It’s No Wonder Russia Feels Threatened

January 27th, 2022 by John Linnemeier

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Opinion Article by John Linnemeier

According to a recent international Gallup poll, the United States is overwhelmingly considered the greatest threat to world peace, with Pakistan, China, North Korea, Israel and Iran (in that order) trailing distantly behind.

The Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam wars cost trillions of dollars and killed millions of people (mostly civilians). We now regret starting them, and never would have if we’d had a basic understanding of the situation we were getting into.

We’re about to embark on a new war with Russia, a far more formidable foe. Full-scale nuclear conflagration isn’t inconceivable. Those who underrate the possibility of nuclear apocalypse haven’t looked carefully at the numerous times we’ve come close in the past.

Consider the Russians’ point of view. Since the hopeful days of Perestroika and Glasnost, they’ve seen a nuclear-armed NATO expand right up to their borders. Does anyone remember how the U.S. reacted to nuclear missiles 70 miles from our coast? Can we blame them for feeling threatened? Russia has demanded a guarantee that Ukraine not become a member of NATO. American negotiators call that non-negotiable.

We’re teetering on the edge of unimaginable horror. Why aren’t Americans who yearn for a peaceful world speaking out? Why aren’t you?

John Linnemeier, Bloomington

*

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 OneWorld

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and State Health Officials Directly Call the White House and FDA Liars During Monoclonal Treatment Fight

January 27th, 2022 by Sundance

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Keep an eye on this story folks; there’s something else here.

The FDA decision to block COVID-19 treatment options is very sketchy, and I sense that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis knows the science will not support the Biden administration.  This story -when exposed- has the potential to bring down the Biden administration, big time… DeSantis senses it.

Earlier today, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis held a roundtable press conference with physicians, clinicians and other health officials in Florida to denounce the Biden FDA decision to revoke monoclonal antibody treatments as a therapeutic option.  The FDA action was not only done without communication, but the decision was also made without study and without any input from the treatment side of the COVID-19 dynamic.

Here’s a brief segment of the DeSantis statement:

The full presser is below and is well worth watching to listen to the doctors who refute the FDA claim that monoclonal treatments do not assist patients with Omicron variant.  Doctors have treated Omicron patients successfully with the monoclonal antibody treatments. The actual doctors who are treating the patients refute the FDA directly.

The input from Dr. Dwight Reynolds is very revealing. Something is very odd around this story.

*

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 TLR

War Fever Is in the Air, as the West Confuses Russia with Nazi Germany

January 27th, 2022 by Johanna Ross

All Global Research articles 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 ‘war hysteria’ which has taken over our airwaves in the West of late in relation to tensions on Ukraine’s border, is like a Hollywood style movie, being entirely scripted, produced, directed and acted in by the West. It bears no resemblance to the real actions and words of Russia and its representatives. The US is starring in its own drama, with the lines between fantasy and reality increasingly blurred.

News presenters, completely ignorant of the facts, question equally incompetent experts as to ‘what should we be doing about Russia?’ to which they are told ‘we need to send Putin a message that we won’t tolerate an invasion’.  Nobody bothers to question the evidence for a Russian invasion of Ukraine, or make the very obvious point of why the largest country in the world would need any more territory.

In line with the dramatic nature of current events, the rhetoric being bandied around is equally outrageous: comparisons of Joe Biden with Neville Chamberlain; Russia with Nazi Germany and incredulously, Vladimir Putin with Adolf Hitler.  Not are such equivalences wrong, but they are offensive in the extreme given the number of Russian lives which were lost in the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War Two.  Need we be reminded that Adolf Hitler was an evil, egotistical maniac, intent on world domination by what he thought was his superior ‘Aryan’ race at the expense of those he thought were lesser human beings or ‘untermenschen’ (e.g. Jews and Russians)? He was intent on invading Russia in order to create ‘lebensraum’ (living space) for the expanding German population.

How anyone can possibly draw any comparisons with the current crisis is beyond my comprehension. But it speaks volumes about the lack of historical knowledge amongst leading politicians and military figures in the West these days. Hardly surprising given the one major historical topic at British schools up and down the country for decades now has been World War Two. Students may not be able to point to Russia or Ukraine on a map, but they will be familiar with Chamberlain’s ‘appeasement’ of Hitler. As such, the word resonates with the general population today and is now recklessly being applied to current events.

The West has something of a guilt complex about British PM Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Adolf Hitler prior to WW2. Allowed to invade the Rhineland in 1936, Hitler invaded Austria before pledging to Chamberlain in the Munich agreement of 1938 he would go no further than the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. Hitler violated this agreement and took over the rest of the country the following year.

To view current events through the prism of Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler is entirely flawed. On the contrary, the West’s years of sanctions against Russia, cyber and info war campaigns, provocations in the Black Sea, and continued military buildup on Russia’s border can hardly constitute a policy of ‘appeasement’.

If we are to draw parallels between the current crisis on the Ukraine border and WW2 we should compare the Neo-Nazi ideology which dominates Ukrainian nationalism with that of Nazi Germany. The repression of minority languages, including Russian; the censorship of the media; assassinations of journalists; persecution of opposition politicians and obsession with a Russian ‘enemy’ are all symptoms of a nation, sadly, rotten at its core.

Aside from that, the two geopolitical scenarios have nothing in common. Putin is not intent on world domination; if he was, why was Donbas not annexed years ago? If the President really wanted more territory he could have tried a bit harder over twenty years, surely? The only instances to date when Russia has intervened militarily outside its borders in the last few years have been to protect Russian-speaking civilians (like in South Ossetia in 2008) and to aid sovereign states to defend themselves against uprisings (Syria, and more lately Kazakhstan).

Ironically the only country that fits the description of imperialist aggressor is the US, which has invaded countless sovereign nations since its inception. Russia has valid security concerns regarding Nato forces encroaching on its eastern border; concerns which it explicitly set out recently in a document provided to the West, but which we are hearing little about just now in the midst of war-hysteria.

Indeed for all the talk of ‘What does Putin want?’, it couldn’t be clearer what Russia wants.

The list of demands presented to the US last year was clear: no Nato membership for

Ukraine and a Nato withdrawal from the Baltic states and Eastern Europe. Russia views the Nato presence on its borders as aggressive, in the same way as the US would not tolerate Russian missiles on Cuba.

The Russian government has in fact set out its foreignpolicy objectives for years now, published on its website. Putin and Foreign Ministry representatives give regular, detailed interviews on Russia’s position, but they are rarely acknowledged by western politicians and media. Russia has never made any secret of its geostrategic goals – the problem is that the West does not listen.  Even President Biden in a recent press conference suggested that President Putin would make decisions based on ‘what side of the bed’ he gets up from in the morning. This demonstrates a complete lack of analysis and appreciation of the type of character of the Russian President. Far from making impulsive decisions, he is clearly a man who takes his time to think things through properly.

Despite US and UK warnings of an invasion being ‘imminent’ with troops poised to intervene if necessary, other European countries have not been so ready to engage in such posturing. Germany has been much more reticent, refusing to participate by arming Ukraine and denying the Royal Air Force airspace to fly weapons to Kiev. Croatia has even said it will withdraw its Nato troops from Eastern Europe if a conflict between Ukraine and Russia were to ensue. Given the serious risk of escalation, such cautious behaviour can only be welcomed.

Indeed, in the current climate the rhetoric ought to be dialled down significantly in the West. This isn’t Hollywood; there is a real chance for miscalculation and for war to break out between Russia and the West. Inflammatory comparisons of Russia with

Nazi Germany are therefore reckless in the extreme and only seek to heighten tensions.  Yet with western populations and their governments largely ignorant about Russia and the history of the region, I sadly don’t expect any diffusion to the current levels of war hysteria.

*

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.

Johanna Ross is a Russian Studies graduate and political analyst based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Health Officials Deny Even a Single Death from COVID Shots

January 27th, 2022 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

As of January 7, 2022, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has received 9,936 reports of death following the COVID jab in the U.S. When you include foreign reports received by VAERS, the death toll stands at 21,745

A total of 1,541 miscarriages have also been reported post-jab in the U.S., or 3,594 if you include foreign reports. Despite these shocking statistics, U.S. health officials and “fact checkers” insist not a single death can be attributed to the shots

According to OneAmerica, a national life insurance company, in the third quarter of 2021, working age Americans (aged 18 to 64) died at a rate that is 40% higher than the prepandemic rate, and they didn’t die from COVID

The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India also reports a 41% rise in death claims in 2021, and teens’ mortality in the U.K. shot up 47% in the three months after they became eligible for COVID shots

A recent histopathologic analysis of the organs from 15 patients who died within seven days to six months’ post-jab, ages 28 to 95, found 14 of the deaths — 93% — were caused by the jab

*

Click here to watch the video.

As of January 7, 2022, just over a year into the campaign to inject every human being with a gene transfer product to protect against COVID, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has received 9,936 reports of death following the COVID jab in the United States’ territories alone.1 When you include foreign reports received by VAERS, the death toll stands at 21,745.

A total of 1,541 miscarriages have also been reported post-jab in the U.S., or 3,594 if you include foreign reports. Despite these shocking statistics, U.S. health officials and “fact checkers” insist not a single death can be attributed to the shots.

During an early January 2022 Senate committee hearing on the nation’s Omicron response (see video above), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, and director for the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci, testified — under oath — that they “did not know” how many deaths had been reported to VAERS following COVID “vaccination.”2,3

Walensky referred to the shots as “incredibly safe,” claiming — against all science — that they “protect us against Omicron, they protect us against Delta, they protect us against COVID.” She also falsely claimed that all reported COVID-19 vaccine deaths have been “adjudicated.”

No, VAERS Is Not a Repository of Fake Reports

Worse yet, both Walensky and Fauci claim any and all adverse events following vaccination get reported to VAERS, including accidental deaths and car accidents. They both actually claim that if a person gets the COVID shot and gets hit by a car afterward, that is reported as an adverse reaction.

Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, adverse events are not automatically reported and, certainly, obvious accidents are not entered into the system as a suspected vaccine side effect.

As reported by Health Impact News,4 there are about 18 reports in VAERS that include “road traffic accident,” but most if not all relate to an adverse event, such as a heart attack, occurring while driving. They were not hit by someone else and entered into the system. As noted by Pam Long in a January 12, 2022, Twitter thread:5

“If anyone in public health utters ‘a person can get hit by a car & report their death to VAERS’ you need stop them, in any public meeting, and demand they explain what motive would a physician have to inflate VAERS reports with car accidents or any unrelated mortality?

Despite Walensky’s & Fauci’s cliché testimony to Congress. Not one person ‘got hit by a car’ & reported their own death to VAERS as a vaccine injury. Most reports are filed by medical professionals, using diagnostic language about drug reactions.”

VAERS was designed and created as an early warning system. It’s true that anyone can file a report, but it’s time-consuming, requires the knowledge of medical details a patient oftentimes won’t have, and carries penalties for filing a false report. There’s absolutely no reason to suspect, let alone assume, that people are filing false reports just to make the shots look bad.

Fact Checker Outs Himself as a Pharma Propagandist

Walensky and Fauci aren’t the only ones lying about the lethality of the COVID jab. Mainstream media are all-in as well. In a USA Today fact check,6 Daniel Funke claims that “COVID-19 vaccines [are] safe for children” and “not linked to deaths.”

“… online, some claim children face more risk from the vaccine than COVID-19 itself,”Funke writes. “USA TODAY previously rated False a claim that children are 50 times more likely to die from the COVID-19 vaccine than the virus. This claim is similarly wrong.

Public health officials say the vaccine from Pfizer-BioNTech is safe and effective at preventing COVID-19 in children ages 5-11. As other independent fact-checking organizations have reported, the benefits of the vaccine outweigh its known and potential risks.

‘Over 700 children have died due to COVID-19 in the United States,’ Dr. Sonja Rasmussen, a professor in the departments of pediatrics and epidemiology at the University of Florida, said in an email.

‘I am not aware of any deaths in children that have been attributed to the COVID-19 vaccine’ … The benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine for children outweigh its known and potential risks, according to the CDC. The shot does not cause death.”

Funke cites data from Pfizer’s clinical trials, “which found the vaccine was safe” for children, as “no deaths were reported” in Pfizer’s trials for 12- to 25-year-olds, and those for 12- to 17-year-olds. Funke dismisses the rationale for looking at VAERS data on the basis that anyone can file a report and that reports are unverified, and therefore cannot be used to determine causation.

All Opinion and No Data

There are so many issues with this “fact-check,” no wonder Facebook attorneys are using the legal defense that fact checks are “opinion” only and not actual assertions of fact.7,8 There’s nothing but opinions in this piece. As “evidence” that the COVID shots are safe and have caused no deaths, Funke presents:

It’s hard to come up with a less compelling list of evidences for safety, but then again, propagandists have to work with what they have, and in this case, they have nothing. Funke presents zero actual data to support his opinion.

Explain the Rise in Mortality if You Can

There are many data-driven reasons to suspect, predict and even assume that the COVID shots are killing more people than they’re saving — regardless of the age group in question. It would take an entire book to cover it all, so I will only review a few of those reasons here.

One very telling clue that recently came to light is life insurance data. According to OneAmerica, a national life insurance company based in Indianapolis, in the third quarter of 2021, working-age Americans (aged 18 to 64) died at a rate that is 40% higher than the prepandemic rate, and they didn’t die from COVID.10

And, according to CEO Scott Davidson, this catastrophic abnormality is consistently seen “across every player” in the life insurance industry.11 A 40% increase in mortality is simply unheard of, and as of yet, they claim to have no clue as to what’s causing young and middle-aged people to die prematurely at such an astounding rate.

Looking at it from a sleuth’s point of view, one might ask, “What environmental factor with unknown safety was introduced in 2021 to people in this age group?” Sure, pandemic restrictions have led to spikes in drug overdoses and suicides, which affects this cohort in particular. But “deaths of desperation” cannot account for all of it.

The one wild card is the COVID jab. More than 173 million working-age Americans (18 to 64) got these experimental gene transfer injections,12 and doctors and scientists have elucidated several mechanisms by which they might injure or kill.

What’s more, the rise in deaths began AFTER the rollout of the shots, and whatever the causative factor, it is not only national but likely international in scope. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India, for example, also reports a 41% rise in death claims in 2021.13

Excess deaths (exceeding prepandemic norms) are also reported in the U.K.14 Among teens (aged 15 to 19), mortality spiked right after teens became eligible for the COVID shot.15 Between the week ending June 26 and the week ending September 18, 2020, and that same period of time in 2021, teenage deaths rose by 47%.16

A rise in disability claims17 also suggests that many who aren’t killed by this novel lethal threat are seriously injured, often long-term. For all of these reasons, the COVID jabs cannot be taken off the table. Logic demands that they be looked into as a potential causative factor.

Can VAERS Data Demonstrate Causality?

One person who has taken a strong stance against the claim that VAERS data cannot tell us anything about causation is Steve Kirsch, executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund. In the video “Vaccine Secrets: COVID Crisis,”18 he argues that VAERS can indeed be used to determine causality.

It’s important to realize that the idea that VAERS cannot show causality is part of how and why the CDC can claim none of the deaths is attributable to the COVID shot. Kirsch argues that this premise is in fact false, and that causation can be determined using VAERS’ data.

To prove his point, Kirsch gives the following analogy: Suppose you give a two-dose vaccine. After the first dose, nothing happens, but after the second dose, people die within 24 hours of a deep vein thrombosis (DVT).

When you look at the VAERS data, what you would find is no reports associated with the first dose, and a rash of deaths after the second dose, all within the same timeframe and with the same cause of death.

According to the CDC, you cannot ascribe any causality at all from that. To them, it’s just random chance that everyone died after the second dose, and from the same condition, and not the first dose or from another condition.

Kirsch argues that causality can indeed be identified from this kind of data. It’s very difficult to come up with another explanation for why people — many who are young, in perfect health with no predisposing conditions — die exactly 24 hours after their second dose. It’s even difficult to come up with another explanation for people who do have underlying conditions.

For example, is it reasonable to assume that people with, say, undiagnosed heart conditions, would die from DVT exactly 24 hours after getting a second dose of vaccine? Or that people with undiagnosed diabetes would die from DVT exactly 24 hours after their second dose?

Why not after the first dose, or two months after the second dose, or any other random number of hours or days, or for other random cause of death? Why would people randomly die of the same condition at the exact same time, over and over again?

At bare minimum, as an early warning system, VAERS is designed to flag potential causation. It’s by looking for repeated patterns of side effects that you would begin to identify a potentially problematic vaccine. Once a pattern is identified — and there’s no denying death within 24 hours to one week is a pattern seen for the COVID shots — an investigation should be launched.

But no such investigation has been launched for the COVID jabs. Clear-cut patterns are simply ignored. As an early warning system, VAERS is performing as intended, despite severe underreporting (the CDC recently published a paper in which they admit COVID jab adverse effects in children are underreported by a factor of 6.519). It’s the follow-up that’s lacking. But lack of investigation and follow-up is not evidence that the shots can’t cause death.

‘Bad Batches’ Are Another Clue

Click here to watch the video.

Another clue that hints at SOME of the shots being able to cause rapid death is the “bad batch” phenomenon. Independent investigations have revealed that some lots of the shots are associated with very severe side effects and death, whereas other lots have no adverse events associated with their use.

According to howbadismybatch.com, a site that matches up vaccine lot codes with reports in the VAERS system, approximately 5% of the lots are responsible for 90% of all adverse reactions. Some of these batches have 50 times the number of deaths and disabilities associated with them, compared to other lots.20

Another website that basically does the same thing is TheEagle’s VAERS Dashboard. (A video explaining how to use the dashboard can be found on Bitchute.21)

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, cofounder of the German Corona Investigative Committee, and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, a former member of the German parliament, discuss this “smoking gun” evidence in the video above. According to Fuellmich and Wodarg, this lot-dependent data shows vaccine makers are conducting secret experiments within the larger public trial.

They appear to actually be doing lethal-dose testing on the public. Wodarg argues that the evidence for this is very clear from the data. They also appear to be coordinating these lethal-dose experiments, so that they’re not all releasing their most toxic lots at the same time, or in the same areas, so as to avoid detection through clustering.

More Data Showing COVID Jabs Can Kill

In closing, I will raise just two more pieces of evidence that speaks to COVID jabs having the ability to kill large numbers of people:

• A recent histopathologic analysis of the organs from 15 patients who died within seven days to six months’ post-jab, ages 28 to 95, found 14 of the deaths — 93% — were caused by the jab.22,23 None of the original coroners’ reports implicated the shots, however.

The association was only established through autopsy, which revealed a “process of immunological self-attack” that is “without precedent.” “Because vaccination was the single common denominator between all cases, there can be no doubt that it was the trigger of self-destruction in these deceased individuals,” Drs. Sucharit Bhakdi and Arne Burkhardt wrote.

