected to be named as the spiritual capital of the Turkic world.

And here, the ‘Turkic world’ enters into a frontal clash with the integrating Russian concept of Greater Eurasia Partnership, and even with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) that, crucially, does not count Turkey as a member.

Erdogan’s short term ambition seems at first to be only commercial: after Azerbaijan won the Karabakh war, he expects to use Baku to get access to Central Asia via the Caspian Sea, complete with Turkey’s industrial-military complex sales of military technology to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

Turkish companies are already investing heavily in real estate and infrastructure. And in parallel, Ankara’s soft power is on overdrive, finally collecting the fruits of exercising a lot of pressure, for instance, to speed up the transition in Kazakhstan from Cyrillic script to the Latin alphabet, starting in 2023.

Yet both Russia and China are very much aware that Turkey essentially represents NATO entering Central Asia. The organization of Turkic states are cryptically called the Kazakh operation ‘fuel protests’.

It’s all very murky. Erdogan’s neo-Ottomanism – which comes with massive cheerleading by his Muslim Brotherhood base – essentially has nothing to do with the pan-Turanic drive, which is a racialist movement predicating domination by relatively ‘pure’ Turks.

The problem is that they are converging while becoming more extreme, with Turkey’s right-wing Grey Wolves deeply implicated. That explains why Ankara intel is a sponsor and, in many cases, a weaponizer of both the ISIS-Khorasan franchise and those Turan racists, from Bosnia to Xinjiang via Central Asia.

The Empire handsomely profits from this toxic association, in Armenia, for instance. And the same would happen in Kazakhstan if the operation is successful.

Bring on the Trojan Horses

Every color revolution needs a ‘Maximum’ Trojan Horse. In our case, that seems to be the role of former head of KNB (National Security Committee) Karim Massimov, now held in prison and charged with treason.

Hugely ambitious, Massimov is half-Uyghur, and that, in theory, obstructed what he saw as his pre-ordained rise to power. His connections with Turkish intel are not yet fully detailed, unlike his cozy relationship with Joe Biden and son.

A former Minister of Internal Affairs and State Security, Lt Gen Felix Kulov, has weaved a fascinating tangled web explaining the possible internal dynamics of the ‘coup’ built into the color revolution.

According to Kulov, Massimov and Samir Abish, the nephew of recently ousted Kazakh Security Council Chairman Nursultan Nazarbayev, were up to their necks in supervising ‘secret’ units of ‘bearded men’ during the riots. The KNB was directly subordinated to Nazarbayev, who until last week was the chairman of the Security Council.

When Tokayev understood the mechanics of the coup, he demoted both Massimov and Samat Abish. Then Nazarbayev ‘voluntarily’ resigned from his life-long chairmanship of the Security Council. Abish then got this post, promising to stop the ‘bearded men,’ and then to resign.

So that would point directly to a Nazarbayev-Tokayev clash. It makes sense as, during his 29-year rule, Nazarbayev played a multi-vector game that was too westernized and which did not necessarily benefit Kazakhstan. He adopted British laws, played the pan-Turkic card with Erdogan, and allowed a tsunami of NGOs to promote an Atlanticist agenda.

Tokayev is a very smart operator. Trained by the foreign service of the former USSR, fluent in Russian and Chinese, he is totally aligned with Russia-China – which means fully in sync with the masterplan of the BRI, the Eurasia Economic Union, and the SCO.

Tokayev, much like Putin and Xi, understands how this BRI/EAEU/SCO triad represents the ultimate imperial nightmare, and how destabilizing Kazakhstan – a key actor in the triad – would be a mortal coup against Eurasian integration.

Kazakhstan, after all, represents 60 percent of Central Asia’s GDP, massive oil/gas and mineral resources, cutting-edge high tech industries: a secular, unitary, constitutional republic bearing a rich cultural heritage.

It didn’t take long for Tokayev to understand the merits of immediately calling the CSTO to the rescue: Kazakhstan signed the treaty way back in 1994. After all, Tokayev was fighting a foreign-led coup against his government.

Putin, among others, has stressed how an official Kazakh investigation is the only one entitled to get to the heart of the matter.

It’s still unclear exactly who – and to what extent – sponsored the rioting mobs. Motives abound: to sabotage a pro-Russia/China government, to provoke Russia, to sabotage BRI, to plunder mineral resources, to turbo-charge a House of Saud-style ‘Islamization’.

Rushed to only a few days before the start of the Russia-US ‘security guarantees’ in Geneva, this color revolution represented a sort of counter-ultimatum – in desperation – by the NATO establishment.

Central Asia, West Asia, and the overwhelming majority of the Global South have witnessed the lightning fast Eurasian response by the CSTO troops – who, having now done their job, are set to leave Kazakhstan in a couple of days – and how this color revolution has failed, miserably.

It might as well be the last. Beware the rage of a humiliated Empire.

*

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

Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Cradle

 

 

 

 

 

One day,

Youngsters will learn words they will not understand,

Children from India will ask: “What is hunger?”

Children from Alabama will ask: “What is racial segregation?”

Children from Hiroshima will ask: “What is the atomic bomb?”

Children at school will ask: “What is war?”

You will answer them, you will tell them: “Those are words not used any more,

Like ‘stage-coaches’, ‘galleys’ or ‘slavery’,

Words no longer meaningful,

That is why they have been removed from dictionaries.”

Martin Luther King

10 Reasons OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro Has to Go

January 17th, 2022 by Leonardo Flores

All Global Research articles 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 Organization of American States (OAS) has never been a friend to the peoples of the Americas. This institution, ostensibly a space for multilateralism, has instead always been a tool for the U.S. Department of State. As Fidel Castro said in 1962, it is nothing but the U.S. Ministry of Colonies. That is truer now than ever before under the leadership of Secretary General Luis Almagro, who has been at the helm since March 2015. He is quite possibly the worst leader since the OAS was founded in 1948.

Here are ten reasons Almagro has to go:

1. Almagro and the OAS lit the fuse for the 2019 coup in Bolivia. They falsely claimed the presidential results showing Evo Morales being re-elected were “inexplicable”, which set off unrest and activated a plot that overthrew him. These claims were so thoroughly debunked that members of the U.S. Congress requested an investigation into the OAS’s role in the coup. Almagro immediately recognized the coup government, which committed “summary executions and widespread repression” during its year in power. After saying nothing about the coup regime’s victims, the OAS issued a statement condemning Bolivia’s judicial system the day after coup leader Jeanine Añez was arrested. This blatant interference in the domestic affairs of a member state runs counter to the OAS charter and led Mexico to chastise the OAS for its behavior towards Bolivia.

2. Almagro’s cravenness helped legitimize four more years of the Honduran narco-dictatorship led by Juan Orlando Hernández. The 2017 elections in Honduras were actually riddled with fraud, and initially, Almagro and the OAS did the right thing: they denounced the fraud and called for new elections. But the Trump administration was happy with the results and recognized the elections. Within a month, Almagro backtracked, which “called his own credibility into question” according to diplomat Sir Ronald Sanders. Despite the documented crimes of the Juan Orlando Hernández regime, Almagro embraced and legitimized the Honduran government.

3. Almagro continued the OAS’s long history of interfering in Haiti. In 2020, when President Jovenel Moïse ruled without a parliament and gave himself an extra year on his term, the OAS issued a press release telling Haitians they should “comply.” Almagro, acting without the approval of OAS member states, sent a delegation to Haiti (which was in the country for just five hours) to prop up the Moïse government in the face of intensifying protests. Just before Moïse’s assassination in 2021, the OAS recommended that he appoint a new prime minister and set elections before the end of the year – precisely what the majority of Haitians did not want.

4. Almagro embraced the 2016 coup and the Temer regime in Brazil. Right after a meeting with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff before her impeachment, Almagro denounced the proceedings against her as politicized and without merit. But once the coup happened, he had nothing to say about it and was quick to accept the Temer regime, visiting his government less than two months after the coup. When wildly popular former President Lula da Silva was arrested in 2018 and barred from upcoming elections, Almagro and the OAS did nothing. This paved the way for right-wing extremist Jair Bolsonaro to win the presidency. Almagro has had little to say about Bolsonaro’s horrible treatment of Indigenous peoples, Afro-Brazilians, peasants and the environment, among others.

5. Almagro ignored human rights abuses by security forces during massive protests in Haiti, Honduras, Ecuador, Colombia and Chile. Almagro visited Ecuador in 2019 to congratulate the government of Lenin Moreno for its handling of protests that left 11 dead, over a thousand injured and hundreds arrested. He would later say that Chilean President Sebastián Piñera “efficiently defended public order” – the same Piñera who declared war on his country’s protesters and whose police forces targeted their eyes. Regarding the protests in Colombia that left at least 80 dead, dozens disappeared and thousands assaulted by police, Almagro limited his criticism to a tweet condemning both the excessive use of force by police and protester violence, drawing a false equivalence between extrajudicial killings and vandalism. Almagro has yet to say anything about the 171 social leaders murdered in Colombia or the 96 massacres the country had in 2021 alone. While ignoring violations in member countries, Almagro and the OAS condemned the Cuban government over the July 2021 protests, despite the fact that Cuba isn’t a member of the OAS.

6. Almagro is waging a hybrid war against Venezuela. Under his watch, the OAS violated its own charter and procedures time and time again to attempt to intervene in Venezuela. He tried to invoke the Inter-American Democratic Charter against Venezuela, a tool meant to be used as a response to coups, not to spur coups. He immediately recognized fake “interim president” Juan Guaidó and accepted his fake diplomats into the OAS, although Venezuela had formally left the organization by then. Almagro also tried to invoke the Rio Treaty, a defense pact that could have opened a path for a regional invasion of Venezuela, and has said “all options” should be considered for overthrowing the Venezuelan government. He told former Spanish President José Luis Zapatero “Don’t be stupid” when Zapatero pushed for a negotiated solution to the crisis in Venezuela.

7. Almagro is also one of the main drivers behind the attempts at regime change in Nicaragua. Almagro and the OAS strongly supported the attempted coup in 2018, in which the U.S. was heavily involved. The violence of the protesters (who killed at least 60 people, including 22 police as well as government officials and supporters) was deliberately ignored to frame a narrative around government human rights abuses and justify intervention. Almagro smeared Nicaragua’s presidential elections as part of a campaign to delegitimize President Daniel Ortega. Just like in Venezuela, he has been a cheerleader for illegal U.S. sanctions meant to cripple the economy.

8. Similar to Trump and Bolsonaro, Almagro lashes out at the media and punishes those who criticize him. In response to questions raised about OAS allegations of fraud in Bolivia’s 2019 elections, Almagro published a bizarre rant that invoked Nazis, attacked scholars and made absurd allegations against the New York Times. He failed to respond to letters sent by members of Congress, demonstrating a total lack of accountability. Almagro denounced two OAS electoral observers as “spies” for disagreeing with his false claims of fraud in the 2019 Bolivia elections. He essentially fired Paulo Abrão, the head of the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights (IACHR), because under Abrão the IACHR denounced the Añez regime’s human rights abuses in Bolivia.

9. Plus, he’s likely corrupt. In 2018, Juan Jiménez Mayor, spokesperson for the Mission to Support the Fight against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras (Maccih), resigned from his post because of lack of institutional support from Almagro and alleged corruption in the anti-corruption campaign. Prosecutor Julio Arbizu also resigned from the commission, claiming that “conversations between Almagro and [President Juan Orlando] Hernández” were about using the Maccih to divert criticism from Hernández. The Mission lined the financially broke OAS’s pockets with millions of dollars in dedicated aid from the U.S. and EU. Arbizu alleges that Almagro had “arbitrary use” of these funds and that he hired two unqualified friends to work at the Maccih, one of whom was openly racist and classist towards Maccih staff. Almagro promised to serve only one term as OAS Secretary General, but his reelection in 2020 prompted an anonymous source to publish a widely-circulated letter that detailed cronyism and conflicts of interest in Almagro’s hires for important OAS positions, as well the deep divisions within the OAS caused by Almagro’s decisions.

10. Almagro apparently has nothing to say about the statue of Queen Isabella in front of the OAS. At a time when governments all over Latin America are taking down statues that pay tribute to perpetrators of genocide, racism and colonialism, Almagro has ignored a July 2021 request from CODEPINK to meet to discuss removing this symbol of the centuries-long holocaust unleashed on the indigenous people of the Americas. He will also likely ignore an upcoming open letter from prominent figures throughout the Americas calling for the statue’s removal.

Have more reasons why Almagro has to go? Post them on Twitter with #AlmagroRenuncia #AlmagroResign.

*

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

Leonardo Flores is a Latin American Campaign coordinator with CODEPINK. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 10 Reasons OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro Has to Go
  • Tags: ,

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

 

 

 

American opposition to expensive, hazardous, and privacy invasive utility “Smart” Meters (electric, gas, and water) has been ongoing since companies first started deploying them.  A free online documentary was produced about these horrible devices in 2013 and then updated in 2017.  Adding insult to injury, the high costs associated with purchasing, installing, and replacing them are usually passed on to customers (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21).

Despite all the problems associated with these meters – including fires, explosions (see 1, 2, 3) and health risks to humans and pets (see 1, 2, 3) – smart meter deployment has already reached 65% in the U.S.  Over the years, the state of Virginia had repeatedly rejected smart meter deployment (see 1, 2).  That seems to have changed.

From Utility Dive:

Virginia okays Dominion’s plan to deploy 1.1M smart meters

Published Jan. 11, 2022

Dive Brief:

  • The Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) on Friday approved Dominion Energy’s proposal to deploy roughly 1.1 million smart meters as part of a $776 million grid transformation plan. The plan also includes investments in security, customer education and telecommunications.
  • Deploying the advanced meter infrastructure will cost $198.3 million, according to the plan, which also includes $203.9 million for a customer information platform. The spending approved last week is the second part of Dominion’s 10-year plan to add more renewable energy and increase energy efficiency in the state.
  • The SCC had previously rejected Dominion’s smart meter installation proposal twice, citing the high cost and speculative nature of the plan. The smart meter rollout was approved in part because of a new proposal for a time-varying rate and experimental time-of-use rate, which the commission said could reduce the cost impact on ratepayers.

Dive Insight:

Dominion Energy Virginia’s 10-year Grid Transformation Plan, designed in response to Virginia’s 2018 Grid Transformation & Security Act, envisions a broad restructuring of the electricity grid in order to integrate more solar, wind and battery storage technology. The company had argued that as more distributed energy resources come online in response to state and federal policy, it will be necessary to create a more nimble distribution system with responsive rates in order to ensure reliability and cut down on costs.

The second phase of the plan approved by the SCC covers $666.5 million in capital spending for 2022 and 2023, which the company can seek recovery of in a future proceeding. The plan will allow Dominion to spend $194.4 million in grid technologies, including intelligent grid devices and fault location, isolation and service restoration projects targeted at grid segments with below-average reliability. It also includes $27.7 million on grid infrastructure spending for corridor improvements and voltage island mitigation.

As we bring more renewable energy onto our grid to build a cleaner future, and focus on increasing resiliency, we must modernize the way the system works,” said Charlene Whitfield, senior vice president of Power Delivery at Dominion Energy Virginia, in a statement. Whitfield added that the decision “ensures that we can remain agile as a company to deliver the reliable, affordable, and increasingly clean energy that our customers want and expect.”

SCC had denied the smart meter proposal in previous filings, saying it was based on speculation and would impose heavy costs on Dominion’s customers. However, the modified proposal includes incentives for customers to reduce electricity use at times of high demand and a timeline to implement those rates system-wide. Dominion had installed roughly 715,000 smart meters by the end of 2020 and envisions full deployment of smart grids for its 2.3 million residential customers by 2024.

However, environmental and consumer advocate group Appalachian Voices continued to argue against the plan, saying in a November filing that the request “falls woefully short of a reasonable and prudent standard.” The group said that smart meter approval should have been conditioned on a requirement “to implement a universal peak-time rebate” as well as inclusion of the Connect-My-Data standard required in five other states, which enables standardized data collection.

In August 2021, Dominion Energy filed a $1.5 billion clean energy investment, including up to 1,100 MW of solar, in Virginia, part of a planned $26 billion in spending on emissions reduction technology over five years. The Virginia Clean Economy Act requires Dominion to procure a combined 16 GW of solar and onshore wind by the end of 2035.

Activist Post reports regularly about utility “Smart” Meters and other unsafe technology.  For more information, visit our archives and the following websites:

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 1.1 Million More Utility “Smart” Meters to be Deployed in Virginia; $203.9M to be Spent on “Customer Information Platform”
  • Tags:

Enduring Stain: The Guantánamo Military Prison Turns Twenty

January 17th, 2022 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Anniversaries for detention centres, concentration camps and torture facilities are not the relishable calendar events in the canon of human worth.  But not remembering them, when they were used, and how they continue being used, would be unpardonable amnesia.

On January 11, 2002, the first prisoners of the absurdly named “War on Terror”, declared with such confused understanding by US President George W. Bush, began arriving at the newly constructed Camp X-Ray prison at the US naval base in Guantánamo Bay.  Structurally crude, it was intended as a temporary facility, remote and out of sight.  Instead, it became a permanent and singular contribution of US political and legal practice, withering due process and civil liberties along the way.

After two decades, 779 prisoners have spent time there, many of whom were low level operatives of minimal importance.  Prior to being sent to the camp, the detainees endured abductions, disappearances, and torture in US-operated centres in allied countries.  The previous director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gina Aspel, had more than a nodding acquaintance with this process, having overseen operations at a black site in Thailand specialising in interrogating al-Qaeda suspects.

Guantánamo Bay was a mad, cruel experiment about how legal limbos and forged purgatories of the law can function to dehumanise and degrade.  It was developed by people supposedly versed in a liberal legal tradition but keen to make exceptions in battling a supposedly novel enemy.  The detainees were deemed “unlawful enemy combatants” – as if there was such a thing – thereby placing them outside the formal protections of humanitarian law.  They were subjected to sleep deprivation, forced feeding, lengthy detainment, beatings, stress positions and an assortment of other torture methods.

In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney sneered at suggestions that the inmates were being mistreated.  “They’re living in the tropics.  They’re well fed.  They’ve got everything they could possibly want.  There wasn’t any other nation in the world that would treat people who were determined to kill Americans the way we’re treating these people.”

The closure of the facility has been constantly urged with minimal return.  It was one of the electoral messages of the presidential campaign in 2007.  Barack Obama and his rival, Hillary Clinton, endorsed the idea.  As did the Republican contender for the White House, John McCain.  As Obama declared at the time, “In the dark halls of Abu Ghraib and the detention cells of Guantánamo, we have compromised our most precious values.”

A joint US-European Union statement from June 15, 2009 noted, with welcome, the decision by President Obama to affect a closure by January 22 the following year.  But it also acknowledged what has been a persistent problem: returning detainees to their countries of origin or a third country that might be willing to accept them.

In the dying days of the Obama administration, the facility, despite a reduction in the inmate population, remained functional.  Congress proved recalcitrant and obstructive on the issue but there was also opposition to the closure from various arms of government, including the Pentagon.  Lee Wolosky, formerly Obama’s Special Envoy for Guantánamo Closure, could only marvel darkly at this seemingly indestructible piece of legal infrastructure.  “In large part,” he wrote, this mess had been “self-inflicted – a result of our own decisions to engage in torture, hold detainees indefinitely without charge, set up dysfunctional military commissions and attempt to avoid oversight by the federal courts.”

In 2016, Donald Trump, the eventual victor of that year’s presidential contest, repeatedly insisted that he would “load it with some bad dudes”.  In 2018, he signed a new executive order keeping the military prison open, reiterating the line that terrorists were not merely “criminals” but “unlawful enemy combatants”.  Releasing any such individuals from Guantánamo had been, he observed gravely, a mistake.  “In the past, we have foolishly released hundred and hundreds of dangerous terrorists only to meet them again on the battlefield, including the ISIS leader, [Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi, who we captured, who we had, who we released.”

On the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the camp’s opening, Agnès Callamard, secretary-general of Amnesty International, was yet another voice to urge its closure.  “President Joe Biden, like President Barack Obama before him, has promised to close it, but so far has failed to do so.”  She insisted that each detainee’s case be resolved, be it through transfer and release, or via “a regularly constituted federal court without recourse to the death penalty.”

Despite being an enduring blot on the country’s credibility, the facility remains ingloriously open, a reminder that there are legal provinces where the US is willing to detain people indefinitely, without trial or scrutiny.  Thirty-nine men remain, thirteen of whom are in indefinite detention.  This is despite the latter having had their transfers out of the facility approved a decade ago.  The calls for the military prison’s closure reach occasional crescendos, but these eventually diminish before the machinery of stifling bureaucracy.  Tragically, there is every risk that the Guantánamo experiment will be replicated rather than abolished.  Such creations, once brought into being, can prove deathless.

*

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Enduring Stain: The Guantánamo Military Prison Turns Twenty
  • Tags:

The Right to Healthy Food: Comorbidities and COVID-19

January 17th, 2022 by Colin Todhunter

All Global Research articles 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 early 2020, we saw the beginning of the COVID-19 ‘pandemic’. The world went into lockdown and even after lockdowns in various countries had been lifted, restrictions continued. Data now shows that lockdowns seemingly had limited if any positive impacts on the trajectory of COVID-19 and in 2022 the world – especially the poor – is paying an immense price not least in terms of loss of income, loss of livelihoods, the deterioration of mental and physical health, the eradication of civil liberties, disrupted supply chains and shortages.

The mortality rate for COVID-19 patients is linked to their comorbid conditions. In the US, the Center for Disease Control provides a list of comorbid conditions in COVID-19 patients, which includes cancer, chronic kidney disease, heart disease, Down syndrome, obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Research conducted in a German hospital shows that for those who died after SARS-CoV-2 infection the median number of chronic comorbidities was four and ranged from three to eight. Arterial hypertension was the most prevalent chronic condition (65.4%), followed by obesity (38.5%), chronic ischemic heart disease (34.6%), atrial fibrillation (26.9%) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (23.1%). Of all patients, 15.4% had diabetes type II and chronic renal failure was noticed in 11.5%. The data suggests severe chronic comorbidities and health conditions in the majority of patients that had died after COVID-19. 

The meta-analysis Prevalence of comorbidities in patients and mortality cases affected by SARS-CoV2: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2020) found that hypertension was the most prevalent comorbidity (affecting 32% of patients). Other common comorbidities included diabetes (22%) and heart disease (13%). The odds ratio of death for a patient with a comorbidity compared to one with no comorbidity was 2.4. The higher the prevalence of comorbidities the higher the odds that the COVID-19 patient will need intensive care or will die, especially if the pre-existing disease is hypertension, heart disease or diabetes.

In 2020, just 1,557 people aged 1-64 with no underlying co-morbidities were listed as having died from COVID in England and Wales out of a population of about 59 million. For the tens of thousands who were categorised as dying with COVID, co-morbidities were a major factor. UK data for 2020 shows that for ages 1-64 years, those who died with COVID had on average 1.71 co-morbidities. For those aged 65 and over, the figure is 2.02.

Patients with rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases have a 54% increased risk for COVID-19 infection and more than twice the risk for COVID-19 death, versus the general population, according to data published in the journal Rheumatology (2021). 

In the paper ‘COVID-19 in patients with autoimmune diseases: characteristics and outcomes in a multinational network of cohorts across three countries’ (2021), which also appeared in Rheumatology, researchers compared influenza with COVID-19 and concluded that the latter is a more severe disease for people with these conditions, leading to added complications and higher mortality. 

Of deaths in England and Wales where COVID-19 is listed, official government data shows the most common pre-existing condition recorded on the death certificate is diabetes (July to September 2021). This was identified in almost a quarter (22.5%) of ‘COVID deaths’.

Emerging data also suggests that obesity is a big risk factor for the progression of major complications such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), cytokine storm and coagulopathy in COVID-19.

A paper posted on the Center for Disease Control website provides an overview of factors associated with Covid-19 deaths for a 12-month period. The study, Underlying Medical Conditions and Severe Illness Among 540,667 Adults Hospitalized with COVID-19, March 2020–March 2021, looked at records of hospitalised adults and found that 94.9% had at least one underlying medical condition. The authors conclude that certain underlying conditions and the number of conditions were associated with severe COVID-19 illness. Hypertension and disorders of lipid metabolism were the most frequent, whereas obesity, diabetes with complication and anxiety disorders were the strongest risk factors for severe COVID-19 illness.

Based on the findings, Dr Peregrino Brimahdata (a molecular biologist, medical doctor, college professor and a published researcher) notes that obesity by itself gave a 30% increased death risk, anxiety disorders gave a 29% increased risk of death and diabetes led to a 26% increased risk of death.

Brimahdata concludes that about two thirds of ‘COVID deaths’ were patients who may be regarded as grossly unhealthy.

From the data presented above, it is clear that the vast majority of ‘COVID deaths’ (dying with COVID) are people who has serious, ongoing health conditions, the prevalence of which among the population has been rising year on year for decades and accelerating.

Food system

Although hereditary factors are involved, scientists at the Francis Crick Institute in London believe the growing popularity of Western-style diets is a major reason why autoimmune diseases are rising across the world by around 3% to 9% a year.

Professor James Lee from the institute recently told The Observer newspaper that human genetics has not altered over the past few decades, so something is changing in our environment that is increasing predisposition to autoimmune disease. His research team found that Western-style diets based on processed ingredients and with a lack of fresh vegetables can trigger autoimmune diseases.

Lee says that numbers of autoimmune cases began to increase about 40 years ago in the Western countries but are now also emerging in countries that never had such diseases before. These diseases include rheumatoid arthritis, type 1 diabetes, celiac disease, lupus, inflammatory bowel disease and multiple sclerosis.

It is estimated that approximately four million people in the UK have an autoimmune disease.

A Western-style diet is characterised by highly processed and refined foods with high contents of sugars, salt, and fat and protein from red meat. It is a major contributor to metabolic disturbances and the development of obesity-related diseases, including type 2 diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease – the top comorbidities where ‘COVID deaths’ are concerned.

But it goes beyond that because a lot of the health-related problems we see can also be traced back to modern farming methods and how food is cultivated, not least the toxic agrochemicals used. Michael McCarthy, writer and naturalist, says that three generations of industrialised farming with a vast tide of poisons pouring over the land year after year after year since the end of the Second World War is the true price of pesticide-based agriculture, which society has for so long blithely accepted.

Professor Carola Vinuesa, who heads another research team at the Francis Crick Institute, argues that fast-food diets can negatively affect a person’s microbiome – gut microorganisms which play a key role in controlling various bodily functions. 

The gut microbiome can contain up to six pounds of bacteria and agrochemicals and poor diets are disturbing this ‘human soil’. Many important neurotransmitters are located in the gut. Aside from affecting the functioning of major organs, these transmitters affect our moods and thinking.

Findings published in the journal ‘Translational Psychiatry’ provide strong evidence that gut bacteria can have a direct physical impact on the brain. Alterations in the composition of the gut microbiome have been implicated in a wide range of neurological and psychiatric conditions, including autism, chronic pain, depression and Parkinson’s Disease. Gut bacteria are also important for cognitive development in adolescence.

Changes to the gut microbiome are also linked to obesity. Increasing levels of obesity are associated with low bacterial richness in the gut. Indeed, it has been noted that tribes not exposed to the modern food system have richer microbiomes. Environmental campaigner Rosemary Mason lays the blame squarely at the door of agrochemicals, not least the use of the world’s most widely used herbicide, glyphosate.

Mason has written to the two professors from the Francis Crick Institute mentioned above, making it clear to them that it would be remiss to ignore the role pesticides play when it comes to the worrying rates of disease we now see. She brings their attention to concerning levels of glyphosate in certain cereals in the UK.

Based on an analysis of these cereals, Dr John Fagan, director of Health Research Laboratories, has concluded:

“The levels consumed in a single daily helping of any one of these cereals… is sufficient to put the person’s glyphosate levels above the levels that cause fatty liver disease in rats (and likely in people).”

Mason also refers the two academics to the paper Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America in Journal of Organic Systems (2014).

It notes:

“The herbicide glyphosate was introduced in 1974 and its use is accelerating with the advent of herbicide-tolerant genetically engineered (GE) crops. Evidence is mounting that glyphosate interferes with many metabolic processes in plants and animals and glyphosate residues have been detected in both. Glyphosate disrupts the endocrine system and the balance of gut bacteria, it damages DNA and is a driver of mutations that lead to cancer.”

The researchers searched US government databases for GE crop data, glyphosate application data and disease epidemiological data. Correlation analyses were then performed on a total of 22 diseases in these time-series data sets. The Pearson correlation coefficients were highly significant between glyphosate applications and a wide range of diseases, including hypertension, stroke, diabetes prevalence, diabetes incidence, obesity, Alzheimer’s, senile dementia, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, inflammatory bowel disease, intestinal infections, end stage renal disease, acute kidney failure and various cancers. The Pearson correlation coefficients were also highly significant between the percentage of GE corn and soy planted in the US and most of the conditions listed above.

In 2017, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and hazardous substances and wastes, Baskut Tuncak, said

“Paediatricians have referred to childhood exposure to pesticides as creating a ‘silent pandemic’ of disease and disability. Exposure in pregnancy and childhood is linked to birth defects, diabetes and cancer. Because a child’s developing body is more sensitive to exposure than adults and takes in more of everything – relative to their size, children eat, breathe and drink much more than adults – they are particularly vulnerable to these toxic chemicals.”

Consider that little is being done to address the food-related public health crisis which, according to the data on co-morbidities, seems to be a major contribution to increased risk where COVID is concerned. Then consider that governments are going all out to vaccinate children for a virus that poses minimal or virtually no risk to them. There is no logic to this approach.

While there is currently much talk of the coronavirus placing immense strain on the NHS, the health service was already creaking due to spiralling rates of disease linked to the food we eat. But do we see a clampdown on the activities or products of the global agrochemical or the food conglomerates? Instead, we see that successive governments in the UK have worked hand in glove with them to ensure ‘business as usual’.

The UK government is going out of its way under the guise of a health crisis to undermine the public’s rights in order to manage risk and to ‘protect’ the NHS but is all too willing to oversee a massive, ongoing health crisis caused by the chemical pollution of our bodies.

The unvaccinated are being cast as irresponsible or much worse if we listen to the recent reprehensible outbursts from leaders like Macron or Trudeau for having genuine concerns about vaccine safety, waning efficacy and the logic behind mass vaccination across all ages and risk groups.

Given that underlying health conditions substantially increase risk where COVID-19 is concerned, it is clear where the real irresponsibility lies – with government inaction for decades in terms of failing to tackle the corporations behind the health-damaging food they produce.

*

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

Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) in Montreal.

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook

All Global Research articles 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.

.

First published by global Research on August 31, 2021

***

People are dying from the mMRNA Covid Vaccine.

There is a worldwide upward trend in vaccine deaths and injuries. 

The latest official figures (August 30, 2021) point to approximately: 

38,488 mRNA vaccine reported and registered deaths in the EU, UK and US (combined) and

6.3 million reported “adverse events”.

These are the official figures. Less than 10% of deaths and injuries are reported. For vaccine adverse events approximately one percent of the injuries are registered and reported.

The order of magnitude of vaccine related deaths is AT LEAST 380,000 for a combined population (EU, UK, US) of 830 Million.

Most unconscionable is the fact that the United Nations Secretary-General is mandating this untested and often lethal vaccination for United Nations staff, in violation of every human rights declaration produced by the United Nations in its entire history.

 

***

August 25, 2021 more than three thousand hospital workers, sanitation workers, MTA workers, teachers, artists and police rallied at New York’s City Hall to protest the mandate for Covid-19 vaccine, which has been proven unsafe, with many horrific long-term “side-effects” of the vaccine, multiple deaths, deadly, often chronic heart damage,  a “vaccine” which it is feared changes both the dna of the vaccinated, and as the future will demonstrate, may cause sterility.   Yes, this vaccine will reduce the population.

This mandate changes the relationship between the state and the individual, as the slogan “no jab, no job” threatens the livelihood and the lives of workers throughout the United States and all countries mandating a vaccine generating enormous profits for the “Big Pharma,” now guaranteed immunity from liability for the often lethal consequences of the vaccine.  According to British legal authority Francis Hoar, this mandate violates the Nuremberg Code, International Human Rights Law, the Strasbourg European Court of Human Rights, and, of course, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

 

 

The United Nations Secretary General is Co-opted

Most unconscionable is the fact that the United Nations Secretary-General is mandating this untested and often lethal vaccination for United Nations staff, in violation of every human rights declaration produced by the United Nations in its entire history.

United Nations Staff members refusing the vaccination are threatened with six months leave WITHOUT pay!   On August 13, the UN Secretary-General issued mandated requirements, which included:

“Vaccination requirement for certain categories. Vaccinations will be mandated for staff performing certain tasks and/or certain occupational groups at UNHQ whose functions do not allow sufficient management of exposure…Those staff who will be required to be vaccinated must receive the final dose of a vaccine no later than 19 September 2021……All staff at UNHQ in consideration of the need to protect one another will be required to report their vaccination status including through EarthMed with immediate effect.”

Whatever happened to medical privacy?

Although there is massive “major” media attempt to obscure the often lethal consequences of this vaccine, the enormous significance of the issues involved is indicated by the fact that every major media outlet in New York City was present at the August 25 demonstration, and quoted and televised many of the protest speeches by New York City teachers, sanitation workers, MTA workers, and other professional  and non-professional employees of public and private organizations.

CBS, NBC, AP, Channel 1, the New York Post, News 4, are among the many media covering this historic protest, the awakening of the public conscience that those citizens and workers upon whom the actual functioning of society depends are infuriated that they are reduced to chattel servitude by the so-called government, and their lives are wantonly put at risk by those government officials whose salaries are paid by the taxes of these workers: teachers, sanitation workers, police, artists, and all those indispensable categories of workers without whom society will collapse. Government workers are public servants, and should not be permitted to dictate the lives of those whom they serve. This is forgotten by these so-called “public servants” who behave like a combination of parasites and dictators.

Obscured in this grotesque travesty of government “concern” for public health is the infamous “revolving door,”  the fact that the government agencies obligated to guarantee the safety of this vaccine are often instead, obsequiously guarding the profits of the lucrative pharmaceutical industries, the “big pharma,” signing into laws protections for the profits of “big pharma,” (which provides vast campaign contributions to many of these government workers) and when the government staff of the NIH, FDA, WHO,  and the other alphabet soup of government agencies tasked with protecting the public, (whose taxes pay their salaries), retire from government “service,” they are then guaranteed enormous salaries working for the private pharmaceutical companies.  Obviously, these government staff have huge incentive to ensure the profits of “big pharma,” upon whom their enormous future salaries will depend.

This unconscionable arrangement is not unknown by the public at large, who are now revealing distrust and disgust at the grossly hypocritical motives of this government mandate which risks causing irreparable damage to their lives, and possibly their untimely deaths.

  • “The NYPD Police Benevolent Association Vows to Sue if Officers are Required To Get Covid Vaccines” headlined by Cory James of CBS.
  • “They’re using us as lab rats” City employee Kim Williams of Queens said.”
  • “I’m not taking the vaccine,” MTA train operator Evangaline Byars said.”
  • “We don’t have the long-term side effects or risks yet,” one parent said.

School teacher Katherine Class of Brooklyn told

“CBS Cory James she quit her job day ago because she refuses to be forced into getting the vaccine.”

Further discrediting the Mandate requirement which attempts to justify this dictate with the fraudulent argument that the person vaccinated is protecting others, is the absolutely contrary and now acknowledged fact that the spike protein of the vaccination has a “scatter” component which in fact SPREADS the infection to others, and does NOT protect either the vaccinated person from a virulent “break through” of the covid virus infection, but, in fact endangers the healthy people who are not vaccinated, and often infects them with the disease. The vaccine is a super-spreader. But perhaps that is the underlying intention.

On August 23, 2021, The New York Times published an article entitled: “A Hospital Finds an Unlikely Group Opposing Vaccination: ITS Workers”

“New York – Their movement started discreetly—just a handful of people communicating on encrypted apps like WhatsApp and Signal. But in just days, it had ballooned tenfold. And within two weeks, it had turned into a full-blown public protest, with people waving picket signs to denounce efforts to push them to receive coronavirus vaccines. But these were not just any vaccine resisters. They were nurses, medical technicians, infection control officers and other staff who work at a hospital in Statin Island, which has the highest rate of Covid-19 infection of any borough in New York City. Outside Staten Island University Hospital last week, as passing cars and fire trucks honked supportively, employees chanted ‘I am not a lab rat!’”  “Yolanda Mozdzen, 43, a medical assistant, was eager to be one of the first among staff to get the vaccine. But less than five minutes after getting a shot of the Moderna vaccine in December, a rash spread across her body, and she started having a seizure. The adverse reaction triggered an autoimmune disorder, according to a letter from her doctor, and eight months after receiving the vaccine, Mozdzen said she still suffers ailments including short-term memory loss and vertigo. Mozdzen said she had to fight to get properly compensated. ‘I was left penniless,’ she said………..Last week, Mozdzen quit her job.”

On Saturday, August 28, there was a huge peaceful demonstration against the vaccine mandate at Columbus Circle in New York City, and participants marched downtown past Times Square, Herald Square and toward Battery Park.

On August 28  huge peaceful public demonstrations throughout TWO HUNDRED cities in France denounced the vaccine mandate, and demanded autonomy for their body and their lives.

In Berlin on August 28, a huge peaceful demonstration against the vaccine mandate was met with police brutality.

In Athens, an enormous peaceful protest demonstration against the vaccine mandate was met by police violence.

This evening another huge demonstration at City Hall protesting the vaccine mandate is scheduled to be held.

“Workers Rally for Medical Freedom  #NO MANDATES”

On September 1, 2021 another extremely important rally is scheduled from 11:00AM to 1:00PM at New York Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center, entitled: “Heroes to Zeroes.” This rally, at 1300 York Avenue, East 69 Street @newyorkfreedomrally is extremely significant, because it signals that the outrage against vaccine mandates is reaching the core of the medical establishment, Cornell Medical Center, which trains the most elite medical students and health care professionals in the United States, and is one of the most prestigious medical centers in the world. (Indeed, Anthony Fauci was a graduate of Cornell Medical School).

It indicates that skepticism, the essence of science, is now, we can hope, reaching the hitherto dogmatic attitudes toward Covid, and its so-called “vaccines” about which no adequate testing has been done, nor the often deadly consequences of vaccination studied, or ultimately even known or anticipated.  The United Nations is also, to its shame, guilty of this dogmatic attitude, and recalls the Vatican, 500 years ago when Galileo challenged religious dogma, for which he was threatened to be tortured to death. Shortly before, Giordano Bruno had been burnt alive at the stake by order of the Pope, for contradicting Vatican dogma that the sun revolved around the earth. 500 years later, the Vatican acknowledged the falsity of their dogma.

Two days ago two people in Japan died immediately after being vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, causing the Japanese government to demand the recall of huge doses of the Pfizer vaccine contaminated with a metal substance, and probably other toxic components. A Ukranian man died of myocarditis immediately after being vaccinated with the Moderna vaccine. And the big pharma companies have been guaranteed and insured from any liability as a result of injury resulting from their vaccines.  They are protected by rulings  by US government agencies, and other organizations, and big pharma cannot be held responsible or liable for anything.

One can only hope that the burgeoning worldwide outrage against vaccine mandates continues and escalates to a point where it is sufficiently powerful to force retreat by the vaccine dictatorship endangering the human species with its ignorance- and arrogance – and greed.

*

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

Carla Stea is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and Global Research’s Correspondent at UN headquarters, New York. 

All images in this article are from the author

It has been two years since people worldwide were dragged into this whole COVID-19 cult. Up until now, many countries implement universal health protocols such as social distancing and wearing of face mask in public spaces. Draconian measures have also been executed such as prolonged lockdowns and vaccine mandates. 

Several reports of courageous people blowing the whistle on COVID vaccines and vaccine deaths surface online, sending a hopeful message worldwide that resistance is key to ending this totalitarianism.

Protests against forced vaccinations are also happening globally, blasting the medico-establishment for curtailing informed consent and medical freedom. Are these events directing us toward mass awakening from COVID hypnosis and stand in the truth against disinformation?

Send this selection to your friends, family and community. Spread the word.

***

Lawmakers Blast Biden Pandemic Response, Experts Question Vaccine Mandates Strategy

By Dr. David Charbonneau, January 14, 2022

Lawmakers on Tuesday attacked what some called the Biden administration’s “confusing” messaging and disastrous rollout of COVID booster shots. Meanwhile scientists raised questions about the administration’s mandates strategy.

Parents of College Kids Fed Up with ‘Shut Up and Comply’ Mandates

By Megan Redshaw, January 13, 2022

In an interview Wednesday with “Fox & Friends,” parents of university students expressed growing concerns that mandatory vaccines, facemasks and discriminatory practices far outweigh the risks of getting COVID.

“Political Power to Silence and Penalize Physicians who Question Certain Views on COVID-19”: Open Letter to Dr. Harmon and the American Medical Association (AMA)

By Dr. Shibrah Jamil, January 13, 2022

In an ideal world, we expect societies and organizations that have been the vanguard of the medical profession to hold true to the ideals of medicine. In reality, we find many of these organizations to be compromised, having significant undisclosed conflicts of interest which bring their impartiality into question.

Louisiana Nurse Blows the Whistle: “We Have Had More Children Die from the COVID Vaccine Than of COVID Itself”

By The COVID World, January 12, 2022

Collete went on to say that vaccine-injury report databases like VAERS are so little used that most doctors and nurses don’t even know that it exists, let alone how to file a report.

Serious Health Risks of Covid-19 Vaccines: Open Letter to Cornell University Board of Trustees and President Martha Pollack

By Cornell University Community, January 12, 2022

We are students, parents, alumni, faculty, and staff of Cornell University. We are grateful for Cornell’s efforts at keeping students and the Ithaca community safe during this pandemic. As concerned members of the global Big Red family, we write this open letter to express our strong opposition to Cornell’s Covid-19 booster mandate.

“Bastille 2022”: Building a Worldwide Movement Against “Corona Tyranny”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 11, 2022

Our intent is to confront the powerful actors behind this criminal endeavor which is literally destroying people’s lives Worldwide, while creating divisions within society. The impacts on mental health on population groups Worldwide are devastating.

4,000 Health Freedom Advocates Tell New York Lawmakers: ‘We Will Not Comply’

By Children’s Health Defense, January 10, 2022

The “We Will Not Comply Rally” marked the kickoff of the People’s Coalition of New York, a coalition of more than 40 groups that oppose medical mandates and are working to restore the civil liberties of all New Yorkers.

Video: The Corona Crisis: Is the Tide Turning? Reiner Fuellmich on Nuremberg 2.0

By Peter Koenig, Reiner Fuellmich, and Maria Zeee, January 09, 2022

In this latest and perhaps so far most revealing and comprehensive – and foremost – hopeful interview with Maria Zeee on Rumble (MUST SEE – 57 min. video), Dr. Fuellmich of the German Corona Investigative Committee explains in detail what the Committee’s first lawsuit will do.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Global Research Weekender: Will 2022 be the Year of Mass Awakening and the End of COVID-19?

First released on February 22, 2021

We bring to the attention of our readers this Global Research Video documentary produced by Ariel Noyola Rodriguez, featuring Prof. Michel Chossudovsky.

We are at the crossroads of one of the most serious crises in World history.

We are living history, yet our understanding of the sequence of events since January 2020 has been blurred.

Worldwide, people have been misled both by their governments and the media as to the causes and devastating consequences of the Covid-19 “pandemic”. 

“Planet Lockdown” is an encroachment on civil liberties and the “Right to Life”.

click the bottom right hand corner to view in full screen

.

.

Entire national economies are in jeopardy. In some countries martial law has been declared.

Small and medium sized capital are slated to be eliminated. Big capital prevails.

A massive concentration of corporate wealth is ongoing.

Its a diabolical “New World Order” in the making.

Red Zones, the facemask, social distancing, the closing down of schools, colleges and universities,

no more family gatherings, no birthday celebrations, music, the arts: no more cultural events,

sport events are suspended, no more funerals, no more weddings, “love and life” is banned outright.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: The 2021 Worldwide Corona Crisis. “The Worst Crisis in Modern History”

First published by Global Research on January 23, 2021

Nine Potential and Proven Dangers to Muzzling Yourself

1. Cavities: New York dentists are reporting that half their patients are suffering decaying teeth, receding gum lines and seriously sour breath from wearing masks. “We’re seeing inflammation in people’s gums that have been healthy forever, and cavities in people who have never had them before,” Dr. Rob Ramondi told FOX News.

2. Facial Deformities: Masking children triggers mouth breathing which as been shown to cause “long, narrow faces, narrow mouths, high palatal vaults, dental malocclusion, gummy smiles, and many other unattractive facial features,” according to the Journal of General Dentistry.

3. Acne Vulgaris: Moisture and germs collecting in the mask cause “facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis… or worsening acne” (according to Public Health Ontario) which stresses the immune system, can lead to permanent scarring and has been linked to depression and suicidal thoughts (according to the Journal of Dermatologic Clinics). Children also develop impetigo, a bacterial infection that produces red sores and can lead to kidney damage (according to the Mayo Clinic).

 

 

4. Increased Risk of COVID-19: “Mask use by the general public could be associated with a theoretical elevated risk of COVID-19 through… self-contamination,” states Public Health Ontario in Wearing Masks in Public and COVID-19. “By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain,” theorizes nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon, Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD (in an article at The Centre for Research on Globalization).

5. Bacterial Pneumonia: At an Oklahoma Press Conference, Dr. James Meehan, MD testified: “Reports coming from my colleagues all over the world are suggesting that the bacterial pneumonias are on the rise” as a result of moisture collecting in face masks.

6. Immune Suppressing: Masks are often worn by criminals trying to hide their identity while perpetuating an offence (theft, violence, rape, murder, etc.). They produce subconscious anxiety and fear. Fear and anxiety activate the fight-or-flight nervous system which down-regulates the immune system, as shown in a study by the American Psychological Association.

7. Germophobia: Masks create an irrational fear of germs and a false sense of protection from disease, leading to antisocial (or even hostile) behaviour towards those not wearing a mask. (See the paper in the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders titled “COVID-19, obsessive-compulsive disorder and invisible life forms that threaten the self”).

8. Toxic: Many (if not most) masks and face coverings (including cloth) are made with toxic and carcinogenic chemicals including fire retardant, fibreglass, lead, NFE, phthalates, polyfluorinated chemicals and formaldehyde that will outgas and be inhaled by the wearer. (See “5 main hazardous chemicals in clothing from China named” by Fashion United).

9. Psychologically Harmful: “I believe the real threat right now is what we’re doing to sabotage the mental, emotional and physical health of… our children, whose development is dependent on social interactions, physical contact and facial expressions,” writes Dr. Joseph Mercola of Mercola.com. “Between mask wearing and social distancing, I fear the impact on children in particular may be long-term, if not permanent.”

Six Proofs Masks Do Not Reduce Infections

1. Insubstantial: A CDC-funded review on masking in May 2020 came to the conclusion: “Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza… None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group.” If masks can’t stop the regular flu, how can they stop SAR-CoV-2?

2. Unreasonable: “Evidence that masking as a source [of] control results in any material reduction in transmission was scant, anecdotal, and, in the overall, lacking… [and mandatory masking] is the exact opposite of being reasonable,” ruled a hospital arbitrator in a dispute between The Ontario Nurses’ Association and the Toronto Academic Health Science Network.

3. Ineffective: “Oral masks in healthy individuals are ineffective against the spread of viral infections,” write Belgian medical doctors in an open letter published in The American Institute of Stress, September 24, 2020.

4. Unsanitary: “It has never been shown that wearing surgical face masks decreases postoperative wound infections,” writes Göran Tunevall, M.D. in the World Journal of Surgery. “On the contrary, a 50% decrease [in bacterial infection] has been reported after omitting face masks.”

5. No Protection: “There were 17 eligible studies.… None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask ⁄ respirator use and protection against influenza infection,” concludes a research review in the journal Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses.

6. Unproven: Dutch Minister for Medical Care, Tamara van Ark, asserted that “from a medical perspective there is no proven effectiveness of masks” after a review by the National Institute for Health on July 29, 2020 (according to Reuters).

Five Ways Forced Masking is Immoral

1. Reckless: “By making mask-wearing recommendations and policies for the general public, or by expressly condoning the practice, governments have both ignored the scientific evidence and done the opposite of following the precautionary principle,” writes Denis Rancourt, PhD in his 2020 paper Masks Don’t Work.

2. Manipulative: Dr. Andreas Voss, member of the World Health Organization expert team and head of microbiology at a Dutch hospital in Nijmegen, on July 24, 2020, told I Am Expat that masks were made mandatory “not because of scientific evidence, but because of political pressure and public opinion.”

3. Fear-Mongering: “In fact, there is no study to even suggest that it makes any sense for healthy individuals to wear masks in public,” write Drs. Karina Reiss, Phd and Dr. Sucharit Bakdi, MD in Corona, False Alarm? “One might suspect that the only political reason for enforcing the measure is to foster fear in the population.”

4. Totalitarian: “If you look at the history of totalitarian regimes… they all do the same thing, which is they try to crush culture, and crush any evidence of self-expression…” explains Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in an interview regarding face masks. “And what is the ultimate vector for self-expression? It’s your facial expressions…. [Yet] we’ve all been told to put on the burqa and be obedient.”

5. Virtue-Signalling: “Masks are utterly useless,” testified Dr. Roger Hodkinson, a pathologist, certified with the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, at a city council meeting. “…masks are simply virtue-signalling… It’s utterly ridiculous seeing these unfortunate, uneducated people — I’m not saying that in a pejorative sense — walking around like lemmings, obeying without any knowledge base, to put the mask on their face.”

You can download, print and distribute a two-page printable handout of this article here.

Special thanks to artist Allen Forest for use of his Masked Mona Lisa cartoon.

John C. A. Manley has spent over a decade ghostwriting for medical doctors, naturopaths and chiropractors. Since March 2020, he has been writing articles that question and expose the contradictions in the COVID-19 narrative and control measures. He is also completing a novel, Much Ado About Corona: A Dystopian Love Story. You can visit his website at MuchAdoAboutCorona.ca.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Twenty Reasons Mandatory Face Masks are Unsafe, Ineffective and Immoral

All Global Research articles 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.

First published by Global Research on January 8, 2022

***

A. Consensus of World’s Foremost Experts

Globally renowned experts, including Dr. Paul Alexander, Dr. Byram Bridle, Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, Prof. Dolores Cahill, and Drs. Sucharit Bhakdi, Ryan Cole, Richard Fleming, Robert W. Malone, Peter McCullough, Mark Trozzi, Michael Yeadon, Wolfgang Wodarg, and Vladimir Zelenko, among many others, consistently warn the world about the adverse effects resulting from Covid-19 experimental injections; they also warn about their longterm effects, which cannot be known at this time since most clinical trials will be not completed until 2023, and some as late as 2025.

In June 2021, Dr. Tess Lawrie, co-founder of the World Council for Health and member of the Council’s Steering Committee, courageously described the global crisis and called for urgent action: “There is now more than enough evidence on the [UK] Yellow Card system to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans. Preparation should be made to scale up humanitarian efforts to assist those harmed by the COVID-19 vaccines and to anticipate and ameliorate medium to longer term effects.”

B. Declaration

The World Council for Health declares that it is time to put an end to this humanitarian crisis. Further, the Council also declares that any direct or indirect involvement in the manufacturing, distribution, administration and promotion of these injections violates basic principles of common law, constitutional law and natural justice, as well as the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declaration, and other international treaties.

C. Uncensored Facts

We now know that children are over one hundred times more likely to die from these experimental injections than Covid-19.

Injected athletes, globally, are collapsing before our very eyes.

In spite of the fact that reporting systems are limited and passive, millions of adverse effects have been recorded, which include death, paralysis, blood clots, strokes, myocarditis, pericarditis, heart attacks, spontaneous miscarriage, chronic fatigue and extreme depression.

See: coronavirus-yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk

See: vaers.hhs.gov

See: ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/researchdevelopment/pharmacovigilance/eudravigilance

See: vigiaccess.org (search covid-19 vaccine)

D. Victim Testimonies

The World Council for Health acknowledges and respects the experiences and testimony of the victims of this worldwide medical experiment. We also declare and confirm that safe, effective and affordable treatments for Covid-19 exist and should be made available to all who need them.

See: wewanttobeheard.com

See: nomoresilence.world

See: vaxtestimonies.org/en

E. Not Safe, Not Effective

Recent studies confirm the risks associated with Covid-19 experimental injections. Emerging research establishes that the injections are neither safe nor effective, and, in fact, are toxic. While some of the known ingredients of the injections cause biological harm, it is even more concerning that the unknown and undisclosed ingredients may present an even greater threat to human health.

F. Cease and Desist

The World Council for Health is ethically and lawfully bound to issue this Declaration, demanding that governments and corporations cease and desist from direct or indirect participation in the manufacturing, distribution, administration or promotion of Covid-19 experimental injections.

The Council declares that every living man and woman has a moral and legal duty to take immediate and decisive action to halt this unprecedented medical experiment, which continues to cause unnecessary and immeasurable harm.

G. Notice of Liability

The right of bodily integrity and the right to informed consent are inalienable and universal human rights, which have been trampled by government mandates and corporate imperatives.

Thus, the World Council for Health declares that any person or organization directly or indirectly participating in the manufacturing, distribution, administration or promotion of Covid-19 experimental biologics will be held liable for the violation of principles of justice grounded in civil, criminal, constitutional and natural law, as well as international treaties.

Signed November 29, 2021

Charles Kovess
Dr. Jennifer Hibberd
Dr. Naseeba Kathrada
Dr. Robert J McLeod
Dr. Vince Vicente
Dr. Tess Lawrie
Dr. Mark Trozzi
Dr. Maria Hubmer Mogg
Michael Alexander
Dr. Tracy Chandler
Dr. Zac Cox
Dr. Stephan Becker
Karen McKenna
Shabnam Palesa Mohamed

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense


Annex: Document

All Global Research articles 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.

First published by Global Research on January 5, 2022

***

An alliance of more than 500 independent Canadian doctors, professors, scientists and health care practitioners have come together to form the Canadian COVID Care Alliance. Throughout this pandemic they’ve been committed to providing an evidence-based approach with regards to informing the Canadian public about all things COVID.

Their list of representatives include PhDs in Immunogenetics, Immunology, Molecular Virology, Viral Immunology, Pharmacology, Biomedical Research, Biochemistry, Bioanalytics, practicing family doctors, MDs and more.

The alliance recently released a PDF showing that, according to them, the Pfizer 6 month data shows that their COVID inoculations “cause more illness than they prevent.” The PDF is called “The Pfizer Inoculations For COVID-19: More Harm Than Good”

They also released a video summarizing the PDF, which is embedded at the end of this article if you’d like to scroll down and watch.

The PDF contains all of the data and reasoning as to how these academics came to their conclusion. It’s very detailed and goes into several different important factors that are not adequately addressed within the mainstream despite the fact that they are so important.

As you know, data is interpreted differently, but it’s important in this day in age to be able to share the work of these academics openly and transparently. Fact-checkers who work with Facebook and other organizations should recognize this, even if they have academics who interpret the data differently. Science is about transparency, discussion and the freedom to share information. Censorship doesn’t help. There is existing data showing that vaccines can prevent the severity of illness and chances of death for a period of time, especially in older and more vulnerable populations.

The PDF shows that the data from Pfizer’s six month report showed that vaccinated people experienced an increase in illness and deaths compared to the placebo group. There is no benefit to a reduction in cases if it comes at the cost of increased sickness and death.

The report also showed that “3 participants in the BNT162b2 group and 2 in the original placebo group who received BNT162b2 after unblinding died.” Furthermore, Approximately 50 percent of vaccine injuries reported to VAERS in the last 30 years are all from COVID vaccines.

What’s not mentioned in the report is the fact that the FDA is refusing to release specific data from Pfizer regarding their COVID inoculations. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made by the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, also an independent group of many doctors and scientists, allowed them to get their hands on a fraction of the documents so far.

The documents reveal that Pfizer was aware of more than 50,000 serious adverse reactions that may have been a result of their vaccine within the first 90 days of its rollout. The FDA is currently fighting the group of academics to allow until 2096 to release all the data, which is comprised of nearly half a million pages.

Why don’t independent scientists have access to this data? Why has it not been made transparent?

It was good to see the Canadian COVID Care Alliance bring up the fact that on November 2nd, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) released an article about their investigation into Ventavia, one of the research companies Pfizer hired to conduct the trials. The BMJ received dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails showing the falsification of data.

Facebook actually censored the story and their “fact-checkers” even labelled it a “false news.” The editor-in-chief of The British Medical Journal (BMJ), Fiona Godlee, and soon to be editor-in-chief Kamran Abbasi have criticized Facebook and their “fact-checkers” for labelling the BMJ investigation as false news, and referred to them as “incompetent.”

I first became aware of the Canadian COVID Care Alliance alliance through the work of members Dr. Bryam Bridle, PhD, a viral immunologist and professor at the University of Guelph as well as Dr. Steven Pelech, a professor of neurology and immunology at the University of British Columbia.

Pelech is currently petitioning the Canadian government to stop the rollout of COVID inoculations in Canada.

Below is the video summarizing the PDF put together by the Canadian COVID Care Alliance.

*

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

Featured image is from 123RF

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pfizer 6 Month Data Shows COVID Shots May “Cause More Illness than They Prevent”: Canadian Doctors and Scientists
  • Tags:

On Parliament Hill, John Brassard, the Conservative critic for ethics and accountable government discussed the Public Health Agency of Canada’s decision to collect data from millions of mobile devices to understand travel patterns during the COVID-19(84) pandemic.

This is being done without parliamentary approval and also unbeknownst to the Canadian people.

In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth proves that this agenda to track trace and database everyone during Covid-19(84) is nothing new and that the big brother surveillance control grid has been the plan all along while also most importantly explaining what you can do right now to help mitigate the presence of big brother in your life.

 

Video

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 33 Million Canadian Devices Monitored, 87% of Canadians Movements Spied On. This is Covid 19, (1984)?

All Global Research articles 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 @crg_globalresearch.

***

First published on December 21, 2021

Lockdowns, mandates and passports are the major issue of the day with millions of people protesting against them worldwide. In fact, what has become known as the “medical freedom” movement is arguably the biggest and most diverse international movement in world history. 

Vaccine mandates and vaccine passports are among the most vile, unconstitutional, immoral, unscientific, discriminatory and outright criminal policies ever enforced upon the population and goes against everything GPUS stands for under social justice.

These policies are coming from an out-of-control government at the behest of the pharmaceutical industry. 

The mainstream media and social media are also working in lock-step to censor any and all doctors, scientists and investigative journalists who have an opposing view or who even question the current mainstream media orthodoxy. 

Workers are being forced out of their jobs, many with medical exceptions from their doctors, students are being denied entrance to educational institutions, needed medical treatment is being denied, medical privacy is being violated, constitutionally protected rights to movement and assembly (including the right to travel) are being threatened, rights to normal societal participation are being decimated.  

It has taken a while, but more recently many medical professionals, elected officials and federal judges have come out fully against lockdowns, vaccine mandates, vaccine passports and of course massive censorship.

There is a growing clarity among many that these measures have nothing to do with health and everything to do with a power-grab at levels never before seen in the history of the world.

The National Black Caucus of the GPUS adheres to the principle that informed consent in all personal health and medical decisions is an inalienable human right.  

Under no circumstances shall any medical treatment or procedure — including psychotropic medications, vaccines and/or other injectable treatments — be mandated or coerced.

Individuals should be allowed to protect/heal themselves in a manner that best supports their medical and spiritual beliefs.

The coercive methods we oppose include:

  • Threats to personal health information privacy at every level.
  • Discrimination and/or lack of access to public education, public housing or other public services.
  • Removal of minors from their guardians.
  • Any travel restrictions and/or restrictions from public spaces based on a requirement for “vaccine passports” or any other proof of “compliance” with any medical intervention.
  • Vaccine requirements that target specific populations based on ethnicity/race, even if positioned as correcting disparities.
  • We further oppose the use of privacy-invasive technology and artificial intelligence (AI) monitoring systems (including facial recognition, fingerprint apps, tracking cell phones or any other personal electronic devices and credit score systems) as a way to monitor and track the movements and/or restrict the rights of individuals to freely exist and assemble as they choose, especially when applied to personal health care choices.” 

(National Black Caucus of the US Green Party, 16 December, 2021 )

Litigation and Mandatory Injections

The wellbeing of society has taken many disastrous dives for the worse since the fateful instruction almost two years ago that we should shelter in place in order to “lower the curve of hospitalizations.” Since then, most of our governments have morphed into demented tyrannies. In recent months their thuggishness has been expressed by giving dubious forms of legal backing to nonsensical systems of mandatory injections pressed coercively on entire categories of recipients.  

Many groups of workers are being pushed into taking pathogenic clot shots in order to keep their jobs and all the good things that come from paid employment.  Millions of college and university students are facing similar Faustian bargains if they want to gain and retain access to higher education. In the United States, however, the draconian jobs-for-jabs tradeoff is starting to lose some ground. This same pattern, however, is not yet readily ascertainable in Canada, at least so far. 

The vaccine obsessives in the Biden plutocracy have run into a wall of judicial non-compliance with the determination that the number of forced injections must be increased towards the point of universality. A federal judge in Missouri began the process by pulling the legal rug out from beneath a federal executive order directing healthcare workers to submit to mandatory vaccines in a number of states.   

This ruling was upheld without comment by the 8th Circuit court of Appeals.

 More recently a federal judge in Georgia, R. Stan Baker, put the brakes on the Biden government’s attempt to compel all federal contractors to press gene-modifying clot shots on all their employees.  

Judge Baker’s ruling caused a stampede of corporate leviathans away from the federal infatuation with mandatory shots. For instance General Electric, Verizon, 3 M, Oracle and Boeing began to distance themselves from the US Executive branch’s pathological preoccupation with forcing jabs into as many American arms as possible.   

The judicial blocks put in place by the federal courts in Georgia and Missouri are part of a larger pattern of politics and litigation that seems to be turning the momentum against mandatory vaccines.   

The hostility to federally-mandated injections is growing even in Congress where a majority of Senators, including some Democrats, voted 52 to 48 against the principle of inflicting jabs on workers in companies with more than 100 employees.

Outside of Washington DC the governments of 27 states, some of them with Democratic Party Governors, are lining up to oppose vaccine mandates through policy, statute, and litigation. They are mobilizing to protect the provisions outlined in the1st amendment of the US Constitution. They are mobilizing to safeguard freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and bodily autonomy.   

Brain Freeze Afflictions 

Canada is not yet subject to anything like the political firestorms ignited by US Officialdom’s hot interactions with both sides on the issue of mandatory injections. In Canada the introduction of mandatory vaccines by both levels of government did not immediately arouse harsh antagonisms in either Parliament or in federal-provincial interactions. Indeed, in Canada the manufactured COVID crisis has generated a pretty pervasive brain freeze reflected most conspicuously in the intellectual complacency of most politicians, judges, and academics. 

By and large, most of the leading practitioners in these professional fields have opted not to conduct independent research on their own but to take their signals instead from the bought-and-paid-for media. The consistent uniformity of the deceptive messaging conveyed by the censorious media is at the forefront of the most aggressive and traumatizing saga of psychological warfare ever mounted. 

The steady stream of seriously inaccurate and unbalanced reports emanating from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation forms an especially irritating reminder that, in Canada, there no longer exists any credible venue of national public broadcasting. See this.

The boast of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that he successfully pays off the media in return for softball questions and consistently positive coverage has resonated as very applicable to this propaganda-driven plandemic.

Video: Just Trudeau Braging About Bribing the Media

Video: Justin Trudeau on the Need to Violate Fundamental Rights 

 

 

In the United States, in Canada and many other countries, the main consortium pushing the COVID Con sees mandatory vaccines as necessary steps along the way to so-called vaccine passports. These “passports” are meant to provide new domestic keys for the participation of vaccine-compliant individuals in the mainstream of social, commercial and cultural interactions. 

How are we to interpret the denial of permission to engage in “permitted” interactions in the arbitrary tyranny being imposed on us all in the name of vaccine passport systems? How are we to interpret the exclusion of the so-called “unvaccinated” from a broad array of freedoms and civil liberties that were, until recently, assumed to be integral to citizenship? What is to become of the controlled demolition of our supposed liberal democracies now that the ideals of citizenship are being vanquished? This obliteration of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship is to make way for arbitrary rule by secretive cartels run ultimately by international bankers along with their multi-billionaire protégés?

 The extent of wreckage wrought in Europe through the proliferation of mandated systems of vaccine passports is now becoming clear. Dr. Mike Yeadon, the former Vice-President of Pfizer Corporation, has highlighted the subject. He has observed

 “Europe is all but gone. The lights are going out. Austria and Germany now subject their unvaccinated to house arrest. In Greece, the unvaccinated are subject to escalating fines, non-payment of which is converted into prison time. In Lithuania, the unvaccinated are excluded from society. The booster campaigns are running full-pelt everywhere.” See this.

From the introduction of the celebrity virus in early 2020, the plandemic’s main promoters have aimed at the goal of imposing universalized injections on all of humankind. The promoters prominently include Bill Gates and his longtime friend, Justin Trudeau. According to cybersecurity expert, David Hawkins, the famous fathers of both Justin Trudeau and Bill Gates Jr. were also friends and collaborators in their shared advocacy of eugenic approaches for the control of human reproduction. 

The vaccine obsessives driving the exploitation of the manufactured COVID crisis engaged large-scale academic fraud to advance their opposition to all natural remedies for coronavirus infection. Remedies like Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin have been lied about and defamed by the COVID Officialdom, with Anthony Fauci as its chief point person.   

For more than a generation Fauci has been a chief promoter of “public-private partnerships” that integrate the federal government and the military-industrial complex with the pharmaceutical companies. Chrystia Freeland, the real behind-the-scenes, hands-on leader of the federal Liberals, has accelerated Canada’s adoption of the US model of political economy over many jurisdictional spheres including “health care.” 

The crackdown on alternative remedies for coronavirus infection has been intense. One revealing illustration of the severity of the crackdown highlights a fraudulent study of Hydroxychloroquine by a fake company named Surgisphere. The incident illustrated the deep corruption of the academic peer review system when it comes to the process of assessing pharmaceutical products. The journals, Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, were exposed as dishonest publishing venues as corrupt as the tainted industry that contains them. 

As Robert F. Kennedy Jr has documented in great detail, government regulators including the NIH, the FDA, and the CDC have been captured by businesses to do the bidding of the drug companies. The government as personified by Fauci makes it a priority to help makers of pharmaceutical products priorize the making of money over the protection of public health. 

This corporatist bias in governance is epitomized by the grant of legal immunity to vaccine makers. Since 1986 the companies in this commercial sector cannot be sued for damages caused by faults in their products.

This immunization of the makers of vaccines exempts them by law from being held responsible for causing death and injury with their sometimes toxic and improperly-tested products. This exemption from the normal requirements of doing business highlights a deep systemic problem in the proliferation of public-private partnerships that dominate the US pharmaceutical industry.

The federal government has extended to vaccine makers the kind of sweetheart deal removing the incentive for companies to take the required time and expense to make their injections truly safe and effective. The consequent breakdown in standards has given rise to a flood of illness-inflicting results that show up in the meteoric increases in chronic disease that have swept over the United States since 1989. See this.

The preferential treatment directed by the federal regulators at their favorite vaccine companies is reflected in the unfounded prohibitions sidelining cheap natural cures for coronavirus illnesses. As Dr. Vladimir Zelenko has emphasized, these politically-motivated prohibitions have resulted in many hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. See this. 

The cheap, unpatented and readily-available natural remedies have been banned or defamed to preserve the emergency measure approvals for the much-anticipated Warp Speed shots. From what has been published about the flagrantly incompetent and dishonest medical experiment still-underway, the emergency measure shots have been shown to be far too deadly and injurious to qualify as being anywhere near safe and effective. 

The Future of a Bio-Digital Database 

One important incentive that has been shown to be driving the attempt to universalize COVID injections, is to bring about the global universalization of a bio-digital database more powerful, comprehensive and adaptable than any previously-existing platform. The strategic importance of this objective should help explain the pathological push to demonize and even criminalize those that refuse to allow themselves to be injected with the gene-altering jabs. 

Dr. Mike Yeadon was one of the first major scientists to blow the whistle on the deeper implications of the data-collecting initiative that is integral to the manufactured COVID crisis. See this.

For months Dr. Yeadon has been warning that one of the main purposes of the COVID scam is to empower and enrich those seeking to become the proprietors of a new system of data collection, transmission and manipulation. The envisaged database would encompass many different categories, themes, topics, vectors, and searches. 

Dr. Yeadon explains how the real agenda of the promoters of vaccine passports goes far beyond a means of recording the vaccination histories of individuals. Rather, the envisaged objectives are far more broad-ranging, extending to information in individuals’ finances, police records, contact lists, travel histories, sexual proclivities as well as collections of detailed digital data on the distinct genetic characteristics of every human on the planet. 

Many human genomes are already being mapped. This vast new fund of bio-digital data is susceptible to being archived, monitored, shipped and analyzed through elaborate networks devoted to the Internet of people, things and services on the fast-expanding frontiers of Artificial Intelligence (AI).   

The proliferation of well-funded entities like Bill Gates’ GAVI form a big part of these developments, including on the engineered interfaces linking human biology and digital technology. One of the motives driving Gates in bringing about the mass vaccination of children, is depopulation. See this.

It is also to incorporate the survivors early into systems of mass digital surveillance. See this.

In 2009 the government of Switzerland recognized in GAVI a long list of state-like powers and jurisdictions. Describing itself as a public-private partnership, “the Geneva-based GAVI Alliance enjoys privileges and immunities similar to those enjoyed by other intergovernmental organizations [including the UN] in Switzerland.” See this.

The Frankenstein-esque projects being pushed by promoters of transhumanism figure prominently among those engaged in engineering the COVID crisis. These would-be makers of the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution are deadly serious in their quest to implement and exploit massive schemes for unlimited bio-digital experiments in the process of transforming humans into transhumans.

The goal is nothing less than to alter the very form and genetic character of Homo sapiens. See this.

The goal of transhumanism is to marry mechanical devices and computational capacity with the natural attributes that humanity has inherited from God and from millions of years of evolution. In this way the survivors of the so-called “Great Reset” currently underway would be made to integrate more readily into the robotization of society through the secretive and sometimes competitive operations of many different initiatives in AI. See this.

Presently obstacles are being removed to the aggressive reconstitution of human beings including through the genetic modification of human attributes. See this.

The way is being prepared for new forms of experiment on human subjects that go far beyond the atrocities currently being committed in this round of forced mass injections. The way is being cleared, it seems, for laissez-faire approaches to conducting medical research on human stand-ins for the role once assigned to rats and guinea pigs. This spectacle of degradation exposes that the value of human life is being subjected to a precipitous decline that might very well prove to be more draconian than anything we have seen so far in history.

How else are we to interpret the future implications of the decisive blow against constitutionally guaranteed protections for bodily autonomy and for the security of the person? Once governments have backed the act of compelling individuals to accept the coercive injection of known pathogens into their bodies as conditions for keeping their jobs, what can we expect next? Is there any facet of human rights that will continue to be respected as sacrosanct after the imposition on large population groups  of mandatory injections?

*

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

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Edmonton police are among the city employees fighting against COVID-19 shot mandates.
Kaytoo / Shutterstock.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.

***

This article was published in the National Post under the title Controlling COVID (and Us) Is “Mission Impossible”.

Below are relevant excerpts with a link to the complete National Post article, emphasis added. Our thanks to renowned Canadian journalist and former Senator André Pratte.

***

In recent days, the government of Québec has had to backtrack on some of the measures it had announced in its campaign against COVID. For instance, after insisting for weeks that people who think they may be infected get tested, Québec announced on Tuesday that PCR tests would from now on only be available for specific groups, amongst them health-care workers.

Those changes have led to very critical comments in the press. Star columnist Patrick Lagacé, in La Presse, wondered if there was a pilot on the plane. A headline in the Journal de Montréal asserted: “Quebec is playing with our nerves.” There is a sense, increasingly shared, that the provincial government has lost control of the pandemic.

While all this is happening, I am reading Why Liberalism Works, by distinguished American economist Deirdre Nansen McCloskey. Quote:

“A complicated economy far exceeds the ability of even a government-sized collection of human intellects to govern it in detail. … Governing in great detail from the capital the trillions of plans shifting daily by the nearly 330 million individuals in the American economy is a fool’s errand …”

I wonder if the same applies to the unprecedented attempts by governments, in Canada and elsewhere, to control their citizens’ private lives in the hopes of containing the COVID-19 pandemic. Isn’t there a point where such attempts are so fastidious, arbitrary and rights-infringing that they become futile, counterproductive even? More importantly, if we accept this extent of state intervention in our private lives now, what will prevent governments from doing it again to contain another crisis, real or apprehended? What if this becomes the new normal?

What if this becomes the new normal?

I am not advocating that governments lift all the restrictions that have been put in place since the beginning of the pandemic. Contrary to Ms. McCloskey, I have always been convinced, and I think that history bears that out, that there are things that only a government can do; dealing with a public health emergency is one of them.

if we are to draw the line between proper and excessive government intervention in our lives. As John Stuart Mill wrote in 1859:

“There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism.”

….If COVID-19 is to stay amongst us for years to come, we cannot allow governments to interfere with our basic rights forever, to submit our society to those ruinous stop-and-go exercises, to try to control our lives up to minute details. At some point, we will have to learn to live with the virus. This means that governments will need to rely less on restrictive measures and more on peoples’ discernment. This also means that each of us shall act as a responsible citizen, as is required in a liberal democracy.

Read complete article here

 

*

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

Featured image: Montreal police question a woman while enforcing curfew orders on Dec. 31, 2021. PHOTO BY PETER MCCABE/THE CANADIAN PRESS

All Global Research articles 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 key question repeatedly coming up among people who are so angry about government pandemic management is this: Why are there so very few medical professionals who see the many pandemic management failures but do nothing to challenge the medical and public health establishment?  Why do they remain silent?  Why do they keep working in institutions that unquestioningly follow failed government policies and mandates?

On one side of their health profession brain is recognition of all the failures of the systems they work in.  Because they are so evident.  Like the general public, they see endless COVID cases, hospitalizations and deaths and the failure of vaccines.  They see historic levels of pain and suffering among the population that they previously saw themselves serving and helping.  They know that much is being withheld from the public.