• According to researchers at Columbia University, the real number of people killed by the COVID jabs is about 20 times the reported rate, based on their analysis of two publicly available databases (VAERS in the U.S., and another in Europe).24,25,26 That analysis was published in October 2021, but few ever heard a peep about it. According to the authors:

“Comparing our age-stratified VFRs [vaccine-induced fatality rates] with published age-stratified coronavirus infection fatality rates (IFR) suggests the risks of COVID vaccines and boosters outweigh the benefits in children, young adults and older adults with low occupational risk or previous coronavirus exposure.

We discuss implications for public health policies related to boosters, school and workplace mandates, and the urgent need to identify, develop and disseminate diagnostics and treatments for life-altering vaccine injuries.”

Based on the ever-mounting data, the claim that COVID shots have not, cannot, and/or will not cause death simply isn’t credible. And the longer these shots continue to be used, the greater the likelihood that they will indeed kill far more than the actual virus ever did. We also need to remember that the disabilities and long-term chronic ill health these shots are causing will prematurely kill many more, even if it takes 10 or 15 years, and we have no data on any of that yet.

*

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.

Notes

1 OpenVAERS Data through January 7, 2022, US territories selected

2 BitChute “Walensky and Fauci Lie Under Oath” January 13, 2022

3, 4 Health Impact News January 13, 2022

5 Twitter Pam Long January 12, 2022

6 USA Today December 2, 2021

7 wattsupwiththat.com John Stossel Lawsuit against Meta Platforms (PDF)

8 WND December 10, 2021

9 The BMJ 2021;375:n2635

10, 11, 17 The Center Square January 1, 2022

12 USA Facts Coronavirus Vaccine Tracker, Percentage of people in each age range received the COVID vaccine

13 Fortune India December 30, 2021

14 Financial Times November 23, 2021

15, 16 The Exposé September 30, 2021

18 Lew Rockwell October 11, 2021

19 Steve Kirsch Substack January 6, 2022

20 Robert Malone Substack January 13, 2022

21 Bitchute December 29, 2021

22 Doctors4CovidEthics, On COVID Vaccines

23 Steve Kirsch Substack December 28, 2021

24 ResearchGate October 2021 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28257.43366

25 WND December 15, 2021

26 Newstarget December 27, 2021

Featured image is from Shutterstock

Colossal Convoy of Truckers Converging on Ottawa for Freedom

January 27th, 2022 by Dr. Mark Trozzi

All Global Research articles 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 Trudeau regime’s spree of human rights violations and unlawful dictates include mandates for forced injections of cross border truck drivers. These mandates came into effect January 15th. South of the border, the unelected Biden administration have made similar mandates that started January 22.

…but it seems 20% of Canada’s cross border truckers are too smart to roll up their sleeve  for these unsafe and ineffective injections, even under the threat of medical apartheid.

Trudeau and his cohorts block safe effective treatments for covid; Canadians are denied access. Even without these treatments, covid has less than 0.3% mortality. With the same safe effective affordable treatments, covid’s mortality drops to a minuscule 0.045% or less.

Thanks to our friends at brightlightnews.com for this video footage

Meanwhile, the forced injections are shattering all prior records for death and damage ever caused by something called a “vaccine”. Pfizer’s own documents reveal that 3% of injection victims died within 3 months of injection, that another 28% were permanently or persistent disabled at the three month mark, and that 100% of unborn infants died in the injected pregnant women reported in their experiment.

Also, data from around the world is revealing increased covid disease among the coerced injection victims, who are incorrectly referred to as “the fully vaccinated”.

These injections are not safe, and not effective.

So it seems that 20% of Canada’s cross border transport truck drivers are smart. They must have that special combination: critical thinking and self-respect.

May God please bless these truckers and everyone supporting the convoys and the big Saturday protest in Ottawa. Thank you for helping to set us free from this medical tyranny and genocide. We pray that Trudeau and other covid criminals will be brought to justice, and we the people will soon celebrate in a restored, free, and fair country.

To help finance gas, food, and lodging of our wonderful truckers in this historic convoy, you can donate here.

Rebel News is providing daily coverage to the convoy 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 a screenshot from the video

COVID to be Declared Endemic by Year’s End in Thailand

January 27th, 2022 by Bangkok Post

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on COVID to be Declared Endemic by Year’s End in Thailand

Serbia Stomps on Rio Tinto’s Lithium Mining Project

January 27th, 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.

***

On the face of it, there seems to be little in the way of connection between the treatment of Novak Djokovic by Australian authorities and the cooling of the Serbian government towards Rio Tinto.  The Anglo-Australian mining giant was confident that it would, at least eventually, win out in gaining the permissions to commence work on its US$2.4 billion lithium-borates mine in the Jadar Valley.

In 2021, Rio Tinto stated that the project would “scale up [the company’s] exposure to battery materials, and demonstrate the company’s commitment to investing capital in a disciplined manner to further strengthen its portfolio for the global energy transition.”

The road had been a bit bumpy, including a growing environmental movement determined to scuttle the project.  But the ruling coalition, led by the Serbian Progressive Party, had resisted going wobbly on the issue.

Then came the maligning of the world number one tennis player in Australia.  Djokovic had been tormented by a brief spell of confinement in quarters normally reserved for refugees kept in indefinite detention, and eventually defeated in the Full Court of the Federal Court.  During the course of events, he saw his visa cancelled twice, first by a member of the Australian Border Force, the next time by Immigration Minister Alex Hawke.  Along the way, lynch mobs were thrilled that “Novaxx” Djokovic, that great threat to Australia’s vaccinated innocence, was finally on a flight home.

The Serbian government attempted to intervene.  President Aleksander Vučić made a plea to the Morrison government to resist cancelling Djokovic’s visa; the Australian Open was the Serbian tennis player’s favourite tournament, one he had won numerous times.

A diplomatic incident, more murmur than bark, was sparked.  “In line with all standards of international public law, Serbia will fight for Novak Djokovic,” promised the Serbian premier.  But for an Australian government that has flouted international law and fetishized border control, the call mattered little.

In Serbia, Rio Tinto then faced a rude shock.  The Vučić government, having praised the potential of the Jadar project for some years, abruptly abandoned it.  “All decisions (connected to the lithium project) and all licenses have been annulled,” Serbian Prime Minister Ana Brnabić stated flatly on January 20.  “As far as project Jadar is concerned, this is an end.”

Branabić insisted, somewhat disingenuously, that this decision merely acknowledged the will of voters.  “We are listening to our people and it is our job to protect their interests even when we think differently.”

This is a bit rich coming from a government hostile to industry accountability and investment transparency.  The same government also decided to begin infrastructure works on the jadarite mine before the granting of an exploitation permit.  Such behaviour has left advocates such as Savo Manojlović of the NGO Kreni-Promeni wondering why Rio Tinto was singled out over, for instance, Eurolithium, which was permitted to dig in the environs of Valjevo in western Serbia.

Zorana Mihajlović, Serbia’s mining and energy minister, preferred to blame the environmental movement, though the alibi seemed a bit forced.  “The government showed it wanted the dialogue … (and) attempts to use ecology for political purposes demonstrate they (green groups) care nothing about the lives of the people, nor the industrial development.”

Rio Tinto had been facing an impressive grass roots militia, mobilised to remind Serbians about the devastating implications of proposed lithium mining operations. The Ne damo Jadar (We won’t let anyone take Jadar) group has unerringly focused attention on the secret agreements reached between the mining company and Belgrade.  Zlatko Kokanović, vice president of the group, is convinced that the mine would “not only threaten one of Serbia’s oldest and most important archaeological sites, it will also endanger several protected bird species, pond terrapins, and fire salamander, which would otherwise be protected by EU directives.”

Taking issue with the the unflattering environmental record of the Anglo-Australian company, numerous protests were organised and petitions launched, including one that has received 292,571 signatures.  Last month, activists organised gatherings and marches across the country, including road blockades.

Djokovic has not been immune to the growing green movement, if only to lend a few words of support.  In a December Instagram story post featuring a picture of anti-mining protests, he declared that, “Clean air, water and food are the keys to health.  Without it, every word about health is redundant.”

Rio Tinto’s response to the critics was that of the seductive guest keen to impress: we have gifts for the governors, the rulers and the parliamentarians.  Give us permission to dig, and we will make you the envy of Europe, green and environmentally sound ambassadors of the electric battery and car revolution.

The European Battery Alliance, a group of electric vehicle supply chain companies, is adamant that the Jadar project “constituted an important share of potential European domestic supply.”  The mine would have “contributed to support the growth of a nascent industrial battery-related ecosystem in Serbia, contributing to a substantial amount to Serbia’s annual GDP.”  Assiduously selective, the group preferred to ignore the thorny environmental implications of the venture.

The options facing the mining giant vary, none of which would appeal to the board.  In a statement, the company claimed that it was “reviewing the legal basis of this decision and the implications for our activities and our people in Serbia.”  It might bullyingly seek to sue Belgrade, a move that is unlikely to do improve an already worn reputation.  “For a major mining company to sue a state is very unusual,” suggests Peter Leon of law firm Herbert Smith Freehills.  “A claim under the bilateral treaty is always a last resort, but not a first resort.”

Another option for punters within the company will be a political gamble: hoping that April’s parliamentary elections will usher in a bevy of pro-mining representatives.  By then, public antagonism against matters Australian will have dimmed.  The Serbian ecological movement, however, is unlikely to ease their campaign.  The age of mining impunity in the face of popular protest has come to an end.

*

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]

Russia and the West: Piercing the Fog of Hysteria

January 27th, 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.

***

A specter haunts the collective West: total zombification, courtesy of an across-the-board 24/7 psy ops imprinting the inevitability of “Russian aggression”.

Let’s pierce the fog of hysteria by asking Ukrainian Defense Minister Reznikov what’s going on:

“I can absolutely say that to date, the Russian armed forces have not created a strike group that could make a forceful invasion of Ukraine.”

Well, Reznikov is obviously not aware that the White House, with access to arguably privileged intel, is convinced that Russia will invade “any-minute-now”.

The Pentagon doubles down: “It’s very clear the Russians have no intention right now of deescalating”. Thus the necessity, expressed by spokesman John Kirby, of readying a multinational NATO response force (NRF) of 40,000 troops: “If it is activated…to defeat aggression, if necessary”.

So “aggression” is a given. The White House is “refining” military plans – 18 at the last count – for all manners of “aggression”. As for responding – in writing – to the Russian proposals on security guarantees, well, that’s far too complex.

There is no “exact date” when it will be sent to Moscow. And the proverbial “officials” have begged their Russian counterparts not to make it public. After all, a letter is not sexy. Yet “aggression” sells. Especially when it may happen “any-minute-now.”

“Analyst” hacks are yelling that Putin “is now almost certain” to deliver a “limited strike” in “the next ten days”, complete with an attack on Kiev: that configures the scenario of an “almost inevitable war”.

Vladimir Dzhabarov, First Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Council Committee on International Affairs, prefers to get closer to reality: the U.S. is preparing a provocation to push Kiev to “reckless actions” against Russia in the Donbass. That ties in with foot soldiers of the Luhansk People’s Republic reporting that “subversive groups prepared by British instructors” arrived in the area of ​​Lisichansk.

Image on the right: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen

Luminaries such as the European Commission’s Ursula von der Leyen, NATO’s Jens Stoltenberg and “leaders” from the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Poland announced, after a video call, that “an unprecedented package of sanctions” is nearly ready if Russia “invades”.

They billed it as “international unity in the face of growing Russia hostility”. Translation: NATOstan begging Russia to please invade a.s.a.p.

Of the EU 27, 21 are NATO members. The U.S. rules over the whole lot. So when the EU announces that “any further military aggression against Ukraine would have very serious consequences for Russia”, that’s the U.S. telling NATO to tell the EU “what we say, goes”. And under this strategy of tension environment, “what we say” means applying raw, imperial Divide and Rule to keep Europe totally subjugated.

The West’s fatal mistakes

One should never forget that Maidan 2014 was an operation supervised by Obama/Biden. Yet there’s still plenty of unfinished business – when it comes to bogging down Russia. So the viscerally Russophobic War Party in D.C. now has to pull all stops ordering NATOstan to cheerlead Kiev to start a hot war – and thus trap Russia. Zelensky The Comedian even went on the record wanting to “go on the offensive”.

So time to release the false flags.

The indispensable Alastair Crooke has outlined how “‘encirclement’ and ‘containment’ effectively have become Biden’s default foreign policy.” Not “Biden”, actually – but the amorphous combo behind the earpiece/teleprompter-controlled puppet I have been designating for over a year as Crash Test Dummy.

Crooke adds, “the attempt to cement-in this meta-doctrine currently is being enacted out via Russia (as the initial step). The essential buy-in by Europe is the ‘party-piece’ to Russia’s physical containment and encirclement.”

“Encirclement” and “containment” have been exceptionalist staples, under various guises, for decades. The notion entertained by the War Party that it’s possible to carry both across a three-way-front – against Russia, China and Iran – is so infantile to render any analysis idle. It does call for a drink and a good laugh.

As for extra sanctions for the imaginary “Russian aggression”, a few benevolent souls had to remind Little Tony Blinken and other “Biden” combo participants that Europeans would be much more lethally affected than Russians; not to mention these sanctions would turbo-charge the collective West’s economic crisis.

A short recap is essential to frame how we ended up mired in the current hysteria swamp.

The collective West blew the chance it had to build a constructive partnership with Russia similar to what it did with Germany after 1945.

The collective West also blew it when reducing Russia to the role of a minor, docile entity, imposing that there’s only one sphere of influence on the planet: NATOstan, of course.

And the Empire blew it when it targeted Russia even after it had allegedly “won” against the USSR.

During the 1990s and the 2000s, instead of being invited to participate in the construction of the “common European home” – with all its glaring faults – post-Soviet Russia was forced to be outside looking in on how this “home” was upgraded and decorated.

Contrary to all the promises made to Gorbachev by assorted Western leaders, the traditional Russian sphere of influence – and even former USSR territory – became objects of dispute in the looting of the “Soviet heritage”: merely a space to be colonized by NATO’s military structures.

Contrary to Gorbachev’s hope – who was naively convinced that the West would share with him the benefits of “the dividends of peace” – a hardcore Anglo-American neoliberal model was imposed over the Russian economy. Added to the disastrous consequences of this transition was the sentiment of national frustration by a society that was humiliated and treated like a vanquished nation in the Cold War, or WWIII.

That was Exceptionalistan’s fatal mistake: to believe that with the USSR vanishing, Russia as a historic, economic and strategic reality would also disappear from international relations.

The new pact of steel

And that’s why War Inc., the War Party, the Deep State, however you wanna call them, are freaking out now – big time.

They dismissed Putin when he formulated a new paradigm in Munich in 2007 – or when he returned to the Kremlin in 2012.

Putin made it very clear that Russia’s legitimate strategic interests would have to be respected again. And that Russia was about to recover its de facto “veto rights” in managing world affairs. Well, the Putin doctrine was already being implemented since the Georgian affair in 2008.

Ukraine is a patchwork of morsels that belonged until recently to different empires – Austro-Hungarian and Russian – as well as several nations, such as Russia, Poland and Romania. It regroups Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and has millions of ethnic Russians and Russian speakers with deep historical, cultural and economic links with Russia.

So Ukraine was a de facto new Yugoslavia.

The fatal mistake committed by Brussels in 2014 was to force Kiev as well as the Ukrainian population as a whole to make an impossible choice between Europe and Russia.

The inevitable result would have to be Maidan, completely manipulated by American intel, even as Russians clearly saw how the EU switched from the position of honest broker to the lowly role of American chihuahuas.

Russophobic U.S. hawks will never renounce the spectacle of their historical adversary bogged down in a slow-burning fratricidal war in the post-Soviet space. As much as they will never renounce Divide and Rule imposed over a discombobulated Europe. And as much as they will never concede “spheres of influence” to any geopolitical player.

Without their toxic imprint, 2014 could have played in quite a different manner.

To dissuade Putin to restore Crimea to its rightful place – Russia – it would have taken two things: for Ukraine to be decently managed after 1992, and not to force it to choose the Western camp, but to make it a bridge, Finland or Austria-style.

After Maidan, the Minsk agreements were as close as possible to a viable solution: let’s end the conflict in Donbass; let’s disarm the protagonists; and let’s re-establish control of the borders of Ukraine while providing real autonomy to Eastern Ukraine.

For all that to happen, Ukraine would have needed a neutral status, and a double security guarantee, by Russia and NATO. And to render the association agreement between Ukraine and the EU compatible with the close links between Eastern Ukraine and the Russian economy.

All that would have perhaps configured a European vision of decent future relations with Russia.

Yet the Russophobic Deep State would never allow it. And the same applied to the White House. Barack Obama, that cynical opportunist, was too engulfed by the dodgy Polish context in Chicago and not free from the exceptionalist obsession with deep antagonism to be able to build a constructive relationship with Russia.

Then there’s the clincher, revealed by a high-level U.S. intel source.

In 2013, the late Zbigniew “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski was presented with a classified report on Russian advanced missiles. He freaked out. And responded by conceptualizing Maidan 2014 – to draw Russia into a guerrilla war then as he had done with Afghanistan in the 1980s.

And here we are now: it’s all a matter of unfinished business.

A final word on the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. In the 13th century, the Mongol Empire established its suzerainty over Kievan Rus – that is, over the Christian orthodox principalities that correspond today to northern Ukraine, Belarus and part of contemporary Russia.

The Tartar yoke over Russia – from 1240 to 1552, when Ivan The Terrible conquered Kazan – is deeply imprinted in Russian historical consciousness and in the debate about national identity.

The Mongols separately conquered vast swathes of China, Russia and Iran. Centuries after Pax Mongolica, what an irony that the new pact of steel between these top three Eurasian actors is now an insurmountable geopolitical obstacle, smashing all elaborate plans by a bunch of trans-Atlantic historic upstarts.

 

*

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 licensed under Public Domain

Authoritarian Madness: The Slippery Slope from Lockdowns to Concentration Camps

January 27th, 2022 by John W. Whitehead

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

“All the Dachaus must remain standing. The Dachaus, the Belsens, the Buchenwald, the Auschwitzes—all of them. They must remain standing because they are a monument to a moment in time when some men decided to turn the Earth into a graveyard. Into it they shoveled all of their reason, their logic, their knowledge, but worst of all, their conscience. And the moment we forget this, the moment we cease to be haunted by its remembrance, then we become the gravediggers.”— Rod Serling, Deaths-Head Revisited

In the politically charged, polarizing tug-of-war that is the debate over COVID-19, we find ourselves buffeted by fear over a viral pandemic that continues to wreak havoc with lives and the economy, threats of vaccine mandates and financial penalties for noncompliance, and discord over how to legislate the public good without sacrificing individual liberty.