On the other side of their brain, they see that they personally are failing their original commitment to save lives and make patients better by practicing personalized medicine.  They know that there is so much medical research that is not being used.

This is classic cognitive dissonance: a profound and fundamental clash of real-world information.  An internal mental conflict that is not easily resolved.

I want to emphasize that I am NOT talking about truly evil people like Fauci and so many other leaders in the medical and public health establishment. Evil people cannot escape what they intentionally do that is not in the best interests of the public that they profess to serve. Understanding the suffering of professionals because of cognitive dissonance is not meant as any kind of excuse for the evil, destructive actions of powerful people like Fauci.

Stuck in the middle: What are normal medical and public health professionals to do?

Most try and live with their cognitive dissonance.  They go along with the government and medical/public health establishment, but not because they unquestionally support it.

If they can block or tamper down information about the failures of what they do, of what their profession is doing, of what government agencies are doing, then they minimize their cognitive dissonance.  This minimizes their pain.  These are the medical professionals who do not rebel, who do not reject vaccines and who do not tell the truth about what is going on in their hospital or practice.  Who do not tell their patients what is wrong with what their employer demands of them.

In contrast, are the fewer medical professionals who choose to eliminate their cognitive dissonance by rebelling, by becoming truth-tellers, by risking their jobs and sometimes losing them because they refuse the jab or openly tell the truth about the failures of pandemic management.  These are risk-takers serving the public.

In contrast, living with cognitive dissonance makes the lives of medical professionals difficult and painful.  They have had to face a difficult existential choice: Either reduce their pain by blocking out many facts and truths about what is really happening, or let all that in and change their behavior.

Changed behavior explains why a large number of nurses and physicians have rejected vaccines, and often leave their loved jobs to live up to their basic beliefs.  They are the ones who free themselves of painful cognitive dissonance.

For those of us who are not medical professionals caught in the middle between what is really happening and what is supposed to be done, we should understand why we are being let down and disappointed by the vast majority of medical professionals.

We can and should condemn the medical and public health establishment for so many failures and harm to the public and society.

But we need to have compassion for the medical professionals suffering with cognitive dissonance.  And we need, more than ever, to embrace and respect the fewer numbers who escaped cognitive dissonance by being truth-tellers and medical practitioners offering people COVID treatments (such as ivermectin) not supported by government agencies.  And who do not support unsafe and ineffective COVID vaccines.

Some of you (non-medical professionals) may also be suffering with cognitive dissonance.  You may be torn between what you are have been hearing and reading from truth-tellers, medical rebels and anti-government patriots versus what your personal physicians and the medical/public health and mainstream media establishments keep forcing on you.

Is your behavior changed to minimize painful cognitive dissonance?  Choices include getting jabbed or not, taking new Pfizer/Merck drugs versus generics like ivermectin, wearing a mask when it is not required, believing what Fauci and the leftist media say or not.  Staying friends with those who have bought into all the propaganda, misinformation and government mandates and actions, or concluding it is too painful to having those people who reject and oppose your beliefs remaining close to you.

Your choice on how to manage mental stress. And always your choice to keep fighting the evil powers that are the root cause of hundreds of thousands of deaths.

renowned Medical doctor and author Dr. Joel Hirschorn is a regular contributor to Global Research

*

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

Featured image is from Mises Wire

Is it Time for Intellectuals to Talk About God? Naomi Wolf

January 14th, 2022 by Dr. Naomi Wolf

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

I recently spoke at a gathering for medical freedom advocates in a little community center in the Hudson River Valley. I cherish this group of activists: they had steadfastly continued to gather throughout the depths of the “lockdown,” that evil time in history — an evil time not yet behind us — and they kept on gathering in human spaces, undaunted. And by joining their relaxed pot-luck dinners around unidentifiable but delicious salads and chewy homemade breads, I was able to continue to remember what it meant to be part of a sane human community.

Children played — as normal — frolicking around, and speaking and laughing and breathing freely; not suffocating in masks like little zombies, or warned by terrified adults to keep from touching other human children. Dogs were petted. Neighbors spoke to one another at normal ranges, without fear or phobias. Bands played much-loved folk songs or cool little indie rock numbers they had written themselves, and no one, graceful or awkward, feared dancing. People sat on the house’s steps shoulder to shoulder, in human warmth, and chatted over glasses of wine or homemade cider. No one asked anyone personal medical questions.

(While I believe that all decisions about how you live your life vis a vis an infectious disease are intensely personal, and I would never recommend to others to assume any specific level of risk or to pursue any specific strategy of risk reduction; I think it’s worth noting, by the way, that to my knowledge, they had gone through the last two years without having lost a soul to COVID.)

Meanwhile, what had been human community outside of that little group, and outside other isolated normal communities — and outside of a handful of normal states in America — became more and more surreal, terrifying and unrecognizable.

The rest of the world, at least on the progressive side in the United States, became increasingly cult-like and insular in its thinking, since March of 2020.

As the months passed, friends and colleagues of mine who were highly educated, and who had been lifelong critical thinkers, journalists, editors, researchers, doctors, philanthropists, teachers, psychologists — all began to repeat only talking points from MSNBC and CNN, and soon overtly refused to look at any sources – even peer-reviewed sources in medical journals — even CDC data — that contradicted those talking points. These people literally said to me, “I don’t want to see that; don’t show it to me.” It became clear soon enough that if they absorbed information contradictory to “the narrative” that was consolidating, they risked losing social status, maybe even jobs; doors would close, opportunities would be lost. One well-educated woman told me she did not want to see any unsanctioned information because she was afraid of being disinvited from her bridge group. Hence the refrain: “I don’t want to see that; don’t show it to me.”

Friends and colleagues of mine who had been skeptical their whole adult lives of Big Agriculture — who only shopped at Whole Foods, who would never let their kids eat sugar or processed meat, or ingest a hint of Red Dye No 2 in candy, or eat candy itself for that matter in some cases — these same people lined up to inject into their bodies, and then offered up the bodies of their dependent minor children for the same purpose, an MRNA gene-therapy injection whose trials would not end for two more years. These parents announced on social media proudly that they had done this with their children. When I pointed out gently that the trials would not end til 2023, they yelled at me.

The progressive, right-on part of the ideological world — my people, my tribe, my whole life — became more and more uncritical, less and less able to reason. Friends and colleagues who were wellness-oriented, and who their whole adult lives had known the dangers of Big Pharma — and who would only use Burt’s Bees on their babies’ bottoms and sunscreen with no PABAs on themselves— lined up to take an experimental gene therapy; why not? And worse, it seemed, they crowded around, like the stone throwers in Shirley Jackson’s short story “The Lottery,” to lash out at and to shun anyone who raised the most basic questions about Big Pharma and its highly compensated spokesmodels. Their critical thinking, but worse, their entire knowledge base about that industry, seemed to have evaporated magically into the ether.

Whole belief systems were abandoned painlessly and overnight as if it these communities were in the grip of a collective hallucination, like the witch craze of the 15th to 17th centuries in Northern Europe. Intelligent, informed people suddenly saw things that were not there and were unable to see things that were incontrovertibly before their faces.

Feminist health activists, who surely knew perfectly well the histories of how the pharmaceutical and medical industries had experimented ad nauseam on the bodies of women with disastrous results, lined up to take an injection that by March of 2021 women were reporting was wreaking painful havoc on their menstrual cycles. These same feminist health activists had spoken out earlier, as they should have, about Big Pharma’s and Big Medicine’s colonization of women’s reproductive health processes, and had spoken out about issues ranging from women’s access to safe contraception to abortion rights, to the rights of mothers to a midwifery delivery or to a birthing room, or to the right to labour or the right to store milk at work or the right to breastfeed in public.

But these formerly reliable custodians of well-informed medical skepticism and of women’s health rights, were silent, silent, as such voices as former HHS official Dr Paul Alexander warned that spike protein from MRNA vaccines may accumulate in the ovaries (and testes), see this, and as vaccinated women reported hemorrhagic menses — double digit percentages in a Norwegian study reported heavier bleeding (see this). Many women also reported blood clotting, and women even reported post-menopausal bleeding — and mothers reported their vaccinated twelve year olds suddenly getting their periods; but it was two periods a month some girls endured.

Almost no one out of the luminaries of feminist health activism who had spent decades speaking out on behalf of women’s health and women’s bodies, raised a peep above the parapet. Those two or three of us who did were very visibly smeared, in some cases threatened, and in many ways silenced.

When I broke this story of menstrual dysregulation post-vaccination on Twitter in Spring of 2021, I was suspended. Matt Gertz works at CNN and Media Matters. The former is a channel on which I had appeared for decades; the latter, a group whose leadership members I’ve known for years, and in one instance, with whom I’ve worked.

In spite of both of his employers having sought out professional association with me, Matt Gertz publicly and repeatedly called me a “pandemic conspiracy theorist” upon my first having reported on menstrual dysregulation, and elsewhere accused me of “crack-pottery”, see this.

Shame on me for doing journalism. I broke the post-vaccination menstrual dysregulation story by doing what I always do: by using the same methodology that I used in writing The Beauty Myth (about eating disorders) and Misconceptions (about obstetrics), and Vagina (about female sexual health): I listened to women, that radical act.

The New York Times just re-broke my story of menstrual dysregulation, ten months later, January 2022, in a different year, see this, after perhaps millions of women readers may have been physically harmed by their lack of decent reporting and their uncritical acceptance of soundbites from captured regulatory authorities. There has been no retraction or apology from Mr Gertz, from The New York Times, or from other news outlets such as DailyMail.co.uk, who all then called me crazy but are now reporting my story as if it is their own — now that it’s clear that, once again, sadly, I was right.

Feminist health advocates who know about routine hysterectomies at menopause, about vaginal mesh that has to be removed, about silicone breasts implants that leaked or burst and had to be recalled or replaced, about Mirena that had to be removed, about Thalidomide that deformed babies’ limbs in utero, about birth control pills at hormonal doses that heightened heart attack risks and stroke risks and that lowered the female libido; about routine c-sections to speed up turnover at hospitals, about the sterilization of low income women and girls and women and girls of color without informed consent — were silent about the unproven nature of MRNA vaccines, and about coercive policies that violated the Nuremberg code and other laws, as a whole generation of young women who have not yet had their babies, was forced to take an MRNA vaccine (and sometimes second vaccine, and booster) with unproven effects on reproductive health, in order simply to return to campus or to get or to keep a job.

The Our Bodies Ourselves collective? Nothing on vaccine risks and women’s health as a subject category: see this. NARAL? Where were they? Crickets. Where were all the responsible feminist health activists, in the face of this global, unconsenting, uninforming, illegal experimentation on women’s bodies, and now on children, and soon, on babies?

People who had been up in arms for decades about eating disorders or about the coercive social standards that led to — horrors — leg shaving, were silent about an untested injection that was minting billions for Big Pharma; an injection that entered, according to Moderna’s own press material, every cell in the body, which would thus include involving uterus, ovaries, endometrium.

The sudden amnesia extended to feminist legal theory. Feminist jurists such as Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan debated President Biden’s vaccine mandates on January 7 — as if they had never heard of the legal claims for Roe v Wade: privacy law. As Politico reported of Justice Kagan, “The Supreme Court’s ruling on privacy rights served as a basis for its later decision, Roe v Wade” and as former Sen. Barbara Boxer had stated, “I have no reason to think anything else except that [Kagan] would be a very strong supporter of privacy rights because everyone she worked for held that view.” See this.

Except…now they seemingly don’t, and now Justice Kagan magically doesn’t. With medical mandates, there are no privacy rights for anyone ever.

But Justice Kagan seemed suddenly, after decades of this view, not to see a contradiction. Her career-long philosophical foundation that resulted in a consistent view, when it came to abortion rights, that citizens had a right to physical privacy in medical decision-making — “My body, my choice” — “It is between a woman and her doctor” — vanished, along with her expensive education and all of her knowledge of the Constitution.

Justice Sotomayor, for her part, said, in an article reported on Dec 10 2021, that it was “madness” that the state of Texas wanted to “substantially suspend[ed] a constitutional guarantee: a pregnant woman’s right to control her own body.” Her tone was, rightly, one of high dudgeon at the thought that anyone might override this right. But when it came to Justice Sotomayor’s discussion on Jan 7 2022, less than four weeks later, of President Biden’s vaccine mandates, that clear Constitutional right was now nowhere to be seen; it too had vanished into the ether. A part of Justice Sotomayor’s brain seems to have simply shut down at the word “vaccines” — though it was the same woman in the same Court, with the same Constitution before her, the Justice could no longer manage the Kantian imperative of consistent reasoning. See this.

Lifelong activists for justice and inclusion, for the Constitution and human rights and the rule of law — friends and colleagues of mine who are LGBTQ rights activists; the ACLU itself; activists for racial inclusion and equality; Constitutional lawyers who teach at all the major universities and run the law reviews; activists who argue against excluding anyone from any profession or access based on gender; almost all of them, at least on the progressive side of the spectrum (almost all: hello, Glenn Greenwald) — were silent; as a comprehensive, systematic, cruel, Titanic discrimination society was erected in a matter of months in such cities as New York City, formerly the great melting pot, the great equalizer; and as whole states such as California adopted a system pretty much like the apartheid systems based on other physical characteristics, in regimes that these same proud advocates for equality and inclusion had boycotted in college.

And yet now these former heroes for human rights and for equal justice under law, stood by calmly or even enthusiastically as the massive edifice of discrimination was constructed. And then they colluded. Without even a fight or a murmur.

And they had their “vaccinated-only” parties, and their segregated fashion galas, and their nonprofit-hosted discussions in nice medically-segregated New York City midtown hotels over expensive lunches served by staffers in masks — lunches celebrating luminaries of the civil rights movement or of the LGBTQ rights movement or the immigrants’ rights movement, or the movement to help girls in Afghanistan get access to schools which they had been prevented from attending— invitations which I received, but of which I could not make use, because — because I was prevented from attending.

And these elite justice advocates enjoyed the celebrations of their virtues and of their values, and did not seem to notice that they had become — in less than a year — exactly what they had spent their adult lives professing most to hate.

I could go on and on.

The bottom line, though, is that this infection of the soul, this abandonment of classical Liberalism’s — really, it’s not even partisan; modern civilization’s — most cherished postwar ideals, this sudden dropping of post-Enlightenment norms of critical thinking, this dilution even of parents’ sense of protectiveness over the bodies and futures of their helpless minor children, this acceptance of a world in which people can’t gather to worship, these suddenly-manifested structures themselves that erected this demonic world in less than two years and imposed it on everyone else, these heads of state and heads of the AMA and heads of school boards and these teachers; these heads of unions and these national leaders and the state level leaders and the town hall level functionaries all the way down to the men or woman who disinvite a relative from Thanksgiving due to social pressure, because of a medical status which is no one’s business and which affects no one — this edifice of evil is too massive, too quickly erected, too complex and really, too elegant, to assign to just human awfulness and human inventiveness.

Months before, I had asked a renowned medical freedom activist how he stayed strong in his mission as his name was besmirched and he faced career attacks and social ostracism. He replied with Ephesians 6:12: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”  See this.

I had thought of that a lot in the intervening time. It made more and more sense to me as the days passed.

I confessed at that gathering in the woods with the health freedom community, that I had started to pray again. This was after many years of thinking that my spiritual life was not that important, and certainly very personal, almost embarrassingly so, and thus it was not something I should mention in public.

I told the group that I was now willing to speak about God publicly, because I had looked at what had descended on us from every angle, using my normal critical training and faculties; and that it was so elaborate in its construction, so comprehensive, and so cruel, with an almost superhuman, flamboyant, baroque imagination made out of the essence of cruelty itself — that I could not see that it had been accomplished by mere humans working on the bumbling human level in the dumb political space.

I felt around us, in the majestic nature of the awfulness of the evil around us, the presence of “principalities and powers” — almost awe-inspiring levels of darkness and of inhuman, anti-human forces. In the policies unfolding around us I saw again and again anti-human outcomes being generated: policies aimed at killing children’s joy; at literally suffocating children, restricting their breath, speech and laughter; at killing school; at killing ties between families and extended families; at killing churches and synagogues and mosques; and, from the highest levels, from the President’s own bully pulpit, demands for people to collude in excluding, rejecting, dismissing, shunning, hating their neighbors and loved ones and friends.

I have seen bad politics all of my life and this drama unfolding around us goes beyond bad politics, which is silly and manageable and not that scary. This — this is scary, metaphysically scary. In contrast to hapless human mismanagement, this darkness has the tinge of the pure, elemental evil that underlay and gave such hideous beauty to the theatrics of Nazism; it is the same nasty glamour that surrounds Leni Riefenstahl films.

In short, I don’t think humans are smart or powerful enough to have come up with this horror all alone.

So I told the group in the woods, that the very impressiveness of evil all around us in all of its new majesty, was leading me to believe in a newly literal and immediate way in the presence, the possibility, the necessity of a countervailing force — that of a God. It was almost a negative proof: an evil this large must mean that there is a God at which it is aiming its malevolence.

And that is a huge leap for me to take, as a classical Liberal writer in a postwar world, — to say these things out loud.

Grounded postmodern intellectuals are not supposed to talk about or believe in spiritual matters — at least not in public. We are supposed to be shy about referencing God Himself, and are certainly are not supposed to talk about evil or the forces of darkness.

As a Jew I come from a tradition in which Hell (or “Gehenom”) is not the Miltonic Hell of the later Western imagination, but rather a quieter interim spiritual place (See this). “The Satan” exists in our literature (in Job for example) but neither is this the Miltonic Satan, that rock star, but a figure more modestly known as “the accuser.”

We who are Jews, though, do have a history and literature that lets us talk about spiritual battle between the forces of God and negative forces that debase, that profane, that seek to ensnare our souls. We have seen this drama before, and not that long ago; about eighty years ago.

Other faith traditions of course also have ways to discuss and understand spiritual battle taking place through humans, and through human leaders, and here on earth.

It was not always the case that Western intellectuals were supposed to keep quiet in public about spiritual wrestling, fears and questions. Indeed in the West, poets and musicians, dramatists and essayists and philosophers, talked about God, and even about evil, for millennia, as being at the core of their understanding of the world and as forming the basis of their art forms and of their intellectual missions. This was the case right through the nineteenth century and into the first quarter of the 20th, a period when some of our greatest intellectuals — from Darwin to Freud to Jung — wrestled often and in public with questions of how the Divine, or its counterpart, manifested in the subjects they examined.

It was not until after World War Two and then the rise of Existentialism — the glorification of a world view in which the true intellectual showed his or her mettle by facing the absence of God and our essential aloneness — that smart people were expected to shut up in public about God.

So – it’s not wacky or eccentric, if you know intellectual history, for intellectuals to talk in public about God, and even about God’s adversary, and to worry about the fate of human souls. Mind and soul are not in fact at odds; and the body is not in fact at odds with either of these. And this acceptance of our three-part, integrated nature is part of our Western heritage. This is a truth only recently obscured or forgotten; a memory of our integrity as human beings that had been, only for the last seventy years or so, under attack.

So — I am going to start talking about God, when I need to do so, and about my spiritual questions in this dark time, along with continuing all of the other reporting and nonfiction analysis I always do. Because I have always told my readers the truth of what I felt and saw. This may be why they have come with me on a journey now of almost forty-three years, and why they keep seeking me out — though I have in the last couple of years — after I wrote a book that described how 19th century pandemics were exploited by the British State to take away everyone’s liberty, hm — been pulped, deplatformed, cancelled, re-cancelled, deplatformed again, and called insane by dozens of the same news outlets that had commissioned me religiously for decades.

It is time to start talking about spiritual combat again, I personally believe. Because I think that that is what we are in, and the forces of darkness are so big that we need help. Our goal? Perhaps just to keep the light somehow alive – a light of true classical humane values, of reason, of democracy, inclusion, kindness – in this dark time.

What is the object of this spiritual battle?

It seems to be for nothing short of the human soul.

One side seems to be wrestling for the human soul by targeting the human body that houses it; a body made in God’s likeness, so they say; the temple of God.

I am not confident. I don’t have enough faith. Truth is, I am scared to death. I just don’t think just humans alone can solve this one, or can win this one on their own.

I do think we need to call, as Milton did, as Shakespeare did, as Emily Dickinson did, on help from elsewhere; on what could be called angels and archangels, if you will; on higher powers, whatever they may be; on better principalities, on whatever intercessors may hear us, on Divine Providence — whatever you want to call whomever it is you can hope for and imagine. As I often say, I’ll take any faith tradition. I’ll talk to God in any language — I don’t think forms really matter. I think intention is everything.

I can’t say for sure that God and God’s helpers exist; I can’t. Who can?

But I do think we are at an unheard-of moment in human history — globally — in which I personally believe we have no other choice but to ask for assistance from beings — or a Being — better armed to fight true darkness, than ourselves alone. We’ll find out if they exist, if He or She exists, perhaps, if we ask for God’s help.

At least that’s my hope.

Which I guess is a kind of a prayer.

*

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

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

There is a tectonic shift underway in the medico-scientific establishment: they are starting to walk back boosters.

The first indication of this dramatic change of attitude came from the United Kingdom last week.

On January 7, Reuters ran a wire titled UK Says 4th COVID Jabs Not Needed for Now As Booster Effect Lasts. That piece featured the following sentence in its opening paragraph: “there is no need for now for people to have a fourth shot, British health officials said on Friday.”

Three days later, the UK Mirror published a piece titled What Is ‘Living With Covid’? Boris Johnson Drawing Up Plans ‘To Be Rolled Out In March. The article quoted Dr. Clive Dix, the former head of the UK’s vaccine task force, who said:

“It is pointless keeping giving more and more vaccines to people who are not going to get very ill. We should just let them get ill and deal with that.”

A mere day later, Bloomberg put out an article titled Repeat Booster Shots Spur European Warning on Immune-System Risks. The piece opened as follows:

European Union regulators warned that frequent Covid-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune system and may not be feasible. Repeat booster doses every four months could eventually weaken the immune system and tire out people, according to the European Medicines Agency.

The piece goes on to quote Marco Cavaleri, the Head of Biological Health Threats and Vaccines Strategy at the European Medicines Agency (EMA), who said that boosters “can be done once, or maybe twice, but it’s not something that we can think should be repeated constantly.”

Cavaleri then went on to say something we had not yet heard from a high-level public health official:

“We need to think about how we can transition from the current pandemic setting to a more endemic setting.”

Around the same time, the World Health Organization (WHO) put out a statement which included this astounding sentence:

“[A] vaccination strategy based on repeated booster doses of the original vaccine composition is unlikely to be appropriate or sustainable.”

This was a truly startling development since until a week before medical authorities world over were speaking about the need for the fourth (and even subsequent) shots. In fact, some countries like Britain and Israel have already started their administration.

This sudden change of course indicates that there is something in the data that has the powers that be seriously worried. When it came to the Covid vaccines, the medical authorities have displayed an astonishing level of tolerance for side effects and collateral damage. So much so that they were even willing to let some children die unnecessarily for the sake of their vaccine agenda.

Their abrupt reversal indicates that they must have recognized that there is something very dangerous in dealing out successive doses of the vaccines. Publicly admitting that “frequent Covid-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune system,” very likely means that the injections have already damaged many people’s health.

That Covid jabs may undermine the immune system has been glaringly indicated by the rise of Omicron. It has been observed that the vaccines have “negative efficacy” vis-à-vis this strain, which means that the vaccinated and boostered are getting infected at higher rates than the unvaccinated. In Ontario, for example, the vaccinated get Omicron at three times the rate of their unvaccinated counterparts.

Why would this be? The obvious explanation is that the vaccines weaken their recipients’ immune defenses and hence they are more prone to getting infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The vaccinators were defending this debacle by claiming that even though the vaccinated are succumbing to infection, they are not dying at high rates. But this is not due to the vaccines but to the fact that Omicron appears to be less virulent than its predecessors because the death rate among the unvaccinated is also low. Omicron has been so mild that in South Africa, where this variant seems to have originated and where it quickly infected a large portion of the population – most of which is unvaccinated – the Covid mortality dropped.

But it is not only SARS-CoV-2 that the vaccinated are vulnerable to. They seem to be prone to all kinds of viruses and infections. There have been many reports of the vaccinated being unable to shake off colds and flu.

Last week it was reported that EU Parliament president David Sassoli died due to serious immune system dysfunction. Sassoli was an ardent advocate of Covid passports, and it is almost certain that he was vaccinated and boostered. One cannot but think that this may have something to do with his demise – although if it does,  the authorities will never admit this.

A weakened immune system, however, is not the only adverse side effect of these inadequately tested experimental injections. Blood clots, cardiac arrest, neurological problems are among some of the other serious reported side effects of the Covid shots.

As the evidence has been accumulating about just how harmful and dangerous the Covid injections may be, the authorities tried their best to sweep it under the rug and pretend that everything was fine. But now the critical mass has been apparently reached and the establishment has realized that successive boosters are simply too dangerous to tolerate. Hence their change of mind.

This means that the dark era of forced boostering is coming to a close. It may take some time for the booster machine to stop grinding but its days are numbered.

The booster has been busted.

It was about time.

*

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

Our thanks to Dr. Gary G. Kohls, a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization, for bringing this article to our attention.

Vasko Kohlmayer was born and grew up in former communist Czechoslovakia. You can follow his writings by subscribing to his Substack newsletter ’Notes from the Twilight Zone’. He is the author of The West in Crisis: Civilizations and Their Death Drives.

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.

***

 

 

Washington will not consider Russian proposals on no expansion of NATO, and has no intention of even discussing the idea. So much for “dialogue”.

It was the first high-level Russia-NATO meeting since 2019 – coming immediately after the non sequitur of the U.S.-Russia “security guarantee” non-dialogue dialogue earlier in the week in Geneva.

So what happened in Brussels? Essentially yet another non-dialogue dialogue – complete with a Kafkaesque NATO preface: we’re prepared for dialogue, but the Kremlin’s proposals are unacceptable.

This was a double down on the American envoy to NATO, Julianne Smith, preemptively blaming Russia for the actions that “accelerated this disaster”.

By now every sentient being across Eurasia and its European peninsula should be familiar with Russia’s top two, rational demands: no further NATO expansion, and no missile systems stationed near its borders.

Now let’s switch to the spin machine. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s platitudes were predictably faithful to his spectacular mediocrity. On the already pre-empted dialogue, he said it was “important to start a dialogue”.

Russia, he said, “urged NATO to refuse to admit Ukraine; the alliance responded by refusing to compromise on enlargement”. Yet NATO “welcomed bilateral consultations” on security guarantees.

NATO also proposed a series of broad security consultations, and “Russia has not yet agreed, but has not ruled out them either.”

No wonder: the Russians had already noted, even before it happened, that this is noting but stalling tactics.

The Global South will be relieved to know that Stoltenberg defended NATO’s military blitzkriegs in both Kosovo and Libya: after all “they fell under UN mandates”. So they were benign. Not a word on NATO’s stellar performance in Afghanistan.

And then, the much-awaited clincher: NATO worries about Russian troops “on the border with Ukraine” – actually from 130 km to 180 km away, inside European Russian territory. And the alliance considers “untrue” that expansion is “an aggressive act”. Why? Because “it spreads democracy”.

Bomb me to democracy, baby

So here’s the NATO gospel in a flash. Now compare it with the sobering words of Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko.

Grushko carefully enounced how “NATO is determined to contain Russia. The United States and its allies are trying to achieve superiority in all areas and in all possible theaters of military operations.” That was a veiled reference to Full Spectrum Dominance, which since 2002 remains the American gospel.

Grushko also referred to “Cold War-era containment tactics”, and that “all cooperation [with Russia] has been halted” – by NATO. Still, “Russia honestly and directly pointed out to NATO that a further slide of the situation could lead to dire consequences for European security.”

The conclusion was stark: “The Russian Federation and NATO do not have a unifying positive agenda at all.”

Virtually all Russophobic factions of the bipartisan War Inc. machine in Washington cannot possibly accept that there should be no forces stationed on European states that were not members of NATO in 1997; and that current NATO members should attempt no military intervention in Ukraine as well as in other Eastern European, Transcaucasian, and Central Asian states.

On Monday in Geneva, Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov had already stressed, once again, that Russia’s red line is unmovable: “For us, it’s absolutely mandatory to make sure that Ukraine never, never, ever becomes a member of NATO.”

Diplomatic sources confirmed that in Geneva, Ryabkov and his team had for all practical purposes to act like teachers in kindergarten, making sure there would be “no misunderstandings”.

Now compare it with the U.S. State Department’s Ned Price, speaking after those grueling eight hours shared between Ryabkov and Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman: Washington will not consider Russian proposals on no expansion of NATO, and has no intention of even discussing the idea.

So much for “dialogue”.

Ryabkov confirmed there was no progress. Referring to his didacticism, he had to stress, “We are calling on the U.S. to demonstrate a maximum of responsibility at this moment. Risks related to a possible increase of confrontation shouldn’t be underestimated.”

To say, in Ryabkov’s words, that “significant” Russian effort has been made to persuade the Americans that “playing with fire” is not in their interests is the euphemism of the young century.

Let me sanction you to oblivion

A quick recap is crucial to understand how things could have derailed so fast.

NATO’s not exactly secret strategy, from the beginning, has been to pressure Moscow to directly negotiate with Kiev on Donbass, even though Russia is not mentioned in the Minsk Agreements.

While Moscow was being forced to become part of the Ukraine/Donbass confrontation, it barely broke a sweat smashing a coup cum color revolution in Belarus. Afterwards, the Russians assembled in no time an impressive strike force – with corresponding military infrastructure – in European Russia territory to respond in lightning quick fashion in case there was a Ukrainian blitzkrieg in Donbass.

No wonder an alarmed NATOstan had to do something about the notion of fighting Russia to the last impoverished Ukrainian. They may at least have understood that Ukraine would be completely destroyed.

The beauty is how Moscow turned things around with a new geopolitical jiu-jitsu move. Ukro-dementia encouraged by NATO – complete with empty promises of becoming a member – opened the way for Russia to demand no further NATO expansion, with the withdrawal of all military infrastructure from Eastern Europe to boot.

It was obvious that Ryabkov, in his talks with Sherman, would refuse any suggestion that Russia should dismantle the logistical infrastructure set up in its own European Russia territory. For all practical purposes, Ryabkov smashed Sherman to bits. What was left was meek threats of more sanctions.

Still, it will be a Sisyphean task to convince the Empire and its NATO satrapies not to stage some sort of military adventure in Ukraine. That’s the gist of what Ryabkov and Grushko said over and over again in Geneva and Brussels. They also had to stress the obvious: if further sanctions are imposed on Russia, there would be severe blowback especially in Europe.

But how is it humanly possible for seasoned pros like Ryabkov and Grushko to argue, rationally, with a bunch of amateur blind bats such as Blinken, Sullivan, Nuland and Sherman?

There has been some serious speculation on the timeframe ahead for Russia to in fact not even bother to listen to the American “baby babble” (copyright Maria Zakharova) anymore. Could be around 2027, or even 2025.

What’s happening next is that the five-year extension of the new START treaty expires in February 2026. Then there will be no ceiling for nuclear strategic weapons. The Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline to China will make Gazprom even less dependent on the European market. The combined Russia-China financial system will become nearly impervious to U.S. sanctions. The Russia-China strategic partnership will be sharing even more substantial military tech.

All of that is way more consequential than the dirty secret that is not a secret in the current “security guarantees” kabuki: the exceptionalist, “indispensable” nation is congenitally incapable of giving up on the forever expansion of NATO to, well, outer space.

At the same time, the Russians are very much aware of a quite prosaic truth; the U.S. will not fight for Ukraine.

So welcome to Instagrammed Irrationalism. What happens next? Most possibly a provocation, with the possibility, for instance, of a chemical black ops to be blamed on Russia, followed by – what else – more sanctions.

The package is ready. It comes in the form of a bill by Dem senators supported by the White House to bring “severe costs” to the Russian economy in case Moscow finally answers their prayers and “invades” Ukraine.

Sanctions would directly hit President Putin, Prime Minister Mishustin, Foreign Minister Lavrov, the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces Gen Gerasimov, and “commanders of various branches of the Armed Forces, including the Air Force and Navy.”

Targeted banks and financial institutions include Sberbank, VTB, Gazprombank, Moscow Credit Bank, Alfa-Bank, Otkritie Bank, PSB, Sovcombank, Transcapitalbank, and the Russian Direct Investment Fund. They would all be cut off from SWIFT.

If this bill sounds like a declaration of war, that’s because it is. Call it the American version of “dialogue”.

*

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

Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles 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 schizophrenic ruling on January 13, the US Supreme Court ruled against the Biden regime’s Covid vaccine mandate for private businesses but not for the mandate for health care workers.

Ordinary Americans might wonder why the Justices protected some people from undergoing a coerced medical procedure but not others.

The obvious inconsistency in their position probably has not occurred to the Justices. As they see it, in the case of private businesses OSHA was exercising power not conveyed to it by Congress, but Congress did give authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, from whence came the mandate for health care workers, to promulgate rules as the Secretary “finds necessary in the interest of the health and safety of individuals who are furnished services” by Medicare and Medicaid Services.

So for the mindless Justices, the Nuremberg Laws do not enter the decision, only whether the authority imposing a Josef Mengele policy of coerced medical intervention has the OK from Congress to do so.

This thinking, or lack thereof, indicates the completeness with which the rule of law has collapsed in the United States.

Employees of private companies are protected against orders by OSHA to undergo illegal coerced medical interventions, but employees of companies that deliver Medicare and Medicaid services are not protected from the same mandate if issued by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

What we have is the complete separation of law from justice and the violation of the US Constitution that requires equal treatment under law. The Justices have, again, delivered unequal treatment.

As I have noted on many occasions, the United States is the Constitution. If the Constitution is dead, so is the United States.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Not only were Pfizer’s trials a fraud, but the FDA knowingly approved it, putting millions of people at high risk. This report will show how autopsies reveal that the Covid-19 jabs are in fact killing otherwise healthy people, how there were intentional lethal batches released, and provide an incredible tool showing Pfizer trial fraud and the FDA’s negligence, so that people are armed with some of the most critical data to date in order to fight against this tyranny.

  • Former Pfizer Chief Scientist Dr. Mike Yeadon confirmed that 90% of vaccine side effects came from less than 10% of the batch lots, which is documented and calculated directly from CDC’s VAERS, and means the batches do not contain the same ingredients. This shows solid evidence of foul play that was done intentionally, and is the biggest smoking gun to date.
  • Death by Covid jab is not being tracked through to medical examiners. The deaths aren’t even being questioned or documented as Covid-jab-related. One U.S medical examiner took the time to trace 3 deaths between the ages of mid-30s to mid-50s that died from the Covid jab, and the autopsies verify this.
  • Top German pathologist Dr. Arne Burkhardt’s autopsy research shows clear evidence that all gene-based vaccines, independent of manufacturers, produced the same result in the vaccines. In the organs of these people, in 90% he found autoimmune self attack by killer lymphocytes on the tissues. The main ones being the heart, the lung, then other tissues such as liver, etc. Dr. Bhakdi confirms these vaccines are killing the young and the old.
  • In one central U.S. state, all-cause deaths didn’t fluctuate between 2015-2019. In 2020, it increased by 15%, and AFTER over 62% of Americans received the jab in 2021, the total deaths jumped a whopping 12% over and beyond 2020s 15% increase.
  • Pfizer has paid out over $10 billion in fines for false claims, bribing doctors, manipulating studies, as well as deaths due to their drugs – and their Covid-19 trials were a complete fraud. The Canadian Covid Care Alliance put together a brilliant video presentation breaking this all down and provides an illustrative pdf as a tool.
  • The claim by Pfizer was that the inoculations were safe and showed 95% efficacy 7 days after the 2nd dose. But that 95% was actually Relative Risk Reduction. Absolute Risk Reduction was only 0.84%.
  • A Federal judge refused the FDA’s request to keep Pfizer documents from the public. Instead of the 75 years the FDA requested to produce all documents submitted by Pfizer to receive the Covid-19 jab approval, the judge ordered 55,000 pages be released each month, which should be completed within 9 months.
  • The CDC Director admits that 75% of all Covid-related deaths have at least 4 comorbidities, and that the jab does not prevent transmission.
  • According to CDC’s VAERS reporting system, In under one year, more people have died from the Covid jab than all other vaccines put together, for all time, and they still haven’t shut it down.
Autopsies Reveal Covid Jab Deaths Despite Attempts to Suppress

I spoke with a medical examiner who I’ve been communicating with for two years, to get a sense of what they are seeing during autopsies, as well as how tracking of deaths from the Covid jab are being handled, and how death certificates are being recorded. It was quite an informative discussion, and included much of what I have suspected.

There is a major flaw in the system. It is not setup to catch “vaccine” injury, for several reasons:

1) In many cases, jurisdiction has to essentially be waved by the medical examiner in the case of hospice and nursing homes, which means the medical examiner never gets to see the medical records, but still have to sign the death certificates.

2) There are investigators in the medical examiners office that contact the facilities where the death took place, and simply get a short narrative about the descendant’s past medical diagnoses from whomever answers the phone, and these investigators don’t dare ask about the “vaccine.” If a patient had Covid at the time of death, that will be added, but there is never any mention of complications after receiving the jab. So when the documents are passed on to the medical examiner to sign, they have no way of knowing if the person had been vaccinated.

3) In cases of deaths outside of nursing homes and hospice, such as from hospitals or residences, many families don’t even think to mention that their loved one recently received the jab because they believe it to be safe, so once again, when the documents reach the medical examiner, they would have to physically call the family with follow up questions and ask that specific question.

Quite frankly, none of this surprises me. I recently communicated with an individual whose job included the responsibility of logging adverse event reports for a large hospital network. However, any death-related cases were held by the higher-ups, and only adverse events were handed down to be entered. I imagine that is likely the process at most networks. But that all came to a halt when this person was told in early November to no longer enter the data, and without explanation. How many other hospitals and networks were given the same instructions, and are the deaths even being reported?

How do they control the narrative and push propaganda to stoke fear? A perfect example is the article in The Times of Israel that just published on January 10, 2022, headlined ‘First case reported in Israel of heart inflammation linked to Omicron infection.’ They state that a “previously healthy 43-year-old man who received a booster shot in August, hospitalized at Tel Hashomer in intensive care unit; doctors call it a worrying development.” But the “worry” is over the alleged variant Omicron, not the Covid jab. Dr. Shlomi Matetzky, head of the ICU at Sheba Medical Center (Tel Hashomer Hospital) told Channel 12 news about this man being treated for myocarditis, claiming “this is the first time we have seen this with Omicron. This is a worrying development that we need to think about.”

Completely disregarding the fact that this man has received the jabs and booster, they immediately sound the alarm that Omicron is the cause. Israel is the first country in the world to roll out a fourth booster. Many, including Corey’s Digs, has long warned that they would create false variants and allege how deadly they are so as to create a cover story for those really dying from the Covid jab itself. Sadly, we are seeing this all roll out in real time now.

So how do you push this propaganda out? Coincidentally, a 60-second search reveals that Bill Gates happens to have a connection with Sheba Medical Center, in Israel, through joint investments. Is this a stretch? Absolutely not. When you understand the reach, the pull, and the control these elite globalists have in place to coordinate such propaganda, this sort of connection becomes very relevant, especially when their false narrative against the science, is what’s coming out of this hospital.

Cases of deaths have significantly increased and it is clear that the Covid jab is having an impact:

1) Between 2015-2019 the total number of deaths in this specific location held at a steady rate each year, with minimal discrepancy, all with varying causes. In 2020, the year Covid hit, they saw a 15% increase in the total number of deaths. In 2021, after allegedly 62% of the U.S. had received the Covid jab and become “fully vaccinated”, they saw an additional increase of 12% over and above what they saw in 2020. That is substantial, especially when the FDA and CDC insist that the jab will prevent deaths.

2) The majority of nursing homes, and even hospice, are all injecting their patients with the Covid jab, and there has been a significant increase in deaths at these locations in the central part of the U.S. where the medical examiner works, but has also been reported on in many other areas of the country.

3) This medical examiner made it a point to contact 15-20 families who had lost a loved one. Some cases were obvious suicide or specific causes of death that wouldn’t raise a red flag for the Covid jab playing a role. But a few were quite telling, and so the medical examiner asked if they had received the Covid jab and what date they had received it. Three individuals ranging between the ages of their mid-30s to mid-50s had all received the jab within weeks of their death, one who had suffered a great deal immediately following the injection.

To illustrate one case, this person had developed mild myocarditis/pericarditis. Despite cases of myocarditis and pericarditis in children after receiving the Covid jab, the FDA and CDC insist on injecting children when they aren’t even at risk of dying from Covid-19.

Small area of myocarditis/pericarditis. The pink area is the myocardium, and the white area is the epicardial fat. The purple cells are the lymphocytic inflammation.

This isn’t what killed this otherwise healthy person – a heart attack was. It is likely that either the spike protein made its way into the heart and lining of the blood vessels, which ultimately caused the ruptured coronary artery or, a recent study also shows that “vaccines” based on mRNA-containing lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) are highly inflammatory, and led to a high mortality rate in mice. Another recent study shows an increase in protein inflammatory biomarkers.

Ruptured and occluded by a blood clot. The bright pink in the middle is the clot.

This one shows the inflammation and particularly the inflamed endothelial lining.

”The mortality rate is up to 20% at 6.5 years.”

The FDA isn’t concerned, according to their December 8, 2021 decision.

The medical examiner did their job and included the Covid “vaccine” as cause of death on the death certificates. But the question is – how many other medical examiners are doing their job? How many other investigators are refusing to do theirs? Is there any level of tracking of deaths by Covid jab taking place, because it seems our government and other “health” officials are doing everything they can to bury this information, and those that should be documenting it are too afraid to do so.

Critical Evidence and Resources Pertaining to Autopsies

Below are critical resources for both the public and for medical examiners so they know exactly what to be looking for, and going forward – could become the voices who put an end to this genocide. There are additional resources at the end of this article.

“The facts are damning. All gene-based vaccines, independent of manufacturers, produced the same result in the vaccines. In the organs of these people, in 90% he found clear evidence for autoimmune self attack by killer lymphocytes on the tissues. The main ones being the heart, the lung, then other tissues such as liver, etc…these vaccines are killing the young and the old.” – Dr. Bhakdi speaking about the evidence from one of Europe’s most experienced pathologists, Dr. Burkhardt’s

The FDA Approved Pfizer Covid-19 Jab Knowing Full Well The Rushed Trials Were a Fraud

The Canadian Covid Care Alliance, a group of 500 independent Canadian doctors, scientists, and health care practitioners produced an incredible, evidence-based presentation of the Pfizer trials submitted to the FDA, breaking it all down with precision and charts, and showing the timeline of the process leading to the FDA’s approval, and statistics that followed. It is an eye-opening, easy-to-follow, short video that must be watched and shared by the world.

The claim was that the inoculations were safe and showed 95% efficacy 7 days after the 2nd dose. But that 95% was actually Relative Risk Reduction. Absolute Risk Reduction was only 0.84%.

The FDA is not only complicit, but are the most instrumental player in committing genocide because they gave the green light, and THEY KNOW what they did. Everyone needs to hold the FDA accountable and keep the heat on them through mail, email, and phone calls, until the Covid jabs are halted altogether. The Covid jab AND the vaccine ID passports both need to be stopped to prevent genocide, and a human enslavement system for those who managed to survive.

The FDA approved an experimental gene therapy produced by a company that has paid over $10 billion in fines since 2000, for lying, safety-related offenses, manipulated studies, bribing doctors, false claims, and people dying from their drugs. Paying fines and a slap on the wrist still keeps big pharma in business, when any other company would have been shut down and the owners serving time in prison. Instead, the FDA wants them to inject your children.

Pfizer has made over $33.5 billion in 2021 alone. They hold no liability for the Covid-19 jabs.

They know exactly what they’ve done, and yet on January 3, 2022 their press release is headlined: Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Takes Multiple Actions to Expand Use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, which includes adding a third primary series dose for immunocompromised children ages 5 through 11.WHY would they inject a child with toxins who is already immunocompromised, and has no real threat of adverse events or death from Covid?

How many people have already suffered from the FDA withholding treatment from Covid patients? How many people died by being given lethal Remdesivir and put on ventilators when it didn’t have to happen? Why did the CDC change the definition of a “vaccine” after decades? Because, the Covid jab is gene therapy, does not prevent infection, does not prevent transmission, and most certainly does not prevent death – quite the opposite.

What Does The Injury and Death Data Tell Us?

In just one year, the death toll from the Covid jab has far exceeded all other “vaccines” combined, for all time in the U.S. alone, according to the CDC’s VAERS underreported system.

The FDA would have you believe that “side effects are uncommon” and these Covid jabs are “safe and effective. Given what we’ve already learned above in regards to the lack of reporting adverse events and deaths, the current numbers reflected in the CDC’s VAERS system are a mere fraction of the actual cases. That said, there are currently over 1.8 million adverse events reported, with over 113,000 hospitalizations from the jab, plus 21,382 Covid jab deaths, which is totally underreported. Many scientists and medical professional estimate the number of deaths to be upwards of over 400,000 in the U.S. alone.

Former Pfizer Chief Scientist Dr. Mike Yeadon confirmed that 90% of vaccine side effects came from less than 10% of the batch lots, which is documented and calculated directly from CDC’s VAERS, and means the batches do not contain the same ingredients. This shows solid evidence of foul play that was done intentionally, and is the biggest smoking gun to date.

The entire introduction to this is a must listen to, for those who are beginning to understand the bigger agenda being rolled out. The specific details regarding the different batches begins at 40 min. This is an absolute must watch and MUST SHARE.

Below are three very significant charts explained by Dr. Yeadon in the above video that must be shared with the world.

Why haven’t all of the Covid jabs been pulled from distribution? It should be obvious by now. Who is paying to assist those who are having adverse events? Who is capable of treating those adverse events to an experimental gene therapy? Who is paying for the funerals of those who have died, and assisting the families left behind? Everyone, including big pharma, hospitals, and healthcare workers, are all exempt from any liability. The only avenue is the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program which happens behind closed doors, through our government. To date, they have paid out over $4.7 billion in injury and death claims, with a total of 8,504 awards and 11,996 dismissed claims, none of which indicates a single Covid-19 related payout thus far because it’s a lengthy process. That said, 2,057 petitions were filed in 2021, the largest number since 2003, and already 245 petitions have been filed in 2022, on their document that is dated January 1, 2022. Everyone who has suffered from these jabs or lost a loved one to them, should file a petition, if for nothing else – to get it documented and on the record.

According to the WHO’s Global Database of Reported Potential Side Effects (which excludes deaths), there has been nearly 3 million reports, which is clearly “the short list” when one begins reviewing adverse events on a country to country basis.

In September 2021, ABC News posed a question on Facebook, asking people, “After the vaccines were available to everyone, did you lose an unvaccinated loved one to Covid-19? If you’re willing to share your family story, please dm us your contact information. We may reach out to you for a story that we are working on.” They wanted to build a propaganda piece, and instead, were absolutely hammered with over 194,000 comments of angry people sharing their stories about themselves and family members who were harmed by the so-called “vaccine,” and loved ones that died from the “vaccine.” It was a pivotal and incredible sight to see the comments come in, in real time. This is how much damage the jabs are doing. (video from September 2021)

Just last week, the CDC Director stated that “over 75% of deaths had at least 4 comorbidities.”

The CDC Director has repeatedly stated that the Covid jab “does not prevent transmission.” Why the need for a vaccine ID passport? You know why.

Federal Judge Rejects FDA’s Request To Hide Pfizer Covid Jab Documents for 75 Years

Why would the FDA want to hide the documents submitted by Pfizer to license its Covid-19 jab, for 75 years, if their main concern is truly about the health of human beings, as opposed to protecting big pharma and the globalists?

Through a FOIA request, Siri & Glimstad LLP had requested that the FDA produce all of the data Pfizer had submitted to them, but the FDA asked the court for permission to only be required to produce 500 pages per month, which would have taken over 75 years to release all of the documents – long after people have suffered adverse events and death by Pfizer’s jab.

On January 6, 2022, the federal judge ordered the FDA to produce 55,000 pages per month, beginning with the first lot of 12,000 pages by January 31, and production of the first set of 55,000 pages beginning March 1, and continue at that rate of production every 30 days, taking 8-9 months overall. This a big a win, but does allows for redaction of privilege, exemption, or exclusion as asserted, of course.

So What is This Really About?

Simply put: the pandemic is to mandate an experimental gene therapy that the CDC and FDA like to refer to as a “vaccine.” That “vaccine” is for purposes of getting everyone onto a vaccine ID passport. The passport is to force everyone into the new global social credit system. That system is to bring the global population to full obedience, as the globalists control everyone’s access and spending to anything and everything in life, through the use of the new CBDC (central bank digital currency) system they are building toward. And, the icing on the cake for the globalists who orchestrated this – is depopulation.

The survival rate from Covid-19 is 99.98%, and that is based on recorded deaths of people “with” Covid, not “from” Covid. The CDC Director has already stated that 75% of all Covid-related deaths were in people with at least 4 comorbidities. Hospital networks, medical examiners offices, nursing homes, hospice, and healthcare workers are being told and intimidated to not report to VAERS, not to question whether a deceased person had recently received the jab, and not monitor deaths from the jab. The FDA and CDC have done everything in their power to inform hospitals and physicians that they should not treat Covid patients unless they “can’t breathe.” They have refused to suggest or prescribe zinc, quercetin, vitamin C, vitamin D, Ivermectin, or hydroxychloroquin, all of which are well known to work. They have gone so far as to discredit brilliant scientists and doctors from Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, and others, while trying to destroy doctors’ livelihoods and strip them of their medical licenses. When all of this is factored in, who is really dying from alleged “Covid?”

We have so many smoking guns with irrefutable evidence that this is genocide and if people do not stop complying, entire countries will crash and burn, and there will be nothing left to fight for beyond the ashes.

For all of those in the scientific and healthcare communities who are fighting to expose this genocide, and doing everything in your power to stop it, including treating patients – the world owes a great deal of gratitude to you all, and you should know how much you are appreciated.

If you are confused as to why the Media continues to push false data and news around the Covid-19 topic, this might clue you in:

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pfizer/FDA Corruption, Lethal Batches, and Autopsies Reveal COVID-19 Jab Genocide
  • Tags: , ,

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Here is an Announcement from the American Academy of Pediatrics website (May 4, 2021): (see this)

“Children ages 2-11 could potentially be eligible for (the still-experimental) COVID-19 vaccine this fall. Pfizer Chairman and CEO Albert Bourla, D.V.M., Ph.D. (Doctor of Veterinary Medicine), said on a quarterly earnings call Tuesday he expects to request (experimental) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in September. Under his plan, an EUA request for ages six months to 2 years would follow in the fourth quarter.

“Pfizer and its partner BioNTech currently are waiting for an FDA decision on an EUA for adolescents ages 12-15 years.”

And here is a list of lawsuits related to sixteen Pfizer drugs that were FDA-approved before long-term safety studies were completed: (And the CDC wonders why there is such a thing as “Big Pharma/Big Vaccine-hesitancy”)

Pfizer is one of the largest multinational drug companies on the planet – and one of the five largest vaccine manufacturers (the other four are Sanofi, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson $ Johnson.  AstraZeneca is # 10). Pfizer has faced thousands of lawsuits for fraudulent marketing and medical injuries caused by some of its most profitable, drugs.

Pfizer has also set a record for the largest fine paid for a health care fraud lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice. Pfizer paid $2.3 billion in fines, penalties, and settlement for illegal marketing claims.

Pfizer’s criminal record (2009) with the US  Department of Justice on charges of “fraudulent marketing”.

 

As part of the 2009 DoJ settlement, Pfizer was put on parole:

“Pfizer also has agreed to enter into an expansive corporate integrity agreement … [which] provides for procedures and reviews to be put in place to avoid and promptly detect conduct similar to that which gave rise to this matter.”

Here is a partial list of 13 of Pfizer’s most dangerous, most litigated, most potentially lethal drugs. (NOTE:  If any reader had adverse effects to any of the following Pfizer drugs, he/she might want to consult an attorney).

  • Celebrex and Bextra

Prizer promoted its two COX-2 pain relievers Celebrex and Bextra which generated 7000 lawsuits and a $894 million settlement. Both medications were me-too drugs similar to Merck’s infamous Vioxx, which caused 50,000 lawsuits because of cardiovascular deaths and injuries. Merck settled most of the cases with a $4.85 billion settlement.

  • Geodon, Zyvox, and Lyrica

Pfizer paid $1 billion to resolve allegations under the civil False Claims Act that the company illegally promoted four drugs – Bextra; Geodon, an anti-psychotic drug; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug – and caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs for uses that were not medically accepted indications.

  • Neurontin

Pfizer paid out $142 million for committing racketeering fraud in the marketing of Neurontin.

  • Protonix

As part of a larger group of proton pump inhibitor lawsuits, Pfizer faced a number of Protonix lawsuits after it acquired drug company Wyeth who had been accused of marketing the drug for unapproved uses. In 2013, Pfizer agreed to pay $55 million to settle illegal marketing claims but the company may still be facing lawsuits for kidney injuries caused by the medication.

  • Prempro

Nearly 10,000 Prempro lawsuits were filed by women who had been diagnosed with breast cancer. The lawsuits were largely settled by 2012 for about $1 billion.

  • Chantix

Pfizer faced about 3,000 Chantix lawsuits filed by people who claimed they experienced suicidal thoughts and psychiatric disorders after using Chantix for smoking cessation. Pfizer set aside about $288 million and at least some of the cases were settled.

  • Depo-Testosterone

Thousands of cases of medical injury due to testosterone replacement therapy have been filed. Other drug companies have paid $ billions to settle their cases, however some Pfizer testosterone lawsuits were dismissed.

  • Zoloft

About 250 Zoloft lawsuits were filed, claiming Pfizer actively promoted the use of Zoloft to pregnant women despite knowledge of birth defect risks from their research. These cases were largely dismissed in 2016 when a judge concluded that there was not enough evidence to prove a link between birth defects and Zoloft use.

  • Effexor

Effexor was a medication originally produced by Wyeth which has also been the cause of multiple lawsuits. People who filed Effexor lawsuits claimed that it caused birth defects, and separately, suicidal thoughts and behaviors. In September 2015, Effexor lawsuits were dismissed but may have been eligible to refile.

  • Lipitor

Pfizer’s drug that lowers cholesterol (but only minimally decreases heart attack risk) but causes serious muscle damage, diabetes and other unforeseen health defects has generated billions of dollars of lawsuits.

  • Xeljanz

Pfizer’s arthritis and ulcerative colitis drug was only belatedly acknowledged by Pfizer to cause cancer, serious cardiovascular events and venous thromboembolism (such as pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis). Many lawsuits are in progress.

  • Feldene; Viagra, Zithromax, etc

Environmental Pollution

In 1971 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asked Pfizer to end its long-time practice of dumping industrial wastes from its plant in Groton, Connecticut in the Long Island Sound. The company was reported to be disposing of about 1 million gallons of waste each year by that method.

In 1991 Pfizer agreed to pay $3.1 million to settle EPA charges that the company seriously damaged the Delaware River by failing to install pollution-control equipment at one of its plants in Pennsylvania.

In 1994 Pfizer agreed to pay $1.5 million as part of a consent decree with the EPA in connection with its dumping at a toxic waste site in Rhode Island.

In 1998 Pfizer agreed to pay a civil penalty of $625,000 for environmental violations discovered at its research facilities in Groton, Connecticut.

In 2002 New Jersey fined Pfizer $538,000 for failing to properly monitor wastewater discharged from its plant in Parsippany.

In 2003, shortly after Pfizer acquired Pharmacia, the company (along with Monsanto) agreed to pay some $700 million to settle a lawsuit over the dumping of known-to-be-carcinogenic PCBs in Anniston, Alabama.

In 2005 Pfizer agreed to pay $22,500 to settle EPA claims that the company failed to properly notify state and federal officials of a 2002 chemical release from its plant in Groton that seriously injured several employees and necessitated a major emergency response.

Also in 2005, Pfizer agreed to pay $46,250 to settle charges that its Pharmacia & Upjohn operation had violated federal air pollution rules at its plant in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

In 2008 Pfizer agreed to pay a $975,000 civil penalty to resolved federal charges that it violated the Clean Air Act at its former manufacturing plant in Groton, Connecticut in the period from 2002 to 2005.

Environmental groups in New Jersey have criticized as inadequate a clean-up plan devised by Pfizer and the EPA for the American Cyanamid Superfund site in Bridgewater, which is considered one of the worst toxic waste sites in the country. Pfizer inherited responsibility for the clean-up through its 2009 purchase of Wyeth.

*

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

Dr Gary G. Kohls lives in the USA and writes articles that deal with the dangers of fascism, corporatism, totalitarianism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, and Big Pharma’s over-drugging and over-vaccinating agendas. In addition, his columns deal with cultural movements that threaten democracy, war, civility, health, freedom, the future of the children and the sustainability and livability of the planet.

Dr Kohls is a past member of Mind Freedom International, the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology and the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. He is a signatory to and/or an advocate of the principles of the Great Barrington Declaration, the World Doctors Alliance and Americas Front Line Doctors.

Dr Kohls practiced holistic medicine and preventive psychiatry for the last decades of his medical career, largely helping the psychologically-wounded, over-medicated survivors of psychiatry that had often been mis-diagnosed and over-medicated with cocktails of neurotoxic, frequently addictive psychiatric drugs that had never been tested for safety when used in combinations. 

His Duty to Warn columns have been re-published around the world for the last decade. Dr Kohls frequently writes about Big Vaccine’s over-vaccination agendas and Big Medicine’s over-screening, over-diagnosing and over-treating agendas.

He is a Research Associate of the Center for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Many of Dr Kohls’ columns have been archived at a number of websites, including:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/gary-g-kohls;

http://freepress.org/geographic-scope/national;

https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/gary-g-kohls/?ptype=article; and

https://www.transcend.org/tms/author/?a=Gary%20G.%20Kohls,%20MD

Featured image is from Zero Hedge

All Global Research articles 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.

***

 

 

 

For decades, Hollywood has produced a plethora of films extolling American military prowess in warfare. Aside from Oliver Stone films and a few others, e.g., Casualties of War, usually these Hollywood films depict the United States as a force for good defeating fascists and other evildoers. Never-ending US militarism has provided a cornucopia of potential war scripts for Hollywood. Currently designated bête noires have already featured in Hollywood war films. In 1984, Hollywood made Red Dawn about an invasion of the US by the Soviet Union. In 2012, Red Dawn was updated to the other source of US demonization, China. However, capitalism and the lust for profits caused a switcheroo. The Chinese market is very lucrative for Hollywood. Consequently, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) bogeyman was substituted in as invading the American homeland.

The Soviet Union and Russia have produced a number of war films, albeit to little fanfare in the West. In the western world, Hollywood has been ruling the movie roost. Recently, however, Chinese film production has grown by major leaps and bounds, and blockbusters have been among the film fare. China is now the world’s largest cinema market, and it is expected to continue to grow.

The major Chinese film of 2021 was a war epic, The Battle at Lake Changjin. It was produced at a cost of $200 million and grossed $905 million worldwide. It was commissioned by the Communist Party of China for its 100th anniversary in 2021. (It is currently available on Youtube with English subtitles.)

Trailer

Complete Film (English subtitles)

 

 

The year previously, 2020, China honored the 70th anniversary of its People’s Volunteer Army (PVA) that made the sacrifice to fight the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea. This war is encapsulated in The Battle at Lake Changjin.

A basic outline of what preceded China’s entry into the war on the Korean peninsula is that the DPRK and the Republic of Korea (ROK) in the south were engaged in a civil war, a war precipitated by the US splitting the country in two. The DPRK had advanced throughout the ROK except for a small southern pocket when the US decided to interpose itself into the war on the side of the ROK. The US would also manage to bring the United Nations on board, bringing other countries to its side. This massively tipped the scales, and the war pushed north over the 38th parallel. China had warned the US on numerous occasions to stay away from the Yalu River that delineates the Korean border with China. (For detailed and footnoted substantiation read A.B. Abrams’ Immovable Object: North Korea’s 70 Years at War with American Power. Review.)

Near the beginning of the movie, viewers see US planes strafing the environs of the Yalu River. China was very reluctant to enter the war, having not so long ago emerged from its own civil war. At the time China was a poor country looking to get back on its feet. But as pointed out in the film, that generation had to fight to spare a future generation from having to fight the war.

Thus, the 9th Army of the PVA is sent across the Yalu River during the frigid winter of 1950. The PVA was ill equipped, and they were going up against the best equipped and most formidable army of that epoch. At Changjin Lake temperatures plunged to -30°C. The film depicts ferocious fighting, numerous casualties, gore, and deaths on both sides. The remnants of the fleeing UN army made it to the port in Hungnam and escaped on vessels. The UN-US military would retreat back over the 38th parallel.

China had won that battle, but jingoism is muted.

Despite warnings from the Chinese side, the US breached the Yalu River, and China responded. Nowadays, a scenario plays out in Europe where Russia has warned the US against further eastward expansion.

The US ought to have drawn some lessons from the debacle of losing to “Mao Zedong’s peasant army.” But history reveals the US was forced to withdraw from Afghanistan by peasants with AK-47s; to flee from peasant fighters in Viet Nam; told to leave from war-ravaged Iraq; and it is still mired in the abject embarrassment it helped cause in Syria, reduced to being a thief of oil and wheat.

The Battle at Lake Changjin also commits Hollywood-style theatrical excesses. However, there is no glorification of warring in the film. The sensitive viewer can only conclude that war as a means to settle differences or to impose oneself on another is barbaric and immoral. But when one side resorts to violence, the other is forced to fight back or to submit. As Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata put it: a choice of dying on one’s feet or living on one’s knees.

The film’s obvious message is that warring must be rejected by the peoples of all countries. But not only that: violence in all its forms must be rejected by humanity. The violence of oppression, brutality, inequality, poverty, racism, intolerance, etc all carry the seeds of greater violence that leads to all-out war.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: “The Battle at Lake Changjin”: China’s Anti-war Film

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

To deceive, telling half-truths, or a complete lie is nothing new in politics, particularly security politics. But until some 20-30 years ago, I would – perhaps naively – see it as an exception. Tragically – and perhaps to many readers’ surprise – it is now the rule. At least in U.S. and NATO circles, and that is particularly regrettably since The West professes to be a democratic system with specific values and even a moral leader to The Rest.

Lying systematically about facts – historical facts – and other countries and cultures should be incompatible with The West’s perception of itself. But, today, it isn’t.

Lies are widespread in so-called security politics when some militarist project doesn’t make any (common) sense to intelligent people when the real motives have to be covered up and war is being prepared or when the sociological cancer called the Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex, MIMAC, and the elites it consists of, try to obtain even larger military expenditures from their taxpayers.

You lie to manufacture an enemy that can justify what you will do and enrich yourself. With 40+ years of experience in security politics in general and NATO/US policies in particular, I know too much – sorry for the arrogance – and have become too cynical to believe that what goes on goes on for the sake of self-defence, security or peace.

Some quick examples of gross empirically revealed lying to the word – all the liars still at large:

  • In the 1990s, Yugoslav President Milosevic was Europe’s new Hitler (Bill Clinton) and planned a genocide on the Albanians in Kosovo.
  • Saddam Hussein’s soldiers threw babies out of their incubators in Kuwait City.
  • Afghanistan had to be destroyed because of 9/11.
  • Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
  • The US-led Global War On Terror – GWOT – has been about reducing terrorism.
  • The US/NATO orchestrated regime-change attempt in Syria from 2011 to 2016 was exclusively about Dictator al-Assad’s sudden sadist “killing of his own.”
  • Gaddafi was just about to murder all who lived in Benghazi.
  • The conflict around Ukraine was started by Putin’s “aggression” on Crimea, nothing preceded it.
  • Iran has always plotted and lied to acquire nuclear weapons.
  • There are only bad things to say about Russia and China and…

You may continue on your own.

A recent lie is particularly nasty because it is not about some limited event or pretext. It is a cynical attempt to rewrite contemporary history to justify (even further) NATO expansion and intimidate Russia.

The lie is this:

The West’s leaders never promised Mikhail Gorbachev and his foreign minister Edvard Shevardnadze not to expand NATO eastward. They also did not state that they would take serious Soviet/Russian security interests around its borders. And that, therefore, each of the former Warsaw Pact countries has a right to join NATO if they decide to freely.

It is this lie I am going to deal with below, and you can hear these lies presented by Antony Blinken and Jens Stoltenberg – in slightly different versions – with crystal clarity in the following two videos.

Before I start, let me say that it has never been my style to focus on or attack individuals. I’ve always been more interested in structures and processes and in how they shape people. But there comes a time when leaders must be held accountable because they choose to lie repeatedly, although they do have the choice not to.

And because lies have often been war crimes in the making.

Antony Blinken

First, US Secretary-of-State, Antony Blinken on January 7, 2022 – scroll the video below to 38:30 where he begins to speak and distorts the Ukraine conflict history and then, at 43:00-45:00, continues to say that Russia is driving the false narrative that the West had given assurances to Russia/Gorbachev about not expanding NATO back in 1989-90. It wouldn’t and couldn’t, he says. And all the claims Russia makes are false and shall not permit “us” to be diverted from the main thing: Russia’s unprovoked aggression against Ukraine.

Right after (45:40) comes another lie – Russia also invaded Georgia. Anyone who has studied the U.S. Congressional Research Service’s analysis of 2009, “Russia-Georgia Conflict in 2008: Context and Implications for U.S. Interests“, knows that this issue was vastly more complex and that it was Georgia – led by hotheaded U.S. friend Mikheil Saakashvili whose political life ever since has resembled a tragicomic farce – that had occupied the larger part of South Ossetia before Russia intervened massively. The responsibility for the war and violence can not seriously be placed on the Russian side alone.

And he continues his self-righteous accusations. Blinken’s list is long, and he reads his accusation list with a submachinegun speed, sometimes so stumbling and unclear that one must wonder whether he is uncomfortable because he is subconsciously aware that he lies, deceives and omits to make his psycho-political projections of the U.S.’s own dark sides sound intelligent, logical and truthful.

This U.S. Secretary of State can’t be bothered by facts or nuances. Neither could his predecessor, Mike Pompeo, who was proud to say that at the CIA, he directed “We Lied, We Cheated, We Stole. We had entire training courses…“. Mr Blinken continues reading his obsessive, hateful listing of all the sins of Russia. As if the US/NATO did not exist and, therefore, there was no conflict which normally takes a least two parties. In his comprehensive conflict illiteracy, this conflict has only one party: Russia.

The intellectual level is deplorable. NATO allies and mainstream media have no public opinion or critical views on any of it. One must assume that they agree and can make no better analyses themselves.

Now, take a look – at least at the sequences, I’ve mentioned above. Then, I show you how Mr Blinken is lying deliberately under the video.

Now, how can Mr Blinken flatly deny that assurances were given to Gorbachev?

The only source I have been able to find is an article by Steven Pifer from 2014, which argues that Gorbachev himself denies that NATO expansion was ever discussed, “Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No” which refers to an interview with Gorbachev in Russia Beyond.

But this is a piece of citation fraud.

Steven Pifer quotes from it but stops right before the well-known statement in the interview article by then U.S. Secretary of State, James Baker, that “NATO will not move one inch further east.” He also omits these words by Gorbachev himself:

“The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed.”

Can this really be interpreted to mean that Gorbachev says that no assurances were ever given?

We get a key to why Blinken uses a fake analysis: Because it fits his posturing as a paragon of truth and because Mr Pifer is a senior fellow at Brookings but also a former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine and adviser to one of the most hawkish think-tanks, Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington.

A slight twist, omission or interpretative casuistry isn’t that important, is it? Well, if you are not yet convinced that Mr Blinken lies deliberately, I ask you to now go to the authoritative National Security Archive at George Washington University. It’s an incredible source of facts, and we should thank it for making the truth available through comprehensive documentation on so many security-related issues.

TFF has reproduced two essential pieces from that archive of irrefutable documentation that Gorbachev indeed was given such assurances – “cascades” of them! as is stated in the article – by all the most influential Western leaders at the end of 1989 and into 1990:

Read them, and you’ll be shocked.

You’ll find that they have lots of notes and, in sum, no less than 48 original historical documents. For instance, here is just one of the 48 informing us about then NATO Secretary-General Manfred Woerner’s view and statement:

“Woerner had given a well-regarded speech in Brussels in May 1990 in which he argued: “The principal task of the next decade will be to build a new European security structure, to include the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations. The Soviet Union will have an important role to play in the construction of such a system. If you consider the current predicament of the Soviet Union, which has practically no allies left, then you can understand its justified wish not to be forced out of Europe.“

Now in mid-1991, Woerner responds to the Russians by stating that he personally and the NATO Council are both against expansion – “13 out of 16 NATO members share this point of view” – and that he will speak against Poland’s and Romania’s membership in NATO to those countries’ leaders as he has already done with leaders of Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Woerner emphasizes that “We should not allow […] the isolation of the USSR from the European community.”

This is just one of the “cascades” of statements and assurances given to the Russians at the time. Over 30 years ago, 13 out of 16 members were against NATO expansion because they respected Russia’s crisis and legitimate security interests! Today – 2022 – NATO has 30 members.

Is the U.S. Secretary of State, his advisors and speechwriters unaware of the next-door National Security Archives and what is in them concerning one of contemporary history’s most important events: the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact? Are we really to believe that they have no clue about the conditions and dialogues at the end of the first Cold War? If so, they ought to resign or be fired for their unbelievable incompetence.

If not so – if they know the content of these historical documents – Mr Blinken, his advisors and speechwriters know that they lie.

Their words, therefore, should never be trusted. Neither should the media that avoid highlighting these lies and thereby become complicit. The task of a supposedly free press is to reveal the power abuse of democratically elected people who deliberately fill their constituencies with lies.

Simple as that.

Jens Stoltenberg

In this press conference video from January 7, 2022, NATO’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg states some of the same rhetoric, distortions, simplifications and lies. Not to mention platitudes accompanied by an almost funny body language of bombastic gestures to compensate for his weak content, mantras and repetitions.

Listen at around 19:00 minutes how he maintains that NATO enlargement has been “extremely important for stability and peace and freedom and democracy in Europe” where it can indeed be argued that that enlargement is the main reason that Europe is now in a situation which can reasonably be called the 2nd Cold War.

Why else has NATO not created the desired and stipulated peace and stability since it was created in 1949? So, no, Mr Stoltenberg, you cannot continue – like your masters in Washington – to argue that the present war risks are caused by Russia and Russia alone? If that’s what they order you to say, you have the option to choose decency and resign.

The NATO Secretary-General repeats that each state has a sovereign right to decide its own course and choose its own security arrangements. And that NATO has not dragged in anybody, and they have all just decided democratically to become a member.

That is simply not true.

NATO as an alliance has enormous resources to influence opinions in potential member states. Contrary to his open door talk, NATO’s Charter speaks only about inviting new members, not about holding a door open for anyone who might want to join.

It should be well-known by now – but isn’t – that in the late 1990s, Vladimir Putin asked to join NATO – but it didn’t happen, did it, Mr Stoltenberg? And why not? Because Putin – Russia – wanted to be invited as an equal partner and not sit and wait till Montenegro had become a member, to put it bluntly. NATO decided to close the door at Putin’s request.

This – fantastic – story is told by a former NATO Secretary-General, George Robertson; there is no reason to assume that is not credible or just a rumour. Or, for that matter, that Putin was not serious.

And what an exciting thought: Russia in NATO! Who would Mr Stoltenberg and Mr Blinken – and all the rest of the Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex, MIMAC, then have to put all the blame on? How then legitimate NATO’s permanent armament and 12% higher military expenditures than Russia’s?

Mr Stoltenberg must know that he lies when saying NATO has an open door. It doesn’t for Russia. It doesn’t even have open ears for Russia’s security concerns (which each and every NATO member, the U.S. in particular, would consider reasonable if a Russian military alliance incrementally crept close to their borders).

And he must know that he lies when he acts as though he does not know that Russia has been against that very NATO enlargement that he fakes has been so positive for all of Europe during no less than 30 years.

Funnily, Stoltenberg first emphasises (around 19:30) that all new NATO members have freely decided to join. Then he boasts about all NATO does to train, help, support candidates and how important Ukraine is as a NATO partner while not a member. As he says, candidates need to carry through reforms to meet NATO standards. And NATO gives them “practical and political support” so they can – later – meet NATO standards and become members.

What an extraordinary altruism NATO radiates! Are we really to believe that NATO certainly drags in no one, as he maintains?

NATO set up an office in Kyiv, Ukraine, already in 1994, and here you can see how – incrementally – Ukraine has been dragged in, seduced, and promised a great Euro-Atlantic future in one document after the other.

And here you’ll see how Olga Stefanishyna, Ukraine’s deputy prime minister, standing at NATO’s H.Q. with Stoltenberg, consistently talks about NATO as Ukraine’s “allies,” expect all kinds of guarantees and – in Foreign Policy of course – argues that Ukraine Needs a Clear Path to NATO Membership in the face of Russian aggression.

And now, the integration process has probably gone so far that neither NATO nor Ukraine would be able to see any other alternative but full membership at some point. Being fiancées, why not marry through a formal membership – as has been said about Sweden?

In its Russia-humiliating policies, NATO has not even seen it coming: That with all the promises, structures and processes accumulating and creating expectations, the alliance would, at some point, run into serious conflict with Russia. If so, the entire alliance suffers from conflict illiteracy and a tremendous lack of foresight.

An that is why you have to construct Russia as a huge militarily aggressive state with an unsympathetic leader – one “we” can freely demonise and don’t even have to listen to.

Now, listen then to this Stoltenberg statement about the – real – importance of NATO’s help (20:45): “…It also makes the societies of Ukraine and Georgia stronger. So resilient, well-functioning societies are also less vulnerable from interference from Russia.”

Just a welcoming open NATO door to countries that decide freely and democratically that they want to knock on it?

It’s time for a reality check in NATO Realpolitik’s – outdated – world. If you do not manifestly want to provoke and increase war risks, you would do it completely differently every day since 1989.

The NATO expansion basis is obvious: Get as many as possible into NATO, demonise Russia and Putin and make it impossible for Russia to have any influence in Europe and on its future.

How strange, indeed, that Russia perceives the Alliance’s expansion right up to its borders as a deliberate military threat and a politically motivated undermining of its status and power!

How surprising that it thinks its security interests in its near-abroad should be respected, just because it has been invaded historically from the West and contained all along its borders since the Second World War in which, by the way, it lost some 24 million people!