The discord is getting more discordant by the day.

Just recently, for instance, the Salt Lake Tribune Editorial Board suggested that government officials should mandate mass vaccinations and deploy the National Guard “to ensure that people without proof of vaccination would not be allowed, well, anywhere.”

In other words, lock up the unvaccinated and use the military to determine who gets to be “free.”

These tactics have been used before.

This is why significant numbers of people are worried: because this is the slippery slope that starts with well-meaning intentions for the greater good and ends with tyrannical abuses no one should tolerate.

For a glimpse at what the future might look like if such a policy were to be enforced, look beyond America’s borders.

In Italy, the unvaccinated are banned from restaurants, bars and public transportation, and could face suspensions from work and monthly fines. Similarly, France will ban the unvaccinated from most public venues.

In Austria, anyone who has not complied with the vaccine mandate could face fines up to $4100. Police will be authorized to carry out routine checks and demand proof of vaccination, with penalties of as much as $685 for failure to do so.

In China, which has adopted a zero tolerance, “zero COVID” strategy, whole cities—some with populations in the tens of millions—are being forced into home lockdowns for weeks on end, resulting in mass shortages of food and household supplies. Reports have surfaced of residents “trading cigarettes for cabbage, dishwashing liquid for apples and sanitary pads for a small pile of vegetables. One resident traded a Nintendo Switch console for a packet of instant noodles and two steamed buns.”

For those unfortunate enough to contract COVID-19, China has constructed “quarantine camps” throughout the country: massive complexes boasting thousands of small, metal boxes containing little more than a bed and a toilet. Detainees—including children, pregnant women and the elderly— were reportedly ordered to leave their homes in the middle of the night, transported to the quarantine camps in buses and held in isolation.

If this last scenario sounds chillingly familiar, it should.

Eighty years ago, another authoritarian regime established more than 44,000 quarantine camps for those perceived as “enemies of the state”: racially inferior, politically unacceptable or simply noncompliant.

While the majority of those imprisoned in the Nazi concentration camps, forced labor camps, incarceration sites and ghettos were Jews, there were also Polish nationals, gypsies, Russians, political dissidents, resistance fighters, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and homosexuals.

Culturally, we have become so fixated on the mass murders of Jewish prisoners by the Nazis that we overlook the fact that the purpose of these concentration camps were initially intended to “incarcerate and intimidate the leaders of political, social, and cultural movements that the Nazis perceived to be a threat to the survival of the regime.”

As the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum explains:

“Most prisoners in the early concentration camps were political prisoners—German Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats—as well as Roma (Gypsies), Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals, and persons accused of ‘asocial’ or socially deviant behavior. Many of these sites were called concentration camps. The term concentration camp refers to a camp in which people are detained or confined, usually under harsh conditions and without regard to legal norms of arrest and imprisonment that are acceptable in a constitutional democracy.”

How do you get from there to here, from Auschwitz concentration camps to COVID quarantine centers?

Connect the dots.

You don’t have to be unvaccinated or a conspiracy theorist or even anti-government to be worried about what lies ahead. You just have to recognize the truth in the warning: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

This is not about COVID-19. Nor is it about politics, populist movements, or any particular country.

This is about what happens when good, generally decent people—distracted by manufactured crises, polarizing politics, and fighting that divides the populace into warring “us vs. them” camps—fail to take note of the looming danger that threatens to wipe freedom from the map and place us all in chains.

It’s about what happens when any government is empowered to adopt a comply-or-suffer-the-consequences mindset that is enforced through mandates, lockdowns, penalties, detention centers, martial law, and a disregard for the rights of the individual.

The slippery slope begins in just this way, with propaganda campaigns about the public good being more important than individual liberty, and it ends with lockdowns and concentration camps.

The danger signs are everywhere.

Claudio Ronco, a 66-year-old Orthodox Jew and a specialist in 18th-century music, recognizes the signs. Because of his decision to remain unvaccinated, Ronco is trapped inside his house, unable to move about in public without a digital vaccination card. He can no longer board a plane, check into a hotel, eat at a restaurant or get a coffee at a bar. He has been ostracized by friends, shut out of public life, and will soon face monthly fines for insisting on his right to bodily integrity and individual freedom.

For all intents and purposes, Ronco has become an undesirable in the eyes of the government, forced into isolation so he doesn’t risk contaminating the rest of the populace.

This is the slippery slope: a government empowered to restrict movements, limit individual liberty, and isolate “undesirables” to prevent the spread of a disease is a government that has the power to lockdown a country, label whole segments of the population a danger to national security, and force those undesirables—a.k.a. extremists, dissidents, troublemakers, etc.—into isolation so they don’t contaminate the rest of the populace.

The world has been down this road before, too.

Others have ignored the warning signs. We cannot afford to do so.

As historian Milton Mayer recounts in his seminal book on Hitler’s rise to power, They Thought They Were Free:

“Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people‑—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies’, without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us.”

The German people chose to ignore the truth and believe the lie.

They were not oblivious to the horrors taking place around them. As historian Robert Gellately points out, “[A]nyone in Nazi Germany who wanted to find out about the Gestapo, the concentration camps, and the campaigns of discrimination and persecutions need only read the newspapers.”

The warning signs were there, blinking incessantly like large neon signs.

“Still,” Gellately writes, “the vast majority voted in favor of Nazism, and in spite of what they could read in the press and hear by word of mouth about the secret police, the concentration camps, official anti-Semitism, and so on. . . . [T]here is no getting away from the fact that at that moment, ‘the vast majority of the German people backed him.’”

Half a century later, the wife of a prominent German historian, neither of whom were members of the Nazi party, opined: “[O]n the whole, everyone felt well. . . . And there were certainly eighty percent who lived productively and positively throughout the time. . . . We also had good years. We had wonderful years.”

In other words, as long as their creature comforts remained undiminished, as long as their bank accounts remained flush, as long as they weren’t being locked up, locked down, discriminated against, persecuted, starved, beaten, shot, stripped, jailed or killed, life was good.

Life is good in America, too, as long as you’re able to keep cocooning yourself in political fantasies that depict a world in which your party is always right and everyone else is wrong, while distracting yourself with bread-and-circus entertainment that bears no resemblance to reality.

Indeed, life in America may be good for the privileged few who aren’t being locked up, locked down, discriminated against, persecuted, starved, beaten, shot, stripped, jailed or killed, but it’s getting worse by the day for the rest of us.

Which brings me back to the present crisis: COVID-19 is not the Holocaust, and those who advocate vaccine mandates, lockdowns and quarantine camps are not Hitler, but this still has the makings of a slippery slope.

The means do not justify the ends: we must find other ways of fighting a pandemic without resorting to mandates and lockdowns and concentration camps. To do otherwise is to lay the groundwork for another authoritarian monster to rise up and wreak havoc.

If we do not want to repeat the past, then we must learn from past mistakes.

January 27 marks Remembrance Day, the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, a day for remembering those who died at the hands of Hitler’s henchmen and those who survived the horrors of the Nazi concentration camps.

Yet remembering is not enough. We can do better. We must do better.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the world is teetering on the edge of authoritarian madness.

All it will take is one solid push for tyranny to prevail.

*

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 The Rutherford Institute.

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

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

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

Hospital Data and Care Cannot be Trusted

January 27th, 2022 by Joel S. Hirschhorn

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

By now almost everyone has heard about terrible conditions in hospitals as they face very high levels of COVID patients at the same time that they likely have lost staff because despite being fully vaccinated, they have COVID and are not working.  Just proving that vaccines and booster shots do not work to prevent infection and its transmission.

How trustworthy is all this bad news?

Number of COVID patients and deaths

There are two issued to consider:  First, let us consider the number of COVID patients that hospitals say they are dealing with and, not so incidentally, making lots of money from.

There is now a large fraction of hospital patients being classed as COVID that are better seen as incidental COVID cases.  This means that come into hospitals for a host of ordinary reasons; they are tested for COVID.  Even though most may be asymptomatic they test positive.  Hospitals then treat these as COVID patients in every respect.  This greatly burdens hospitals.  Their eventual outcomes depend on how treatment for the main reason they got admitted are successful.  Remember that omicron, now the dominant form of COVID, for the vast majority of people does not produce serious health problems.

When we hear about high numbers of COVID deaths in hospitals what is not clear is whether they have died from COVID or the other medical problems they went to the hospital for.  It seems that COVID deaths are being greatly overblown, especially compare to data from other countries.

The truth is we cannot trust any of the COVID hospital data in number of cases or deaths.

It is true that some reporters and pundits have claimed that this picture is overly pessimistic because the hospitalization numbers include people who are simply hospitalized with COVID, rather than for COVID.  These “incidental” patients who just happen to test positive while being treated for something else clearly inflate numbers and explain why hospital ICUs are jammed up.

In some places, the proportion of such cases seems high. UC San Francisco recently said a third of its COVID patients “are admitted for other reasons,” while the Jackson Health System in Florida put that proportion at half.  In New York State, COVID “was not included as one of the reasons for admission” for 43 percent of the hospitalized people who have tested positive.

Other countries have produced data noting the same phenomenon of “incidental” COVID cases.  In data published recently by the UK National Health Service, 33% of the 8,321 COVID-positive cases in England on December 28 were admitted to the hospital for a different reason.

The number of Covid patients on ventilators in England dropped to a six-month low as the pressure of omicron on the NHS peaks, official figures show.

A total of 524 people were in hospital recently receiving breathing support, marking the lowest daily toll since mid-July and seven times lower than at the height of the second wave this time a year ago.

With around 14,500 patients in hospital with the virus across England, it means just 3.7 per cent are ill enough to need mechanical ventilation, the smallest share since the pandemic began.

Vaccinated versus unvaccinated

Another issue deserving attention is whether you can trust hospital data about how many of their COVID patients are unvaccinated.  Most reports from US hospitals say the number is very high.  Can you trust this?

Turns our that if patients do not have an official card saying they have been vaccinated they are most likely to be counted as non-vaccinated.  Hospitals do not research state or federal databases to determine whether a patient has been vaccinated.

Of relevance is that the US is unique in not giving official credit for natural immunity obtained from prior COVID infection.  So, many hospital patients may have had a very good reason for not taking an experimental vaccine shot.  Yet they have natural immunity that countless studies have found is better in all respects than vaccine immunity.

Again, US data is quite contrary to data from other countries that show nearly all hospitalized COVID patients have been fully vaccinated, and in some countries, like Israel, they also have received booster shots.  Or, that they have proven natural immunity.

Remember also that according to CDC rules if people die from legitimate COVID disease within two weeks of getting a vaccine shot they are counted as unvaccinated.

Hospital treatment of COVID patients

As previous articles have considered, hospitals are hamstrung by the decision to follow federal government guidelines, such as those from NIH and CDC.  They are using what the government has sanctioned and NOT using what many frontline doctors use very successfully.  In a nutshell, this means hospitals are not using cheap, safe and FDA approved generics like ivermectin as well as a number of vitamins and supplements found effective.

Are true COVID patients (not the incidental ones) still dying from late state COVID infection?  Yes.  But we know from medical research and some examples in hospitals that ivermectin’s anti-inflammatory property can work to clear up lung problems.

Here are data comparing omicron versus delta variants worth considering relative to the current hysteria over what hospitals are dealing with:

One study showed that only 17.6% of patients required supplemental oxygen therapy versus 74% during the delta wave.  Only 1.6% required mechanical ventilation (vs 12.4%) and there was an 11% decline in those who required admission to the ICU.  The median length of stay of omicron hospitalizations was three days, while it was seven under delta.

Conclusions

Sadly, the worse thing that Americans can do is go to the hospital for treatment if they have incidental, asymptomatic or symptomatic COVID.

What is the alternative?

First, routinely take any of a host of vitamins and supplements (such as vitamin D and quercetin) to boost your immune systems so that it can naturally fight any COVID virus.

Second, take ivermectin as a prophylactic to prevent getting serious COVID infection.

Third, find one of the many frontline doctors who are very successfully treating COVID patients with safe and proven protocols.  They are a very credible medical alternative to hospital treatments.

As a last smart move, should you find yourself in a hospital make sure you do not take remdesivir or any either of the two new antiviral drugs from Pfizer and Merck that, like vaccines, have not been proven safe in the short or long term.  Admittedly, rejecting what hospital doctors want to give you is a challenge; you need an advocate like a close friend or family member.  And you should invoke patient centered care that all hospitals say they strongly support, that gives you the right to control you care.  Think carefully about leaving an emergency room and getting admitted into the hospital.

Also, if hospitalized, try and sneak in ivermectin to take as soon as possible.

*

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. Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of Pandemic Blunder and many articles on the pandemic, worked on health issues for decades.  As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine.  As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 U.S. Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers.  He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years.  He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and America’s Frontline Doctors and has been a long-time contributor to the sites of Kettle Moraine.

Featured image is from iStock

US Pressure on Germany Growing. Blinken’s Package of Sanctions against Russia

January 27th, 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.

***

Washington continues to advance the idea of ​​establishing a new plan of severe sanctions against Russia over the Ukrainian crisis. Recently, US officials presented a draft of anti-Russian sanctions during a trip to Berlin. Considering the seriousness of the measures and the clear objective of suffocating Russia economically, the plan can be considered a real threat to international peace. In the same sense, the US delegation’s visit to Berlin seems to have been an attempt to coerce Berlin into adopting the same anti-Russian stance that Washington assumes.

An audacious package of sanctions against Russia was announced by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken during his last trip to Berlin last week. The program was developed by William Burns, top CIA official and former American ambassador in Russia, and has as its main objective to provoke a strong economic siege against Moscow in the face of escalating tensions in Ukraine in the coming months. Also, it is necessary to mention that in addition to economic measures, there are also sanctions in the diplomatic sphere, with the plan to reduce the number of foreign officers on Russian soil as much as possible.

Russian export capacity is the main target of the new sanctions package. Commodities and weapons are strategic points of high value in the Russian export economy – and the new program is aimed precisely at preventing other countries from being able to buy these products from Russia. According to data exposed by the German newspaper Bild, it is estimated that, if the sanctions are actually implemented, the total damage to Russia’s economy would be equivalent to more than 50 billion dollars – which is why, the newspaper concludes that “the US and the West… want to attack Russia’s role as the world’s largest supplier of raw materials”.

The Bild’s article also mentions that during his stay in Berlin, Blinken stated that the US wants to make all the points of the new package clear to Washington’s allies around the world, so that all measures are implemented. Blinken stated that the new restrictions are aimed at “blocking Russian trade routes around the world”, “blocking supply routes” used by Russia, and guaranteeing “a sharp reduction in the staff of Russian embassies in Western countries”. In the same sense, Blinken ignored all requests from German officials for the anti-Russian approach to be taken on a less hard and more diplomatic line, demanding unrestricted adherence to Washington’s project to suffocate Moscow.

Germany has very clear interests to ask for a more diplomatic approach to the situation: the gas issue. Berlin asks Washington for permission to establish a more lenient policy, promising that the operation of Nord Stream 2 will be paralyzed in eventual escalation in Ukraine, but ruling out the possibility of total cancellation of the energy cooperation. In turn, the US has resumed a stance of total opposition to the existence of the gas pipeline, considering it inadmissible under the current circumstances in Ukraine.

In the current situation, the US is, in a way, assuming the leadership position of a coalition opposing Berlin within the European continent. The sovereigntist stance of the German government, which wants to defend its own interests in the midst of the crisis between Russia and the West, does not only displease Washington, but also Poland and Ukraine itself, which want to maintain the monopoly of gas transport along the old routes. With the US-imposed boycott of the purchase of Russian gas by Germany, the Poland-Ukraine axis becomes the only option for Berlin. In the same vein, the UK, which has adopted a totally pro-Washington policy, supports all these measures and endorses the cancellation of Nord Stream 2 and its replacement with the old routes. With this, there is an axis forming between the US, UK, Poland and Ukraine to pressure Germany to fully adhere to anti-Russian measures.

On the other hand, Germany has the support of a part of the EU, for which a critical stance on the role of the US and NATO on the continent is increasingly indispensable. The German government feels pressured and is divided, as there are also many pro-Washington officials in the new administration – in addition to the fact that the EU itself is polarized in this regard. Berlin resists for the time being and continues to postpone indefinitely the sending of military aid to Ukraine, but it is clear that the German position within the European bloc no longer corresponds to its real relevance as European financial leader.

In fact, the EU continues to delay in taking a rigid position of distancing itself from NATO, despite the sovereigntist stance taken by the main European leaders, Germany and France, who are not willing to tolerate all NATO attitudes and their respective consequences. In this game, Germany is the most fragile part as its typical military weakness prevents it from guaranteeing the defense of its strategic interests. Blinken’s choice to travel to Berlin had a very clear meaning: increasing pressure for the new government to decline any stance inconsistent with NATO’s plans. If Berlin does not receive support from the rest of the European bloc, even its respectable financial power will not be enough for the country to continue defending its interests in the face of such external pressure.

It is unlikely that the new sanctions package presented by Blinken really depends on any escalation of tensions in Ukraine. Considering that even the movement of troops by Moscow within Russian territory itself is considered an “escalation” by Washington, it is very likely that sanctions will be implemented at some point. And that is why it urges the US’ former European allies to unite to defend their sovereign interests in the face of the growing US-UK-Poland-Ukraine axis.

*

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; geopolitical consultant.

Moscow to Washington: “Remove the Nukes on Our Doorstep and Stop the Eastward Push”

January 27th, 2022 by Mike Whitney

All Global Research articles 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 arrives a moment of truth when the West either accepts our proposals or other ways will be found to safeguard Russia’s security.” -Konstantin Gavrilov, head of the Russian delegation at the Vienna negotiations

Here’s a simple way to test your understanding of the current US-Russia standoff. All you need to do is answer one very-basic question about the nature of the conflict, and that answer will determine whether you understand what is actually going on or not. Here’s the question:

What is the source of the confrontation between the US and Russia in the Ukraine:

  1. Russia has amassed over 100,000 combat troops near Ukraine’s eastern border and is threatening to invade.
  2. Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet Empire by expanding Russia’s territory beyond its borders.
  3. The western media has concocted a fake storyline about a “Russian invasion” to divert attention from Moscow’s reasonable demands for legally-binding security guarantees that address the pressing issue of hostile foreign armies (NATO) and nuclear missiles on Russia’s doorstep.
  4. None of the above.

If you picked Number 3, then pat yourself on the back, that is the right answer. (Please, see: “There Is No Russian Invasion Threat To Ukraine”, Moon of Alabama; Quote: “The story of Russian preparations for an invasion of the Ukraine is made up from whole cloth.”)

The current crisis has nothing to do with the fictitious “Russian invasion” that was invented to conceal the real issue.

The real issue is Russian security and the demands that Russia has made in the form of two draft treaty agreements. The western media– in concert with the Intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, the Biden administration, and the US foreign policy establishment– have done everything in their power to prevent the American people from reading the contents of these draft treaties for fear that they will see that Russia’s demands are both reasonable and appropriate. Russia isn’t asking for anything more than any sovereign country should expect. As FDR famously said, “Security for one, is security for all.” We support that sentiment and we think the American people do too.

Russians do not want to live with nuclear missiles aimed at their Capital and located just a few hundred miles from their targets. That is a nonstarter. Nor do Russians want hostile armies and military bases looming on their western flank in Ukraine. Again, that is a nonstarter.

What Russia wants, is a written agreement that prevents Washington from using NATO to pursue its long-term geopolitical strategy of encircling, weakening and ultimately, splintering the Russian Federation into smaller pieces in order to become a bigger player in the development of Central Asia and in order to exert greater control over China’s explosive growth. That is the basic Gameplan, and the US foreign policy establishment has not abandoned that plan despite 30-years of catastrophic military failures stretching from North Africa across the Middle East and into Central Asia. Here’s how author Stephen Kinzer summed it up in an article that appeared in the Boston Globe more than a decade ago:

“From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is now directly on Russia’s borders…This crisis is in part the result of a zero-sum calculation that has shaped US policy toward Moscow since the Cold War: Any loss for Russia is an American victory, and anything positive that happens to, for, or in Russia is bad for the United States. This is an approach that intensifies confrontation, rather than soothing it.” (“US a full partner in Ukraine debacle”, Boston Globe)

What can we glean from this paragraph?

We can appreciate the historical context of the current crisis which dates back to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Following the collapse of the USSR, leaders in the West felt that “History had ended” and that the western system had triumphed over communism. This triumphalism, in turn, was accompanied by wave after wave of eastward expansion, where NATO– the Cold War relic– doubled in size and pushed closer and closer to Russia’s borders. Now– 30-years on– Washington wants Ukraine to become a member of the Alliance which will put hostile armies, military bases and missile sites just a few hundred miles from Moscow. Naturally, Putin cannot allow this development to take place. Naturally, he must do everything in his power to prevent the supporters of this strategy from implementing their plan.

And that’s what the current confrontation is all about, Russia’s security. It has nothing to do with the threat of a Russian invasion. The “Russian invasion” meme was invented to garner public support for a confrontation with Russia and to conceal details about Russia’s security demands. It is basically fake news created with the clear intention of misleading the American people about an issue that should be a grave concern to them and to people around the world.

So, what is it that Putin wants, after all, we cannot determine whether the Russian leader is being reasonable or not unless we know what he is demanding. A short excerpt from the draft treaty should tell us everything we need to know. Here’s an excerpt:

The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them……

The Parties shall undertake not to deploy ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in the areas of their national territories, from which such weapons can attack targets in the national territory of the other Party.

Article 7

The Parties shall refrain from deploying nuclear weapons outside their national territories and return such weapons already deployed outside their national territories at the time of the entry into force of the Treaty to their national territories. The Parties shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for deployment of nuclear weapons outside their national territories.

The Parties shall not train military and civilian personnel from non-nuclear countries to use nuclear weapons. The Parties shall not conduct exercises or training for general-purpose forces, that include scenarios involving the use of nuclear weapons.” (“Treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation on Security Guarantees,” Official Russian State Document, December 17, 2021)

Is it reasonable for Putin to demand that the US and its NATO allies not install military bases and nuclear missile sites on its border? Is it appropriate for the Russian president to insist that NATO abstain from placing hostile armies on Russia’s doorstep? Here’s what Putin said in reference to these developments just two weeks ago:

“Our actions will depend not on the negotiations but on the unconditional security of Russia Putin …we have made it absolutely clear that NATOs expansion to the East is absolutely unacceptable. What is unclear about this? It is not Russia that deploys missile systems to US borders. It is the other way around. The United States has brought its missiles to our borders. They are on our threshhold …. What would the US do if we deployed our missiles to the Mexican or Canadian borders? …We are not the one’s that are threatening anyone. They came to our borders.” (“Putin: “What Would Americans Do If We Went To Canada And Mexico And Deployed Missiles There?”, Rumble)

He has a point, doesn’t he? The US would never allow China or Russia to build bases or missile sites on its borders. Shouldn’t Russia expect the same treatment?

Yes, they should, and it is certainly a principal worth fighting for. Keep in mind, Russia lost 27 million people in World War 2. That is no trifling sum. Russians have a clear understanding of the cost of war and they will do whatever it takes to prevent another one from breaking out on their soil. In the present case, that means insisting that encroaching adversaries sign legally-binding documents that block them from deploying lethal military hardware or nuclear weapons to Russia’s perimeter. That is the crux of the matter; Sign the treaty or Moscow will be forced to find other ways to establish its security.

The head of the Russian delegation at the Vienna negotiations, Konstantin Gavrilov, summed it up like this:

“There arrives a moment of truth when the West either accepts our proposals or other ways will be found to safeguard Russia’s security.”

Does that mean war?

Not necessarily, but the options are certainly narrowing. If the Biden administration ignores these red lines and continues to blunder ahead with its current policy, there will be a war because this latest NATO expansion leaves Russia at a critical disadvantage. The location of troops and nuclear weapons upsets the fundamental balance of power which Russia will be forced to restore by whatever means necessary. Is that what Biden’s foreign policy team wants?

The wiser members of the US foreign establishment have always cautioned against NATO’s reckless expansion. Check out this quote from former US diplomat and author of the Soviet “containment” policy, George Kennan, who warned that NATO expansion would have dire consequences for both Russia and the United States. He said:

“The view, bluntly stated, is that expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking … Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the Cold War to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.….I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the founding fathers of this country turn over in their graves.” (“George Kennan on Russia: Insights and Recommendations”, Russia Matters)

So, if NATO expansion is at the heart of the present confrontation, (and not the invented threat of Putin invading.), then what are the strategic objectives?

Perhaps, the best and simplest explanation of what is going on is provided by foreign policy expert John Mearsheimer in a presentation he gave at The University of Chicago in 2015 titled Why is Ukraine the West’s Fault? The whole video is worth watching but for our purposes, we’ll highlight a few of the more crucial points.

First of all, US ambitions in Ukraine have nothing to do with “democracy promotion”. The real driving force is geopolitics, just as it was a century earlier when Great Britain was engaged in the Great Game. The same rule applies today, although the motives are more effectively concealed behind a wall of propaganda. As Mearsheimer says,

“The US and its EU allies want to peel Ukraine away from its Russian orbit and incorporate it into the west. The goal is to make Ukraine a western bulwark on Russia’s border.”

Bingo. That’s it in a nutshell. The US wants to continue its encirclement and weakening of Russia, and Russia will have none of it. As Mearsheimer says, “Russia is a great power and is has no interest in allowing the US to take a big piece of real estate of great strategic importance on its western border and incorporate it into the West.”

Right again. But while Mearsheimer provides a convincing explanation for recent developments, his analysis is in no way comprehensive. There are, of course, other prominent foreign policy experts who described in much greater detail, the role that was planned for Russia as a future colony in the New World Order. In 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski posted an article in Foreign Policy Magazine titled “A Geostrategy for Eurasia,” that makes the case that the US needs to forcefully establish itself in Central Asia in order to maintain its position as the world’s only superpower. Here’s an excerpt that explains how Brzezinski saw Russia factoring in to this new paradigm:

“Russia’s longer-term role in Eurasia will depend largely on its self-definition…Russia’s first priority should be to modernize itself rather than to engage in a futile effort to regain its status as a global power. Given the country’s size and diversity, a decentralized political system and free-market economics would be most likely to unleash the creative potential of the Russian people and Russia’s vast natural resources. A loosely confederated Russia — composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic — would also find it easier to cultivate closer economic relations with its neighbors. Each of the confederated entitles would be able to tap its local creative potential, stifled for centuries by Moscow’s heavy bureaucratic hand. In turn, a decentralized Russia would be less susceptible to imperial mobilization.” (“A Geostrategy for Eurasia”, Foreign Affairs, 76:5, September/October 1997)

“A loosely confederated Russia”? In other words, a splintered, Balkanized, bankrupt colony open to foreign exploitation and control. Is this Washington’s plan for Russia?

It is. A strong, vital and independent Russia is not in Washington’s interests at all, in fact, it is a clear threat to America’s global ambitions. The US still harbors lofty aspirations that have not been dampened by 30 years of foreign policy disasters. Washington still thinks it can prevail in its conflict with Moscow, establish outposts across Central Asia, further encircle China, and oversee the explosive development of the world’s most prosperous region, Asia. These are, perhaps, unrealistic objectives for a country that found it impossible to beat a makeshift militia with no formal military training (The Taliban) over a 20-year period. Nevertheless, this is the essential geopolitical roadmap the foreign policy establishment continues to pursue despite the fact that implementing the policy may trigger an unexpected conflagration with a nuclear-armed Russia that could have dire consequences for us all.

*

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 The Unz Review.

Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.

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

Featured image is from TUR

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Moscow to Washington: “Remove the Nukes on Our Doorstep and Stop the Eastward Push”
  • Tags: , ,

Selected Articles: A Letter to the Unvaccinated

January 27th, 2022 by Global Research News

Dear Readers,

As everyone faces difficult times, the company which deals with the fulfillment of book sales on behalf of Global Research is no longer able to provide its services. We are unfortunately suspending the sale of print books until further notice.

We will be contacting and refunding readers who have purchased our books in print format. Meanwhile, PDF versions are still available for purchase. We hope to be able to resolve this matter as soon as possible. Our apologies for the inconvenience.

Thank you for your valuable support.

***

A Letter to the Unvaccinated

By Dr. Angela Durante, Prof Denis Rancourt, and et al., January 26, 2022

You are not alone! As of 28 July 2021, 29% of Canadians have not received a COVID-19 vaccine, and an additional 14% have received one shot. In the US and in the European Union, less than half the population is fully vaccinated, and even in Israel, the “world’s lab” according to Pfizer, one third of people remain completely unvaccinated.

The Freedom Convoy In Solidarity with the Truck Drivers: What Canada Needs is the “Political Quarantine” of Justin Trudeau

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 26, 2022

A mass movement against the Covid mandate is unfolding coast to coast across Canada in solidarity with cross-border truck drivers. Tens of thousands of people will be joining the truck drivers in Ottawa.

Video: War Coming to Europe?

By South Front, January 26, 2022

The Western MSM are horning in one voice that the Russian Federation is preparing a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in the near future. They are supported by the authorities of the Anglo-Saxon states and the Brussels bureaucracy.

20 Facts about Vaccination Your Doctor Forgot To Tell You

By Dr. Vernon Coleman, January 26, 2022

In the UK, GPs receive massive payments for giving vaccinations. And bonus payments if they vaccinate enough patients. Doctors get very rich out of vaccine programmes.

Stripping Away the Bulls**t: U.S. and Russian Threats Over Ukraine—What They’re About and Who’s the Aggressor

By Dee Knight, January 26, 2022

Threats and counter-threats flying between Washington and Moscow over Ukraine have caused a flurry of fear and confusion that escalates and expands daily. Is the world on the brink of war? What is it about, who is the aggressor and who is to blame?

Infectious Diseases, Vaccines and War

By Prof. Marc Herbermann, January 26, 2022

Vaccination advocates like to cite polio vaccination campaigns as evidence of vaccine effectiveness. But what are we to make of this claim when these very campaigns turn into their opposite, when they produce the symptoms they are meant to prevent?

Off to the U.S. Supreme Court: Assange’s Appeal Continues

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, January 26, 2022

With December’s High Court decision to overturn the lower court ruling against the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States, lawyers of the WikiLeaks founder immediately got busy.  The next avenue of appeal, strewn less with gold than obstacles, would be to the Supreme Court.

Conspiracy Theory

Ukraine Crisis: How the Deep State Created Biden-Putin Rift?

By Nauman Sadiq, January 26, 2022

The current brinkmanship on the Ukraine crisis is a manifestation of this global power belligerence where the hands of civilian presidents are tied behind their backs and the Pentagon’s top brass determines the national security agenda pursued by the United States.

Canada’s Diplomatic Boycott of Beijing Olympics: Open Letter to PM Trudeau

By Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War, January 26, 2022

Canada used to have exemplary friendly relations with China to the point that it became our second-largest trading partner. With your arrest of Meng Wanzhou at the urging of former US President Trump, who promptly announced he intended to use Ms. Meng as a “bargaining chip” in his trade war with China, Canada-China relations took a nosedive.

New York State Supreme Court Judge Strikes Down Governor’s Mask Mandate

By News 12, January 26, 2022

A New York State Supreme Court judge has struck down Gov. Kathy Hochul’s mask mandate for schools and public locations. According to a court document, Judge Thomas Rademaker said that neither the governor nor the state health commissioner had the authority to enact the mandate without the state Legislature, since the governor no longer has emergency powers.

US-Funded “NGOs” Panic as Thailand Prepares New NGO Transparency Law

By The New Atlas, January 26, 2022

Thailand is passing a new NGO law that will require greater transparency from nongovernmental organizations. However, these organizations are resisting the bill despite wide public support for it – clearly because they have much to hide.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: A Letter to the Unvaccinated

Video: Confrontation of SDF and ISIS Forces: Battle for Al-Hasakah Prison Wreaks Havoc Across Northern Syria

January 26th, 2022 by South Front

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

As of January 24, escalation continues in Syria, mainly in the northeastern region where the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have been locked in a heated battle with ISIS cells.

The battle broke out on January 20 when ISIS terrorists attacked Geweran prison in the southern part of al-Hasakah city. The terrorists, who initially intended to free their comrades, ended up occupying the prison and several nearby areas.

By January 23, the battle in al-Hasakah city has claimed the lives of 84 ISIS terrorists, seven civilians and 45 personnel of the SDF and its security forces. The battle also displaced thousands of civilians who took refuge in the government-held “security zone” in al-Hasakah’s center as well as the northern district of the city.

ISIS terrorists are now besieged by the SDF, whose forces have been receiving direct support from the US-led coalition. The battle will likely end soon.

Turkish forces took advantage of ISIS attack on Geweran prison and steeped up their operations against the SDF in northeastern Syria.

On January 21, a Turkish drone strike targeted a military vehicle near the town of Tell Tamer in the northern al-Hasakah countryside. The vehicle was a part of reinforcements sent by the SDF to al-Hasakah city. The strike claimed the lives of two fighters of the SDF.

On January 22, five civilians were killed and four others were wounded when Turkish forces shelled and attacked areas held by the SDF near the town of Ain Issa in the northern Raqqa countryside.

Contrary to northeastern Syria, the situation in the northwestern region, known as Greater Idlib, has been calm.

A harsh snow storm forced al-Qaeda-affiliated Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the de-facto ruler of Greater Idlib, and its allies to halt their provocations. The situation will likely heat up again once the storm is over in a week or less.

Meanwhile, in Syria’s central region, ISIS cells continue to launch attacks despite facing much pressure from government forces and their allies.

Early on January 22, ISIS terrorists attacked several positions of the pro-government National Defense Forces (NDF) near the town of al-Resafa in the southern Raqqa countryside. At least 12 NDF fighters were wounded.

In response, warplanes of the Russian Aerospace Forces carried out more than 82 airstrikes on hideouts of ISIS cells in the eastern countryside of Homs as well as in the deserts of Raqqa and Deir Ezzor on January 22 and 23.

While ISIS insurgency in central Syria will not likely end anytime soon, the group’s cells are still incapable of threatening key urban centers and vital roads in the region.

The situation in Syria’s southern regions was not much better. Attacks continue to target government forces.

Late on January 22, unidentified gunmen attacked a checkpoint and a base of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) near the town of Mlaiha al-Garbiah in the eastern countryside of Daraa.

The attack coincided with several strikes that hit Mlaiha al-Garbiah and the nearby town of Hrak, wounding at least ten people. Syrian opposition activists said that the SAA shelled the two towns with mortars and artillery. However, this is yet to be confirmed.

The Air Force Intelligence Directorate (AFID) responded to the attack by carrying out a series of raids in Mlaiha al-Garbiah and Hrak on January 23. At least six suspects were arrested.

The situation in the southern region and the rest of Syria will not likely improve anytime soon as a political settlement for the war in Syria remains unlikely. All recent developments indicate that the war will go on.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Confrontation of SDF and ISIS Forces: Battle for Al-Hasakah Prison Wreaks Havoc Across Northern Syria

Die finstere Sozialagenda hinter der Covid-Krise: Interview mit Dr. Rudolf Hänsel

January 26th, 2022 by Dr. Rudolf Hänsel

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

Interviewfragen bereits am 16. Juni 2021 beantwortet, doch Interview erschien erst in der Januar- / Februarausgabe 2022

“Rudolf Hänsel, renowned scientist in the field of education, graduate psychologist, in an interview with “Geopolitika” magazine ‘Serbs, follow the teachings of Archibald Reiss'”.

Geopolitika: Sehr geehrter Herr Hänsel, Sie sind einer der aktivsten deutschen Intellektuellen, die sich mit der geopolitischen Lage der Welt auseinandersetzen. Besonders aktiv sind Sie seit Beginn der sogenannten Corona-Pandemie. Wie sehen Sie das Auftreten des Coronavirus und was ist das ultimative Ziel des Covid-19-Projekts?

Dr. Rudolf Hansel: Zunächst möchte ich mich bei Ihnen bedanken für die Wertschätzung, die Sie mir entgegenbringen. Ich freue mich, dass das bedeutende Magazin „Geopolitika“ wieder erscheinen wird und ich Gelegenheit bekomme, meine persönliche Meinung zu äußern.

Sodann zwei Dinge zur Klarstellung: Ein freier Denker behauptet nie, er verfüge über die Wahrheit. Für den freien Geist gibt es eine unbegrenzte Anzahl von zu entdeckenden und dem Wandel unterworfenen Wahrheiten. Wahr ist, was nicht dogmatische Fessel ist und die Menschen nicht in Gläubige und in Nichtgläubige oder Andersgläubige trennt, sondern dem Zusammenleben der Menschen nützt und ihr Einvernehmen fördert. In diesem Sinne gebe ich nur meine persönliche Meinung wieder. Und als Gast in Ihrem Land verbietet mir das Gebot des Anstands, Kritik an der Politik Ihrer Regierung zu äußern.

Nun zu Ihren Fragen: Ich empfinde es als meine Bürgerpflicht, politische und gesellschaftliche Entwicklungen nicht nur Politikern zu überlassen, sondern im Sinne des Schweizers Dichters und Politikers Gottfried Keller selbst vor die Haustüre zu treten, um nachzusehen, was es gibt.