It is tragic beyond words that the West has not a single politician today like Willy Brandt, Egon Bahr, Olof Palme or any of the real statesmen who gave Gorbachev cascades of assurance because theypossessed two essentially important qualities: intellectual competence and empathy, a wish and ability to try to live themselves into the situation of “the other” and thereby think in terms of common security at lower military levels.

They were mature personalities basing their policies on analysis and consultations. They knew that you can only achieve security with and not against “the other”.

Instead, NATO has only anti-intellectual, self-centred and -aggrandising militarists running the self-defeating “know-everything-listen-to-nobody” show foolproven by history to lead to war.

And it is tragic beyond words that the peoples of Europe do not debate these issues and that all alternatives to militarism have been deprived of all their resources while NATO militarism costs trillions of dollars what are desperately needed in all other sectors of Western society.

In summary, the US/NATO world threw away the most significant and precious opportunity to create peace in Europe after 1945, when it decided to take advantage of Russia’s weakness. As suggested by Gorbachev and many security and peace intellectuals at the time, the members of the old blocs could have joined forces and created an entirely new all-European security and peace architecture.

We are now facing the tragic consequences of the arrogant winner-takes-it-all policy manifested by the US Clinton administration’s decision to ignore all the assurances and begin expanding NATO eastward in 1994, helped by submissive European allies that had neither the intellectual capacity nor political will to manifest their own interests.

That is why they have to lie to us today.

*

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

Prof. Jan Oberg, Ph.D. is director of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, TFF and a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment. CV: https://transnational.live/jan-oberg
https://transnational.live

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Masking the truth © Jan Oberg 2022

Video: Dr. Peter McCullough Speech at the ReAwaken America Tour

January 14th, 2022 by Dr. Peter McCullough

All Global Research articles 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.

***

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Peter McCullough speaks about COVID prevention, early treatment, vaccine mandates, vaccine injuries, and how to stop this COVID pandemic non-sense.

*

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

Inflation: Why More on the Near Horizon

January 14th, 2022 by Dr. Jack Rasmus

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

 

The US govt’s most recent inflation report shows consumer prices rising past 12 months at 7% rate, up from prior report that showed 6.8%. (Really both over 10% for reasons I’ve stated before). The worst since 1981.

Biden admin. spokespersons say it’s ‘slowing’. Yet prices rising first week of January twice as fast as last week of December; and 7% is more than 6.8%.

Inflation will cut into 1st Quarter 2022 real US GDP, dampening consumer spending. Also, the end of child care benefit will have same effect on real consumption. Then there’s the general fall of disposable income for millions of US households due to failed Build Back Better plan, which is now not only dead but buried.

Continuing problems of production and exports from China/Asia will further add to US real economic slowdown this quarter.

Ditto as Omicron slows business investment and adds to workers shortages; and as Fed raises interest rates as well. Focus will be on Fed raising rates as means to slow inflation.

However, Fed rate hikes depress demand which is not the problem behind inflation. That problem is in part supply side issues (US and global trade) and even more so problems of US monopoly corps price gouging.

Fed rate hikes can’t effect either supply or monopoly causes. It can make households pay for inflation by rate hikes that result in layoffs in housing, autos, other big ticket purchases–just as the Fed did in 1981-82 when it raised rates to 18%. It provoked recession as solution to dampen inflation–when the real cause was OPEC and Saudi supply side cause.  Will the Fed repeat 1981 in 2022? If it tries it will fail. US economy is far more fragile today. Should Fed raise rates beyond 3% (10 yr. US bond rate now at 1.5%), it will provoke major real economic contraction–i.e. double dip recession in 2022. So it won’t and will back off, I predict.

In summary, more chronic inflation coming 2022.  More slowing US real economy this quarter.  And growing fragility in global/US financial markets as China property developers default pressures spread, contagion potential rises, US dollar rises and emerging market economies’ currencies deflate (and their economies slow).  The fiscal stimulus phase of Great Recession 2.0 is now over.  There’ll be no further fiscal stimulus for households, as Fed monetary policy turns contractionary as well with rate hikes.

Longer run conclusion: whereas Great Recession 1.0 (2007-10) was precipitated by financial markets crash that pulled down the real economy in its wake, today’s Great Recession 2.0 (2020-22) may experience a similar cause-effect but in reverse: real contraction 2020-22 followed by financial markets’ contraction (late 2022-2023).

Read my commentary of the past week below on twitter noting the key developments for prices in wake of government’s latest inflation report:

#Fed rate hike in March all but certain, as all Fed governors now lined up for it. Before rates drift up. Auto prices (new & used), houses, etc. to rise more next 2 months. Ditto as exports from China slow & US monopoly corps continue price gouging. Result: inflation continuing

#Inflation Republicans say its excess Demand from too generous stimulus. But stimulus ended in Aug-Sept. Inflation surged after. Dems say its supply. But oil, meat, grain, etc. corps have no supply problem. So what is it? It’s monopoly corps price gouging to recover 2020 profits

#Inflation there’s no shortage of domestic US oil supply. Yet US oil corps raised prices 29.6%! So not even supply supply driving oil, gas, energy inflation. So what is? Price gouging by oil corps (and other monopolies like meat producers, cereal-bread corps, etc. etc.)

#Inflation report today = 7% Dec CPI rise, so it’s accelerating from Nov 6.8%. Big driver is oil/gas up 29.6% over year. So oil corps = biggest cause of supply side inflation today, just as in 1981 when OPEC oil supply shock caused inflation. Monopolies price gouging = main cause

#Fed raising Fed interest rates will actually exacerbate & worsen supply side driven inflation. It will mean less business investment, more worker layoffs and lost wage income to spend & more labor supply shortages–all of which will add to supply side inflation in coming months

#Fed using interest rate hikes to slow inflation is like using a sledgehammer to swat flies. Powell knows rate hikes won’t check supply driven inflation. It won’t take 18% Fed rate to provoke another recession in 2022. US economy more fragile. A 3% 10 Yr. Treasury rate will do it

#Inflation Biden & media saying inflation is abating. Another lie. Govt own data show inflation rising first week of January twice as fast as during last week of December. There’s so much lying going on, from both wings of capitalist party–radical right/Republicans & Biden/media

#Inflation In 1981 inflation 10% due to supply side issues with global oil imports, caused by OPEC & Saudis. US response: get Fed to raise rates to 18%. Autos, housing, crashed. Investment & wages fell. Recession. Demand was used to address Supply cause. Fed planning same 2022.

#Inflation CPI up 7% again December-most since 1981. Inflation not slowing. So what’s Biden proposing? More competition for monopolies like meat producers. When asked by nat’l media today what’s being done about supply driven inflation, Biden’s Director of CEA ducks the question

#Fed As inflation accelerated in 2021 Fed refused to raise rates. Now as wages try to catch up to prices, Fed says will soon raise rates =Fed trying to protect profit margins of corps & businesses, not really to stop inflation which is supply driven & rate hikes can’t slow

#Wages Govt & Media hyping 4.7% wage gains past 12 mos. Say compares to 3% pre-covid. But inflation pre-covid 2%-2.5%. Inflation now almost 7%. So now Real Wages less than pre-pandemic.(Also 4.7% is ‘average’, so higher paid managers, tech, professionals getting > & others <4.7%)

#Fed signals will raise rates maybe as early as March, not next fall. Rate hikes to address supply side inflation work instead by depressing demand, jobs, wages, consumer spending–i.e. make workers pay for what is corp. driven supply inflation. Fed made same error in 1980-81

#Inflation Biden’s says today: “We must get to the bottom of why farmers and ranchers continue to receive low payments while families across America endure rising meat prices”. ‘Get to the bottom’? Really? Biden means let’s study & bury it. It’s obvious food corps price gouging.

#Inflation Biden’s answer to monopoly price gouging by food industry: govt give more $ to smaller capitalists to create more competition. Translated: Inflation is just an excuse for govt to provide more subsidies to corporations. Real solution: price controls + tax big food corps

#Inflation meat & food prices up 20% so far. Biden says due to lack of competition: “Capitalism without competition isn’t capitalism. It’s exploitation” (wall st. journal 1-4-22). Since all food industry is near-monopoly, it’s all capitalist exploitation.

*

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

Jack Rasmus blogs at http://jackrasmus.com and hosts the weekly radio show, Alternative Visions, on the Progressive Radio Network every Friday at 2pm eastern time. Join him at twitter for daily updates at @drjackrasmus.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles 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.

***

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky and Anthony Fauci appeared before a Senate Committee Hearing this week regarding the “Omicron Response,” and both of them lied under oath.

They both claimed that they “didn’t know” how many deaths were recorded in VAERS following COVID-19 vaccines, and Walensky stated the COVID-19 vaccines are “incredibly safe” and “protect us against Omicron, they protect us against Delta, they protect us against COVID.”

She also stated that all reported COVID-19 vaccine deaths have been “adjudicated,” when in fact not a single COVID-19 vaccine injury, let alone a death, has been tried in the Government CounterMeasures Injury Compensation Program, the only place where a vaccine death or injury following a COVID-19 shot can be “adjudicated.”

Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville either displayed his complete ignorance regarding VAERS, or colluded with Walensky and Fauci to ask them a meaningless question which then gave them the opportunity to control the narrative.

Tommy asked:

Dr. Walensky, it has been reported by some virologists and scientists that this year around 170 people have died from taking the regular flu vaccine.

The Vaccine Adverse Reporting System reported that the number of people dying after or following the COVID vaccine is actually in the thousands.

Now this is what I am hearing. I’ll give you a chance to refute that or confirm it here. Is this true?

Are we having that many people die after taking one of these vaccines?

This is a meaningless question because the answer is already public knowledge!

The VAERS database is open to the public, and anybody can search it. You don’t need a “virologist” or “scientist” to tell you how many deaths there are following COVID-19 shots. Anyone can make that search, and it takes less than 60 seconds to find the answer.

As of this recorded Senate Hearing, the total deaths following COVID-19 shots in VAERS was 21,382. (Source.)

So what he should have asked was:

Dr. Walensky, VAERS is reporting 21,382 deaths following the emergency use authorized COVID-19 vaccines for the first year, which is more deaths than following all FDA-approved vaccines for the past 31 years combined, since VAERS started recording deaths following vaccines in 1990.

Why are we still injecting these experimental products into Americans?

But instead, he questioned whether or not VAERS was actually reporting this, which led to a canned response by both Walensky and Fauci that VAERS is not reliable, because someone can get the vaccine and then walk outside and get hit by a car, and that is recorded as a vaccine death.

Here is the clip from our Bitchute channel (also available on our Telegram channel for easy download):

So let’s fact check this new narrative that people getting hit by a car after getting a COVID-19 shot are being entered into VAERS.

VAERS does have a “symptom” that is called “Road traffic accident.”

So if we search for “Road traffic accident” following COVID-19 vaccines that result in a death, we get 20 listed deaths out of the current 21,382 deaths recorded following COVID-19 shots that are associated with a “Road traffic accident.” (Source.)

Of those 20 cases, two of them appear to have listed “Road traffic accident” by mistake because nothing in the description mentioned a traffic accident.

Of the remaining 18, it appears that most, if not all of them, happened with the person driving the car (or motorcycle), not being hit by a car.

Here is one example from VAERS ID 1028476:

She started having breathing problems/heart attack appearance. on 1/22/21 and went to the ER. Upon admittance was told it was an anaphylactic shock from the Covid shot. They kept her in ICU and released her 1/23/21. At 12:45 am on 1/24/21 she passed out and we called the ambulance. Hospital admitted her and worked through multiple organ failure issues and thought her numbers were under control. She was released on 1/27/21 and was driving on 1/28/21 around 4:15 pm and appears to have had heart failure and had a wreck. She passed away that day.

People having heart attacks while driving their vehicles shortly after getting injected and then crashing doesn’t quite fit the new narrative that Walensky and Fauci are claiming regarding “getting hit by a car,” does it?

Everyone in the U.S. Federal Government is Now Guilty of Being an Accessory to Mass Murder

Senator Tommy Tuberville and all of his colleagues in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House are now complicit with mass murder, for not acting to arrest these criminals and force them to face charges.

Senator Rand Paul has been the most vocal against Anthony Fauci, claiming that Fauci is responsible for thousands of deaths.

He recently appeared on his father’s Ron Paul Liberty Report show, where he stated that he would bring Fauci to justice if the GOP wins back the Senate. (Source.)

Really Rand? You admit that Fauci is guilty of mass murder, but you will only act to bring him to justice if the GOP wins back the Senate when you can head a Senate Committee where you can shame him publicly and further your own political career, but until then he is free to go on murdering people through his policies?

What a joke! With both Ron Paul and Rand Paul being medical doctors, I doubt they have any intention of taking on the Big Pharma cartel, and both of them have stated in the past that they are pro-vaccine, just not pro-COVID19 vaccines.

Politicians are the problem, not the solution.

*

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

Featured image is from HIN

All Global Research articles 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 November we spoke with Dr. Pablo Campra Madrid, a professor of chemical sciences at Spain’s University of Almeria.

Doctor Campra is affiliated with La Quinta Column, or “The Fifth Column,” a group of dissident researchers who have dedicated themselves to investigating the vaccines the government is trying to force us all to take. Doctor Campra says that through his analysis of vaccines he’s discovered graphene oxide structures within vaccine samples.

But Doctor Campra isn’t the only member of the Fifth Column.

Another member is Dr. Ricardo Delgado. Dr. Delgado joins us.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

Schools Shouldn’t Mandate ‘Most Dangerous Vaccines in Human History’

January 14th, 2022 by 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.

***

As schools weigh COVID vaccine mandates for children as young as 5 years old, former Pfizer exec warns injections “are toxic by design” and it seems obvious “criminal acts are being committed.”

In late October and early November, the self-serving members of two committees advising the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) without a second thought endorsed experimental COVID vaccines for children as young as 5 years old.

Ignoring the 99.995% COVID survival rate for those age 17 and under, the 31 pharma-servile “experts” also appeared unconcerned by reams of damning data about COVID-vaccine-related disabilities and fatalities already occurring in the 12–17 age group — unnecessary tragedies being acknowledged that very instant in a panel discussion convened by U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).

Predictably, adverse event data and urgent frontline healthcare provider testimony began pouring in almost immediately after the FDA-CDC go-ahead, with 5- to 11-year-olds experiencing the same kinds of “terrifying” vaccine reactions as adolescents — including blood clots, strokes and other brain and heart problems previously almost unheard-of in young people.

In the lead-up to the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization of experimental COVID jabs for younger children, state politicians and municipal school districts also started to grease the skids to mandate COVID injections for in-person school attendance.

To date, the number of states and school systems announcing or adopting coercive plans, either for K-12 students or students ages 12 or 16 and up, is still small. However, the symbolic weight of the “early adopters” is significant.

These include states like California and Louisiana (and soon New York); major cities like Washington, D.C. (and probably New York City); and large school districts such as those in Oakland, California, and Los Angeles.

In addition, the New York City and Washington, D.C. school districts, and some or all districts in California, Hawaii and Maryland, require students involved in sports and other extracurricular activities to get jabbed.

In what sounds like good news, the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) confirmed 17 states — Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Utah — have enacted laws or issued executive orders that ban COVID-19 vaccine mandates for students.

However, most of the bans are limited to certain circumstances, with some applying only to higher education and some only to vaccines authorized under emergency use — meaning the ban would not apply to COVID vaccines that in the future gain full FDA approval for children.

Most dangerous ever

For decades, vaccines have been wreaking havoc on children’s health. For instance, consider the following:

So, when observers familiar with COVID injection data pronounce them “the most dangerous vaccines in human history,” that is saying something.

Dr. Joseph Mercola warned the COVID jabs are setting up children for “potentially lifelong health problems,” including serious heart problems resulting from myocarditis. As he wrote in early January:

“[T]he recent push to inject children with a genetic experiment may be one of the worst public health offenses perpetrated on a population of people who are unable to speak for themselves, do not have a legal voice and depend on adults to protect them.”

California ‘leads’

California spent the past half-dozen years systematically eliminating personal-belief vaccine exemptions and gutting medical exemptions.

Not content with those assaults on health freedom, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced in early October — apparently reading the minds, weeks in advance, of the FDA and CDC committee members who subsequently rubber-stamped the COVID shots for 5- to 11-year-olds — that his state would impose a K-12 mandate in both public and private schools, making California the first state to mandate COVID-19 vaccines for in-person school attendance.

The mandate hinges on the vaccines “receiving full licensure from the FDA for children,” which the state expects in July 2022.

Seeking to normalize his COVID mandate, Newsom compared it to the existing school requirements for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination.

However, in light of the strong, statistically significant relationship between MMR vaccines and autism — and given California’s status as the state with the highest autism prevalence — Newsom’s comparison is scarcely reassuring.

Louisiana ignores

In mid-December, Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards added COVID vaccines to the list of required school shots, overturning a bipartisan vote against such a mandate by the state’s House Health and Welfare Committee.

The push for the mandate originated with the Louisiana Department of Health. The House Health Committee then voted 13-2 to reject the department’s recommendation, stating that COVID vaccination “should be the parents’ decision,” a common-sense view shared by legislators and parents around the nation.

However, the governor vetoed the committee vote — and the wishes of citizens who packed the committee meeting to protest mandates — dismissively characterizing their objections as “overheated rhetoric.”

Louisiana’s governor and health officials also ignored remarks delivered at the health committee hearing by experienced Louisiana nurse Collette Martin, R.N. Martin provided testimony about serious adverse reactions in children and their widespread underreporting. She told the committee:

“We are not just seeing severe acute reactions with this vaccine, but we have zero idea what any long-term reactions are. Cancers, autoimmune [disorders], infertility. We just don’t know.”

Louisiana’s mandate, which goes into effect in fall 2022, currently applies only to students ages 16 and up, “but could expand as the vaccines get the highest level of approval” from the FDA.

School districts (try to) impose

In early January, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki asserted that decisions on school vaccine mandates “are up to local school districts.”

However, the U.S. Department of Education has been working with school districts, Psaki said, “to provide resources, connect school officials with testing providers, and set up vaccine clinics….”

Last September, Maryland’s health secretary disingenuously made similar comments, telling the press that the state prefers “not to be intentionally overbearing” or “interventionist” and instead encourages school systems “to take the lead in their individual jurisdictions.”

In California, school board members in several large school districts showed, as early as September, they were willing to “take the lead” in imposing mandates for in-person instruction.

The plans of school boards in Los Angeles (the nation’s second-largest school district), Oakland and San Diego have been undermined, however, by the large number of unvaccinated students and other apparently unforeseen pitfalls.

The Los Angeles school district, for example, pushed back its initial Jan. 10 deadline to the fall of 2022, because tens of thousands of uninjected students would have “overwhelmed the district’s independent study program.”

L.A. students ages 12 and up are supposed to upload proof of vaccination into a “Daily Pass” system. The L.A. district already requires students to undergo weekly testing (regardless of vaccination status) and subjects them to other measures such as “daily health checks,” masking and contact tracing and isolation of cases.

Three out of ten students failed to show up on the first day of school following winter break, “having tested positive for the coronavirus.”

Oakland’s school district will not enforce its mandate until Jan. 31, a month later than originally planned. When the school board voted (5-1-1) in favor of mandating COVID shots for in-person instruction for students 12 and up, it apparently did not bargain on nearly two-fifths of students in that age group (38%) remaining unvaccinated.

Casting the lone “no” vote, Oakland school board member Mike Hutchinson stated, “I don’t think we should be rolling out at midnight on a not very publicized meeting, talking about mandatory vaccinations when there’s nothing wrong with taking our due time to deliberate to make sure that we get it right.”

In December, however, Hutchinson indicated he would be comfortable deferring to the state-level mandate.

In late December in San Diego, a judge struck down the school district’s COVID vaccine mandate for students 16 and older, arguing the state legislature has not given individual school districts the authority to mandate vaccines for school attendance.

Not timid

An Oakland pediatrician who egged on her city’s school board to vote in favor of COVID mandates argued last fall, “This is not the time for timidity.”

However, as evidence accumulates about the injections’ outsized risks for children, it seems increasingly clear that a number of so-called public servants do not have a problem with timidity, having shown themselves perfectly willing to harm — and kill — children.

For former Pfizer executive Dr. Mike Yeadon, who has argued for months that the COVID injections “are toxic by design” and “were always going to harm people,” it seems obvious “criminal acts are being committed.”

Now is the time to push back against criminality and coercion — including COVID vaccine mandates and “vaccine passports” — in whatever ways we can. Our children’s lives, and our own lives, depend on it.

*

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

Featured image is from CHD

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The opening remarks of Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland prior to her friendly “press conference” with well-tamed US “journalists” reveals the unreality of the world in which Washington exists.

The Russians have told Washington as frankly as it can be stated that the expansion of NATO to her borders, with US missile bases in countries on Russia’s borders, US plans to include Ukraine in NATO, Ukraine’s failure to abide by the Minsk Agreement, massive US arms deliveries to Ukraine, and constant other provocations and insults have made Russia uncomfortable about her security and unwilling to accept any longer the tension and uncertainty created by hostile US and NATO policies. Russia has stated without qualification that unless the West cooperates in removing the threat to Russian security, Russia will remove the threat with dire consequences to the West.

This is clear honest talk.

But no one in Washington or NATO heard.

Victoria Nuland is an evil neoconservative warmonger, but she is no different from the other deluded fools in Washington. The US is unable to deal seriously with a most serious issue, because Washington is a victim of its belief in its own anti-Russian propaganda. Nuland’s beginning remarks are representative of the unreality of American policymakers:

UNDER SECRETARY NULAND: Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. .

This is, as you all know, a very important week. We have three sets of diplomatic talks ongoing: the U.S.-Russia Strategic Stability Dialogue yesterday; the NATO-Russia Council meeting tomorrow, both of which are led for us by Deputy Secretary Sherman; and the Permanent Council meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe on Thursday – all of this in an effort to resolve through diplomacy the crisis that Russia has created for Ukraine, for European security, and for global stability.

So before I go into some of the diplomatic substance, let’s remember how we got here.

It is Russia that created this crisis out of whole cloth.

It is Russia that has amassed 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s borders.

It is Russia that has prepared internal sabotage, destabilization, and false flag options for Ukraine.

And it is Russia that has spewed disinformation and lies about Ukraine, about the United States, and about NATO to justify its own actions.

see Nuland Twitter  

 

These and the rest of Nuland’s remarks constitute a packet of lies and a complete evasion of the issue.

The issue is not a Russian invasion of Ukraine. The issue is whether Washington can acknowledge that its missile bases on Russia’s border constitute a threat to Russia’s security.

Russia did not invade Ukraine in 2014. Washington did when the US overthrew the democratically elected government and put in its place a US puppet state hostile to Russia.

One of the main goals of Washington’s coup in Ukraine was to deprive Russia of her Black Sea naval base. Russia forestalled this by accepting the 97% vote in Crimea to return to Russia of which Crimea had been a constituent part for three centuries.

When an Undersecretary of State feels secure standing in front not only of the US media, but also the world media, and spewing obvious blatant lies, we have all the proof needed that Washington lives in its own make-believe world.

Consequently, Washington is going to be bitten very hard by the real world.

*

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

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.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published on August 2022

***

In what should have been an extraordinary television confession this month, John Bolton, national security adviser in the previous administration of President Donald Trump, admitted to CNN in passing that he had helped to plot the overthrow of foreign governments while in office.

Dismissing the idea that Trump had attempted a coup at the Capitol with the January 6 riots, Bolton told anchor Jake Tapper:

“As somebody who has helped plan coups d’etat, not here [in Washington] but, you know, other places, it takes a lot of work.”

It was an admission that he and others in the administration had committed the “supreme international crime”, as the Nuremberg trials at the end of the Second World War defined an unprovoked attack on the sovereignty of another nation. But Tapper treated the comment as largely unremarkable.

Washington can do out in the open what is denied to other countries only because of an exceptional assumption that the normal constraints of international law and the rules of war do not apply to the global superpower.

The US is reported to have carried out “regime change” in more than 70 countries since the Second World War.

In recent years, it has been involved either directly or indirectly in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine. Bolton himself has boasted of his involvement in efforts through 2019 to oust Nicolas Maduro’s government in Venezuela, trying to install as president Washington’s own preferred candidate, Juan Guaido.

The Pentagon outspends the next nine countries combined and maintains some 800 military bases dotted across the globe. And yet, Congress is poised once again to add tens of billions of dollars to the defence budget.

A new documentary suggests why western publics remain so docile both about the US being in a state of almost permanent war, and about it expending ever-vaster sums on its war machine.

Secret guiding hand

According to Theaters of War, the US Department of Defense does not just subtly influence Hollywood’s depiction of US wars to present them in a more favourable light. The Pentagon actively demands script oversight and dictates storylines. In practice, it has been waging a full-spectrum propaganda war against western audiences to soften them up to support aggressive, global US militarism.

The documentary, based on data uncovered by recent Freedom of Information requests from UK investigative journalist Tom Secker and academic Matthew Alford, reveals the astonishing fact that the Pentagon has been the secret, guiding hand behind thousands of films and TV shows in recent decades.

Many more movies never reach the screen because the Defense Department’s entertainment liaison office refuses to cooperate, believing the wrong messages are being promoted.

Pentagon objections – usually the kiss of death – relate to any suggestion of military incompetence or war crimes, loss of control over nuclear weapons, influence by oil companies, illegal arms sales or drug trafficking, use of chemical or biological weapons, US promotion of coups overseas, or involvement in assassinations or torture. In fact, precisely the things the US military is known to have been doing.

How does the Defense Department exert so much control on film productions?

Because expensive blockbusters are far more likely to recoup their budget and turn a profit if they feature the shiniest new weapons. Only the Pentagon can supply aircraft carriers, helicopters, fighter jets, pilots, submarines, armoured personnel carriers, military extras and advisers. But it does so only if it is happy with the dramatic messaging.

As one academic observes in Theaters of War, propaganda works most effectively when it can be passed off as entertainment: “You’re more open to incorporation of those ideas because your defences are down.”

How many viewers would take seriously a film if it was preceded by a sponsorship logo from the Defense Department or the CIA? And for that reason, Pentagon contracts usually specify that its role in a film be veiled.

This is why few know that the Defense Department and the CIA have had a controlling hand in such varied projects as Apollo 13, the Jurassic Park and James Bond franchises, the Marvel movies, Godzilla, Transformers, Meet the Parents and I Am Legend. Or how the military regularly gets involved in baking and quiz shows.

The reality, Theaters of War argues, is that many Hollywood movies are little more than advertisements for US war industries.

Selling war

This summer, Hollywood released the long-awaited sequel to Top Gun, a Tom Cruise movie about ace airforce pilots that came to define back in the 1980s how to sell war and make killing look sexy.

Top Gun’s makers got access to US navy aircraft carriers, a naval airbase and a host of F-14s and other jets. As the Washington Post reported: “It’s unlikely the [original] film could have gotten made without the Pentagon’s considerable support. A single F-14 Tomcat cost about $38 million.” The film’s entire budget was $15m.

The Pentagon got plenty in return. Its database records that the film “completed [the] rehabilitation of the military’s image, which had been savaged by the Vietnam War”. It stationed recruitment desks outside cinemas to take advantage of that new credibility.

Top Gun was so successful in marketing war machismo that it was implicated in the Tailhook scandal a few years later, in which more than 80 servicewomen were sexually assaulted by fellow officers at a convention in Las Vegas. That scandal delayed the follow-up, Top Gun: Maverick, for 36 years. Nonetheless, the Pentagon’s conditions for approving the new film were even stricter.

The agreement explicitly stated that the Defense Department would be able to oversee the script, “weave in key talking points”, and censor scenes it did not like. The US military also demanded a veto over actors appearing in the film and an official screening before Maverickcould be approved for release.

The Pentagon could punish any violations of the agreement by deleting footage involving its hardware, thereby killing the film. It could also deny “future support”, effectively killing the careers of Maverick’s filmmakers.

There is nothing unusual about Top Gun’s treatment. It is, argues Theaters of War, standard for US blockbusters, the films likely to have the most impact on popular culture and western perceptions of war.

The premise of one of the most popular franchises, Marvel’s Iron Man, was rewritten following Pentagon intervention. The main character, Tony Stark, played by Robert Downey Jr, was originally an outspoken opponent of the arms industries, reinventing his father’s empire so that Iron Man technology could stop wars.

But after Pentagon rewrites, Stark became the ultimate evangelist for the weapons industries: “Peace means having a bigger stick than the other guy.” In one early scene, he makes a fool of a young female reporter who criticises his business empire – before bedding her to underscore that she is also a hypocrite.

Military fiasco

The Pentagon has been particularly sensitive to portrayals of the US military following a fiasco in 1993 in which one of its helicopters was downed in Mogadishu. That led to a prolonged firefight that killed more than a dozen US soldiers and hundreds of Somalis.

The following year, the Defense Department insisted on major revisions to the Harrison Ford vehicle Clear and Present Danger – especially in a scene where a Colombian militia overwhelms US special forces. As documents unearthed by Theaters of War show, US officials worried that the Mogadishu events had made the US military “look ridiculous” and officials refused to “cooperate in a movie that does the same thing” in a different combat zone. It demanded changes to make the film “more of a ‘commercial’ for us”.

When in 2001, Hollywood turned its attention to the book Black Hawk Down – specifically about the Mogadishu incident – the Pentagon insisted on heavy script changes that transformed the drama. Just eight years after the actual events depicted, the Defense Department had turned a story of its own incompetence into an all-American tale of military valour in the face of overwhelming odds at the hands of a savage, faceless enemy.

Similar deceptions were achieved with Argo (2012), a film about the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran. In fact, according to Theaters of War, it was the CIA that hawked the book to Hollywood five years earlier on its website in the section “Inspirations for future storylines”. The tale was so appealing to the CIA because it focused on its sole success following the Iranian Revolution. The agency smuggled a handful of US hostages out of Tehran by pretending they were a visiting Canadian film crew.

Censored documents presented by Theaters of War show the CIA’s public relations office reviewing multiple versions of Argo’s script before finally agreeing: “The agency comes off looking very well.”

That is because of what Argo ignores: the CIA’s long-running meddling in Iran, including its overthrow of the elected government in 1953 to install a US puppet, which ultimately provoked the 1979 revolution; the CIA’s intelligence failures that missed the looming revolution; and the fact that the six hostages the CIA freed were overshadowed by a further 52 who spent more than a year imprisoned in Tehran. A story of the CIA’s crimes and gross incompetence in Iran was reinvented as a tale of redemption.

The CIA managed a similar public relations coup the same year wth Zero Dark Thirty, after the Obama administration had lost the battle to conceal its routine use of torture in Iraq and elsewhere.

The filmmakers had to acknowledge that the CIA resorted to waterboarding, a torture technique that by then was in the public domain, but under pressure, they agreed to conceal the less well-known fact that the agency also used dogs to torture detainees.  

Nonetheless, waterboarding was falsely presented as a vital tool in the CIA’s battle to extract needed information to supposedly keep Americans safe and help hunt down and kill the author of the 9/11 terror attacks, Osama bin Laden. That was such a distortion of the historical record that even the right-wing politician John McCain, a decorated war hero, went public to disparage the film.

Product placement

The Pentagon has such sway over Hollywood that it has even managed to turn around the anti-war message at the heart of a monster movie staple, Godzilla.

Back in the 1950s, it was an allegory about the horrors unleashed by the US dropping nuclear bombs on Japan at the end of the Second World War. But in the 2014 version, Defense Department meddling meant a reference to Hiroshima was excised and Cold War dynamics introduced instead: a lost Russian nuclear submarine triggers a confrontation with Godzilla.

Even more astonishingly, in both the 2014 and 2019 versions, the story is switched 180 degrees. Nuclear weapons become mankind’s salvation rather than a threat; the only possible way Godzilla can be destroyed. Nuclear proliferation sponsored by the Pentagon is no longer a problem. In Godzilla, it is integral to human survival.

Theaters of War also makes a plausible case that the Pentagon has been an important driver behind Hollywood’s move into sci-fi and fantasy territory.

The imaginary worlds of the Marvel universe, for example, offer a pristine showcase, demonstrating the need for the Pentagon’s shiniest weapons against implacable, other-worldly foes. Hollywood and the Pentagon can sweep aside real-world concerns, like the value of human life, the commercial motives behind wars, and the battlefield failures of military planners.

The challenge of superhuman enemies with superhuman powers has proved the perfect way to normalise extravagant, ballooning military expenditures.

That is why the Pentagon regularly insists on product placement rewrites, such as the Incredible Hulk riding an F-22 in the 2003 Hulk film, Superman flying alongside an F-35 in 2013’s Man of Steel, and the glorification of a Ripsaw armoured vehicle in 2017’s eighth instalment of the Fast and Furious franchise.

Paying dividends

Theaters of War concludes that the promotion of US militarism pays dividends. It means bigger budgets for the Pentagon and its contractors, greater prestige, less oversight and scrutiny, more wasteful wars, and more profiteering.

Donald Baruch, the Pentagon’s special assistant for audio-visual media, has noted that the US government “couldn’t buy the sort of publicity films give us”. In laundering the US military’s image, Hollywood encourages not only western publics, but the Pentagon itself, to believe its own hype. It leaves the US military more confident in its powers, less critically aware of its vulnerabilities, and more eager to wage war, even on the flimsiest of pretexts.

With Hollywood’s stamp of approval, the Pentagon also gets to define who are the bad guys. In Top Gun: Maverick, it is a barely disguised Iran supposedly trying to develop a covert nuclear bomb. Russia, China and generic Arab states are other template baddies.

The constant dehumanisation of official enemies, and contempt for their concerns, makes it easier for the Pentagon to rationalise wars that are certain to lead to death and displacement – or to impose sanctions that wreak suffering on whole societies.

This gung-ho culture is part of the reason there has been no public debate about the consequences of the US pouring billions of dollars of weapons into Ukraine to fight a proxy war against Russia, even at the risk of nuclear conflagration.

As Theaters of War convincingly argues, the Pentagon’s covert influence over popular culture can have a decisive role in raising support for divisive wars, such as the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. It can make the difference between public approval and rejection.

How different things might be if Hollywood was ring-fenced from Pentagon influence is illustrated by a case study.

The Day After was a 1983 Cold War film made for US TV over Defense Department objections. The Pentagon rejected the script after it depicted a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia following a series of misunderstandings. According to Theaters of War, the Defense Department demanded that Moscow be squarely blamed for starting the fictional war. Unusually, the filmmakers held their ground.

The Day After was watched by nearly half the US population. The president at the time, Ronald Reagan, recorded in his diary that the film had left him “greatly depressed”. It created political momentum that drove forward nuclear disarmament talks.

A single film that stepped outside the Pentagon’s simple-minded “US good guy” narrative generated a debate about whether the use of nuclear weapons could ever be justified.

The Day After was widely credited with slowing down the build-up of the two military superpowers’ nuclear arsenals. And it treated Russians not simply as a foe, but as people facing the same existential threat from the bomb as ordinary Americans. In a small way, The Day After made the world a safer place.

Theaters of War leaves audiences with a question: What might have been possible had the Pentagon not meddled in 3,000 movies and TV shows to promote its pro-war messages?

*

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

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

Featured image is from MEE

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How the Pentagon Dictates Hollywood Storylines. “War Propaganda Passed off as Entertainment”
  • Tags: ,

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The U.S. Supreme Court today rejected the Biden administration’s COVID vaccine mandate for large businesses, but ruled separately that a mandate for healthcare workers can move forward.

The U.S. Supreme Court today rejected the Biden administration’s mandate requiring employees of large businesses to be vaccinated against COVID or undergo weekly testing and wear a mask indoors while working.

The court’s conservative majority said the administration overstepped its authority by imposing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) vaccine-or-test rule on U.S. businesses with at least 100 employees.

At the same time, the court allowed to move forward a separate rule mandating COVID vaccines for workers in healthcare facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid.

The Supreme Court on Jan. 7 heard oral arguments pertaining to both of the Biden administration’s COVID vaccine mandates. The focus of the hearing was whether to stay or to grant temporary injunctions requested by plaintiffs in a number of lawsuits challenging the emergency mandates for millions of Americans.

At the time, the rule issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), was stayed for 24 states that initiated lawsuits, but the OSHA stay was lifted by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court’s decision today reversed the lower court rulings, imposing a stay on the OSHA mandate and allowing the CMS rule to proceed.

Today’s rulings came three days after the OSHA’s Emergency Temporary Standard went into effect, targeting more than 84 million workers and two-thirds of the nation’s private-sector workforce.

The conservative justices wrote in an unsigned opinion:

“OSHA has never before imposed such a mandate. Nor has Congress. Indeed, although Congress has enacted significant legislation addressing the COVID–19 pandemic, it has declined to enact any measure similar to what OSHA has promulgated here.”

The conservative majority also expressed concerns over the implications of allowing OSHA to implement a widespread mandate without congressional authorization.

“Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life — simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock — would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization,” the opinion stated.

A majority of the Supreme Court’s justices concluded the applicants challenging OSHA’s mandate were likely to succeed in the merits of their claim and the secretary of labor lacked authority to impose the mandate, resulting in a stay while the case works its way through the 6th Circuit Court.

“Administrative agencies are creatures of statute,” the justices wrote. “They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided.”

In a joint dissent of the OSHA ruling, the court’s three liberal justices argued the court was overreaching by substituting its judgment for that of health experts.

“Acting outside of its competence and without legal basis, the Court displaces the judgments of the Government officials given the responsibility to respond to workplace health emergencies,” Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a joint dissent.