Trotz der aufkommenden Stimmung der Angst und Panik vor einem möglicherweise tödlichen Virus, verfiel ich zu Beginn des Jahres 2020 nicht in einen Gehorsamsreflex, sondern ich diskutierte mit sicheren Feunden, was in der Welt vor sich geht. Wir empfanden sehr schnell, dass etwas faul sei im Staate Dänemark. Da ich angstfrei aufwuchs, meine Eltern keinen absoluten Gehorsam von mir einforderten und ich im Erwachsenenalter bei einem hervorragenden Psychotherapeuten, einem Schüler Alfred Adlers, Psycholologie studieren konnte, bewahre ich auch in schwierigen Situationen meinen gesunden Menschenverstand.

Da die Zivilgesellschaften aller Länder Leittragende der staatlich verordneten Freiheitsberaubung und weiterer Zwangsmaßnahmen waren, empfand ich zivilen Ungehorsam, lautstarken Protest und echte Solidarität mit den Opfern der staatlichen Willkür ein Gebot der Stunde. In unzählichen Kommentaren und Artikeln, die in „Global Research“ (www.globalresearch.ca) übersichtlich zusammengestellt sind, habe ich deshalb vesucht, meine Mitbürger aufzuklären und zum Nein-Sagen zu ermutigen.

Das Auftauchen eines unsichtbaren und bedrohlichen „Feindes“ in Form eines Virus’ wurde nach Meinung unabhängiger Wissenschaftler bereits vor Jahrzehnten von einer ultrareichen globalen „Elite“ und ihren Institutionen geplant und virtuell durchgespielt, weshalb zu vermuten ist, dass das Virus durch ein Biolabor absichtlich unter die Menschen gebracht wurde.

Das Ziel des Covid-19-Projekts dürfte inzwischen allen wachen und gut informierten Bürgern hinlänglich bekannt sein. Klaus Schwab vom World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos nannte es in seinen Veröffentlichungen „The Great Reset“.

Geopolitika: Die meisten Menschen scheinen die wahre Gefahr nicht zu sehen, die hinter der Covid-19-Maske lauert, und zwar die Erfüllung der UN-Agenda 2030, deren Ziel ein Monopol auf Saatgut, Nahrung, Wasser, die Entvölkerung der Menschheit, die Abschaffung des Bargelds, der digitale Mensch und die totale Kontrolle des Lebens ist. Stimmen Sie meiner Aussage zu?

Dr. Rudolf Hansel: Die Mehrzahl der Menschen, die keinen Zugang zu alternativen Medien haben, können die Gefahr wegen der unheilvollen Rolle der Massenmedien nicht sehen. Diese stehen ganz im Dienste ihrer Regierungen, veröffentlichen keine abweichenden Expertenmeinungen und schüren täglich von neuem die Ängste der Bürger vor einem möglicherweise qualvollen Erstickungstot.

Ihrer Aussage kann man deshalb als vernunftbegabter, gut informierter und selbst denkender Mensch uneingeschränkt zustimmen.

Geopolitika: Können Sie uns als Fachpsychologe sagen, welche Folgen die Corona-Krise und die ergriffenen politischen Maßnahmen für die psychische Gesundheit der Menschen haben? Sind Kinder stärker betroffen? Gibt es Statistiken darüber, wie viele Menschen Suizid begangen haben?

Dr. Rudolf Hansel: Die Folgen für die psychische Gesundheit der betroffenen Menschen sind katastrophal und nicht wieder gut zu machen. Darüber berichten inzwischen nicht nur unabhängige Psychologen, Psychiater, Mediziner und Soziologen, sondern auch staatliche Institutionen. Genannt werden übereinstimmend Depressionen, übersteigerte Ängste, Schlaflosigkeit, Suizidgedanken und vollendete Suizide.

Unsere Kinder und Jugendlichen sind von den menschenverachtenden politischen Maßnahmen wie soziale Distanzierung, Verbot von kulturellen und sportlichen Freizeitaktivitäten und digitaler Unterricht besonders schwer betroffen: Einsamkeitsgefühle, Lebensängste, Zunahme von Computerspiel-Sucht und Drogenkonsum, häusliche (auch sexuelle) Gewalt sowie Suizidgedanken und vollendete Suzide waren und sind die Folge. Ich schrieb zu diesem Thema den viel beachteten Artikel „Wir töten die Seelen unserer Kinder“ und meinte, dass Eltern, Lehrkräfte und Erzieher sich mitschuldig machen, wenn sie gegen diesen Lockdown-Wahnsinn nicht aufstehen.

Offizielle Statistiken zu diesem Thema kenne ich nicht, weil sie nicht veröffentlicht werden. Ich habe aber eine Menge Horrorberichte von Leitern deutscher Jugendpsychiatrien gelesen.

Geopolitika: Können Sie uns aus beruflicher Sicht sagen, warum Menschen weltweit wegen des Virus‘ Todesangst haben, obwohl alle relevanten Fakten zeigen, dass die Sterblichkeitsrate durch das Virus deutlich niedriger ist als beispielsweise durch Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen und Krebs? Beeinflussen die Mainstream-Medien so stark das Bewusstsein der Menschen?

Dr. Rudolf Hansel: Ja, das ist richtig: Die Mainstream-Medien spielen weltweit eine unheilvolle Rolle. Gemäß nationaler wie internationaler Vereinbarungen sind sie der wahrheitsgemäßen Information der Bürger und dem Frieden verpflichtet. Sie könnten damit einen wichtigen Beitrag zur Aufklärung und Ermutigung der Menschen leisten. Doch das Gegenteil ist der Fall: Sie sind Werkzeuge und Dienstleute schwerreicher Männer hinter der Bühne, die die Fäden ziehen. In deren Auftrag schüren sie Tag für Tag irrationale Ängste. Das führt bei den meisten Menschen zu einem Gehorsamsreflex und einer Verstandeslähmung. Seit Alters her ist das Schüren irrationaler Ängste ein bewährtes Disziplinierungs- und Herrschaftsmittel.

Es ist das Geschäft der Journalisten in den Mainstream-Medien, die Wahrheit zu verdrehen, unverblümt zu lügen, zu pervertieren, zu schmähen, zu Füßen des Mammons zu kriechen und das eigene Land und Volk für sein tägliches Brot zu verkaufen. Diese Journalisten sind gewissermaßen „intellektuelle Prostituierte“ (John Swinton). Aus diesem Grund sind alternative Medien und unabhängige Magazine von ausschlaggebender Bedeutung für die Bewusstseinsbildung des Volkes.

Geopolitika: Wie denken Sie, wird die Geschichte mit der Corona-Pandemie enden? Während das „Anwaltsteam der Welt“unter der Leitung von Rechtsanwalt Dr. Reiner Füllmich Klagen gegen die WHO, Bill Gates und alle am Corona-Genozid beteiligten Regierungen einreichte, kündigen die „Schöpfer des menschlichen Schicksals“ eine neue, noch tödlichere Viruswelle an. Also ein Spiel ohne Grenzen?

Dr. Rudolf Hansel: Die weltweite Sammelklage des deutschen Rechtsanwalts Reiner Füllmich und seines qualifizierten Teams ist eine große Hoffnung für die Völker, weil die Lage sehr ernst ist. Aber wer kann vorhersagen, ob sie angesichts der weltweiten Korruption in allen Berufen Erfolg haben wird.

Des weiteren berichten namhafte medizinische Experten, dass sich die gentherapeutischen Experimente, die seit einigen Monaten mit den sogenannten Impfungen durchgefüht werden, in den folgenden Jahren sehr unheilvoll auf die Geimpften auswirken werden. Wie wir wissen, planen die allseits bekannten Eugeniker eine Reduktion der Weltbevölkerung.

Beunruhigend sind auch Presseberichte in alternativen Medien, dass auf die gegenwärtige Gesundheits-Diktatur eine Klima-Diktatur – nach dem Corona-Lockdown ein Klima-Lockdown – folgen werde. Die gegenwärtigen Corona-Maßnahmen und „neu entdeckte“ Virusvarianten wären nur ein Vorspiel zu dem, was demnächst folgen werde. Es wäre in der Tat ein satanisches Spiel ohne Grenzen. Hoffen wir das Beste.

Geopolitika: Sie verfolgen aufmerksam den Konflikt zwischen Russland und der Ukraine. Wie sehen Sie diesen Konflikt und wird er von der NATO und Amerika manipuliert, um so nah wie möglich an die Grenzen der Russischen Föderation zu kommen?

Dr. Rudolf Hansel: Ich denke, dass man kein Historiker sein muss, um zu sehen, welche Rolle die US-NATO und viele europäische Regierungen in dem von Ihnen angesprochenen Konflikt seit dem Ukraine-Putsch im Jahr 2014 spielen. Es ist ein Spiel mit dem Feuer. Man kann nur hoffen (und beten), dass dieser Konflikt nicht in einen offenen Krieg ausartet. Die US-NATO unternimmt im Moment  jedenfalls alles, um Russland zu provozieren und überschreitet dabei „rote Linien“. Wie lange wird sich das der russische Präsident Putin noch gefallen lassen?

Die Völker Europas wollen keinen Krieg gegen Russland. Sehen Sie hierzu eine von mir und einem Freund initiierte „Öffentliche Erklärung“ in der „Neuen Rheinischen Zeitung“ (NRhZ) vom 8./9. Mai 2018 in fünf Sprachen mit Unterzeichungsmöglichkeit: „Wir Europäer sagen NEIN zu einem Krieg gegen Russland!“

Geopolitika: Warum versteht die westliche Welt die Slawen nicht, insbesondere die Serben und Russen? Man sieht in den Slawen sogar eine niedrige Rasse.

Dr. Rudolf Hansel: Das ist eine wichtige Frage. Es wäre die Aufgabe von Historikern, Soziologen, Kulturwissenschaftlern und weiteren Experten, wissenschaftlich zu klären, wann und wozu diese Vorurteile gegen slawische Menschen und Völker entstanden sind. Was ich zu dieser Frage beitragen kann, ist bescheiden: Ich bin der Auffassung, dass es geopolitische Gründe sind, die zu den menschenverachtenden Vorurteilen führten und weshalb sie weiter aufrecht erhalten werden. Der Vatikan spielt dabei eine entscheidende Rolle. Christen innerhalb slawischer Völker werden nämlich ganz anders angesehen und behandelt als orthodoxe Mitbürger.

Es sind wie gesagt Vorurteile, die mit der Realität nichts zu tun haben. Doch diese Vorurteile bestehen seit Generationen und es ist höchte Zeit, sie aus dem Bewusstsein arroganter westliche Regierender zu löschen. Die „einfachen“ Menschen haben sie meines Erachtens nicht.

Geopolitika: In intellektuellen Kreisen gelten Sie als eine Person, die mit der politischen Situation auf dem Balkan, speziell in Serbien bestens vertraut ist. Wie sehen Sie die aktuelle geopolitische Lage Serbiens? Welchen Rat würden Sie der serbischen Führung geben?

Dr. Rudolf Hansel: Obwohl ich ein Freund der Serben bin und seit über eineinhalb Jahren hier lebe, bezweifle ich, mit der politischen Situation Ihres Landes vertraut zu sein. Zudem steht es mir als einem Deutschen, der in Serben sehr freundlich aufgenommen wurde, nicht zu, der politischen Führung Ratschläge zu erteilen. Das einzige, was ich zu Ihrer Frage beisteuern kann, entstammt dem politischen Testament „Ecoutez, Serbes!“ / „Uyjte me, Spbi!“ des Schweizer Kriminologen und Universitätsprofessors Rudolf Archibald Reiss, einem großen Freund Serbiens.

In seinem Appell vom 1. Juni 1928 prangerte Reiss sowohl die Politik als auch die Gesellschaft Jugoslawiens und Serbiens an, weil sie ihm durch und durch korrupt erschien. Das serbische Volk aber beschwor er: „Lasst nicht zu, dass die Nation (…) von einer Handvoll verbrecherischer Profiteure und Wucherer geknechtet wird. (…) Besinnt euch auf eure ruhmreiche Vergangenheit, auf die ‚wahre‘ Demokratie der bäuerlichen Gemeinschaft, auf Moral, Gastfreundschaft und Patriotismus.“

Geopolitika: Wie würden Sie das serbische Volk bewerten? Was sind die guten und was die schlechten Seiten des serbischen Volkes?

Dr. Rudolf Hansel: Das serbische Volk kann und will ich nicht bewerten. Es ist ein Volk wie viele andere Völker auch. Mutig, lebensfroh und leidensfähig. Doch eine Eigenschaft sticht hervor: Die serbischen Menschen jammern nicht über ihr Schicksal – und das unterscheidet sie sehr wohltuend von meinen verwöhnten Landsleuten und den anderen westlichen Bürgern.

Geopolitika: Am Ende des Gesprächs möchte ich Sie fragen, wie Sie die Zukunft der Welt sehen? Wird die satanische Agenda der Neuen Weltordnung und das Zurücksetzen der alten Zivilisation weitergehen oder wird sich das Gute durchsetzen, wie es 95% der Weltbevölkerung wünscht – im Gegensatz zu der Minderheit, die aus ihrem Schatten heraus regiert?

Dr. Rudolf Hansel: Als Psychologe und aufgrund meiner Forschungstätigkeit als Erziehungswissenschaftler bin ich davon überzeugt, dass der Mensch gut und sozial ist. Das Gewaltstreben und die kranke Machtgier einiger weniger ist das Ergebnis ihrer Erziehung und des kapitalistischen Systems. Ich hoffe deshalb, dass das Gute letztendlich siegt. Doch das wird nicht automatisch, das heißt ohne unser beherztes Handeln passieren.

Machtgier und Gewaltstreben in der Gesellschaft müssen abgebaut und stattdessen Gemeinschaftsgefühle gepflegt und verstärkt werden. Wenn wir den Mut aufbringen, die Autoritätsängste und den damit einhergehenden Gehorsamsreflex aufzugeben und uns unseres eigenen Verstandes bedienen, dann werden wir uns mit den Mitmenschen in Freiheit assoziieren und mit ihnen gemeinsam eine menschenwürdige Zukunft aufbauen – für uns und unsere Kinder.

*

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.

Click here to read the Serbian version.

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel ist Rektor a.D, Erziehungswissenschaftler und Diplom-Psychologe.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from CODEPINK

  • Posted in Deutsch, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Die finstere Sozialagenda hinter der Covid-Krise: Interview mit Dr. Rudolf Hänsel

Video: War Coming to Europe?

January 26th, 2022 by South Front

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The Western MSM are horning in one voice that the Russian Federation is preparing a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in the near future. They are supported by the authorities of the Anglo-Saxon states and the Brussels bureaucracy.

Every statement and step taken by Washington and London is aimed at inflaming the situation. This includes sharply increased arms supplies, the deployment of additional military contingents, the recognition that entire units of US military personnel are already in the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the accusation of Russia that it dares to move troops on its sovereign territory, and much more.

A separate vector is the efforts to disrupt the dialogue on strategic stability on the part of the United States. Up to the point that the head of the press service of the State Department, Ned Price, said that the U.S. would not concede to Russia on the issue of security guarantees, hiding behind the phrase that any steps concerning Moscow’s proposals regarding European security should be taken on a bilateral basis.

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said:

“Why did we make this decision now?” — The decision to bring the troops into readiness – “It is the totality of the situation that we’ve been watching and the decision is based on this military buildup, based on how we see these developments”. “I want to go back to the quote from President Biden about Russia could engage in fuller military aggressive against Ukraine at any time”. A member of the board of directors of the British BAE Systems, the largest arms manufacturing company in Europe, whose shares have soared by 10% over the past month, declared, “Biden has to be ready to support Ukraine militarily”

In his turn, Joe Biden swore at Fox News journalist Peter Dusi, who asked him not about Ukraine, but about inflation, “What a stupid son of a bitch”. Biden, apparently, once again did not pay attention to the fact that the microphones are still on.

Such a position of NATO allies is causing increasing bewilderment in Germany, France, Italy, Spain and other European countries that have retained some degree of independence in international relations.

Even the authorities in Ukraine, which is de facto under the occupation control of the United States, are beginning to express dissatisfaction with the propaganda campaign launched around the possible Russian invasion. NSDC Secretary Danilov said yesterday: “We do not see any grounds today to assert that there will be a full-scale offensive by the Russian Federation.” He also stated that there is no active departure of representatives of foreign embassies from Ukraine. According to him, to date, only three countries have announced partial evacuation – the United States, Britain and Australia.

President of Ukraine Zelensky assured his citizens that the situation in the east of the country is under control,

“there is no reason to panic.” “We are working for a complete de-escalation of the situation through a peaceful settlement.”

At the same time, Ukraine continues to concentrate strike forces in the east of the country. On January 24, it was reported that the UAF deployed a significant number of engineering and sapper equipment designed to make passages in minefields to ensure military offensive actions. On January 25, information was received from DPR officials that multiple rocket launchers and new tank units had arrived in the region to form strike groups. Combat aircraft of some NATO countries are arriving in Poland, the Baltic States and Bulgaria.

It seems that a certain part of the Washington and Brussels establishment are doing their utmost to unleash a war in Eastern Europe. In this light, the conflict can be prevented only by the joint efforts of Russia and the largest European states, such as Germany and France.

*

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

20 Facts about Vaccination Your Doctor Forgot To Tell You

January 26th, 2022 by Dr. Vernon Coleman

All Global Research articles 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 January 26, 2022

Read this if you want to know more about vaccines than your doctor, practise nurse and health visitor.