The justices contended OSHA’s mandate is comparable to a fire or sanitation regulation imposed by the agency, while the majority said a vaccine mandate is strikingly unlike the workplace regulations that OSHA has typically imposed as a vaccination “cannot be undone at the end of the workday.”

SCOTUS allows CMS rule to move forward

In a separate opinion, the court allowed a rule issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to take effect.

The mandate is estimated to affect 10.3 million healthcare workers in the U.S., but allows for religious and medical exemptions. The rule was previously blocked by two lower courts for the 24 states that challenged the rule.

Source: CHD

The opinion stated:

“Vaccination requirements are a common feature of the provision of healthcare in America: Healthcare workers around the country are ordinarily required to be vaccinated for diseases such as hepatitis B, influenza, and measles, mumps, and rubella. As the Secretary explained, these pre-existing state requirements are a major reason the agency has not previously adopted vaccine mandates as a condition of participation.”

The opinion went on to suggest healthcare workers and public health organizations “overwhelmingly support” the CMS rule.

“Indeed, their support suggests that a vaccination requirement under these circumstances is a straightforward and predictable example of the […] regulations that Congress has authorized the Secretary to impose,” the opinion states.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, dissented.

“Neither CMS nor the Court articulates a limiting principle for why, after an unexplained and unjustified delay, an agency can regulate first and listen later, and then put more than 10 million healthcare workers to the choice of their jobs or an irreversible medical treatment,” Justice Alito wrote.

“The challenges posed by a global pandemic do not allow a federal agency to exercise power that Congress has not conferred upon it. At the same time, such unprecedented circumstances provide no grounds for limiting the exercise of authorities the agency has long been recognized to have,” Justices Alito and Thomas wrote, stating the “latter principle governs” in the healthcare cases.

Mary Holland, president of Children’s Health Defense (CHD) said in an email to The Defender:

 “CHD is delighted to see that the Supreme Court, 6-3, has upheld the preliminary injunction in the OSHA case, deciding that the administration lacked the authority to impose a COVID injection mandate on corporations with more than 100 employees.

“We are concerned, however, that the Supreme Court upheld the administration’s CMS mandate for healthcare workers. This mandate of an experimental, unapproved pharmaceutical product with only an ‘Emergency Use Authorization’ designation violates federal law and the Nuremberg Code, prohibiting coercion for participation in experimental medicine. We will continue to fight for true informed consent for all people.”

Scientists submit brief to SCOTUS on ineffectiveness of COVID vaccines

Drs. Luc Montagnier, co-winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine, Harvey Risch, a Yale Professor of Epidemiology and Robert Malone, co-inventor of mRNA concepts and processes used in the existing COVID vaccines filed two briefs (first brief, second brief) as amici curiae in support of the applicants’ application for a stay or preliminary injunction of the OSHA and CMS mandates.

The briefs were designed to “highlight critical facts concerning Omicron — facts not addressed in the administrative record,” while “correcting an important false statement of fact in an amicus brief submitted by the American Medical Association et al. so that the court is not led into error.”

In their briefs, Montagnier, Rische and Malone argued neither OSHA nor CMS did any analysis of vaccine effectiveness against the COVID virus as it now exists and there is no evidence to suggest vaccination “will curb the spread of the virus we now face.”

*

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

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Japan Risks Turning into NATO Staging Ground Akin to Ukraine

January 14th, 2022 by Paul Antonopoulos

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The Japanese government, led by Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, has been militarizing the country since October last year in violation of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. Article 9 states that “[Japan aspires] sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained.”

To achieve this goal, Japan never built up a serious military fitting of the country’s global importance, nor other means of war as the right to wage war is not recognized by the Constitution. Kishida continues the line of previous prime ministers and members of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party though, who have violated the peace clause in the constitution in many ways.

Japan has long had a Self-Defense Force of 300,000 soldiers – that is more than the 240,000 active and reserve personnel of the French military (not including paramilitary forces) and the 231,000 active and reserve personnel of the British military. This is in addition to weapons that are comparable to many Western European armies. The Japanese Navy goes far beyond national waters, especially when we recall that a Japanese warship sailed off the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea recently, an issue that Japan is not a disputant of.

In a statement, Kishida acknowledged the possibility of missile strikes against military targets in neighbouring countries, but he did not specify whether he meant North Korea, China or Russia. By alluding to threats, without specifying what the exact threat is, the Kishida government is planning an unprecedented increase in defense spending in the 2022/2023 fiscal year. The Japanese defense budget, usually not exceeding 1% of the country’s GDP, will now double to rise to 2% of GDP. Scarily, this budget increase will be used to modify cruise missiles so that the range can reach neighbouring countries.

In the new year, Tokyo hosts the 4th QUAD Summit (USA, Australia, India and Japan). The QUAD organization can be seen as a precursor to an Indo-Pacific NATO aimed against China in particular, but potentially also against Russian interests in the region. It is for this reason that the Kishida government has particularly strengthened military ties with the US, Australia and India.

In late 2021, Washington and Tokyo agreed to cooperate in the development of hypersonic weapons. Only last week, Kishida and his Australian counterpart Scott Morrison signed a document to significantly strengthen and facilitate military cooperation between the two countries. The Reciprocal Access Agreement provides for the interoperability of the Australian and Japanese armed forces and the ability to share each other’s military infrastructure. Japan also has such an agreement with the US, but Tokyo wants to sign similar agreements with other NATO/NATO-aligned countries, particularly Britain.

Tokyo wants world leaders to believe that Japan’s current militarization is a natural and legitimate process. Washington and NATO countries encourage Japan’s militarization in the hope of weaponizing the country against its traditional rival, China.

However, whether intentionally or not, and most likely the latter, by Japan militarizing and opening up to NATO-aligned forces, it is bringing the bloc to Russia’s eastern shores. Japan still disputes Russian sovereignty over the four southernmost Kuril Islands and it is recalled that although Japan and the Soviet Union ended their formal state of war with the Soviet–Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956, they did not sign a peace treaty. As the Russian Federation is the successor state of the Soviet Union, this means that there is still no peace treaty between Moscow and Tokyo.

Although it is unlikely that Japan and Russia will go to war over the islands in the current situation, by Tokyo changing the regional status quo by opening up to NATO-aligned navies, the country could be coerced into becoming openly hostile to Russia. If Kishida continues down this path, he risks turning Japan into a NATO staging ground used to challenge and antagonize Russia for no gains or advantages, but rather only negatives, much in the same way as has happened to Ukraine, Lithuania and Georgia.

*

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

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from ruptly.tv/

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Once again, rumors about the existence of a Russian plan to invade Ukraine are prompting American lawmakers to implement radical measures against Moscow. This time, a new bill threatens to impose even more US sanctions on Russia in the name of defending Ukrainian sovereignty. The project comes at a very delicate moment in relations between the US, Russia and Ukraine, being able to significantly worsen the search for a peaceful solution to the crisis in Eastern Europe.

Recently, Democrat lawmakers introduced a new bill in the US Senate aimed at imposing “crippling sanctions” on Russia – predominantly the Russian financial sector – in the event of a violation or hostile activity against Ukrainian national sovereignty. The bill was titled “Defending Ukraine Sovereignty Act of 2022”, and was introduced by Bob Menendez, the New Jersey’s Democrat who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The project basically consists of proposing measures that completely disable Russian financial activity, affecting the banking sector, large companies and, on a personal level, military, politicians, and prominent bureaucrats. Measures would also be imposed on Russian industry, with the aim of undermining exports and causing the country’s economic collapse. International bank transactions would also be affected, damaging the use of the SWIFT system in Russia. In other words, the new bill has the public objective of completely crippling economic and financial activities in Russia, if Moscow violates Ukrainian sovereignty.

In addition to trying to harm Russia in every way possible, the bill also establishes a provisional measure for the provision of 500 million dollars in “supplemental emergency security assistance” in the event of a Russian invasion. Some measures are also proposed for Washington to act more actively in the fight against “Russian disinformation”, as well as to strengthen ties with US regional partners in Ukraine that fight the alleged “Russian aggression”.

In fact, this bill can be described as a bold and bellicose proposal for the US to definitely take Ukraine’s side in the regional rivalries between Kiev and Moscow. The Democrats seem to want their country to bet on a policy of total and unrestricted opposition to Russia. It is a step for Washington to abandon its current policy on the Ukrainian issue, which consists of “using” Kiev as a destabilizing agent in Eastern Europe and adopt a more radical policy in defense of Ukraine and in complete opposition to Russia, not open for dialogue. Undoubtedly, this is the result of the growth of an extremely dangerous and anti-diplomatic Russophobic mentality, which could begin to have negative effects on American foreign policy soon.

The project came just a day after talks between Russian and American representatives in Switzerland. Considering that the attempt to resolve the Ukrainian case through diplomatic dialogue has not been productive, the Democrats seem to be taking advantage of the moment in order to advance an agenda of tightening anti-Russian measures. Some recent words by Menendez support this argument:

“As the Biden administration seeks a diplomatic path forward this week in Europe to avoid another bloody escalation in Ukraine, I find little reason to believe that Putin is negotiating in good faith nor do I believe he has any newfound respect for Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity (…) That is precisely why we are coming together to send a clear message – Putin need not collapse his entire economy nor does he need to sacrifice the lives of his own people in a futile attempt to rewrite the map of Europe.”

What appears to be happening here is not an attempt on the part of the Democrats to pressure Russia to accept NATO’s terms, but rather an attempt at a non-peaceful and non-diplomatic resolution of the demand. The lawmakers who proposed this bill simply want to pressure the US government to consider a coercive and bellicose solution to the Ukrainian crisis. The aim is simply to make Washington openly try to provoke economic and social collapse in Russia.

If the bill is interpreted honestly and the measures proposed therein are only implemented in a possible scenario of Russian invasion, its meaning will be practically null, since, obviously, such an “invasion plan” does not exist and Moscow would be, in this case, immune to coercive measures. However, recently NATO has regarded Moscow’s activities within Russian territory itself as a “threat” to Ukraine – and this raises a serious concern. The problem here is what the Americans will interpret as a “violation of Ukrainian sovereignty” – and whether Russian domestic activities near the western border will be viewed that way.

Indeed, it is not surprising that such a bill is proposed by the Democrats, which are the political party that has historically been most tied to ideological agendas in defense of American global hegemony. Biden, even though being a Democrat, is forced to take more realistic actions because of the current material situation in the US, but the pressure from his party is for him to use all possible means to suffocate Russia and all geopolitical enemies of the US. There is not much strategic value in that, just ideological commitment. It remains to be seen whether Biden will give in to the pressure.

*

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

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

This Week’s Most Popular Articles

January 14th, 2022 by Global Research News

20 Facts about Vaccination Your Doctor Forgot To Tell You

Dr. Vernon Coleman, January 8, 2022

 

57 Top Scientists and Doctors Release Shocking Study on COVID Vaccines and Demand Immediate Stop to All Vaccinations

Dr. Roxana Bruno, January 6, 2022

 

High Recorded Mortality in Countries Categorized as “Covid-19 Vaccine Champions”. The Vaccinated Suffer from Increased Risk of Mortality

Gérard Delépine, January 11, 2022

 

Video Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi: “These Vaccines are Killing the Young and the Old, They are Killing our Children”

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, January 2, 2022

 

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Covid Pandemic: A “Truth Bomb” Explodes to Illuminate the War on Humanity

Prof. Anthony J. Hall, January 12, 2022

 

Video: Experimental Injections. “Biggest Crimes Against Humanity Ever Committed.” Anna de Bouisseret Explains Who Will be Held Liable Under the Law

Anna De Buisseret, January 8, 2022

 

Video: The Corona Crisis: Is the Tide Turning? Reiner Fuellmich on Nuremberg 2.0

Peter Koenig, January 9, 2022

 

“The Numbers Killed by these Vaccines is Much Worse than What We Thought”. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, Dr. Mike Yeadon

Dr. Mike Yeadon, January 2, 2022

 

“Bastille 2022”: Building a Worldwide Movement Against “Corona Tyranny”

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 11, 2022

 

Louisiana Nurse Blows the Whistle: “We Have Had More Children Die from the COVID Vaccine Than of COVID Itself”

The COVID World, January 12, 2022

 

Austria Demotes Some 3.8 Million Double-jabbed to ‘Unvaccinated’

Free West Media, January 7, 2022

 

Bombshell: CDC No Longer Recognizes the PCR Test As a Valid Method for Detecting “Confirmed Covid-19 Cases”?

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, December 31, 2021

 

Uncovering the Corona Narrative: Was Everything Carefully Planned? Analysis by Ernst Wolff

Ernst Wolff, January 6, 2022

 

The Corona Crisis: Is the Tide Turning? “A Rapid General Awakening”?

Peter Koenig, January 6, 2022

 

Video: Dr. Shankara Chetty Testifies before the German Corona Investigative Committee

Dr. Shankara Chetty, January 11, 2022

 

New Big Data Study of 145 Countries Show COVID Vaccines Makes Things Worse (Cases and Deaths)

Steve Kirsch, January 10, 2022

 

A List of People Who Had Their Leg Amputated Shortly after Receiving COVID-19 Vaccine

The COVID World, January 12, 2022

 

What War with Russia Would Look Like

Scott Ritter, January 11, 2022

 

Video: A Final Warning to Humanity from Former Pfizer Chief Scientist Michael Yeadon

Dr. Mike Yeadon, January 12, 2022

 

The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 11, 2022

 

“Covid Ethnic Cleansing”: The Vaccinated vs. the Unvaccinated: Those Who Refuse the Vaccine and the “Official” Covid-19 Narrative are Categorized as “Psychopaths”

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 8, 2022

 

Now People Are Dying from the Vaccine. “All Vaccinations Must be Stopped”

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, January 5, 2022

 

The Real Reason They Want to Give COVID Jabs to Kids. “Vaccine Makers Want Zero Liability”

Dr. Joseph Mercola, January 10, 2022

 

Bombshell Document Dump on Pfizer Vaccine Data

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 8, 2022

 

World Council for Health Calls for an Immediate Stop to the COVID-19 Experimental “Vaccines”

World Council for Health, January 8, 2022

 

Why the Kazakhstan Crisis Is a Much Bigger Deal than Western Media Is Letting On

Zero Hedge, January 10, 2022

 

PCR Tests Have Served Their Purpose in the COVID “Crisis”, They’re Now Being Cancelled – Everywhere

Rhoda Wilson, January 10, 2022

 

The COVID-Omicron Crisis: The Roadmap Towards a Worldwide Financial Crash, Inflation, Digitization

Peter Koenig, January 12, 2022

 

Evidence: No Vials Are Safe, Full Stop: Terminate COVID Injection Program Now

Dr. Jane Ruby, January 9, 2022

 

Video: Dr. Robert Malone on the Vaccine Mandate, mRNA Vaccine Technologies and Hydroxychloroquine

Madhava Setty, January 7, 2022

 

Bill Filed in Washington State Would Authorize ‘Strike Force’ to ‘Involuntarily Detain’ Unvaccinated Families

Alicia Powe, January 10, 2022

Video: Reiner Füellmich and 50 Lawyers: “Different Batches” and “Lethal Doses”, ”The Vaccines Are Designed to Kill”

By Reiner Fuellmich and Perspektiv, January 13, 2022

After hearing the witness statements to the German Corona Investigative Committee by former vice president of Pfizer Dr Mike Yeadon who has been a scientist for 36 years, lawyers with Reiner Füllmich draw the same conclusion: The injections normally called Corona vaccines are designed to experiment on the human race and to find out what dosage of a yet unknown toxin is needed in order to kill people.

The Covid-19 Pandemic Does Not Exist

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 13, 2022

At the outset of the corona crisis, the number of so-called confirmed positive cases was abysmally low, starting with 83 positive cases outside China (6.4 billion people). These ridiculously low numbers were nonetheless used to justify the launching on January 30th 2020 of a Worldwide Public Health Emergency leading up six weeks later to the official declaration of a Worldwide Pandemic on March 11, 2021 (44,279 covid positive cases outside of China).

Covid-19 Vaccines Lead to New Infections and Mortality: The Evidence is Overwhelming

By Gérard Delépine, January 13, 2022

This article demonstrates unequivocally that mortality and morbidity has increased dramatically as a result of the vaccine. The incidence of Covid positive cases has also increased.

Why Do NATO States Commit “Energy Hara Kiri”? Green Zero Carbon Madness. Industrial Collapse?

By F. William Engdahl, January 13, 2022

There is a great paradox in the increasingly aggressive US and NATO military stance towards Russia, and China, when measured against the clearly suicidal national Green Agenda economic policies of the USA as well as the EU NATO states. An astonishing transformation of the economies of the world’s most advanced industrial economies is underway and gaining momentum.

By Refusing Security to Russia, Washington Has Opened the Door to War

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, January 13, 2022

I regard Washington’s refusal to accommodate Russia’s security concerns as totally irresponsible. By denying security guarantees to Russia, Washington essentially told the Kremlin that the U.S.  intends to locate nuclear missiles on Russia’s borders and to use color revolutions among former Russian provinces to destabilize the Russian Federation.

2021: COVID Deaths Increase, Flu Deaths Disappear, 400,000+ More Total Deaths than 2020

By Brian Shilhavy, January 13, 2022

At the end of 2020, we reported how the CDC was caught manipulating the death statistics to make “COVID deaths” appear to be much higher than they actually were.

US-Japan Joint Operation Plan: Nansei Island Chain “Attack Base” Will Roil China, Russia

By M. K. Bhadrakumar, January 13, 2022

A Kyodo News agency report on Friday cited Japanese government sources to the effect that Tokyo and Washington have drawn up a draft joint operation plan that would enable the setup of an attack base along the Nansei island chain in Japan’s southwest in the event of a Taiwan contingency. 

Parents of College Kids Fed Up with ‘Shut Up and Comply’ Mandates

By Megan Redshaw, January 13, 2022

From vaccine and booster mandates to restricting what students can do off-campus, a growing number of universities are forcing students to jump through hoops in hopes of avoiding an increase in COVID cases.

“Political Power to Silence and Penalize Physicians who Question Certain Views on COVID-19”: Open Letter to Dr. Harmon and the American Medical Association (AMA)

By Dr. Shibrah Jamil, January 13, 2022

The very essence of traditional medical practice is open discourse and debate. Years of education and experience grant physicians the right to analyze data, question it and demand answers. Any attempt to silence practitioners who are true to their profession, is an egregious assault on their autonomy and undermines the doctor-patient relationship.

Colonial History and African Enslavement: Implications of the Expanded “New Origin Story: 1619 Project”

By Abayomi Azikiwe, January 13, 2022

African American woman journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones has released a nearly 600-page hardcover book entitled “A New Origin Story: The 1619 Project” as a continuation of the work which began with the release of a New York Times Magazine special issue during the Summer of 2019.

History of World War II: The Soviet Red Army’s Winter Campaign 80 Years Ago

By Shane Quinn, January 13, 2022

Six weeks into the Soviet Army’s counteroffensive, on 15 January 1942 Adolf Hitler at last agreed that German Army Group Centre could make a gradual, fighting withdrawal to a straighter and shorter line slightly further west of Moscow.

Video: Every Canadian Needs to Push Back Against Forced Vaccinations

By True North, January 13, 2022

Canada continues to creep into unventured territory with regards to the powers we’ve given our government in the last two years. What was a conspiracy theory only a few months ago is now becoming reality – the CBC and the Trudeau government are suddenly talking about forced vaccine policies.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: “Different Batches” and “Lethal Doses”, ”The Vaccines Are Designed to Kill”

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Lawmakers on Tuesday attacked what some called the Biden administration’s “confusing” messaging and disastrous rollout of COVID booster shots. Meanwhile scientists raised questions about the administration’s mandates strategy.

In a Senate Health Committee hearing Tuesday, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the ranking Republican, blasted the Biden administration for failing to coordinate policy on testing, boosters and quarantine recommendations, even as medical and legal experts questioned the legitimacy of Biden’s COVID vaccine mandates.

“This administration has time and again squandered its opportunities and made things worse in the decisions you’ve made on testing and treatments and most crucially in communicating with the American people,” Burr said.

“I’m hoping that you’ll understand that my criticism comes from a place of concern,” he added, “because your communication efforts are a mess and have only made things worse.”

Burr called the rollout of boosters a “disaster” and said the recent update of information about quarantine periods left people “confused.”

Burr also complained of unclear messaging regarding quarantines from Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In late December, the CDC shortened the time for self-quarantining from 14 to 10 days. Fauci suggested a negative COVID test might be required to end this shorter quarantine, but Walensky did not agree, stating only that people should test and/or continue to quarantine only if they still felt ill.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration on Tuesday announced new rules to begin Feb. 15 requiring all unvaccinated federal health employees to be tested weekly.

This decision comes despite mounting evidence vaccination itself has little to no effect on transmission of the Omicron variant.

As Dr. Luc Montagnier, Nobel Prize laureate in 2008 for discovering the human immunodeficiency virus, wrote in Monday’s Wall Street Journal:

“As of Jan. 1, Omicron represented more than 95% of U.S. COVID cases, according to estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Because some of Omicron’s 50 mutations are known to evade antibody protection, because more than 30 of those mutations are to the spike protein used as an immunogen by the existing vaccines, and because there have been mass Omicron outbreaks in heavily vaccinated populations, scientists are highly uncertain the existing vaccines can stop it from spreading.”

The scientific basis for the administration’s vaccine mandate policies are now obsolete, according to Montagnier and his co-author, Jed Rubenfeld, a constitutional scholar, since the legal standard can no longer be met.

That standard, enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), establishes that the right to refuse medical treatment can be overcome only if society needs to curb the spread of a contagious epidemic.

For Omicron, said the authors, “there is as yet no such evidence” the vaccines curb the spread.

With even CNN’s Jake Tapper questioning the administration’s pandemic data now and the president’s approval rating for his handling of the pandemic dropping, some observers wonder when the administration will realize its pandemic playbook is obsolete.

*

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

David Charbonneau, Ph.D. is a fellow for The Defender.

Featured image is from CHD

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

A Kyodo News agency report on Friday cited Japanese government sources to the effect that Tokyo and Washington have drawn up a draft joint operation plan that would enable the setup of an attack base along the Nansei island chain in Japan’s southwest in the event of a Taiwan contingency. 

According to the report, the forthcoming “2+2” ministerial of foreign and defence chiefs of the US and Japan on January 7 in Washington is expected to “formalise” the operation plan. 

The report details that under the plan, “US Marines will set up a temporary attack base” on the Nansei Islands (also known as Ryukyu Islands) initially in a chain stretching southwest toward Taiwan, with around 40 “candidate sites” amongst around 200 islands, including uninhabited ones. 

The report comes in the wake of the recent remarks by Japan’s hawkish former PM Shinzo Abe that any Taiwan contingency would also be an emergency for Japan and for the Japan-US security alliance. 

This report comes only a day after the approval by the Japanese Parliament on Friday to approve the countries biggest ever increase in defence spending since World War 2.

What remains to be seen is whether the Japanese government will now push ahead with a constitutional amendment that will allow Japan to wage war. The existing pacifist constitution, a legacy of the World War 2, forbids Japanese armed forces waging wars except strictly in self-defence. 

Seven decades ago, the US imposed a pacifist constitution on Japan — which was drafted over the span of just a week by a small team of Americans led by Gen. MacArthur, the supreme commander for the Allied powers. Ironically, the US is now actively encouraging Tokyo to jettison the restrictions and be a “normal” country so as to recruit it as a fill-fledged participant in its alliance system in waging wars in the Asia-Pacific.

Japanese militarism is a fact of modern history. The Great Depression affected Japan by a great amount, and led to a rise in militarism. Succinctly put, Japan wanted to expand in order to gain more natural resources and to create its own economic empire in the Pacific. Its genesis can be traced to the period of rapid militarisation to modernise quickly and keep up with the Western world. 

Circumstances then and now have similarities and dissimilarities. The main difference in the early 20th century was that Japan was unhappy with the massive wave of modern globalisation by the Western powers, which resulted in the colonisation of numerous countries around the world whose ramifications were felt especially in Asia. In sum, Japan protected itself against colonisation from western powers. 

To protect itself from what it perceived as the possibility of war with Western powers, Japan developed a National Defense State, which was effectively a highly militarised government in which the political establishment made the militaristic decisions with strength of the nation’s economy tied with that of its military. 

Of course, an ideological revitalisation went hand in hand whereby the Japanese nation came to believe in serving the militant, ultra-nationalistic state as a sacred duty. Thus it was that Japan turned into an imperialist type power of Asia with its rapid industrialisation and invasions in China, Korea and Manchuria.

Beijing and Moscow do not seem overly worried about Japan’s moves right now. But they are watching closely, given the geopolitical reality that any revival of Japanese militarism will now be also anchored on the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy against China and Russia. They may yet be waiting to see if Japan makes its biggest move yet — actually amending its antiwar constitution for the first time. 

Russia’s tensions with the US over Ukraine also has a Far East vector. Second, Russia and Japan are yet to sign a Peace Treaty bringing their World War 2 hostilities to a formal end. Russia increasingly sees a congruence of interests with China.  

On November 23, Russian Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu told his Chinese counterpart Wei Fenghe that US air patrols near Russia’s eastern borders had increased, with a total of 22 strategic flights over the Sea of Okhotsk in 2020 – up from three the previous year – which he said posed a threat to both Russia and China. “Against this background, Russian-Chinese coordination is becoming a stabilising factor in world affairs,” Shoigu said. 

This conversation took place on the sidelines of the signing of “a road map” for military cooperation by the two defence ministers. Only three days earlier, Chinese and Russian air forces conducted a joint strategic air patrol over the Sea of Japan and the East China Sea. China sent two H-6K aircraft to form a joint formation with two Russian Tu-95MC aircraft.

This was the third joint strategic air patrol by the Chinese and Russian militaries aimed at enhancing “the level of strategic coordination and joint operational capabilities, and jointly maintain global strategic stability,” according to a Chinese readout.

A month before that, after wrapping up a joint naval exercise in the Sea of Japan on October 17, ten powerful Chinese and Russian warships undertook an unprecedented mission to sail through the Tsugaru Strait into the Pacific Ocean in their first joint maritime patrol encircling Japan. 

Russia’s defence ministry said, “The tasks of the patrols were the demonstration of the Russian and Chinese state flags, maintaining of peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region and guardianship of the subjects of maritime economic activities of the two countries.”

Quite obviously, Moscow’s line has hardened in the recent months on the Kuril Islands problem with Japan. President Putin unveiled a new proposal in September to establish a special economic zone in the disputed islands under Russian law. Evidently, Russia plans to intensively and rapidly develop the Kuril and strengthen its integration. Tokyo has protested.

Moscow fears possible deployment of US missile systems on the islands if they are returned to Japan, creating a direct military threat to Russia. The Russian Defense Ministry announced on December 2 the deployment of advanced mobile coastal defense missile system Bastile on the Kuril Islands. 

The Russian Defence Ministry also announced on December 21 a plan to hold two strategic command-and-staff exercises, headlined Vostok and Grom, next year. The Vostok (East) drills in the Russian Far East are planned as a key combat training event for all Russian troops. 

The disclosure by Kyoto of a joint US-Japan joint operation plan to set up an attack base along the Nansei island chain will most certainly draw a backlash from Moscow. The Kyodo report said the US deployment will include “high mobility artillery rocket system”. Russia has repeatedly warned the US against the deployment of intermediate range missiles in Japan. (here and here) China too has a similar position and has warned that it would “not stand idly by” if the US deployed ground-based missiles to Asia. 

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pacific May be Most Likely to See ‘Strategic Surprise’, Says U.S. Policymaker Campbell

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Ankara is seemingly more emboldened than ever as early signs show that the bloody unrest that engulfed Kazakhstan had significant Turkish involvement, not only through its intelligence services, but also through Kazakhstan’s Turkey-oriented politicians and business community.

The Kazakh elite, led by its leader Nursultan Nazarbayev, expedited the development of multilateral relations and established an alliance with Ankara. This alliance was cultivated under the formula of a “multi-vector course”, with inspiration of a supranational entity called “Great Turan.”

“Great Turan” is a relatively new concept born out of fringe nationalist movements that opposed the Russian Empire and Soviet Union. It was also propelled in Turkey by Kemalist ideology to Turkify Anatolian Muslims and Christians alike. Today, one of the greatest champions of a “Great Turan” – the ideology of unifying Turkic-speaking people from the Balkans to Siberia and Xinjiang, is Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

It is recalled that when speaking to the Organization of Turkic States, Erdoğan said:

“Turkistan is our ancestral home, our main hearth. We are a very large family of 300 million people who speak the same language, believe in the same religion, have the same history, culture, share the same civilization. I know that our Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Tajik and Turkmen brothers look at Turkey the same way we do. They consider Turkey their home.”

Turkey has consistently worked towards this “Great Turan” project since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire left the country as a rump state in Anatolia. First was the 1939 grab of Liwa Iskenderun, now Hatay Province, from Syria. Then there was the 1974 invasion of northern Cyprus. The 2010’s saw more areas of northern Syria occupied by Turkey. Next was Turkey’s direct assistance to Azerbaijan’s 2020 invasion of Nagorno-Karabakh as the two country’s share the ideology of “one nation, two states. ”Azerbaijan is important for Turkey as it is the country’s gateway to Central Asia and its riches, especially Kazakhstan with its innumerable natural resources. Uranium ore deposits alone, as an example, are estimated at more than 40% of the world’s total.

For Ankara to become a dominant force in Central Asia, it must break Russia’s influence, and in this way has been engaged in a number of projects to propel this. This includes encouraging Kazakhstan’s switch from the Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet. Also, about a hundred mosques and madrasahs have been built in Kazakhstan with Turkish funding to Islamize the country and break it from its Soviet-era secularism.

More than 200 officers of the Kazakh army graduated from Turkish military institutions. Annually, hundreds of Kazakh military personnel, including the highest echelon of the military leadership, are sent to Turkey to improve their professional training for short-term courses. In recent years, Kazakhstan has actively purchased Turkish-made infantry fighting and armored vehicles, and is keen to purchase bayraktar drones.

Erdoğan had no choice but to express formal support for the Kazakh decision to request peacekeeping assistance from the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). The Turkish leader was hoping that President Kasym-Zhomart Tokayev would be undecided and delay requesting CSTO assistance so that pro-Turkish-minded local politicians and major businessmen could be activated. This was in the hope that they would create enough pressure to demand Turkish troops be deployed in order to stabilize the country.

Albeit, this is far from what actually happened as the Kazakh president acted decisively.

Tokayev said there was a “single center” coordinating the uprising in Kazakhstan. Acording to geopolitical analyst and journalist Pepe Escobar, Tokayev was referring to a ‘secret’ US-Turk-Israeli military-intel operations room based in the southern business hub of Almaty. Escobar reported that there were 22 Americans, 16 Turks and 6 Israelis in the center and were coordinating sabotage gangs – trained in West Asia by the Turks – and then rat-lined to Almaty. However, their operation unravelled when Kazakh forces – with the help of Russian/CSTO intel – retook control of the vandalized Almaty airport, which was supposed to be turned into a hub for receiving foreign military supplies.

Escobar speculated that “the Hybrid War west had to be stunned and livid at how the CSTO intercepted the Kazakh operation at such lightning speed” and that the Secretary of the Russian National Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, was able to prepare for a potential Color Revolution as he “saw the Big Picture eons ago.”

Despite this setback, Erdoğan will not abandon his attempts to return to Kazakhstan and will continue to pursue a “Great Turan.” Time will tell whether Kazakhstan will be able to solve internal problems of national security, but the continuation of the “multi-vector course” is unlikely to ensure consistent stability in the Central Asian country.

*

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

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.

***

In an interview Wednesday with “Fox & Friends,” parents of university students expressed growing concerns that mandatory vaccines, facemasks and discriminatory practices far outweigh the risks of getting COVID.

From vaccine and booster mandates to restricting what students can do off-campus, a growing number of universities are forcing students to jump through hoops in hopes of avoiding an increase in COVID cases.

But some parents say these restrictions are unwarranted and are negatively impacting their child’s college experience.

In an interview Wednesday with “Fox & Friends,” parents of university students expressed growing concerns that mandatory vaccines, facemasks and discriminatory practices far outweigh the risks of getting COVID.

Click here to watch the video.

Dr. Dwayne Dexter, the father of a sophomore at the University of Delaware, said every student was required to get a COVID test before starting the winter session whether they were vaccinated or not — and now the university is mandating all students receive a booster before the spring semester.

“He’s under a tremendous amount of stress trying to understand what the booster shot means, is the school going remote,” Dexter said. “He’s really trying to deal with the restrictions that have been in place for the past year and a half.”

Dexter said he feels parents are “standing in the woods shouting at nobody” that these “shut up and comply mandates” are starting to impact the social and emotional well-being of kids. “They really aren’t having that college experience,” he said.

Dexter explained:

“If you look at the data out there today, are any of these mandates really impacting the infection and transmission rate of COVID, and they’re not. Our kids are in an age group where the impact of COVID on their health is very very minimal and I don’t think anybody is measuring or evaluating what is the psychological toll on these kids versus what the mandates are doing to impact their health against COVID.”

Greg Luttrell, the father of a junior at the University of Memphis, said his daughter transferred from the University of Tennessee when learning was moved online.

“For her to have to pay for housing on campus, to having to go to the cafeteria to get takeout food and to wear a mask everywhere outside of her room, she just didn’t feel that was the college experience,” Luttrell said. “They weren’t even sure there would be football games or whether they could have any social [interaction] or spend any time together.”

Although the University of Memphis does not require COVID vaccinations, masks are mandated and the school uses COVID daily symptom monitoring.

Kristina Kristen is the mother of a freshman at the University of California Irvine where COVID vaccines, booster shots and wearing facemasks indoor are mandatory. The university also requires weekly COVID testing for unvaccinated students.

“[My son] has been subjected to what can only be described as discriminatory protocols, having to be tested weekly and being subjected to different isolation protocols from those who are vaccinated,” Kristen said. “In addition to that, I think the strict masking protocols in their dorms are kind of reaching these absurd levels where they have to cite each other if the mask is slightly under the nose and get these citations.”

Kristen said it is a living situation that is far less than the experience a parent would hope their child would have during their college years.

Kristen, a Children’s Health Defense board member, said from the beginning everybody knew, and data showed, students are the lowest-risk population on the planet.

She explained:

“It’s a stratified risk all around, you have basically virtually zero risk to the students between the ages of 16 to 25 of COVID, but you have massive risks from the adverse effects from the vaccines where they are showing that they’re having myocarditis, pericarditis, thrombocytopenia — all these pretty serious adverse effects from vaccines — and on top of that, they’re showing the highest vaccinated countries in the world such as Israel, Iceland, Gibraltar have in fact the highest cases and death rates.

“So this is very very alarming that as the global data is showing what is happening with the vaccinations, they’re going on with this agenda.”

Kristen said she is puzzled that institutions of higher learning are supposed to be holding science in high esteem, but she is not “seeing this laying out on the ground.”

Students, parents, faculty urge colleges to drop booster mandates

As The Defender reported Jan. 10, more than 325 students, parents, alumni, faculty and staff at Cornell University signed an open letter to the university’s president and board of trustees asking Cornell to drop its COVID vaccine booster mandate.

The authors of the petition argued Cornell’s own data highlights that vaccination, even with the booster, has very limited capability in stopping virus transmission.

As of last December, the school had identified more than 1,600 COVID positive cases with every case of the Omicron variant to date found in fully vaccinated students, a portion of whom had also received a booster shot.

The petition raised concerns that Cornell is ignoring natural immunity in favor of mandating a booster “based on older variants, which Cornell knows is ineffective at stopping the spread of Covid-19 in the Cornell community.”

In addition to Cornell, more than 300 Boston College parents, students, alumni, faculty and staff signed a petition on Jan. 3 to the college’s president, Fr. William Leahy, opposing the college’s one-size-fits-all COVID booster mandate because it fails to recognize natural immunity.

This new mandate was issued even though more than 97% of the campus was fully vaccinated by mandate — and despite the fact that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has not changed the definition of “fully vaccinated” to include a booster shot.

The petition requests the college create rational “off-ramps” to the policy to protect individuals with “hybrid immunity” and those with serologically verifiable evidence of robust COVID-19 antibody immunity.

Cornell and Boston College are just two of many elite universities and colleges now mandating indiscriminate COVID vaccine boosters across the board.

*

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

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

The Covid-19 Pandemic Does Not Exist

January 13th, 2022 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

This article was first published by Global Research on November 10, 2021

Please forward this important article which is the object of censorship by the search engines.

To read Part II of this article  click link below:

.

Fake Science, Invalid Data: There is No Such Thing as a “Confirmed Covid-19 Case”. There is No Pandemic

 

Introduction

There is much confusion and disinformation regarding the nature of the so-called  Covid-19 “pandemic”.

The definition of a pandemic is rarely mentioned by the governments and the corporate media. 

What confirms the existence of  a pandemic is not only the number of people affected by Covid-19, but also reliable evidence of a disease outbreak which is spreading over a wide geographic area “including multiple countries or continents”.

A pandemic is an epidemic that becomes very widespread and affects a whole region, a continent, or the world” (Nature) 

The above definition does not in any way describe the alleged spread of SARS-CoV-2.  

There Never Was a Pandemic

I have investigated this matter extensively since January 2020 and have come to the conclusion based on relevant definitions, the history of the corona crisis as well as the official WHO “estimates” of “Covid positive cases” that there never was a pandemic.

At the outset of the corona crisis, the number of so-called confirmed positive cases was abysmally low, starting with 83 positive cases outside China (6.4 billion people). These ridiculously low numbers were nonetheless used to justify the launching on January 30th 2020 of a Worldwide Public Health Emergency leading up six weeks later to the official declaration of a Worldwide Pandemic on March 11, 2021 (44,279 covid positive cases outside of China).

Test, Test, Test

It was only in the wake of the official announcement of the pandemic (March 11, 2020) that the number of Covid-19 cases went fly high. And that had nothing to do with the alleged spread of the disease to major regions of the World. 

A highly organized Covid testing apparatus was established. The mandate was Test Test Test. 

Meanwhile, the Gates Foundation together with other billionaire philanthropists  generously funded sizeable investments in PCR-RT testing

Screenshot, Forbes, July 1, 2021

The Polymerase Chain Reaction Test (PCR-RT) 

The “customized” and flawed PCR-RT Test (which does not under any circumstances identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus) has been used Worldwide to generate millions of erroneous Covid positive cases.The latter were then used to sustain the illusion that the alleged pandemic was Real and that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was spreading relentlessly to all major regions of the World.

This assessment based on erroneous numbers was then used to spearhead the fear campaign. 

Erroneous figures of positive cases are now part of a giant data base, coupled with fake data on so-called Covid-19 mortality.

In turn, these millions of positive cases are then used to justify every single Covid-19 related policy adopted since March 2020, including the lockdown, confinement of the labor force, social distancing, the facemask, the closure of schools, colleges and universities, the suspension of cultural and sports events, etc.  

This tabulation of Covid positive cases was also used as a pretext to justify the March 2020 “closure” of the global economy (simultaneous  “closure” of 190 national economies of member states of the United Nations) allegedly with a view to saving lives.

And since December 2020, the alleged “Covid-19 pandemic” is used to convince people Worldwide that the  Covid-19 vaccine (coupled with the Vaccine Passport) is the “solution” to curbing the spread of the disease.

Defining the Pandemic

In analyzing the evolution of the Covid-19 crisis, we must distinguish between three important concepts: The Outbreak of the Disease, the Epidemic and the Pandemic.  

The Outbreak constitutes:

“a sudden rise in the incidence of a disease” and typically is confined to a localized area or a specific group of people. Should an outbreak become more severe, and less localized, it may be characterized as an epidemic. If it broadens still further, and affects a significant portion of the population, the disease may be characterized as a pandemic. Webster-Merriam

The Epidemic is defined as a disease outbreak:

“affecting or tending to affect a disproportionately large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time”

The Pandemic is broadly defined as an extension of the epidemic:

“An outbreak of a disease occurring over a wide geographic area (such as multiple countries or continents) and typically affecting a significant proportion of the population”  (Webster-Merriam, emphasis added)

 
 
 

Based on the above definitions, as well as data released by the Chinese health authorities pertaining to positive cases, there was an Outbreak of the Disease in Wuhan, Hubei Province in late December 2019.

A review of the data leading up to the official WHO decision to declare a Pandemic on March 11, 2020 confirms the following:

  • no evidence of a pandemic, characterized by an outbreak of  Covid-19 “over a wide geographic area such as multiple countries or continents”
  •  The official published data of the WHO pertaining to the alleged spread of  Covid-19 do not confirm the existence of either an epidemic nor a pandemic. 

The Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC)

The first step towards building a fake consensus on the potential spread of the disease was initiated on January 30, 2020 with the decision by the WHO to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).

Under the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR), the member states of the WHO have “a legal duty to respond promptly to a PHEIC”.

Without a shred of evidence, the Director General of the WHO declared the PHEIC, pointing to

“a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease and to potentially require a coordinated international response”.

This warning pointed to the possible occurrence of a pandemic.

A Global Health Emergency based on 83 Covid-19 Positive Cases Outside  China

The January 30 2020 PHEIC intimates the possibility of a pandemic. In an advisory published on December 19, 2019 (barely two weeks before the Wuhan outbreak), the WHO reconfirmed the definition of the PHEIC: 

“a situation that is:

  • serious, sudden, unusual or unexpected;
  • carries implications for public health beyond the affected State’s national border;
  • may require immediate international action.”

The calling of a PHEIC was a fraudulent decision on the part of the WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Why? Because on the 30th of  January 2020 there were 83 Covid positive cases outside China for a population of 6.4 billion people.

83 cases in 18 countries, and only 7 of them had no history of travel in China. (see WHO, January 30, 2020).

The “Evidence” Points to Fraud

There was nothing “serious, sudden, unusual or unexpected” requiring immediate international action.

These ridiculously low numbers  which were not mentioned by the media, did not prevent the launching of a Worldwide fear campaign.

In the week preceding this historic WHO decision, the PHEIC was the object of “consultations” at the World Economic Forum (WEF), Davos (January 21-24). The WHO Director General Dr. Tedros was present at Davos. Were these consultations instrumental in influencing the WHO’s historic decision to declare a PHEIC on January 30th.

Was there a Conflict of Interest as defined by the WHO? The WHO’s largest donor is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which together with the WEF and CEPI had already announced in Davos the development of a Covid-19 vaccine prior to the historic January 30th launching of the PHEIC.

The WHO Director General had the backing of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Big Pharma and the World Economic Forum (WEF). (See Michel Chossudovsky, E book, Chapter II)

“Divisions” Within the WHO

There are indications that the decision of the WHO Director General to declare a PHEIC was taken on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos (January 21-24) overlapping with the Geneva January 22 meeting of the WHO emergency committee on 22 January, 2020. According to the minutes of this meeting (excerpt below), there were divisions within  the Emergency Committee regarding the calling of a PHEIC:

On 22 January, the members of the Emergency Committee expressed divergent views on whether this event constitutes a PHEIC or not. At that time, the advice was that the event did not constitute a PHEIC, but the Committee members agreed on the urgency of the situation and suggested that the Committee should be reconvened in a matter of days to examine the situation further.

“Divergent views” is an understatement. There was firm opposition to the implementation of the PHEIC. 83 positive cases on January 30th “does not constitute a PHEIC”. 

I should mention that the first PHEIC goes back to 2009. It was inaugurated by the WHO in relation to the H1N1 swine flu pandemic, which turned out to be a fraud.

On January 29, 2020, the day preceding the launching of the PHEIC (recorded by the WHO), there were 5  cases in the US, 3 in Canada, 4 in France, 4 in Germany. 

There was no “scientific basis” to justify the launching of a Worldwide public health emergency.

And bear in mind that the figures quoted above are based on Covid positive estimates generated by the contentious and disputed PCR-RT methodology

Screenshot of WHO table, January 29, 2020, (pdf document no longer available)

January 31, 2020:  President Trump’s Decision to Suspend Air Travel with China

And these these ridiculously low numbers of Covid positive cases were then used by President Trump to suspend air travel to China on the following day (January 31, 2020).

… Trump announced that he would deny entry to the US of both Chinese and foreign nationals “who have traveled in China in the last 14 days”. This immediately triggered a crisis in air travel,  transportation, US-China trade relations as well as freight and shipping transactions.

…The five so-called “confirmed cases” in the US were sufficient to “justify” President Trump’s January 31st 2020 decision to suspend air travel to China while precipitating a hate campaign against ethnic Chinese throughout the Western World. (Michel Chossudovsky, E-Book Chapter II)

This historic January 31st 2020 decision paved the way towards the disruption of international commodity trade as well as the imposition of Worldwide restrictions on air travel. It has also led to the bankruptcy of major airlines, hotel chains and the tourist industry Worldwide.  

And all they needed was 83 Covid Positive cases.

The next step of the COVID-19 saga unfolds on February 20, 2020.

February 20-21, 2020. Dr. Tedros Intimates that the Pandemic is Imminent. 1073 Covid Positive Cases Outside China

At a press conference on Thursday the 20th of February afternoon (CET Time) in a briefing in Geneva, the WHO Director General. Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said that he was

“concerned that the chance to contain the coronavirus outbreak was “closing” …

“I believe the window of opportunity is still there, but that the window is narrowing.”

Nonsense and outright lies. On the day of Dr. Tedros’ historic press conference (February 20, 2020) the recorded number of confirmed cases outside China was 1073 out of which  621 were passengers and crew on the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship (stranded in Japanese territorial waters).  

On that same day, 57.9 % of the Worldwide Covid-19 “confirmed cases” were from the Diamond Princess, hardly representative of  a Worldwide “statistical trend”. From a statistical point of view, the WHO decision pointing to a potential “spread of the virus Worldwide” did not make sense.

A quarantine had been imposed on the cruiser See NCBI study. Many passengers fell sick due to the confinement on the boat. All the passengers and crew on the Diamond Princess undertook the PCR test. Without the Diamond Princess data, the so-called confirmed cases worldwide outside China on February 20th 2020 were of the order of 452, out of a population of 6.4 billion.  (See the graph below indicating International Convenience (Diamond Princess))

Needless to say, this so-called data was instrumental to spearheading the fear campaign and the collapse of financial markets in the course of the month of February 2020.

Screenshot, WHO Press Conference, February 20th, 2020

Note: The tabulated data above for February 20, 2020 indicates 1073 cases. 1076 cases in WHO Press Conference)

Dr. Tedros’ Statement (based on flawed concepts and statistics) had set the stage for  the February 20-21 stock market collapse.

These are the figures (table right) used to support Tedros’ warnings that the pandemic is imminent.

Early March 2020

The recorded covid positive cases remain exceedingly low. On March 5, the WHO Director General confirms that outside China there are 2055 cases reported in 33 countries. Around 80% of those cases were from three countries (South Korea, Iran, Italy).

On March 8, three days before the official launching of the Covid-19 Pandemic, the number of “confirmed cases” (infected and recovered) in the United States was of the order of 430, rising to about 600 on March 8, 2020.

Compare these ridiculously low figures to those pertaining to Influenza B Virus: The CDC estimated for 2019-2020 “at least 15 million [U.S] virus flu illnesses… 140,000 hospitalizations and 8,200 deaths. (The Hill)

It is worth noting that in early March, reported new cases in China fall to double digit. 99 cases recorded on March 7.  All of the new cases outside Hubei province were categorized as  “imported infections” (from foreign countries). The reliability of the data remains to be established:

99 newly confirmed cases including 74 in Hubei Province, … The new cases included 24 imported infections — 17 in Gansu Province, three in Beijing, three in Shanghai and one in Guangdong Province.

While the outbreak in Hubei province was virtually over, the fake pandemic outside China launched on March 11, was commencing.

March 11, 2020: The Historic Covid-19 Pandemic, 44,279 “Confirmed Cases” 

The WHO officially declared a Worldwide pandemic at a time when there were 44,279 confirmed cases outside China (6.4 billion population). Here is the justification of the WHO Director General regarding the WHO’s decision to declare a Worldwide pandemic:

As I said on Monday, just looking at the number of cases and the number of countries affected does not tell the full story.

Of the 118,000 cases reported globally in 114 countries, more than 90 percent of cases are in just four countries, and two of those – China and the Republic of Korea – have significantly declining epidemics.

81 countries have not reported any cases, and 57 countries have reported 10 cases or less. 

Nonsensical and contradictory statement. No evidence of an unfolding pandemic.

These are the figures used to justify the lockdown and the closing down of 190 national economies, with a view to saving lives.

In the US, recorded on March 11, 2020, there were according to John Hopkins: 1,335 “cases” and 29 deaths (“presumptive” plus PCR confirmed).

No evidence of a pandemic on March 11, 2020. 

Immediately following the March 11, 2020 WHO announcement, the fear campaign went into high gear. Stock markets collapsed on the following day: Black Thursday.

On March 18, 2020 a lockdown was launched in the US. 

 

The Upward Trend of Covid Positives In the Wake of the March 11, 2020 Lockdown

What can be observed in the diagram below is that the recorded Covid positive cases were exceedingly low prior to the official declaration of a pandemic on March 11, 2020: 44,279 cases outside China. There was absolutely no justification to launching the lockdown as a means to combating a non-existent “pandemic”.

As of March 11, 2020, following the lockdown,  national governments were urged to implement the PCR-RT test on a massive scale, with a view to pushing up the numbers of covid positive cases Worldwide.

Test, Test, Test: The numbers started to climb with a view to generating more and more fake statistics.

Look at the table below. A very small number of positive cases in early March. And then, Covid positive cases going fly high as of April, May June 2020.

***

In Part II, we will examine  the role of the flawed PCR-RT Test and how it has been applied to sustaining the illusion of a Worldwide pandemic.

See Michel Chossudovsky’s E-Book, 13 Chapters:

The 2020-21 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”

***

About the Author

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research.

He has undertaken field research in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific and has written extensively on the economies of developing countries with a focus on poverty and social inequality. He has also undertaken research in Health Economics (UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC),  UNFPA, CIDA, WHO, Government of Venezuela, John Hopkins International Journal of Health Services (1979, 1983)

He is the author of thirteen books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005),  The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015).

He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.  His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. In 2014, he was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on NATO’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia. He can be reached at [email protected]

 

See Michel Chossudovsky, Biographical Note

Michel Chossudovsky’s Articles on 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 years-long war in Yemen sees no end, and 2022 is not an exception. The year began with a large-scale operation, dubbed Southern Storm aimed to expel the Houthis (Ansar Allah) from Yemen’s central-southern province of Shabawah. The operation is mainly led by the UAE-backed Giant Brigades, a force of an estimated 15,000 fighters, with support from the Yemeni Armed Forces and backed by air cover from Coalition warplanes.

The operation took the Houthis by surprise and resulted in significant gains since its first days.

On January 2, the Giants Brigades managed to capture the center of Usaylan district. On January 3 and 4, the group’s fighters captured the mountain of Bin Aqil and the key town of al-Nuqub.

The Giants Brigades managed to enter the district of Bayhan on January 5. On the same day, the group’s fighters seized the 163rd Infantry Brigade Camp.

On the next day, the Giant Brigades imposed fire control over the al-Sa’di junction, cutting the Houthis main supply line between Bayhan and the district of Harib in the neighboring province of Ma’rib.

The second phase of the operation was also a success. On January 7, Yemeni forces captured the district center of Bayhan in the western part of Shabawah, while, fighters of the Giant Brigades took control over the area of al-Hanou and managed to reach the outskirts of the town of al-Ulya.

The third and final phase of the operation began on January 9, when Yemeni forces kicked off a large-scale offensive in the district of Ain. A few hours into the third phase, the Houthis were expelled from the areas of Taraf as Saq and Qarn al-Mujajib in Ain. The Giants Brigades later stormed the center of the Noaman district in Al-Bayda.

On January 10, the Giants Brigade announced in a statement that all the districts of the province of Shabawah had been totally liberated from Huthi control after a 10-day assault.

The Houthis likely opted to withdraw their remaining fighters in Shabawah to more fortified positions in the neighboring province of Ma’rib, but important supply lines to this province are now cut down.

The operation resulted in significant losses on both sides. On January 8 alone, the Coalition claimed the killing of 435 Houthi fighters in one day in Marib and Shabawah.

Amid the important military gains, the Saudi-led coalition failed in the field of propaganda.

A coalition spokesman was caught using footage from an old US documentary film “Severe Clear” during a press briefing on January 9. Showing an abandoned Iraqi missile factory, he claimed that it was a ballistic missile workshop of the Houthis in the western Yemeni province of al-Hudaydah.

The poorly thought-out propaganda stunt should damage the coalition’s credibility, but any “major scandal” was avoided, as the MSM traditionally ignored the truth.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

By Refusing Security to Russia, Washington Has Opened the Door to War

January 13th, 2022 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

As readers are aware, I regard Washington’s refusal to accommodate Russia’s security concerns as totally irresponsible. By denying security guarantees to Russia, Washington essentially told the Kremlin that the U.S.  intends to locate nuclear missiles on Russia’s borders and to use color revolutions among former Russian provinces to destabilize the Russian Federation. In other words, Washington has shown that the US represents a life-threatening hostility to Russia.

Russia is not going to sit and wait for that to happen. Ukraine most certainly will not be permitted to be a member of NATO. Russia would reincorporate Ukraine into Russia rather than permit that to happen. No US or NATO missile bases will be permitted in Ukraine. If they are there or are put there, they will be destroyed.

The existing US missile bases in Romania and Poland will be destroyed. Russia can achieve this by air or missiles and has no need to invade. It would be pointless for NATO to mobilize as its conventional forces are small compared to Russia and incapable of putting up any kind of fight against Russian armies. Russia could overrun Eastern Europe long before the US could mobilize enough forces to put up a fight.

Stratfor, which provides geopolitical intelligence information to corporate clients says that the four armies in Russia’s Eastern Military District are in the process of being moved to the Western front. I have no opinion about the reliability of Stratfor’s information or any knowledge of who might be behind the organization.

The Stratfor report perhaps is an indication that the Kremlin expected the talks with the West to be unsuccessful and is positioning Russia to roll back NATO as the Russian deputy foreign minister indicated. Unless Russia’s security problems are resolved, he said, there will be dire consequences.

Prior to using force, Russia is likely to position nuclear missiles 200 miles off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the US as a constraint on Washington turning a low-key conventional action into nuclear war in order to save face. Washington in its arrogance and stupidity has set itself up for a defeat that it will find difficult to accept, especially as Washington will have brought it on itself.

Putin has expressed his despair many times that Washington cannot accept the sovereignty of other countries and learn to live together in the world. To maintain peace, all Washington needed to do was to demilitarize the NATO members that border Russia and cease adding countries to NATO. Instead, an over confident Washington drowning in hubris made a bad decision.

It is possible that nuclear war will be the result. But it would require more stupid decisions in Washington. It is not Russia’s intent.

Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko told reporters on Wednesday that Russia and NATO failed to find common ground. He summed up Wednesday’s meeting: “By NATO’s decision, all practical cooperation between Russia and the alliance in areas of common interest have been suspended. Today we do not have any unifying positive agenda, none at all.” He said that the West has presented Russia with an “unacceptable threat” that Russia will have to counter.

In other words, neither Washington nor its NATO arm heard the Russians tell them that military bases on Russia’s borders are unacceptable. As the Kremlin has found reason and diplomacy to be useless in dealing with the West, the prospect of building common European security is no longer in the picture. Russia has “no choice but to implement a policy of counter-containment and counter-intimidation.”

Having refused Russia security, the idiot West can expect war.

*

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

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

Featured image is from OneWorld


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

At the end of 2020, we reported how the CDC was caught manipulating the death statistics to make “COVID deaths” appear to be much higher than they actually were.

In November of 2020, we published an article with the above chart showing that based on the CDC’s own statistics from January through September of 2020, the total projected deaths for the year were on pace to be about the same as the previous three years, 2017 – 2019. See: Statistics Show that the Number of People who Died in the U.S. in 2020 will be the SAME as Previous Years, in Spite of COVID

When word got out that the flu season seemed to vanish in 2020, the CDC proceeded to stop tracking influenza statistics.

Here is a screenshot from the CDC website of the page that announced this, but I do not believe this page is found on the CDC website anymore:

See: In Unprecedented Move CDC Stops Tracking Influenza for 2020-21 Flu Season

On February 3, 2021, we published an article highlighting a study published in the journal Science, Public Health Policy & the Law that claimed the CDC violated federal law by inflating COVID-19 fatality statistics.

The study is titled “COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective.”

In that same article that we published, we published a screenshot of a page that existed on the CDC website on December 30, 2020 that showed the total deaths in the U.S.  from all causes as of December 30, 2020, as being 2,902,664 deaths. See: Study: CDC Broke Federal Law by Manipulating COVID Death Statistics

Just after the first of the year in 2021, however, this page disappeared from the CDC website, and an entirely new section was put up on the CDC’s website that tracked deaths, and the total deaths for 2020 were revised to be 3,389,094, a difference of 486,430 deaths.

Now, one year later, it appears that those additional deaths attributed to 2020 were basically being pre-added to cover up the deaths that were going to be caused by the experimental COVID-19 “vaccines” for 2021.

Here is what the CDC is currently reporting today, at the time of publication of this article:

Source. (Click on “Yearly” at the bottom of the table.)

As you can see, according to the CDC, flu deaths have all but disappeared, as they dropped from their already record low number of 8,785 in 2020, to only 932 in 2021.

And in spite of the fact that hundreds of millions of the American population were injected with the experimental gene-therapy shots for COVID-19 in 2021, COVID deaths, according to the CDC, increased from 385,443 in 2020 to 444,951 in 2021.

And if we use the CDC’s number of total deaths for 2020 on December 30, 2020 before they revised their numbers, we have an increase in total deaths in the U.S. in 2021 that is an increase of over 400,000 deaths that occurred in 2020.

And we have to conclude that the majority of those were COVID-19 vaccine injury deaths.

According to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), if we exclude the foreign reports, VAERS shows 9,778 reported deaths following COVID-19 injections in 2021. (Source.)

Dr. Jessica Rose, PhD. has determined that the VAERS under-reporting multiplier for COVID-19 vaccine reports is 41X. See: Determining the VAERS Under-Reporting Multiplier

When we multiply the reported 9,778 deaths following COVID-19 injections for 2021 by 41, we get 400,898 deaths following COVID-19 shots.

Bingo!

This evidence is further corroborated by the recent admission that life insurance claims death rates skyrocketed an unprecedented 40% among those between the ages of 18 and 64 in 2021. See: Crisis in America: Deaths Up 40% Among Those Aged 18-64 Based on Life Insurance Claims for 2021 After COVID-19 Vaccine Roll Outs

We are watching the world’s population be reduced right in front of our eyes, while the masses continue to think it is all a “conspiracy theory.”

*

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

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 2021: COVID Deaths Increase, Flu Deaths Disappear, 400,000+ More Total Deaths than 2020
  • Tags: , ,

Lebanese Upcoming Elections May Hold a Wild-card

January 13th, 2022 by Steven Sahiounie

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Lebanese parliamentary elections are set for March 27.  While the social, political, and economic crisis which has caused the collapse of Lebanon is far from over, the various political factions are jockeying for position and making promises.

One political party leader has emerged and is a very old face on the scene.  Samir Geagea, the leader of the Lebanese Forces (LF) since 1986.   The LF is a political party that began as an armed militia, with no connection to the national army, the Lebanese Army.  Geagea still makes promises that he has 15,000 armed and trained fighters in the LF, and has suggested to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) that his Christian militia is capable of fighting Hezbollah, which has 100,000 armed members. Geagea, though representing a Christian sect, is, in fact, the agent of the KSA in Lebanon, while his bitter rival is President Michel Aoun and his Free Patriotic Movement, who are the country’s largest representatives of Christians.

In a recent interview, Geagea defended KSA and tried to distance KSA from connection to ISIS.  It was the US administration of President Obama who created the Free Syrian Army, which later evolved into Al Qaeda, and finally ISIS.  It wasn’t until 2017 that President Trump cut the funding on the CIA program which supported terrorists following Radical Islam.  KSA, UAE, and Qatar all had bankrolled the US program for regime change in Syria, which failed, but succeeded in destroying Syria.

Trump famously stated it was the US who kept the King on his throne in Riyadh.  The oil-rich Gulf states were used to following orders dictated by Washington. The US Embassy in Lebanon is similarly seen as issuing orders in Lebanon.  For example, the head of the Lebanese Central Bank, Riad Salameh, has been protected from corruption charges by the order of the US Ambassador, who said Salameh is a “red line”.

During the Lebanese civil war, 1975-1990,  Geagea and his fighters all received their training in Israel, and with various Arab countries now making relationships with the occupiers of Palestine, this positions Geagea as a conduit between shared interests. The Syrian Social National party called for the dissolution of the LF, originally an Israeli surrogate militia which later transformed into a political party after the 2005 release of Geagea from prison.

Geagea will be remembered most for his brutal war crimes.  He massacred all sects, even going so far as to blow up a church full of Christians.  He spent 11 years in jail and was pardoned in 2005.

In the past, it was Rafik Hariri, and then his son Saad Hariri who represented the Saudi interests in Lebanon.  Both were Saudi citizens, with Saad having been born and raised in KSA.  However, the current de-facto leader of KSA, Muhamed bin Salman (MBS), held Saad Hariri against his will in a shake-down and caused Hariri to announce his resignation while in captivity.  MBS was furious that Hariri had managed to work with Hezbollah in the political arena, even though his party was opposed to the group. It took French President Emmanuel Macron personally to gain the release of Hariri, where he returned to Beirut and rescinded his resignation.

Saad Hariri, like his father, was Prime Minister but was unable to form a government in 2021, and he left Lebanon to take up residence in the UAE.  Now, with parliamentary elections on the horizon, Hariri has announced he will return to Beirut in January 2022, and at that time will announce if he will participate in the parliamentary elections for his Future Party.

Some analysts predict Saad Hariri will not participate in the upcoming elections but will defer to his older brother’s campaign.  Bahaa Hariri, the eldest son of Rafik Hariri, and a successful businessman who has developed a unique style of citizen-activism in Lebanon in response to the Lebanese crisis.

Bahaa has taken a tough stance on Hezbollah, which will be enticing to the US and KSA.  His current campaign list “Sawa Li Lubnan” is raising billboards across Beirut, and has 10 offices in Lebanon, with a supporting TV campaign as well.  The platform is secular, appealing to all Lebanese, and has a modern reform base ideology, which emphasizes national unity in the face of corruption reforms.

The road back to stability in Lebanon may take years and may hit bumps along the way, but it would appear the March elections may be a starting place to build upon.  The age-old political players remain the KSA and USA, each trying to call the shots in a tiny country best known for its geographical position, and it’s 18 different religious sects all living side by side in the Middle East.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

Julian Assange: A Thousand Days in Belmarsh Prison

January 13th, 2022 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

Julian Assange has now been in the maximum-security facilities of Belmarsh prison for over 1,000 days.  On the occasion of his 1,000th day of imprisonment, campaigners, supporters and kindred spirits gathered to show their support, indignation and solidarity at this political detention most foul.

Alison Mason of the Julian Assange Defence Committee reiterated those observations long made about the imprisonment at a gathering outside the Australian High Commission in London on that day.  The WikiLeaks founder was wrongfully confined “for publishing the war crimes of the US military leaked to him by whistleblower Chelsea Manning.”  She, along with supporters, had gathered before the High Commission “because Julian’s country could save him with a simple phone call.”   Mason’s admirably simple reasoning: that Australia had “a bargaining chip with AUKUS and trade deals.”  If only that were true.

The continued detention of Assange in Belmarsh remains a scandal of kaleidoscopic cruelty.  It continues to imperil his frail health, further impaired by a stroke suffered in October last year and the ongoing risks associated with COVID-19.  It maintains a state of indefinite incarceration without bail, deputising the United Kingdom as committed gaolers for US interests. “Julian,” stated his fiancée Stella Moris, “is simply held at the request of the US government while they continue to abuse the US-UK extradition treaty for political ends.”

A report drawn from unannounced visits to Belmarsh by the Chief Inspector of Prisons last July and August did not shine glorious light upon the institution.  “The prison has not paid sufficient attention to the growing levels of self-harm and there was not enough oversight or care taken of prisoners of risk of suicide.  Urgent action needed to be taken in this area to make sure that these prisoners were kept safe.”

The next gruelling stage of Assange’s confinement is being marked by an appeal against the High Court’s unfathomable, and even gullible overturning of the lower court decision against his extradition to the United States.  The US Department of Justice (DoJ) continues to seek the extradition of the WikiLeaks founder to face 18 charges, 17 based on that relic of state paranoia and vengeance, the US Espionage Act of 1917.  A successful prosecution could see him face a 175-year sentence.

The original decision, shoddy as it was for the cause of journalism, accepted that the extradition would be oppressive within the meaning of the US-UK Extradition Act.  District Court Justice Vanessa Baraitser accepted the defence contention that such oppression arose from Assange’s “mental condition”.  Despite relentless prosecution attacks on the neuropsychiatric evidence adduced by the defence, the judge accepted that Assange was autistic and would be at serious risk of suiciding in the US prison system. The prosecutors also failed in convincing the court that Special Administrative Measures would not be applied that would restrict his access to legal counsel and family, and ensure solitary confinement. They also failed to show that he would not, on being convicted, serve his time in the vicious supermax prison, Colorado’s ADX Florence.

The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Ian Burnett, and Lord Justice Timothy Holroyde, were having none of that.  In their December ruling, the High Court accepted the prosecution appeal that the US could easily make assurances for keeping Assange in better conditions despite not doing so at the original trial.  The Lord Justices also proved crotchety at the fact that Baraitser had not gone out of her way to seek those assurances in the first place.  Besides, Britain could trust the good diplomatic undertakings of the United States.

So it came to pass that muddle headed judicial reasoning prevailed on the bench.  There was no mention of the fabricated evidence being relied upon by the prosecution, or the discomforting fact that operatives in the US Central Intelligence Agency had contemplated kidnapping and poisoning Assange.  Nothing, either, about the US-sanctioned surveillance operation conducted by the Spanish security firm, UC Global, during his time in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Work on the appeal began immediately.  Solicitors Birnberg Peirce, in a statement, outlined the importance of the application.

“We believe serious and important issues of law and wider public importance are being raised in this application.  They arise from the court’s judgment and its receipt and reliance on US assurances regarding the prison regimes and treatment of Mr Assange is likely to face if extradited.”

The wider public importance of the case is hard to measure.  Authoritarian governments and sham democracies the world over are gleefully taking notes.  Liberal democratic states with increasingly autocratic approaches to media outlets are also going to see promise in the way the United States is using extradition law to nab a publisher.  Black letter lawyers will err in assuming that this matter is narrow and specific to the wording of a treaty between two countries.

Having already done untold damage to the cause of publishing national security information that exposes atrocities and violations of law domestic and international, the US is making the claim that the Extradition Act, in all its nastiness, has tentacled global reach.  A phone call from Australia’s insipid Prime Minister Scott Morrison will hardly matter to this.  He, and other members of Washington’s unofficial imperial court, will do as they are told.

*

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

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

Featured image is from 21st Century Wire

All Global Research articles 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.

***

African American woman journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones has released a nearly 600-page hardcover book entitled “A New Origin Story: The 1619 Project” as a continuation of the work which began with the release of a New York Times Magazine special issue during the Summer of 2019.

The year represented the 400th anniversary of the kidnapping and importation of approximately 20 Africans from Angola stolen from a Portuguese vessel and transported to the British colony of Virginia.

In August of 1619 the British settlers had occupied sections of what later became known as the State of Virginia for more than a decade. After the introduction of enslaved Africans in the colony, the plantation system accelerated through the production of tobacco and other agricultural commodities which required the acquisition of more human laborers who would never be paid for their work.

By the time of the separation between the British Crown and its possessions, there were 13 colonies extending from the southeast to the northeast of the territories. The formation of the United States of America during the latter decades of the 18th century did not end African enslavement or the confiscation of Indigenous land.

In fact, Hannah-Jones advances the argument made by other scholars that the unprecedented Somerset v. Stewart case of 1772 in Britain, where it was ruled by Lord Mansfield that, “ The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, more or political, but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory”, served to undermine the economic status of the Europeans colonized by London in North America. Many interpreted the Somerset ruling as the beginning of the end of the Atlantic Slave Trade. (See this)

Therefore, the political leadership of the colonial territories which later became the U.S., were motivated not by the ideals of freedom, due process, and electoral representation. They were compelled to break from the British monarchy in order to exert their own economic interests within the expanding world system based upon the Atlantic Slave Trade and the super-exploitation of African people throughout the Western Hemisphere.

African enslavement and tobacco production (Source: Alamy)

The purported ideals of 1776 did not extend to the liberation of enslaved Africans across the country. For nearly a century after the Declaration of Independence from Britain, enslavement continued until the Civil War (1861-1865) within the U.S.

Hannah-Jones points out in Chapter I of the book that:

“Indeed, when the South seceded from the Union, white Confederates believed they were the inheritors of the founders’ revolutionary legacy and upholders of the true Constitution. Jefferson Davis gave his second inaugural address as president of the Confederate States of America on George Washington’s birthday, vowing that the Confederacy would ‘perpetuate the principles of our Revolutionary fathers. The day, the memory, and the purpose seem fitly associated…. We are in arms to renew such sacrifices as our fathers made to the holy cause of Constitutional liberty.’”

Even after the Civil War and the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments along with other Civil Rights Acts from 1866 through 1875, the overthrow of Reconstruction beginning in 1877 resulted in the reimposition of forced labor through peonage, sharecropping, tenant farming and the penal system. By the conclusion of the 19th century, the fallacious concepts of “separate but equal” had been firmly entrenched in U.S. Constitutional law requiring a decades-long struggle in the 20th century to claim the humanity of African people and other oppressed communities.

The new book is an interesting mix of historical essays and literary works. The poetry chapters are based upon significant historical conjunctures.

A variety of issues are discussed in the book including the role of the sugar industry in enslavement and colonialism; Black music; capitalism and its growth spawned by the Atlantic Slave Trade; the contradictions within democratic practice; the importance of fear; healthcare; the Black Church; punishment and the criminal justice system; etc.

Significance of the 1619 Project in the Present Period

The publication of the book comes at a time of contentious debate and political struggle over the status of African Americans and other oppressed peoples within the framework of the U.S. political and social system. Writers such as Hannah-Jones have come under attack by conservatives and liberals for the arguments made in both the New York Times Magazine and photographic supplement of 2019 and the subsequent popularity and praise.

In response to the Hannah-Jones and the New York Times publications, the former administration of President Donald J. Trump, commissioned the “1776 Project” in a hostile attempt to refute the work of African American journalists, artists and scholars who have developed alternative paradigms to the fictional narratives promoted by the educational system and popular culture.

Trump was not acting alone in his release of the “1776 Project” just days prior to his exit from office in 2021. The conservative movement in the U.S. views the ideological struggle over the contours of historical studies and other social sciences as a means to justify the censoring of African American studies, including the banning of books by Black and other people of color authors.

An article published by Derrick Clifton of NBC News in January 2021 says of the conservative effort:

“During the closing days of the Trump administration, the outgoing president fulfilled a promise to issue a report that promotes a ‘patriotic education’ about race and the birth of the nation. The ‘1776 Report,’ released on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, followed Donald Trump’s September announcement to form a commission to refute teachings on systemic racism, critical race theory, and deeper examinations of how slavery has affected American society. The ‘crusade against American history is toxic propaganda, ideological poison, that, if not removed, will dissolve the civic bonds that tie us together, will destroy our country,’ he said at the time.”

Yet this report does not complete the refutation of the 1619 Project. There is also the “1776 Project Political Action Committee” which has declared its intentions saying:

“We are a political action committee dedicated to electing school board members nationwide who want to reform our public education system by promoting patriotism and pride in American history. We are committed to abolishing critical race theory and ‘The 1619 Project’ from the public school curriculum.”

Then another effort called “1776 Unites” is a program by conservative scholars, many of whom are African American, to contradict the views advanced in the 1619 Project that the growth of African enslavement during the 17th century is the underlying historical conjuncture which has shaped the political, economic and cultural life of the U.S. The 1776 Unites approach is to emphasize the professional and business accomplishments of African Americans.

According to their website: “We are building a positive movement in response to the overwhelming narratives of oppression, grievance and ignorance to America’s history — and its promise for the future.” However, despite the professional, athletic, scientific, cultural, economic and intellectual contributions made by people of African descent in the U.S. since the 17th century, the statistics related to impoverishment, educational attainment, incarceration, healthcare, victimization by law-enforcement and the criminal justice system cannot be denied by those seeking to literally “whitewash” history and social studies.

These attacks on antiracist education have extended to public libraries which provide avenues for enhancing literacy through books and other learning materials that are often not available in schools. The enemies of the 1619 Project falsely characterize all education methods that are based upon the actual history and social dynamics of the U.S. and the world as “Critical Race Theory.”

Nonetheless, CRT was developed by scholars such as Derrick Bell at Harvard Law School during the 1980s and 1990s. Its tenets are based upon the institutional nature of racial oppression in the U.S. These concepts are usually not taught in a K-12 educational settings.

As Hannah-Jones has stated in several interviews, that no one has produced a fifth-grade teacher who is writing lesson plans based upon the legal concepts within CRT. Obviously, the use of CRT as a wedge political issue by conservatives is part and parcel of the arsenal deployed to halt the further democratization of U.S. society.

These attacks extend into the state legislative campaigns to restrict voting rights all across the U.S. through the passage of bills which prohibit early voting, same-day registration, mail-in ballots, the delivery of water and food to people waiting in line to vote, among other measures. Consequently, with the failure of the Supreme Court and the Congress to uphold the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the midterm elections of 2022 will serve as a measurement of the impact of these right-wing assaults on nationally oppressed communities and their allies.

This updated and expanded 1619 Project book makes an important contribution to the debate and discussion over the history, contemporary situation and indeed the future of the U.S. and the world. The outcome of this struggle against racism and capitalism will not necessarily be determined within the realm of academic discourse, it requires a continuation of the mobilization and organization of the masses for the total liberation of the people.

*

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

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

All images in this article are from the author

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Dear Dr. Harmon,

The very essence of traditional medical practice is open discourse and debate. Years of education and experience grant physicians the right to analyze data, question it and demand answers. Any attempt to silence practitioners who are true to their profession, is an egregious assault on their autonomy and undermines the doctor-patient relationship. The danger of creating a top-down authoritarian practice of medicine, such as the AMA, in collusion with the FSMB, is advocating, would mean the end of a noble profession.