  1. The US Health Department’s National Vaccine Injury Compensation Programme has shown that between 2,500 and 3,000 children are killed or injured each year by vaccines.
  2. The US Government has paid vaccine damage compensation to the parents of autistic children.
  3. The Japanese Government has halted part of its vaccination programme because of children dying.
  4. In the UK, GPs receive massive payments for giving vaccinations. And bonus payments if they vaccinate enough patients. Doctors get very rich out of vaccine programmes.
  5. Vaccines are now given to eight week old babies, though there is absolutely no long-term scientific evidence available to show that it is safe to do so. By the time they reach their second birthday small children will have received over a score of vaccinations. American children will have received even more. The vaccine industry is forever looking for new vaccines to give.
  6. You will find a full list of the research work done to investigate the safety or otherwise of mass vaccination programmes on the palm of your left hand.
  7. The diphtheria vaccine was first introduced in Germany. After the vaccine was introduced the number of cases of diphtheria steadily increased.
  8. The number of deaths from whooping cough had fallen long before the vaccine was introduced. The vaccine has not reduced the incidence of the disease.
  9. The flu vaccine is, inevitably, designed to deal with last year’s flu virus.
  10. I have never met a doctor who has regular flu jabs (or any other jabs for that matter).
  11. In the past, a flu vaccine contained different strains of flu virus (propagated in chicken embryos); formaldehyde (a preservative); polyethylene glycol; gelatin (made from cow’s bones) and a substance which contains mercury. The odd thing is that the EU has banned barometers containing mercury because they are thought to be dangerous. But doctors inject the stuff into people.
  12. The polio vaccine did not ‘kill off’ polio. On the contrary, the vaccine resulted in more sufferers. In Tennessee, in the US, the number of polio victims before vaccination became compulsory was 119. The year after vaccination was introduced, the figure rose to 386. Similar figures for other American states. Polio became less common as a result of better sanitation and cleaner water supplies. The vaccination had no useful effect.
  13. Dr Jenner is widely acclaimed as the ‘inventor’ of vaccine. But it is not so well known that when he tried the first smallpox vaccine on his 10 month son, the boy became mentally retarded and died at the age of 21. Jenner refused to have his second child vaccinated. However, the medical profession saw the commercial possibilities and vaccination became popular (if deadly).
  14. When Louis XV contracted smallpox he survived because his nurse hid him from the doctors whose vaccines had killed his father and brother.
  15. Even though TB is now a major problem, many countries have abandoned the TB vaccine because it simply doesn’t work. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the vaccine spreads the disease.
  16. The risk of a child given the whooping cough vaccine developing brain damage is officially said to be 1 in 100,000. But that’s the ‘best’ figure. Other research shows that the risk is as high as 1 in 6,000. There is no doubt that the vaccine causes far more harm than the disease and there is clear evidence linking the vaccine to brain damage.
  17. Vaccines are dangerous and they don’t always work. Up to half of the people given a vaccine jab do not develop a resistance to the disease concerned.
  18. Drug companies now publish long lists of reasons for not vaccinating patients. Doctors rarely look at the lists, let alone take any notice. For example, for one vaccine the advice is that babies who cry persistently or develop a fever should not be given another jab. No one knows how much damage is caused by giving several vaccines in a single vaccine cocktail.
  19. The French Government abandoned its hepatitis B vaccine programme for children after more than 15,000 lawsuits were filed for brain damage and other serious health problems.
  20. In the US a group of paediatricians with 30,000 young patients do not vaccinate at all. They have no cases of autism in their practice.

For more information about vaccines please see Vernon Coleman’s book Anyone who tells you vaccines are safe and effective is lying: here’s the proof. The book is available as a paperback and an eBook on Amazon.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 20 Facts about Vaccination Your Doctor Forgot To Tell You

Stripping Away the Bulls**t: U.S. and Russian Threats Over Ukraine—What They’re About and Who’s the Aggressor

January 26th, 2022 by Dee Knight

All Global Research articles 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.

***

 

Threats and counter-threats flying between Washington and Moscow over Ukraine have caused a flurry of fear and confusion that escalates and expands daily. Is the world on the brink of war? What is it about, who is the aggressor and who is to blame?

The dangerous standoff has lasted for most of a year. Each side accuses the other of threatening war—in a way reminiscent of the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.

During a week of intense diplomatic meetings in three European capitals, which appeared to reach a dead end, President Joe Biden seemed to “blink” midweek, on January 19, telling reporters in Washington he had indicated to Russian President Putin that “we can work out something.”

New York Times senior reporter David Sanger jumped on it: “Mr. President, it sounds like you’re offering some way out here, some off-ramp—an informal assurance that NATO is not going to take in Ukraine… and we would never put nuclear weapons there.” Sanger went on to say Russia “wants us to move all of our nuclear weapons out of Europe and not have troops rotating through the old Soviet bloc.” Biden quickly said “No, there’s not space for that.”

Biden’s blink was a break in the warlike atmosphere that has prevailed endlessly. Katrina van den Heuvel wrote the day before in The Washington Post that “Hotheads [were] having a field day. A White House task force that includes the CIA [was] reportedly contemplating U.S. support for a guerrilla war if Russia seizes Ukraine; Russian hawks talk of a military deployment to Cuba and Venezuela.” Biden had “installed a team of national security managers from the ‘Blob,’ marinated in successive debacles in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and more.”

Guns and sanctions are the U.S. empire’s preferred options, van den Heuvel said: “with about 800 military bases outside the United States,” the U.S. has “more bases than diplomatic missions. (Russia’s only military bases outside the former Soviet Union are in Syria.)” She added that Secretary of State Blinken and the Blob “talk about a rules-based international order but respect it only if we make the rules, often exempting ourselves from their application.”

Spheres of influence?

“When will the U.S. stop lying to itself about global politics?” asked CUNY Professor Peter Beinart, writing in the New York Times on January 13. He took issue with Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who pontificated last month that “One country does not have the right to dictate the policies of another or to tell that country with whom it may associate; one country does not have the right to exert a sphere of influence. That notion should be relegated to the dustbin of history.”

Beinart commented: “It’s a noble principle, just not one the United States abides by. The United States has exercised a sphere of influence in its own hemisphere for almost 200 years, since President James Monroe declared that the United States ‘should consider any attempt’ by foreign powers ‘to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety’.”

Blinken’s dustbin of history was still around in 2018, Beinart said, when Trump’s Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called the Monroe Doctrine “as relevant today as it was the day it was written.” And Trump’s National Security Adviser John Bolton boasted that “the Monroe Doctrine is alive and well.”

Blinken wants a one-way street where spheres of influence are concerned. The U.S., for him, has the right to wield influence everywhere, while others don’t.

The same day Biden blinked, French President Macron weighed in saying war would be the “most tragic thing of all.” Speaking in the European Union’s capital of Strasbourg, as new interim EU chair, Macron said he hoped to revitalize the four-way “Normandy format” talks between Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine to find a solution to the Ukraine crisis. “It is vital that Europe has its own dialogue with Russia,” Macron said. The EU had no part in the talks last week between Russia, the U.S., NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCD).

The Normandy format has been a vehicle for implementing the 2015 Minsk agreements designed to end the separatist war in Ukraine’s Donbas region. This solution has already been proposed and accepted in principle, according to Anatol Lieven, who wrote in The Nation that the Minsk II agreement was already adopted by France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine in 2015, and endorsed unanimously by the UN Security Council.

Key elements of the Minsk II deal are full autonomy for Ukraine’s eastern regions in the context of decentralization of power in Ukraine, demilitarization, and restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty. Despite agreement by all parties, political analyst Anatol Lieven says “because of the refusal of Ukrainian governments to implement the solution and refusal of the United States to put pressure on them to do so,” the settlement is a kind of “zombie policy.”

The issue of NATO expansion is another “zombie policy” as the U.S. refuses to acknowledge Russia’s legitimate opposition to it.

After the first of three negotiating sessions between the U.S. and Russia during the week of January 10, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov had declared it “absolutely mandatory” that Ukraine “never, never, ever” become a NATO member. In response, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman said: “we will not allow anyone to slam closed NATO’s open-door policy.”

U.S. Peace Council. [Source: mronline.org]

When U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin met with Ukraine’s President Zelensky in Kyiv in October, he promised U.S. support for Ukraine’s future NATO membership, and blamed Russia for “perpetuating the war in eastern Ukraine.” Russian President Putin shot back on December 23 that “Further movement of NATO eastward is unacceptable. They are on the threshold of our house.”

Last March 24, the Ukrainian president decreed that Ukraine would take Crimea back from Russia, with “military measures” to achieve “de-occupation.” The U.S. and NATO voiced “unwavering” support.

In April NATO backed a Ukrainian offensive in its civil war against Russian-allied separatists in the eastern provinces, Donetsk and Luhansk. That is when Russia moved more troops to its borders with Ukraine, signaling it would defend its allies (Former CIA Case Officer and CAM columnist John Kiriakou has reported that the actual number of Russian troops massed on the Ukraine border, estimated between 70,000 and 90,000, was the same number that had been there for the last eight years, and that Western media reports of a Russian troop buildup were inflammatory. Vice-Admiral Kay-Achim Schönbach, the head of the German navy, was forced to resign after saying talk of a Russian invasion of Ukraine was “nonsense” and that Russia was merely seeking “respect” for its security concerns in Europe).

Last summer 30,000 U.S. troops led “Operation Defender Europe 2021,” a set of NATO exercises from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, according to the U.S. Peace Council. In December the U.S. staged simulated bombing raids within 12 miles of Russian airspace. NATO warplanes confronted Russian aircraft 290 times in 2021.

Report reveals NATO warplanes constantly provoke Russian Air Force

In this video grab taken from footage distributed by Russian Defense Ministry Press Service, a Russian Air Force’s Su-27 fighter jet, bottom, maneuvers to ward off a NATO F-18 warplane over the Baltic Sea. A new report released this week revealed that most NATO warplane missions involve confrontations with Russian jets. [Source: peoplesworld.org]

The CIA since 2015 had secretly trained elite Ukrainian Special Forces units in firearms, camouflage techniques, land navigation, tactics like “cover and move,” intelligence and other areas.

On December 7, Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the U.S. has given $2.4 billion to Ukraine since 2014 “in security assistance”—$450 million in 2021 alone. (This week, the Biden administration approved an additional $200 million in military aid to add to the $450 million given last year).

Nuland helped orchestrate the 2014 coup in Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, that toppled a government friendly to Russia. The new far-rightist government ended language rights for Russian speakers who are the majority in the Ukraine’s eastern provinces. Donetsk and Lugansk voted to separate, as did Crimea. Russia then annexed Crimea, to protect Russian speakers there and secure its Black Sea naval base. Russia provided humanitarian aid and trade to Donetsk and Lugansk, and stationed troops on their eastern border for protection.

The Ukraine Crisis

CGTNEUROPE.TV [Source: stories.cgtneurope.tv]

“Pro-Democracy Protests” or a Fascist Coup?

A New York Times report on January 6 said “Russia intervened militarily in Ukraine in 2014 after pro-democracy protests erupted there.” [Emphasis added.] The coup was actually carried out by fascist gangs, according to a May 2, 2018, report in The Nation by Stephen Cohen.

The gangs, including self-declared neo-Nazis, were encouraged by Nuland, Biden and other prominent U.S. politicians. The neo-Nazis were integrated into Ukraine’s official military which, since 2014, has been trained, armed and reorganized by the U.S., Britain, Canada and other NATO countries.

Stephen Cohen wrote that “the pogrom-like burning to death of ethnic Russians and others in Odessa later in 2014 reawakened memories of Nazi extermination squads in Ukraine during World War II.” These horrors have been all but deleted from the American mainstream narrative, despite being well-documented.

Cohen added that “stormtroop-like assaults on gays, Jews, elderly ethnic Russians, and other ‘impure’ citizens are widespread throughout Kyiv-ruled Ukraine, along with torchlight marches reminiscent of those that eventually inflamed Germany in the late 1920s and 1930s… The police and official legal authorities do virtually nothing to prevent these neo-fascist acts or to prosecute them. On the contrary, Kyiv has officially encouraged them by systematically rehabilitating and even memorializing Ukrainian collaborators with Nazi German extermination pogroms and their leaders during World War II, renaming streets in their honor, building monuments to them, rewriting history to glorify them, and more.”

The people of the self-declared people’s republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in eastern Ukraine suffer under a complete economic blockade by Ukraine and its Western allies. Historically known as the Donbass region, eastern Ukraine is a mining and industrial center. Donbass miners played a crucial and heroic role in the defeat of the German invasion of the Soviet Union in World War II. Many Russians revere the Donbass as “the heart of Russia.”

All of Ukraine east of the Dnieper river is predominantly Russian-speaking. U.S. claims of a “Russian invasion” are reminiscent of claims of North Vietnamese invasion of South Vietnam after the artificial separation of Vietnam in 1954. The entire U.S. narrative about Ukraine is a cynical fabrication designed to justify aggression.

Russian Security Proposals

In mid-December Russia took a diplomatic initiative and presented a list of security proposals to the United States. According to the Wall Street Journal, they include ending NATO’s expansion further eastward to include Ukraine, a promise for each side to refrain from hostile activities, and an end to NATO military activities in all of Eastern Europe, Transcaucasia and Central Asia.

“There is no other option,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov told reporters, “since a characteristic feature of the current stage of relations between Russia and the collective West is a complete lack of trust.” The Russian diplomat also said “we have no intention to invade Ukraine.”

Among the “severe consequences” threatened by the U.S. against Russia, the Financial Times has said sanctioning Russia’s Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany was “top of the list.” Western Europe is already facing an energy crunch, with skyrocketing prices for natural gas.

The First String Of The Nord Stream 2 Pipeline Gas-In Procedure Completed | Pipeline Technology Journal

Route of Nordstream 2 Pipeline. [Source: pipeline.journal-net]

Europeans need energy security and are wary of war. They want the Nord Stream 2 pipeline as soon as possible, while the Biden administration calls it a “bad deal” and claims that it makes Europe vulnerable to Russian “treachery.” Texas Senator Ted Cruz has pressed hard against the pipeline, which offsets opportunities for U.S. energy companies to supply gas to the European market. U.S. foreign adventures have often constricted Europe’s energy sources.

A 2021 survey by the European Council on Foreign Affairs found that most Europeans want to remain neutral in any U.S. war against Russia or China. But new NATO member-states align with the U.S. against Russia. They have installed terminals to receive U.S. liquid natural gas deliveries, to reduce dependence on Russian gas.

Despite all the diplomatic efforts, powerful institutional and economic forces in the U.S.—the military industrial complex and big energy companies among others—are eager for a new Cold War with Russia, which would provide them with boundless opportunities for profitable deals. “The U.S. military-industrial complex needs enemies like human lungs need oxygen,” the saying goes. “When there are no enemies, they must be invented.”

The demonization of Vladimir Putin and Russia by the U.S. media is part of this policy of inventing enemies. There is a long list of foreign leaders and nations whose attempts to defy the dictates of Washington and pursue an independent foreign policy have brought down upon them the wrath of the U.S. Capitalist 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.

Dee Knight is a member of the DSA International Committee’s Anti-War Subcommittee. He is the author of My Whirlwind Lives: Navigating Decades of Storms, soon to be published by Guernica World Editions. Dee can be reached at: [email protected].

Featured image is from OneWorld

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Stripping Away the Bulls**t: U.S. and Russian Threats Over Ukraine—What They’re About and Who’s the Aggressor
  • Tags: , ,

Infectious Diseases, Vaccines and War

January 26th, 2022 by Prof. Marc Herbermann

All Global Research articles 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.

***

 

“Vaccines save millions of lives every year. They are one of the safest and most effective public health interventions …”. 

This statement seems to be a self-evident truth nowadays. Even many prominent critics of the current government-mandated prophylactic treatments for Covid-19 profess to be proponents of vaccines.

This essay does not intend to engage in the debate about the effects of  mRNA agents. Instead, it wants to test the general introductory statement. Is it backed up by the actual effectiveness of vaccines? Science knows no sacred cows whose raison d’être must not be questioned. If the research and development of vaccines is scientific, then we are also allowed to ask about the evidence for why vaccines should work and we are likewise allowed to ask about what adverse effects they have.

What are the reasons for the decline of infectious diseases?

Influenza viruses, which comprise of hundreds of subtypes and strains, as the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) points out, are constantly mutating. In the United States, the influenza death rate was decreasing sharply in the first half of the 20th century, long before the introduction of widespread vaccination. But vaccines against the intangible influenza virus were still introduced. The number of annually distributed doses increased more than tenfold between 1979 and 2019 to over 189 million doses, yet the average influenza death rate remained almost constant in that period.[1] Similar developments after the end of the 19th century were also seen in the USA and Canada for other diseases: The mortality rates of measles, tuberculosis, scarlet fever or pertussis already declined significantly before the introduction of corresponding vaccines.

Early on, mass vaccinations showed their pointlessness in other countries as well. Reliable statistics about vaccination and diseases were introduced in Europe in the 19th century. The British doctor and epidemiologist Thomas McKeown demonstrated that tuberculosis in England and Wales was in decline long before the controversy over its infectiousness was resolved and long before Robert Koch discovered the tuberculosis bacillus in 1882.[2] In his report “Reasons for the Decline of Mortality in England and Wales during the Nineteenth Century” he states that the growth of population in England and Wales, which trebled between 1700 and 1851, exceeded possible “natural changes in the behaviour of infectious diseases. If we accept this view, and if we are satisfied that specific medical measures made no significant contribution to the death rate, we must conclude that the main reason for the rise of population in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was an improvement in economic and social conditions”.

Progress curves also show the incidence of infectious diseases in Germany in the 19th and 20th century: Most of them, like tuberculosis (TB), whooping cough, diphtheria and tetanus were decreasing long before the introduction of vaccination against them as the respiratory physician Gerhard Buchwald thoroughly examined. According to Buchwald, the start of mass vaccinations in Germany did not have a positive but rather a detrimental effect. After widespread vaccination campaigns, the negative slope of the curves decreased, sometimes it even turned positive: In 1925, in the year of the introduction of vaccination against diphtheria, the number of diphtheria cases in Germany was about 50,000. In the following years, cases were surging up to 150,000 by 1939. The same applies to the struggle against polio. After widespread vaccinations with the drug Virelon in the 1950s, Buchwald explains, cases increased in Germany.

We can observe equally detrimental health measures in the 21st century. A large WHO anti polio vaccination campaign led to an escalation of the disease in Northern Nigeria since 2005; hundreds of thousands became infected with cVDPV2, the circulating vaccine-derived polio virus. An even greater catastrophe took place in India in the years between 2000 and 2017. A study based on polio surveillance data acquired by the Government of India concluded that a high frequency of orally administered polio vaccines (OFP) was responsible for a sharp increase in non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) among children in India. The study suggests that with repeated administration of OFP, the number of cases increased and that “an additional 491,000 paralyzed children” can be attributed to OFP.

Vaccination advocates like to cite polio vaccination campaigns as evidence of vaccine effectiveness. But what are we to make of this claim when these very campaigns turn into their opposite, when they produce the symptoms they are meant to prevent? Can we assume that NPAFP is just another label for typical symptoms of polio and that this term should hide the fact that these vaccinations not only failed completely, but caused much greater harm than good?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. goes into great detail about the role vaccines played in different countries in the second half of the 20th and the first decades of the 21st century. With the help of an abundance of sources, examples and case studies, he is able to substantiate his thesis that “neither [Anthony Stephen Fauci nor William Henry Gates …] ever offered empirical evidence to support their pivotal claim that their vaccines have ‘saved millions of lives’”. 

Kennedy also demonstrates “that virtually all of Gates’s blockbuster African and Asian vaccines—polio, DTP, hepatitis B, malaria, meningitis, HPV, and Hib—cause far more injuries and deaths than they avert”.

Non-medical purposes

African countries long served as a testing ground for medical experiments in colonial times. Some pharmaceutical companies are continuing this tradition in Africa today with other means. A new biometric identity platform has been evolving in the last years in West Africa, long before the Covid-19 crisis. The Gates-funded GAVI vaccine alliance and Mastercard developed Trust Stamp. This program links a person’s biometric digital identity to his or her vaccination records. Identity data and cashless payments can now be intertwined for surveillance and to enforce conduct that is in compliance with government policies or WHO measures.

A biometric system in Zimbabwe in 2020 helped to find 3000 so-called ‘ghost workers’ which were then removed from the payroll. Africa thus served not only as a laboratory for medical experiments, but also as a testing ground for the digital all-round control of citizens that is now to being introduced at full throttle in Western industrialised countries in the wake of the Covid crisis. In August 2021, the WHO presented long-prepared proposals for digitally certifying or “proving” a person’s vaccination status with a two-dimensional barcode, even for purposes “not related to health care”.

War and peace – lessons from history

Let us restate. In central Europe most infectious diseases were in decline before vaccines were widely introduced. Not vaccines, but improved hygienic and sanitary living conditions were responsible, particularly clean water, a regulated waste disposal and an ample supply of food which includes enough vitamin C. These findings allow conclusions to be drawn for today’s state interventions.

India, for example, suffers from widespread under-nutrition and it shoulders the highest burden of tuberculosis (TB) in the world. The WHO attributed globally 1.3 million deaths to TB in 2012. It reported the TB incidence in the Central Eastern States of India for the years 1990 to 2010. Based on these reports, a group of health scientists estimated the impact of reducing under-nutrition. They come to the result that nutrition intervention could lower “TB related mortality in the Central Eastern Indian states ranging from 43% to 71%”. Principally they assume, “intervening on under-nutrition could have a substantial impact on TB incidence and mortality in areas with high prevalence of under-nutrition”.

A gap exists between the officially propagated effects and the impacts of mass vaccination that have actually occurred, not only in peacetime but also in wartime. In times of war, the infrastructure of a country breaks down, health systems often collapse and infection control practices are poor. This leads to a disruption of disease control programs and an inadequate coordination among humanitarian agencies. All these circumstances “enhance the emergence and transmission of infectious diseases”.

Infectious diseases can also be used intentionally “as biological weapons”. Máire Connolly and David L. Heymann worked in different crisis regions and for the WHO. “During the Napoleonic wars”, they state, “eight times more people in the British army died from disease than from battle wounds. In the American civil war, two thirds of the estimated 660,000 deaths of soldiers were caused by pneumonia, typhoid, dysentery, and malaria, and this death toll led to a 2-year extension of the war”. In 1871, according to Gerhard Buchwald, almost the entire population in the German Empire had been vaccinated against smallpox. But tens of thousands of smallpox cases occurred. The outbreaks started in the camps of French prisoners of war. Although these prisoners were vaccinated against smallpox, the hygienic conditions in the prison camps were so poor that the smallpox epidemic spread rapidly to the German population.

At the end of the first World War, a global catastrophe claimed more lives than World War I. The Spanish flu infected one third of all humans and claimed the lives of 50 to 100 million people. The science journalist Hans Tolzin analysed four alleged epidemics in his report “Die Seuchen Erfinder” (The plague inventors). On 40 pages he examined the “Spanish flu” by referring to contemporary sources. Tolzin shows that mass vaccinations against smallpox and typhoid in the U.S. military quarters preceded the “Spanish flu”. In 1911, typhoid vaccination became compulsory in the U.S. Army. Numerous experimental vaccinations, which were carried out on US soldiers, followed until the First World War.

However, mass vaccinations did not only take place in the army. In 1918, appeals to patriotism, marginalization or even compulsory vaccinations forced on civilians, as in the states of Arizona and Indianapolis, moved people to be vaccinated against smallpox and other diseases. Robert Koch, doctor of medicine and professor of physiology, explains that in 1918 the U.S. Army “forced the vaccination of 3,285,376 natives in the Philippines when no epidemic was brewing, … Of the vaccinated persons, 47,369 came down with smallpox, and of these 16,477 died. In 1919 the experiment was doubled. 7,670,252 natives were vaccinated. Of these 65,180 victims came down with smallpox, and 44,408 died. In the first experiment, one-third died, and in the second, two-thirds of the infected ones died”.

After vaccination against typhoid became compulsory in the US Army, typhoid and all other  diseases that were supposed to be prevented by vaccines increased rapidly. Recruits in the U.S. military  received between 14 to 25 shots before America entered World War I. Dr. Eleanor McBean states, “There was seven times more disease among the vaccinated soldiers than among the unvaccinated civilians, and the diseases were those they had been vaccinated against”. Evidence from  newly published documents also points to a large-scale military vaccine experiment at that time.

In later wars, for example the gulf war of 1991, soldiers again were exposed to poisonous substances and inoculated with all kinds experimental vaccines. The U.S. government discounted or denied the existence of a “Gulf War syndrome”, a cluster of multiple and diverse debilitating symptoms which was responsible for the death of tens of thousands and the medical disability of hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers.

Conclusions

The foregoing examinations call into question the widespread public advocacy of vaccination, which attributes the decline in many infectious diseases to vaccines alone. Vaccinations often proved to be ineffective or counterproductive.

The effect of modern living conditions, including proper hygiene and sanitation, pure water and sufficient nutrition, led to a greater reduction in infectious diseases and mortality than prophylactic pharmaceutical interventions.

Wars, on the other hand, accelerate the spread of infectious diseases, which tend to decline after the cessation of hostilities. On the other hand, mass vaccination in times of war led to severe health consequences which were still felt years after the war. Current developments indicate that vaccination is also intended to be used for surveillance purposes in the 21st century. Human Vaccination regularly falls short of all the glittering promises.

*

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.

Marc Herbermann is an assistant professor at the Division of Global Language and Literature at Kyonggi University in Suwon, in South Korea. One of his fields of interest is medicine in German speaking countries. He is also particularly interested in studying the conditions of war and peace.

Notes

  1. CDC 2019; 2020a; 2020b; Doshi 2009; Geier, King, and Geier 2006. 
  2. Colgrove 2002; Wegmann 1988, 174; McKeown and Record 1962. 

Featured image is from SHTFplan.com

Off to the U.S. Supreme Court: Assange’s Appeal Continues

January 26th, 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.

***

 

With December’s High Court decision to overturn the lower court ruling against the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States, lawyers of the WikiLeaks founder immediately got busy.  The next avenue of appeal, strewn less with gold than obstacles, would be to the Supreme Court.  The central question remained: Should the publisher be extradited to face 18 charges, 17 of which use the bricks and mortar of the US Espionage Act of 1917.

This raised the thorny issue of whether a direct appeal to that body against the High Court finding would be permitted.  Ease and smoothness were unlikely to be permitted – judges are not necessarily in the habit of clearing the thick undergrowth that presents itself in appellate proceedings.  Doing so would have allowed all points of law raised by Assange to be considered, a dangerous prospect for the establishment fogeys.

Defeated by District Court Judge Vanessa Baraitser’s ruling on January 4, 2021, an unphased US Department of Justice appealed, furnishing the High Court of England and Wales with after-the-fact assurances that they claimed Baraitser could have sought.  Assange, it was promised, would not be subjected to Special Administrative Measures, or be sent to the vicious ADX Florence supermax facility.  He would also receive sufficient medical attention to mitigate the risk of suicide and could serve the post-trial and post-appeal phase of his sentence in Australia.  Each one of these undertakings were made subject to the conduct of the accused, ignoring the point that discretion at the hands of the authorities remains total.

The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Ian Burnett, and Lord Justice Timothy Holroyde, in their December 2021 decision, did “not accept that the USA refrained for tactical reasons from offering assurances at an earlier stage, or acted in bad faith in choosing only to offer them at the appeal stage.”  There was “no basis for assuming that the USA has not given the assurances in good faith.”  And Assange had little reason to fear having his suicide risk exacerbated, given reassurances that he would not be subjected to SAMs or be sent to ADX Florence.

Journalist Mohamed Elmaazi, who was present to cover the short proceeding, boiled down the issue to the following: “in what circumstances can an appellate court receive [diplomatic] assurances which were not before the court at first instance in extradition proceedings.”  Immediately, the more forensically minded would be troubled.  Surely, the Assange case, a matter of politics and important publishing, is far more than hot air assurances floating across the Atlantic from Washington on his future treatment?

Assange’s legal team had submitted in countering the prosecution case that, “The introduction of fresh ‘evidence’ in support of an appeal against an adverse ruling, in order to repair holes identified in that ruling, is generally prohibited.”  There were also “profound issues of natural justice” where “assurances are introduced by the requesting state for the first time at the High Court stage.”

The defence further questioned the “legality of a requirement on judges to call for reassurances rather than proceeding to order discharge”.  The High Court bench had looked darkly at Baraitser’s failure to notify the US government that she intended to discharge the case against Assange, thereby giving the signal to the prosecutors to make those “assurances”.

In a short ruling on January 24, Lord Burnett kept it thin and narrow.  “Assurances [over treatment] are at the heart of many extradition proceedings.”  The High Court had refused permission for an expansive appeal but a decision as to whether the case needed to be heard by the Supreme Court was “a matter appropriately for its decision”.

This was polite language to say that the higher-ups can evaluate the case, if they choose to do so, but only on prescribed terms.  Restricting the scope of the appeal to examining the purported undertakings by the US, the sort of diplomatic gloss that can only ever be taken at face value, ignores the less savoury aspects of the case.  The goons of the CIA have contemplated Assange’s abduction and assassination.  A good deal of the case against him is fabricated, the feverish imaginings of former WikiLeaks volunteer and confidence trickster Sigurdur “Siggi” Thordarson.  Assange has been the victim of constant surveillance, also at the behest of US intelligence operatives.

Stella Moris, Assange’s partner, felt some reason to be satisfied. “The High Court certified that we had raised a point of law of general public importance and that the Supreme Court had good grounds to hear this appeal.”  But human rights advocates such as Massimo Moratti of Amnesty International expressed concern by the pruning of the remit.   The High Court had “dodged its responsibility” in refusing to permit an airing of all issues of public importance before the Supreme Court.  “The courts must ensure that people are not at risk of torture or other ill-treatment.  This was at the heart of the two other issues the High Court has now effectively vetoed.”  Rhetorically, he added: “If the question of torture and other ill-treatment is not of general public importance, what is?”

Given that Assange’s treatment as a prisoner has been nothing short of disgraceful, a torturous measure designed to keep him confined either in the UK as his health fails or in readiness for future extradition, the issue if ill-treatment is not in doubt.  To have enabled his legal team to spray the ample legal ammunition in appeal would have cast the UK legal system, and the policy of the US government, in the meanest, most venal light.

*

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 Lawyers for Assange

Ukraine Crisis: How the Deep State Created Biden-Putin Rift?

January 26th, 2022 by Nauman Sadiq

All Global Research articles 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.

***

 

 

Days before Biden’s inauguration as president on January 20 last year, instigating Russian dissident and Putin’s longtime foe Alexei Navalny to return to Russia on January 17 from his sojourn in Germany for no apparent political advantage, after being allegedly poisoned in August 2020, was clearly the job of the US deep state that wanted to sabotage newly inaugurated Biden administration’s relations with Russia and forestall the likelihood of rapprochement between the arch-rivals.

It’s pertinent to note that as a goodwill gesture before the Biden-Putin summit at Geneva in June, Russia significantly drawdown its troop build-up along Ukraine’s border. Reciprocating the courtesy, however, the ambience and body language of the summit, clearly choreographed by the US national security establishment, were kept as austere as possible.

No joint press conferences were held, as is customary after such momentous meetings. The organizers of the farcical show strictly ordered “no breaking the bread” or refreshments during hours-long strenuous discussions. All blame games and tough talk. Even Trump’s summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un was held in a more cordial atmosphere than the bitter encounter between the leaders of the two global powers.

The civilian administrations of the United States, whether Trump or Biden, want to have friendly relations with other major powers, including Russia and China, and want to focus on national economy to provide much-needed financial relief to the American electorate. But the mindset and institutional logic of the US deep state has been frozen in the Cold War era, and it perceives any threat to its global military domination agenda with utmost suspicion and hostility.

The current brinkmanship on the Ukraine crisis is a manifestation of this global power belligerence where the hands of civilian presidents are tied behind their backs and the Pentagon’s top brass determines the national security agenda pursued by the United States.

It’s worth noting that it wasn’t the first time the deep state scuttled peace negotiations between the civilian administration of the United States and its global rivals. Following their first-ever rendezvous in Singapore in June 2018 and a “bromance” lasting over a period of several months, a much-anticipated two-day summit meeting between capricious North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump was held at the Metropole Hotel in Hanoi, Vietnam, on February 27–28, 2019.

On the last day of the Hanoi Summit, however, the White House abruptly announced that the summit was cut short and that no agreement was reached. Trump later clarified that it was due to North Korea’s insistence on ending all sanctions. The real reason of the foundering of the much-hyped North Korea nuclear negotiations, however, can be discovered in hardly noticed news headlines weeks after the summit.

In March 2019, Adam Taylor and Min Joo Kim reported for the Washington Post [1]:

“In broad daylight in late February, just days before President Trump met with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un in Hanoi, a group of masked men forced their way into the North Korean Embassy in Madrid. The intruders tied up staff and took computers and mobile phones before fleeing.

“The raid was initially a mystery, but the culprit was soon revealed: Free Joseon, an organization that calls for the overthrow of Kim’s dynasty. More details emerged this week as a Spanish judge lifted a secrecy order on the embassy raid case and claimed one of the perpetrators had later shared stolen material from the raid with the FBI.

“More startling still to North Korea watchers, however, was one of the names of the suspects Spain would reportedly seek to extradite from the United States: a Mexican citizen by the name of Adrian Hong Chang. To many, that name rang a bell.

“Adrian Hong had been a prominent figure in the tightknit world of defectors and activists in Washington and Seoul a decade earlier. Hong had spent some of his childhood in Mexico and later studied at Yale University, where he formed a now well-known NGO that campaigned for change in North Korea. He was a regular at government events and in newspaper op-eds.

“Some said the statements by Free Joseon fit in with the man they knew. For years, Hong has sought to establish a government-in-exile for North Korea. Lee Wolosky, a lawyer with Boies Schiller Flexner and a former State Department official, issued a statement on the group’s behalf Wednesday that said ‘the United States and its allies should support’ groups that oppose the North Korean government.

“Hong later formed Pegasus Strategies, an advisory firm, and was listed as president of a North Korea-focused group called the Joseon Institute. He appears to have broadened his interests to include the Middle East, traveling to Libya in 2011. ‘I consider the Arab Spring a dress rehearsal for North Korea,’ he said in an interview with the National that year.

“Park Sang Hak, a prominent North Korean defector, said he had last seen Hong in Washington in June 2018, when they both attended a meeting at the Director of National Intelligence. There has been widespread speculation in both the Spanish and South Korean media that the group has ties to the CIA. South Korea’s Munhwa Ilbo, the country’s main evening conservative newspaper, published an editorial Thursday that said the ‘US seems to be unofficially involved and providing support’ to Free Joseon.

“State Department spokesman Robert J. Palladino said Tuesday that the U.S. government ‘had nothing to do’ with the embassy incident. Kim Jung-bong, a former NIS official, said while he thought the Free Joseon movement was probably in contact with the CIA, he doubted the U.S. intelligence community would have supported the embassy raid. ‘Their moves were too sloppy,’ Kim Jung-bong said.

“It was not immediately clear how the group could have afforded to carry out raids in a foreign country or hire a prestigious law firm such as Boies Schiller Flexner.”

After reading the excerpts, it becomes abundantly clear that Adrian Hong was a CIA asset and the brazen tactics of raiding North Korea’s embassy in Madrid were deliberately made to look “sloppy” because the raid’s purpose was nothing more than sending a clear message to the North Korean leader before the Hanoi Summit.

Although Trump was eager to get a coveted feather in his diplomatic cap by making Kim Jong-un agree to discard North Korea’s nuclear program, the US national security establishment was staunchly against the negotiations since the beginning.

While Trump was holding a summit with the North Korean leader in Singapore in June 2018, the deep state shills in the mainstream media were publishing fabricated satellite images and speculating that Trump was being duped by Kim and that North Korea had shifted its nuclear arsenal at a secret location in the mountainous region bordering China.

Coming back to Ukraine’s aspirations for joining NATO and the alliance’s eastward expansion along Russia’s western borders, the ostensible cause of the current standoff, it’s pertinent to mention that the trans-Atlantic military alliance NATO and its auxiliary economic alliance European Union were conceived during the Cold War to offset the influence of the former Soviet Union which was geographically adjacent to Europe.

Historically, the NATO military alliance, at least ostensibly, was conceived as a defensive alliance in 1949 during the Cold War in order to offset conventional warfare superiority of the former Soviet Union. The US forged collective defense pact with the Western European nations after the Soviet Union reached the threshold to build its first atomic bomb in 1949 and achieved nuclear parity with the US.

But the trans-Atlantic military alliance has outlived its purpose following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and is now being used as an aggressive and expansionist military alliance meant to browbeat and coerce the former Soviet allies, the Central and Eastern European states, to join NATO and its corollary economic alliance, the European Union, or risk international economic isolation.

It was not a coincidence that the Soviet Union was dissolved in December 1991 and the Maastricht Treaty that consolidated the European Community and laid the groundwork for the European Union was signed in February 1992.

The basic purpose of the EU has been nothing more than to entice the former communist states of the Eastern and Central Europe into the folds of the Western capitalist bloc by offering financial incentives and inducements, particularly in the form of agreements to abolish internal border checks between the EU member states, thus allowing the free movement of workers from the impoverished Eastern Europe to the prosperous countries of the Western Europe.

Regarding the global footprint of the American forces, according to a January 2017 infographic [2] by the New York Times, 210,000 US military personnel were deployed across the world, including 79,000 in Europe, 45,000 in Japan, 28,500 in South Korea and 36,000 in the Middle East.

In Europe, 400,000 US forces were deployed during the height of the Cold War in the sixties, though the number has since been significantly brought down after European powers developed their own military capacity following the devastation of the Second World War. The number of American troops deployed in Europe now stands at 47,000 in Germany, 15,000 in Italy and 8,000 in the United Kingdom. Thus, Europe is nothing more than a client of corporate America.

Not surprisingly, the Western political establishments, and particularly the deep states of the US and EU, were as freaked out over the outcome of Brexit as they were during the Ukrainian Crisis in November 2013 when Viktor Yanukovych suspended the preparations for the implementation of an association agreement with the European Union and threatened to take Ukraine back into the folds of the Russian sphere of influence by accepting billions of dollars of loan package offered by Vladimir Putin.