In an ideal world, we expect societies and organizations that have been the vanguard of the medical profession to hold true to the ideals of medicine. In reality, we find many of these organizations to be compromised, having significant undisclosed conflicts of interest which bring their impartiality into question. To use the trust built up over many years to declare that medical and scientific knowledge belongs only to them is an abuse of their position and a betrayal of their great responsibility.

Misinformation and disinformation are nebulous terms created to cause confusion among lay people. In the world of science there are facts, genuine opinions and disingenuous lies. In the practice of medicine, lying is a crime; especially lying that results in harm. 

Your article, “Flow of damaging COVID-19 disinformation must end now” published on the American Medical Association (AMA) website December 14, 2021 (1), feigns concern for the harm false information causes, not just to the health of the patients, but also to the doctor-patient relationship. This harm has been pre-defined as any concern, skepticism, challenge or contradiction to official government narratives. However, many independent scientists and physicians, worldwide, analyzing real-time raw data, are coming to conclusions which are not in alignment with the current agenda of medical and political authorities. We have a legal and ethical duty to speak out.

In the article, you state:

“The COVID-19 pandemic continues to spawn falsehoods that are spread by a whole host of people such as political leaders, media figures, internet influencers, and even some health professionals—including by licensed physicians”.

The undersigned argue that organizations such as the AMA and the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) are using their Read the rest of this entry »

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Now that we have a full year of injecting people with an experimental gene altering shot for COVID-19, we can conclusively state that this is most definitely a weapon of mass destruction, as it not only kills and cripples people in the present, but it destroys unborn children in the womb as well, and is most likely making an entire generation of child-bearing aged females infertile.

And the facts that support this statement are found in the government’s own database of Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), as incomplete as that data set is.

I have basically employed two methods of analyzing the data in VAERS in my reports for the past year, and that is by comparing what is published by the government for the experimental COVID-19 shots with all the FDA-approved vaccines for the past 32 years, since VAERS began in 1990.

This gives us a true “apples to apples” approach using only the data that they supply.

The other method is to determine the “under-reporting multiplier” as everyone admits, including the government health authorities, that VAERS is a passive system that is vastly under reported.

I have used Dr. Jessica Rose’s analysis done on the under-reporting multiplier that is published here, and she determined that based on her analysis, the COVID-19 reporting in VAERS needs to be multiplied by a factor of 41X.

To arrive at the number of fetal deaths recorded in VAERS I had to test several different searches on listed “symptoms” and then see if the search results documented fetal deaths, since there is no demographic for “fetal deaths.”

The following is the current list of “symptoms” in VAERS that reveals fetal deaths:

  • Aborted pregnancy
  • Abortion
  • Abortion complete
  • Abortion complicated
  • Abortion early
  • Abortion incomplete
  • Abortion induced
  • Abortion induced incomplete
  • Abortion late
  • Abortion missed
  • Abortion of ectopic pregnancy
  • Abortion spontaneous
  • Abortion spontaneous complete
  • Abortion spontaneous incomplete
  • Ectopic pregnancy
  • Ectopic pregnancy termination
  • Ectopic pregnancy with contraceptive device
  • Foetal cardiac arrest
  • Foetal death
  • Premature baby death
  • Premature delivery
  • Ruptured ectopic pregnancy
  • Stillbirth

This list may not be exhaustive. But using this list with the last update in VAERS that contains data through December 31, 2021, I have found 3,147 fetal deaths recorded following the COVID-19 shots into pregnant women, or into women of child-bearing age who became pregnant shortly after receiving one of the experimental COVID-19 injections (such as ectopic pregnancies). (Source.)

Using the under-reporting multiplier of 41X, the truer number of fetal deaths following COVID-19 injections becomes 129,027 fetal deaths.

Please note that these deaths would be in addition to the recorded deaths of people already born, which as of the December 31, 2021 VAERS data release is 21,382 (source).

Using the under-reporting multiplier of 41X, we have 876,662 deaths after the COVID-19 shots, and that is in addition to the 129,027 fetal deaths.

THAT’S OVER 1 MILLION DEATHS IN JUST THE FIRST YEAR OF THE COVID-19 “VACCINES”!

You don’t believe it? Just look around you at the so-called “supply chain” bottlenecks that are getting worse, not better, and understand that there is NOT a shortage of products, but a shortage of HUMAN LABOR!

Using the “apples to apples” analysis of the VAERS data, I performed the exact same search on the symptoms listed above for all FDA-approved vaccines in the database prior to December, 2020, which is the month the first two COVID-19 shots were issued emergency use authorization.

That search returned a value of 2,479 fetal deaths following ALL vaccines for the previous 31 years, or an average of about 80 fetal deaths per year. (Source.)

  • Fetal deaths following FDA-approved vaccines: 80 per year
  • Fetal deaths following experimental COVID-19 shots in first year: 3,147

That’s a 3,834% increase in fetal deaths, using just the government data reported in VAERS.

And if someone like myself just sitting at home behind a computer searching the U.S. Government’s VAERS database can see this, you can be sure that all the scientists and doctors who work for the government that also have access to this data see it too.

Here is a video report on this atrocity that we published in October last year.

Stop calling this a “conspiracy theory” and wake up!

This is population reduction planning. This is genocide. These are crimes against humanity.

THIS IS PURE EVIL!

God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well.

This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels.

He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power. (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9)

*

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

Featured image is from HIN

All Global Research articles 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.

***

 

Canada continues to creep into unventured territory with regards to the powers we’ve given our government in the last two years. What was a conspiracy theory only a few months ago is now becoming reality – the CBC and the Trudeau government are suddenly talking about forced vaccine policies.

The Trudeau government continues to demonize the unvaccinated and claim that the only way out of this pandemic is through vaccinations. But as hospitals fill up with vaccinated and unvaccinated Canadians, it’s clear this is no longer the pandemic of the unvaccinated.

As Candice Malcolm explains on The Candice Malcolm Show, this must be our red line. Every Canadian needs to push back against this insane and radically authoritarian idea.

*

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

Louisiana Nurse Blows the Whistle: “We Have Had More Children Die from the COVID Vaccine Than of COVID Itself”

By The COVID World, January 12, 2022

Collette Martin, a practicing nurse of seventeen years, spoke at a Louisiana Health & Welfare hearing earlier this month about what she has seen in the hospital system during the COVID pandemic.

A List of People Who Had Their Leg Amputated Shortly after Receiving COVID-19 Vaccine

By The COVID World, January 12, 2022

As the vaccination train rolls on, tales of horrifying side effects continue to pile up. The mainstream media reports only on these cases in isolation, if at all, deliberately ignoring the wider pattern of serious blood clots directly linked to vaccination.

Will the Federal Reserve Crash Global Financial Markets As a Means to Implementing Their “Great Reset”?

By F. William Engdahl, January 12, 2022

It’s looking increasingly likely that the US Federal Reserve and the globalist powers that be will use the dramatic rising of inflation as their excuse to bring down the US financial markets and with it, crash the greatest financial bubble in history.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Covid Pandemic: A “Truth Bomb” Explodes to Illuminate the War on Humanity

By Prof. Anthony J. Hall, January 12, 2022

For almost two years we have been experiencing the onslaughts of a brand new form of warring aggression. For all but a tiny percentage of the global population, we have become the targeted enemy. The we that is being attacked extends to most of the global population.

December 17th 2021: “Pax Americana” is Dead? The End of U.S. Hegemony, Officially Announced?

By Prof. Ivaylo Grouev, January 12, 2022

It is unnecessary to analyze the extent to which the tectonic rupture between the empire in which the sun never sets, Pax Britannica, and the arrival of Pax Americana has influenced the global geopolitical processes of the 20th century. An American global hegemony is an indisputable fact.

International Finance Leaders Hold ‘War Game’ Exercise Simulating Global Financial Collapse. Should We be Worried?

By Michael Nevradakis, January 12, 2022

High-level international banking officials and organizations gathered last month for a global “war game” exercise simulating the collapse of the global financial system. The tabletop exercise was reminiscent of “Event 201,” the pandemic simulation exercise that took place just before COVID-19 entered the global scene.

Kazakhstan: NATO’s New Frontier? Attempted Coup? History and Analysis of “Color Revolutions”

By Peter Koenig, January 12, 2022

Just for the record, the 1991 agreement between Europe and the new Russia, stipulated that there would be no new NATO bases further to the east (of Berlin), was never respected by the west. That’s why President Putin is drawing red lines, and rightly so.

The Age of Intolerance: Cancel Culture’s War on Free Speech

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, January 12, 2022

Cancel culture—political correctness amped up on steroids, the self-righteousness of a narcissistic age, and a mass-marketed pseudo-morality that is little more than fascism disguised as tolerance—has shifted us into an Age of Intolerance, policed by techno-censors, social media bullies, and government watchdogs.

Pfizer Scandal: CEO Albert Bourla Reveals Two COVID Vaccine Shots Offer ‘Very Limited Protection, If Any’ after Claiming Shot Was ‘100% Effective’

By Rada Mateescu, January 12, 2022

Pfizer is making headlines again after the CEO of the controversial company Albert Bourla made a recent statement about the efficiency of the COVID shot. He recently said in a video that’s all over Twitter that two shots of the covid vaccine offer limited protection against covid 19, “if any.”

Canada to Announce Mandatory COVID Vaccinations Soon

By Kelen McBreen, January 12, 2022

Highly vaccinated nations such as Israel have all but proven this to be true as they continue to see record numbers of Covid deaths, cases and hospitalizations despite being the first country on Earth to fully vaccinate a majority of its citizens.

US-Russia Talk About “Where Not to Place Missiles”

By Ray McGovern, January 12, 2022

“Impasse, Deadlock” says The Washington Post describing the outcome of the high-level U.S.-Russia talks Monday, with a tone of self-congratulation (we told you so), tinged with wishful thinking.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Louisiana Nurse Blows the Whistle: “We Have Had More Children Die from the COVID Vaccine Than of COVID Itself”

All Global Research articles 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 Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) concludes that the full responsibility for the dangerous crisis unfolding in Ukraine has its genesis in the illegal policies of the U.S./EU/NATO “Axis of Domination” beginning in 2014. As the corporate press presents a one-sided presentation of event in Ukraine as part of a massive propaganda effort to mobilize public opinion to support the reckless positions of the Biden administration, BAP believes that the public must be presented with a counternarrative of the chronology of events in Ukraine. BAP National Organizer; Ajamu Baraka summarizes some of those events: 

“During the latter part of 2013 until February 2014, the Obama/Biden administration gave material support and encouragement to anti-democratic right-wing elements in Ukraine to execute “regime change” against the democratically elected government of Victor Yanukovych. This plunged Ukraine into crisis because substantial sectors of Ukrainian society did not support the coup, especially sections of predominantly Russian speaking Ukrainian citizens in the Eastern portions of the nation. Those Ukrainian citizens rejected the legitimacy of the coup government and began to voice support for independence from the neo-Nazi government that took power. And what was the response from the illegal coup regime? It attacked their citizens in the East. In other words, they attacked their own citizens – a crime that the Obama administration pretended was the excuse for U.S. subversion in Syria. “

The conflict that ensued as a result of the invasion of Eastern Ukraine by the Ukrainian government with the full support of right-wing paramilitary forces like the neo-Nazi Azon battalions, did not succeed in forcing the republics that subsequently referred to themselves as the Donbas Peoples’ Republic to submit to the coup government.  An agreement between Donbas and the coup government was arrived at that became known as the Minsk II agreement. Terms of the agreement included a commitment to a ceasefire along with relative autonomy for Donbas. The agreement avoided all-out war and provided some degree of “stability” until the Biden administration came back to power.

Back in power, Biden and the democrats who have now become the party of war, begin to encourage Ukraine authorities to ignore Minsk and to forcefully take back control of Donbas. Even more dangerously, the U.S. and some European powers began to indicate that Ukraine might be invited to become a member of NATO. That could allow NATO with its nuclear weapons to be positioned right on the borders of Russia and with its nuclear arsenal.

BAP regards NATO as an illegitimate offensive force in the service of Western imperialism. Therefore, we call on all social forces committed to peace to join us in demanding that NATO be dismantled. In the meantime, and specifically on Ukraine, BAP is calling on the international Anti-war movement to demand that the U.S. and NATO deescalate the situation. Concretely this means demanding that:

  1. All parties to the conflict adhere to the provisions reflected in the Minsk II agreement

  2. And that the Ukrainian situation is taken up by the United Nations Security Council, the only body by international law tasked with the responsibility to address international threats to peace – not the arbitrary and illegal activities of the United States and its allies.

The undermining of international law by the U.S./EU/NATO Axis of Domination committed to maintaining Western imperialist hegemony by operating outside the framework of international law, is now seen by much of the non-European world as the primary threat to international peace, security, and human rights.

BAP shares that assessment and pledges to continue to oppose U.S. policies, understanding that today as it was more than fifty years ago when Dr. King first uttered these words – “the U.S. is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world.”

No Compromise, No Retreat!

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Black Alliance for Peace Condemns the Policies of the U.S./EU/NATO Axis of Domination in Ukraine
  • Tags: , , ,

The Geopolitics of Digital Currencies and the Internet

January 12th, 2022 by Uriel Araujo

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Kazakhstan is amid a political crisis today after the escalation of violent protests. It is very likely the situation was exploited by foreign actors in the manner of some of the so-called “velvet revolutions”of the last few years. Such turmoils often start with protests pertaining to legitimate issues – in Kazakhstan’s case, a rise in gas prices. Not much is talked, though, about how the issue of cryptocurrencies “mining” factors into this equation – this country became last year the world’s second-largest centre for such mining. In fact, Kazakhstan’s crisis also shows us the geopolitical and strategic importance of the digital currencies’ issue.

Cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin being the most famous, are a kind of online digital currency and as such they are basically collections of binary data employed as a medium of exchange as a digital asset – that is, a fiat currency, generally speaking. The records about ownership of individual “coins”’ are stored in a digital database, and through certain transactions additional “coins” are created. Usually they are not issued by any central authority. The whole sector has raised concerns about money laundering, scams, taxation matters, and other issues, and so some regulations have been pushed by several governments especially in 2021.

In cryptocurrency networks, “mining” is the validation of transactions and also the very process by which new digital coins are created or “minted”, by updating new blocks of data to a blockchain (thereby serving the purpose of exchanging “labor” for payment). By doing so, “miners” get new cryptocoins as a reward, which decreases transaction fees and creates incentives. The labor however is performed by computers. This industry created a kind of arms race for cheaper and more efficient machines capable of running complex algorithms required for such difficult operations.

Cryptocurrency mining might appear to be a quite “abstract” issue, taking place under the sign of immateriality in the virtual or digital world but in fact it consumes large amounts of energy and thus indirectly impacts the environment and the natural resources, just like the traditional mining of minerals. It requires a lot of computer power, which means a lot of electricity – and more global emissions, for that matter, not to mention electronic waste due to the rapid obsolescence of the hardware needed.

The Chinese province of Sichuan was a major cryptocurrency mining hub, being home to several centers equipped with countless computer processors. This was so due to the large number of hydroelectric power plants there, which allow for cheaper electricity.

But things have changed. China, once a global hub for mining, quite unexpectedly banned Bitcoin mining in June 2021 and making all transactions illegal. As a result, the US became the leading ground for it. Kazakhstan embraced it, too, and cryptocurrency mining boom ensued. It grew so rapidly that already in October 2021 there were reports according to which the practice took its toll on the electricity levels in some towns. Most Kazakhstani energy is generated from fossil fuels, the country being home to coal mines which provide a cheap supply of energy.

It is not far-fetched at all to say that mega Bitcoin mining overloaded the country’s energy system and might have played a role in the current crisis. The internet shutdown during the turmoil, in its turn, has been a major blow to crypto miners: an estimated 15% of the global Bitcoin miners went offline, and Bitcoin dropped in trade below $43,000 (last Thursday) for the first time since September. This situation could generate a huge influx of crypto miners into the US and no one knows if that country can absorb it. There are concerns about bottlenecks, congestion, and host capacity, not to mention environmental concerns. So, it should become a hot topic. Meanwhile, it is about time further regulations are discussed regarding online currencies, and the internet, too.

The very topic of cryptocurrencies is part of the larger theme of digital currencies in general, including central bank (digital) currencies. These are centralized unlike most cryptocurrencies and thus allow for tax collection, the prevention of illicit activities, the avoidance of seigniorage income’s reduction plus many other advantages. Beijing may have banned Bitcoins, but it has also created its own digital currency, the cyber yuan, a kind of money that is not linked to the dollar-dominated financial system.

Different states are interested in controlling not only digital currencies, but the internet itself too, a related topic – and this is not necessarily a bad thing. The very history of the internet is intertwined with government agencies and it will always be so. Of course, the World Wide Web itself (the Internet) dates back to the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), which was established by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

In 2013, then Brazilian President Dilma Roussef wanted to route internet traffic away from Washington, in an attempt to counter American National Security Agency espionage: the bold plan involved creating an undersea fiber-optic cable system that would basically funnel all internet traffic between the South American continent and Europe, thereby bypassing entirely the US, but it did not follow through. So, in our age both the realm of digital currencies and the very realm of the internet become an arena for geopolitical dispute.

Regarding the latter, Russia for instance has already advanced towards such a goal with the development of its own (under construction) internal internet (national intranet) called RuNet, and so have other countries: much is talked about the Iranian National Information Network, the North Korean Kwangmyong network, and the so-called Chinese Great Firewall, but not so much is talked about Washington’s plans to create its own national quantum internet, as announced by the US Department of Energy, following the National Quantum Initiative Act, signed into law by then President Donald Trump in December 2018.

We live in an age of online piracy, espionage, child pornography, terrorism, hacker attacks, and sophisticated money laundering operations. In the same way the chaotic internet zone must eventually be circumscripted under the sign of law and order, digital currencies too eventually shall be further regulated. And the recent events in Kazakhstan have certainly brought attention to these themes.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Hacker Noon

US-Russia Talk About “Where Not to Place Missiles”

January 12th, 2022 by Ray McGovern

All Global Research articles 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.

***

“Impasse, Deadlock” says The Washington Post describing the outcome of the high-level U.S.-Russia talks Monday, with a tone of self-congratulation (we told you so), tinged with wishful thinking.

Yes, wishful thinking. Given the very high stakes, the media is a huge part of the problem, since they keep millions in the dark about the real world and hinder progress toward reducing U.S.-Russian tensions. This should come as no surprise, since the corporate media are part – indeed the linchpin of – the MICIMATT (Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank complex that profiteers on war. The Post and other Establishment media are doing their level best – against growing odds – to be consistent.

Consistent: A more ‘charitable’ explanation for media misfeasance can be seen in Ralph Waldo Emerson’s dictum: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” Emerson was writing about people who allow their ideas and opinions to be dictated by what they used to think. He noted that little minds are too afraid of change – even when contradictory data suggests a better, more accurate idea.

So, after Monday’s talks in Geneva, little minds at The Washington Post, for example, were happy to run this headline: Russia-U.S. talks hit impasse over NATO expansion, but Moscow says the situation is not ‘hopeless’. In my view, those little (and/or warmongering) minds miss the the significance of what just happened in Geneva. Here’s how the headline should have read: Geneva: Agreement to Discuss Where Missiles Can Be Emplaced.

As Emerson reminded us, hobgoblins don’t find it necessary to keep up on significant events. This is made still easier for U.S. media stenographers who, in normal circumstances, can rely on “The Memo” from Washington with the needed guidance. What has been abundantly clear since Dec. 25, 2021 is that “mainstream” corporate media have not been fed the guidance without which they simply do not know how to spin major stories.

They were at a loss, for example, to explain Moscow’s announcement on Dec. 25, that 10,000 Russian troops had been pulled back from areas near Ukraine. And editors who depend on credulousness among their readers/watchers apparently considered it too much of a stretch to take this one off the shelf: “There is always someone who doesn’t get the word” – this time 10,000 troops ended up going the wrong way for the ‘planned invasion’ of Ukraine.

The Dec. 30 Telephone Call

Then out of the blue came President Vladimir Putin’s urgent request for a telephone conversation with President Joe Biden. That took place on Dec. 30 and set the dates and – now we know – at least one highly important term of reference for the bilaterals yesterday in Geneva. On Dec. 30, one could only guess at the reasons behind Putin’s abrupt request, but those who took the trouble to look at the Kremlin’s immediate readout could figure it out without super-analytical skills:

[Excerpt]

On December 30, Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with President of the United States of America Joseph Biden. The conversation focused on the implementation of the agreement to launch negotiations on providing Russia with legally binding security guarantees, reached during their December 7 videoconference. … [at this point come a few standard, boilerplate sentences] … The presidents agreed to personally supervise these negotiating tracks, especially bilateral, with a focus on reaching results quickly. In this context, Joseph Biden emphasised that Russia and the US shared a special responsibility for ensuring stability in Europe and the whole world and that Washington had no intention of deploying offensive strike weapons in Ukraine. [Emphasis added.]

The media apparently did not get the customary guidance Memo on this, and so they ignored it. So did the pundits who feed only on mainstream media, even though Putin’s top adviser on these matters, Yuri Ushakov, immediately told the Russian media: “Biden made it clear that the US does not intend to deploy offensive strike weapons in Ukraine.”

Let It Be the US’s Idea: No Problem

According to The NY Times Monday afternoon, “The American side raised ideas about where US and Russian intermediate-range missiles are located, Ms. Sherman said, and the United States made clear that it is open to discussing “ways we can set reciprocal limits on the size and scope of military exercises and to improve transparency about those exercises.”

Earlier, we had suggested that the Biden promise to talk about locations for offensive missile emplacement was an opening “Quid” for the talks. It seems now that this turned out to be the case. In due course, one can expect a sizable Russian troop withdrawal from areas near Ukraine. (And, in all likelihood, this time corporate media will receive guidance as to how to play it.)

Wendy Sherman on the Outlook

US chief negotiator, Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman gave remarks to reporters after the Monday talks: “If Russia stays at the table and takes concrete steps to de-escalate tensions, we believe we can achieve progress,” Sherman said. …Sherman also said the US told Russia that it is open to discussing the future of certain missile systems in Europe related to the former Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF).

Sherman added the US is ready to continue discussions on bilateral issues and said her Russian counterpart, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, agreed that “negotiations on complex topics like arms control cannot be completed in a matter of days or even weeks …”

Impasse, Deadlock? I don’t think so.

*

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

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).

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Again in 2021, the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly passed 14 resolutions aimed at criticizing Israel (and supporting the Palestinians). On every resolution, only a handful of countries (among them the USA, Canada and a sprinkle of small Pacific island nations) stood with Israel. Some others abstained.

The assembly debates the SAME (or nearly the same) motions every year, and all of them denounce Israel’s repeated violations of UN General Assembly resolutions.

Example:

  • Condemning the settlements
  • Affirming Palestinian right to self determination
  • Rejecting Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem
  • Support for Palestinian refugee agency (UNRWA)

Since the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, the UN General Assembly has passed more resolutions criticizing Israel than ALL OTHER STATES COMBINED!!

WHY??

Palestinians: “Israeli human rights abuses are well documented”

For Palestinian activists and human rights supporters around the world, the answer is obvious.

Israeli human rights abuses of Palestinians are flagrant and well documented.

Reports from a wide range of organizations including the UN, the International Court of Justice, B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, leave no doubt that Israel’s actions deserve condemnation. Repeated reports from the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories have highlighted abuses in the West Bank, in Jerusalem and in Gaza.  Even Israeli organizations like the Association for Human Rights in Israel (ACRI) and Breaking the Silence are critical of Israeli actions. So it’s not surprising that the UN is vocal in its condemnation.

Israelis: “This is Israel bashing. Why only Israel?”

Israel’s defenders are indignant. “Why so much focus on Israel when there are many other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere whose human rights abuses are at least as bad as those in the West Bank?”, they ask. ”Surely Saudi Arabia’s public floggings and beheadings, Egypt’s feared prisons and Jordan’s secret police deserve as much criticism as Israel.”

Furthermore, point out Israel’s supporters, many of the countries voting against Israel are themselves serial human rights offenders. So why the double standard?

The underlying suspicion of course, sometimes stated, sometimes only hinted at, is that the UN applies a double standard, perhaps revealing an underlying antisemitism.

UN Resolution in December 2021, on “UNRWA”. All of Israel’s New “Abraham Accord” Partners Voted to Support UNRWA over Israeli Objections. Only 4 Countries Supported Israel. Source: UN Watch

Yet there are reasons for the special focus. Let’s explore them.

The global south: “It’s European colonialism”

There are 193 member states in the United Nations. Three quarters of them were still colonies in 1947 when the decision was made to give part of Palestine to European Jewish refugees to form a state of their own. The global south does not feel any responsibility for the Holocaust, nor does it share the European guilt. The UN General Assembly is the biggest forum where the global south gets to present its anti-colonial case to the world. It sees Israel as a prime case of European colonialism and feels justified in opposing it.

The UN perspective is clear: “Israel has obligations to the UN and the UN has obligations to the inhabitants of former Palestine”.

As the UN General Assembly stated a year ago:

“The United Nations has a permanent responsibility towards the question of Palestine until the question is resolved in all its aspects in a satisfactory manner in accordance with international legitimacy.” 

Israel has a unique relationship to the UN. UN General Assembly resolution 181 of 1947 proposed carving a new Jewish state out of historic Palestine. It was passed by 33-13, with 10 abstentions. Israel quickly embraced UN resolution 181. Its own Declaration of Independence cites UN 181 as recognition of its right to exist.

While “awarding” 55% historic Palestine to the new Jewish State, resolution 181 also included provisions for the protection of minorities inside each of the two new states. These included:

  • “No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants on the ground of race, religion, language or sex.”
  • “All persons within the jurisdiction of the State shall be entitled to equal protection of the laws.”
  • “No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (or by a Jew in the Arab State) shall be allowed except for public purposes.”

But it rapidly became clear to the international community that Zionist forces had no intention of respecting many of UN’s provisions. In fact, by its Independence Day on May 14, 1948, Zionist militias had already seized more land than had been allotted under the UN plan and had driven out over 350,000 Palestinians.

The UN General Assembly responded by voting through another resolution (194) in December 1948 affirming that those refugees have the right to return and to compensation. (The vote was 35-15 with 8 abstentions.)

When Israel sought membership in the UN a few months later, it promised to respect all relevant UN resolutions. The UN was divided on whether Israel should in fact be admitted, but US and European domination of the UN awarded Israel UN membership.

But while Israel adopted the part of the UN proposal giving it a Jewish state, Israel defied the UN proposal in that it:

  • Seized much more land than proposed in the partition plan (78% vs. 55% of historic Palestine)
  • Took over Jaffa and seized West Jerusalem
  • Expelled over 750,000 Palestinians
  • Confiscated their property
  • Destroyed over 400 villages
  • Prevented refugees from returning
  • Restricted the civil rights of the Palestinians who remained in Israel

As former General Secretary Kofi Annan said in remarks after leaving the UN in 2006, Israel’s defiance of UN provisions is a painful and festering sore for the UN.

“The failure to achieve an Arab-Israeli peace remains for the UN a deep internal wound as old as the organization itself, (…) a painful and festering sore consequently felt in almost every intergovernmental organ and Secretariat body.”

“No other issue carries such a powerful symbolic and emotional charge affecting people far from the zone of conflict.”

(Kofi Annan, Interventions (2011), p. 254)

Conclusion: both principle and posturing

The repeated UNGA votes condemning Israel and supporting the Palestinians are not based on the claim that Israel is the worst abuser of human rights in the world. There are others that are just as bad or perhaps worse.

Nor is it because the whole world is antisemitic. Many of the countries which vote to support Palestinian rights have never had any significant Jewish communities.

The fundamental reason is that Israel, a UN member, continues to ignore the commitments it made to the UN when it was admitted in 1949 and repeated UN warnings about the occupation of 1967.

But there is also a significant element of political posturing. The annual spate of UN resolutions on “The Question of Palestine” gives the global south a forum for brandishing their opposition to the effects of European colonialism. Even some rather reactionary regimes, like Saudi Arabia and the other Abrahamic Accord states, voted to support the Palestinians in the UNGA resolutions.

Politics is often a mixture of principle and posturing. But if Israel continues to ignore UN resolutions, it can expect mounting frustration in the international community and a continuation of world criticism every year at the UNGA.

*

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

Peter Larson is Chair of the Ottawa Forum on Israel/Palestine. He blogs regularly at www.CanadatalksIsraelPalestine.ca

Featured image: The U.N. General Assembly Votes on the Partition Resolution in 1947. Public Domain. (Posted by The Center For The Humanities.)

New US Military Base in Albania Aimed at Countering China

January 12th, 2022 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

In a recent interview, a former CIA agent reported that his country is opening a military base in Albania in order to contain China. A unit of American special forces in the Balkan country has as its main objective to stop any form of rapprochement between Tirana and Beijing, turning Albania into a mere regional satellite of Washington’s interests.

Last Friday, the US European Command (better known by the acronym, EUCOM) announced that it was establishing a new headquarters in the Balkans – a special operations unit based in Albania, which would form part of an overall US government effort to increase the capacity of Western forces to guarantee stability in that region, commonly strained by various conflicts with historical roots. The unit would be responsible for ensuring the interoperability between US and Albanian forces, as well as the strategic access to key Balkan military centers.

Commenting on the case during an interview with Sputnik, former CIA agent Ray McGovern stated that the US government decided to open a military base in the region “because they [the US] just learned that Albania is a tight ally of the Chinese Communists”. In this sense, the purpose of this new unity would be to undermine Chinese influence in the region and prevent the rapprochement between Tirana and Beijing, with little or no real interest on the part of Washington in guaranteeing stability and peace for the Balkans.

Analyzing the recent history of cooperation between China and Albania, it is really possible to see a significant increase in bilateral partnership. In a recent report by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (a pro-Western Balkan NGO), were identified at least 135 cooperation projects between China and Albania whose value exceeds US$36 million. The projects work in the most diverse areas, including high technology, computing, metallurgy, mining, energy, transport, infrastructure, security, among others. One of the projects that most dislikes the West is cooperation in technology with Huawei, a Chinese company that has been the target of conspiracy theories and fake news promoted by Washington, which accuses it of spying and stealing data in favor of Beijing.

In addition to economic cooperation, Beijing and Tirana have also expanded cultural cooperation ties, with an increase in mutual educational and scientific projects. Indeed, cultural and scientific cooperation is a key element of Chinese diplomacy, with Beijing trying to communicate with other states through the exchange of knowledge and academic professionals – and this is no different in the current Albanian case. In the same sense, it should be mentioned that the Chinese government also invests heavily in health diplomacy with the Balkan country, sending vaccines and medical equipment at low cost, which has been fundamental for Albania to deal with the new coronavirus pandemic.

All these measures are no surprise considering the Chinese project to create a global development platform for emerging nations. The search for acquiring new partners among emerging states has already become a central aspect of Chinese foreign policy, boosting cooperation projects within the scope of the Belt and Road Initiative. China is not doing any “kindness” or “charity” with this type of attitude, but a real investment: for Beijing, it is profitable that as many emerging countries as possible develop, integrating the BRI, so that in the future China can reduce part of its industrial production (fulfilling its ecological goals) and take advantage of foreign goods that will arrive in the country through the platform.

In October, Albanian President Ilir Meta and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi met at an important summit in which they emphasized the great potential of bilateral cooperation and agreed to boost international trade, with the aim of integrating Albania more and more to the BRI. It is clear that these ties have increased even more in the last three months due to this summit’s results – and this is precisely what worries Washington: the arrival of the BRI in the Balkans.

Faced with this scenario, the American attitude seems simple: to inaugurate a special forces unit in Albania in order to intimidate the Albanian government to abdicate its ties with the Asian country. The US appears to act hurriedly and is unwilling to deal with any signs of growing Chinese influence, responding at the military level to a peaceful partnership. Washington seems determined to make Tirana to conform to a role of regional satellite of American interests.

On the one hand, the American attitude seems even irrational, as it is not common for a country to open a military base abroad just to undermine economic cooperation between two other states. On the other hand, this is consistent with recent US incursions against China. Washington seems desperate to stop Chinese growth in any way possible. And for that, it is willing even to extreme attitudes like this.

In this scenario, for China, nothing changes. The Chinese international attitude usually ignores political and military factors, focusing on economic cooperation. Beijing will continue to try to integrate Tirana into the BRI and it will be up to the Albanian government to decide whether to accept foreign impositions or limit American attitudes and ensure the fulfillment of its own national strategic interests.

*

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

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

First published on Global Research on January 1st, 2022

***

Collette Martin, a practicing nurse of seventeen years, spoke at a Louisiana Health & Welfare hearing earlier this month about what she has seen in the hospital system during the COVID pandemic.

Collette says she and her colleagues have witnessed “terrifying” reactions to the COVID shots, but their concerns about the vaccines are being ignored and dismissed.

Collete went on to say that vaccine-injury report databases like VAERS are so little used that most doctors and nurses don’t even know that it exists, let alone how to file a report.

The Majority of our nurses, nurse managers, and some doctors do not even know what VAERS is. I’ve spoken to our chief medicine managers and other nurses on why we’re not reporting to VAERS, and the most common response is: ‘What is VAERS?‘.”

As if this were not bad enough already, she then said that none of the hospitals are reporting any data, meaning that even if someone was investigating, there would be no data to investigate.

“This is not just where I work. I know many nurses, friends and other local hospitals in Southeast Louisiana that say the same thing.

However, what she says about the potential long-term effects of the jabs is shocking.

“We are not just seeing severe acute [short term] reactions with this vaccine, but we have zero idea what any long term reactions are. Cancers, autoimmune [disorders], infertility. We just don’t know.

We are potentially sacrificing our children for fear of maybe dying, getting sick of a virus, a virus with a 99% survival rate.”

Collete concludes by saying that these vaccine side-effects are being covered up as being caused by the new variant.

“As of now, we have more children that died from the COVID vaccine than COVID itself. And then for the Health Department to come out and say the new variant has all the side effects of the vaccine reactions we’re currently seeing now.

It’s maddening, and I don’t understand why more people don’t see it. I think they do, but they fear speaking out and, even worse, being fired.”

Watch her full testimony here:

*

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

Featured image is from The COVID World

All Global Research articles 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 went into overdrive in propagating against the short Russian-led peacekeeping operation in Kazakhstan under the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) mechanism. The Wall Street Journal speculated whether “the Crisis in Kazakhstan [was] the Rebirth of the Soviet Union” and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Friday that “one lesson of recent history is that once Russians are in your house, it’s sometimes very difficult to get them to leave.”

Blinken’s statement ended up being humiliated in yesterday’s announcement by Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev that the CSTO troop pull-out would begin on Thursday. As a whole, the withdrawal will take less than two weeks since the peacekeepers already restored order in the Central Asian country in a swift manner.

In a tit-for-tat, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on its Telegram social media channel that

“If Antony Blinken loves history lessons so much, then he should take the following into account: when Americans are in your house, it can be difficult to stay alive and not be robbed or raped.”

It is recalled that the new year began in Kazakhstan with protests over rising LPG prices, leading to a dissolved government, destruction of infrastructure and 164 people reportedly killed, including one police officer that was beheaded. Stability and peace were only restored in Kazakhstan when CSTO finally intervened. The mission was so successful that it achieved its aims in only a few days and is already being decommissioned.

Despite the success of the intervention and Blinken still obviously angered by the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Saturday statement, he said on Sunday that the US has “real questions [to Kazakhstan] about why they felt compelled to call this organization that Russia dominates.” He added that “[Kazakhstan] should be able to deal with the protests peacefully. We’re asking for clarification on that.”

This is of course hypocritical considering that Kazakhstan called upon a bloc for assistance in which it is a member of and does not need to respond to the condescending demands made by the US’ top diplomat. Blinken’s statement reeks of contradictions when we consider how the US is conducting missions and occupying areas of Syria without permission from Damascus, invaded Iraq and Afghanistan without a UN mandate, and has troops deployed in Taiwan – an island that Beijing considers a “rebel province” and is recognized as a part of “One China.”

Rather, Washington attempted to piggyback off the unrest in Kazakhstan as the North American country wields very little influence in the region, especially after last year’s troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. In this way, the US could only resort to cheap propaganda tricks as there is not much they can do on the ground to force a Color Revolution in Central Asia like they did in Eastern Europe and the southern Caucasus.

Despite the misinformation emanating from the US to demonize Russia and CSTO, Kazakh authorities announced on Wednesday that 1,678 people were detained in the past 24 hours over their alleged participation in the violence that rocked the country, the worst since Kazakhstan gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. The additional 1,678 people being detained now brings the total number to about 12,000. More than 300 criminal investigations into mass unrest and assaults on law enforcement officers, including a brutal beheading, have been opened.

There is little doubt that the US would have preferred to see widespread chaos in Kazakhstan continue, especially as it would open a new pressure point on a large swathe of Russia’s border. Kazakhstan is also Russia’s main access point to the Central Asian states of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. By removing a Russia-friendly government, the US would block Russia from reaching the resources and markets of Central Asia.

The US believed that the crisis in Kazakhstan would be an opportunity to overthrow a Russia-friendly government and install a liberal government that would be friendly to the West, or an Islamist Emirate like Afghanistan that would be a constant source of terrorism and instability for Russia. As said though, the US wields no real influence in Central Asia, and for this reason, it is left red-faced after audaciously predicting “a return of the Soviet Union” and that “Russian troops will never leave”.

This ultimately turned out to be false.

*

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

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.