In this regard, the founding of the EU has been similar to the precedent of Japan and South Korea in the Far East where 45,000 and 28,500 US troops have currently been deployed, respectively. After the Second World War, when Japan was about to fall in the hands of geographically adjacent Soviet Union, the Truman administration authorized the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to subjugate Japan and send a signal to the leaders of the former Soviet Union, which had not developed its nuclear program at the time, to desist from encroaching upon Japan in the east and West Germany in Europe.

Then, during the Cold War, American entrepreneurs invested heavily in the economies of Japan and South Korea and made them model industrialized nations to forestall the expansion of communism in the Far East.

Similarly, after the Second World War, Washington embarked on the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe with an economic assistance of $13 billion, equivalent to hundreds of billions of dollars in the current dollar value. Since then, Washington has maintained military and economic dominance over Western Europe.

Thus, all the grandstanding and moral posturing of unity and equality aside, the hopelessly neoliberal institution, the EU, in effect, is nothing more than the civilian counterpart of the Western military alliance against the former Soviet Union, the NATO, that employs a much more subtle and insidious tactic of economic warfare to win over political allies and to isolate adversaries that dare to sidestep from the global trade and economic policies as laid down by the Western capitalist bloc.

*

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.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1] The covert group that carried out a brazen raid on a North Korean embassy now fears exposure: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/03/28/covert-group-that-carried-out-brazen-raid-north-korean-embassy-now-fears-exposure/

[2] What the US Gets for Defending Its Allies and Interests Abroad? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/16/world/trump-military-role-treaties-allies-nato-asia-persian-gulf.html

Canada’s Diplomatic Boycott of Beijing Olympics: Open Letter to PM Trudeau

January 26th, 2022 by Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Today, the Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War sent an open letter to the Office of the Prime Minister encouraging him to rescind his diplomatic boycott and get into the spirit of the 2022 Winter Olympic Games in Beijing. The open letter was sent with the co-sponsorship of a number of other organizations and individuals.

Next Monday, January 31st, the day on which Parliament reconvenes, the Hamilton Coalition to Stop The War will organize an online press conference publicly to launch the open letter and two petitions which also relate to Canada-China relations. Details of the press conference will be made available soon.

The first petition, on the Action Network, is entitled, “Allow Huawei Canada to participate in Canada’s 5G rollout.” This petition to the prime minister and cabinet is to request them to continue to allow the participation of Huawei Canada, its products and services, in the development of Canada’s new 5G network. The petition lists ten good reasons for the cabinet to do so.

The second petition is a parliamentary petition, sponsored by Hamilton Centre NDP MP Matthew Green. It arose from a resolution passed overwhelmingly at the Hamilton and District Labour Council and calls on the government “not only (to) refuse any participation in the AUKUS pact but also to strongly condemn AUKUS as a breach of the UN’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a dangerous escalation of military tensions with the People’s Republic of China and in the Asia-Pacific region.”

*

The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau
Prime Minister of Canada
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2

Dear Sir,

We, the undersigned, ask you to drop your petty “diplomatic” boycott of the upcoming Beijing Winter Olympic Games: this “diplomatic” boycott flouts the Olympic spirit, is based on false reports, and promotes cold war with China.

For more than one thousand years, the ancient Olympics brought Greeks together in a peaceful, sporting, cultural, and social festival, despite inter-city conflicts. An Olympic Truce was declared so all Greeks could travel, participate, and return home safely.

Impressively, on December 2nd, 2021, in a rare consensus vote, the 193-member UN General Assembly reaffirmed the Olympic Truce for the Beijing Games. UNGA President Abdulla Shahid observed: “Nations should use sport as a tool to support dialogue and reconciliation, striving for a peaceful world aligned with the principles and values enshrined in the United Nations Charter.” International Olympic Committee Chair Thomas Bach stated, “We can only accomplish this mission… if the Olympic Games are politically neutral and do not become a tool to achieve political goals.” Clearly, in mimicking Biden’s petty “diplomatic” boycott, you are playing politics and are out of step with this international consensus.

In addition, your “diplomatic” boycott is based upon false charges of human rights abuses in China. Contrary to statements by you and ministers of your government, China’s Uyghur population is growing in number and prosperity. Unlike Canada’s native peoples, Chinese Uyghurs have an Autonomous Republic. Along with 800 million Chinese, Uyghurs were lifted out of poverty during the past five years – an unprecedented accomplishment in world history.

We note that Canada’s history is replete with systemic racism against numerous ethnic, religious, native, and racial minorities and that the continuing discoveries of the bodies of children in unmarked graves at the sites of former residential schools renders Canada an unworthy critic of the Chinese government. Simply put, people in glass houses should not throw stones.

Furthermore, we question the sincerity of your government’s concern about Uyghur Muslims in the context of Canada’s role in recent US wars. In mainly-Muslim Afghanistan, Canadian soldiers routinely conducted night-time raids on civilian homes and reportedly turned over hundreds of Afghanis for torture at the hands of the Afghan authorities, which the Government of Canada supported. Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament to avoid this scandal in 2008, but the Canadian public has yet to gain access to some 40,000 documents regarding the torture allegations. In predominantly-Muslim Libya, a Canadian general led NATO’s attack, turning Libya into a failed state. Canada was part of the US regime-change coalition in mainly-Muslim Syria, where a half million were killed and more than thirteen million turned into displaced persons. Concerning the Occupied Territories of Palestine, your government has voted against numerous United Nations’ resolution condemning Israeli violations of the human rights and national sovereignty of the mainly-Muslim Palestinian population there. So, we ask why you are so concerned about Muslims in China? We suggest there must be an ulterior motive.

It appears to us that the Obama, Trump, and Biden Administrations were and are intent on promoting a cold war with China. And that’s the ulterior motive, we believe, for calling for a “diplomatic” boycott of the Beijing Games. So far, it appears only a tiny handful countries have formally joined with the “anglosphere”- Canada, USA, UK, Australia – in promoting this “diplomatic” boycott. This tiny cabal is out of step with most of the world on many issues but especially on China, with which, since Obama’s “Pivot to Asia”, it appears endlessly to be causing problems and raising military tensions, for example most recently, on Taiwan. But there is also the AUKUS pact, in which the US and UK agreed to violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by selling nuclear submarines to Australia and the move by the Five Eyes Intelligence Network to ban Huawei Technologies from the deployment of 5G networks in Canada, the USA, UK, Australia, and New Zealand.

Canada used to have exemplary friendly relations with China to the point that it became our second-largest trading partner. With your arrest of Meng Wanzhou at the urging of former US President Trump, who promptly announced he intended to use Ms. Meng as a “bargaining chip” in his trade war with China, Canada-China relations took a nosedive. Similarly, Canada used to abide by a One-China Policy. In fact, it was your father, Pierre, who recognized that the People’s Republic of China had sovereignty over all of China, including Taiwan, a move which opened up diplomatic and trade relations with China and created five decades of prosperity for both countries. Now, your government facilitates the opening of Taipei Economic and Cultural Offices in two Canadian cities. How would your government like it if the People’s Republic of China provided office space for Canadian separatist organizations, such as the Independence Party of Alberta, inside of Canada?

The rest of the world looks to China for prosperity through its Belt-and-Road Initiative. Canada should too. Most countries are increasingly focussed on preventing the twin nightmares of nuclear warfare and climate chaos. But the “anglosphere”, to which you stubbornly adhere, Mr. Trudeau, seems intent on recreating a cold war with China, which could, in an instant, turn into a hot war. The ulterior motives behind a new cold war are US global hegemony and profits through an arms race, including Canada’s obscenely-expensive, proposed new fighter jets, warships, and predator drones.

Your “diplomatic” boycott is one more reason that Canadians have been calling for an independent foreign policy. Instead of aping US pettiness, Canadians should applaud the Olympic Truce and celebrate the participation of our athletes in Beijing. The fact that the US government has recently announced it would send forty-six officials to the Beijing Games makes a further mockery of your “diplomatic” boycott, which is actually, in our view, an UNdiplomatic boycott.

We urge you to rescind your “diplomatic” boycott today and send along Canadian officials to Beijing to demonstrate some Olympic spirit and show support for the world’s most high-profile peaceful international competition.

Yours truly,

Ken Stone
on behalf the Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War

co-sponsored by:

Cross-Canada Campaign to Free Meng Wanzhou

Canadian Peace Congress

Canada-China Council for Cooperation and Development

Global Peace Alliance, BC Society

Regina Peace Council

Mobilization Against War and Occupation (MAWO)

Fire This Time Movement For Social Justice

 

and these individuals:

Tamara Lorincz

Bruce Katz

Khawla Ibrahim

Mark Hagar

Larry Wasslen

Charles Posa McFadden

Karen Howell McFadden

*

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 InfoBrics

New York State Supreme Court Judge Strikes Down Governor’s Mask Mandate

January 26th, 2022 by News 12

All Global Research articles 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 2 p.m. appeals court hearing is scheduled after yesterday’s decision by a state Supreme Court judge to strike down NY’s mask mandate.

A New York State Supreme Court judge has struck down Gov. Kathy Hochul’s mask mandate for schools and public locations.

According to a court document, Judge Thomas Rademaker said that neither the governor nor the state health commissioner had the authority to enact the mandate without the state Legislature, since the governor no longer has emergency powers.

The document says in part,

“There can be no question that every person in this State wishes, wants and prays that this era of COVID ends soon and they will surely do their part to see that is accomplished. However, enacting any laws to this end is entrusted solely to the State Legislature. While the intentions of Commissioner Bassett and Governor Hochul appear to be well aimed squarely at doing what they believe is right to protect the citizens of New York State, they must take their case to the State Legislature.”

Read the full Court document here.

Schools in Plainedge and Massapequa have recently made their own plans to eliminate the mask mandate next month.

The Board of Education for the Island Trees School District also voted unanimously Monday to leave the decision to wear a mask up to the person who enters the school buildings once the mandate expires.

The superintendent says Monday’s ruling shows that things could change. Even though they voted to give people the choice, he says he recognizes there could be legal challenges that impact their vote.

Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman says he is hopeful the ruling will stand.

“I’m very energized by the court’s ruling and I believe that is an appellate court reviews the decision of Justice Rademaker they will see that it is a well principled,” Blakeman says. “…That it’s based on the law and the constitution of the state of New York.”

Some parents were excited to hear about the court’s decision.

“Commend the judge for listening to what the community and the students have been asking for,” says Brian Peranzo. “Parent’s choice is what we’ve been asking for all along.”

Professor James Sample, of Hofstra University, says that he doesn’t believe the mandate will disappear that quickly.

“In terms of what the average rank and file New Yorkers can anticipate, I would expect that tomorrow, for example, schools, stores and businesses will still be subject to the mask mandate…” Sample says.

Sources tell News 12 that the governor’s office plans to appeal the judge’s ruling.

With the appeal expected, the State Education Department says schools must continue to follow the mask rule.

However, a parent in the Copiague school district tells News 12 they were told by the school that “as they await further direction from the court, masks will be optional in our schools.”

*

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 Pixabay

Bathed in Pesticides: The Narrative of Deception

January 26th, 2022 by Rosemary Mason

All Global Research articles 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 volume of pesticide use and exposure is occurring on a scale that is without precedent and world-historical in nature. Agrichemicals are now pervasive as they cycle through bodies and environments. The herbicide glyphosate has been a major factor in driving this increase in use.

These statements appear in a 2021 paper ‘Growing Agrichemical Ubiquity: New Questions for Environments and Health’ (Community of Excellence in Global Health Equity). 

The authors state that when the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared glyphosate to be a “probable carcinogen” in 2015, the fragile consensus about its safety was upended.

They note that in 2020 the US Environmental Protection Agency affirmed that glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) pose no risk to human health, apparently disregarding new evidence about the link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as well as its non-cancer impacts on the liver, kidney and gastrointestinal system.

The multi-authored paper notes:

“In just under 20 years, much of the Earth has been coated with glyphosate, in many places layering on already chemical-laden human bodies, other organisms and environments.”

However, the authors add that glyphosate is not the only pesticide to achieve broad-scale pervasiveness:

“The insecticide imidacloprid, for example, coats the majority of US maize seed, making it the most widely used insecticide in US history. Between just 2003 and 2009, sales of imidacloprid products rose 245% (Simon-Delso et al. 2015). The scale of such use, and its overlapping effects on bodies and environments, have yet to be fully reckoned with, especially outside of countries with relatively strong regulatory and monitoring capacities.”

According to Phillips McDougall’s Annual Agriservice Reports, herbicides made up 43% of the global pesticide market in 2019 by value. Much of the increase in glyphosate use is due to the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant soybean, maize, and cotton seeds in the US, Brazil and Argentina.

The global pesticide industry is valued at over $50 billion (Phillips McDougal 2018).

Eating poison

In December 2021, a piece appeared in the prominent Danish newspaper ‘Weekendavisen’. Written by Niels Bjerre, agricultural affairs manager at Bayer CropScience in Copenhagen, ‘Thank goodness for pesticides’ set out to convince readers that sustainable modern agriculture cannot be done without using pesticides.

Denmark-based environmental campaigner Rosemary Mason has responded with the document ‘Open Letter to Bayer: Monsanto concealed the toxicity of Roundup to human health and the environment’ which mentions but goes beyond the now well-documented duplicity of Monsanto (which Bayer bought in 2018) – see the ‘Monsanto Papers’ – to highlight the ongoing damage being done by pesticides like glyphosate. 

Mason lists many pertinent studies. For instance, a French team has found heavy metals in chemical formulants of GBHs in people’s diets. As with other pesticides, 10–20% of GBHs consist of chemical formulants. Families of petroleum-based oxidized molecules and other contaminants have been identified as well as the heavy metals arsenic, chromium, cobalt, lead and nickel, which are known to be toxic and endocrine disruptors. 

In 1988, Ridley and Mirly (commissioned by Monsanto) found bioaccumulation of glyphosate in rat tissues. Residues were present in bone, marrow, blood and glands including the thyroid, testes and ovaries, as well as major organs, including the heart, liver, lungs, kidneys, spleen and stomach. Glyphosate was also associated with ophthalmic degenerative lens changes.

A Stout and Rueker (1990) study (also commissioned by Monsanto) provided concerning evidence with regard to cataracts following glyphosate exposure in rats. It is interesting to note that the rate of cataract surgery in England “increased very substantially” between 1989 and 2004: from 173 (1989) to 637 (2004) episodes per 100,000 population. 

A 2016 study by the WHO also confirmed that the incidence of cataracts had greatly increased: ‘A global assessment of the burden of disease from environmental risks’ says that cataracts are the leading cause of blindness worldwide. Globally, cataracts are responsible for 51% of blindness. In the US, between 2000 and 2010 the number of cases of cataract rose by 20% from 20.5 million to 24.4 million. It is projected that by 2050, the number of people with cataracts will have doubled to 50 million.

The authors of ‘Assessment of Glyphosate Induced Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Pathologies and Sperm Epimutations: Generational Toxicology’ (Scientific Reports, 2019) noted that ancestral environmental exposures to a variety of factors and toxicants promoted the epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of adult onset disease.

They proposed that glyphosate can induce the transgenerational inheritance of disease and germline (for example, sperm) epimutations. Observations suggest the generational toxicology of glyphosate needs to be considered in the disease etiology of future generations.

In a 2017 study, Carlos Javier Baier and colleagues documented behavioural impairments following repeated intranasal glyphosate-based herbicide administration in mice. Intranasal GBH caused behavioural disorders, decreased locomotor activity, induced an anxiogenic behaviour and produced memory deficit.

The paper contains references to many studies from around the world that confirm GBHs are damaging to the development of the foetal brain and that repeated exposure is toxic to the adult human brain and may result in alterations in locomotor activity, feelings of anxiety and memory impairment.

Highlights of a 2018 study on neurotransmitter changes in rat brain regions following glyphosate exposure include neurotoxicity in rats. And in a 2014 study which examined mechanisms underlying the neurotoxicity induced by glyphosate-based herbicide in the immature rat hippocampus, it was found that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup induces various neurotoxic processes.

In the paper ‘Glyphosate damages blood-testis barrier via NOX1-triggered oxidative stress in rats: Long-term exposure as a potential risk for male reproductive health’ (Environment International, 2022) it was noted that glyphosate causes blood-testis barrier (BTB) damage and low-quality sperm and that glyphosate-induced BTB injury contributes to sperm quality decrease.

The study Multiomics reveal non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in rats following chronic exposure to an ultra-low dose of Roundup herbicide (2017),  revealed non-fatty acid liver disease (NFALD) in rats following chronic exposure to an ultra-low dose of Roundup herbicide. NFALD currently affects 25% of the US population and similar numbers of Europeans.

The 2020 paper ‘Glyphosate exposure exacerbates the dopaminergic neurotoxicity in the mouse brain after repeated of MPTP’ suggests that glyphosate may be an environmental risk factor for Parkinson’s.

In the 2019 Ramazzini Institute’s 13-week pilot study that looked into the effects of GBHs on development and the endocrine system, it was demonstrated that GBHs exposure, from prenatal period to adulthood, induced endocrine effects and altered reproductive developmental parameters in male and female rats.

Aside from glyphosate, Mason also notes that in 1991 Bayer CropScience introduced a new type of insecticide into the US: imidacloprid, the first member of a group now known as neonicotinoids.

Imidacloprid was licensed for use in Europe in 1994. In July of that year, beekeepers in France noticed something unexpected. Just after the sunflowers had bloomed, a substantial number of their hives would collapse, as the worker bees flew off and never returned, leaving the queen and immature workers to die. The French beekeepers soon believed they knew the reason: a brand new insecticide called Gaucho with imidacloprid as active ingredient was being applied to sunflowers for the first time.

In the 2022 paper ‘Neonicotinoid insecticides found in children treated for leukaemias and lymphomas’ (Environmental Health), the authors stated that multiple neonicotinoids were found in children’s cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), plasma and urine. As the most widely used class of insecticides worldwide, they are ubiquitously found in the environment, wildlife and foods. The data revealed multiple neonicotinoids and/or their metabolites in children’s CSF, plasma and urine.

Bottom line

If the ‘Monsanto Papers’ told us anything, it is that a corporation’s top priority is the bottom line (at all costs, by all means necessary) and not public health. A CEO’s obligation is to maximise profit, capture markets and – ideally – regulatory and policy-making bodies as well.

Corporations must also secure viable year-on-year growth which often means expanding into hitherto untapped markets. Indeed, in the previously mentioned paper ‘Growing Agrichemical Ubiquity’, the authors note that while countries like the US are still reporting higher pesticide use, most of this growth is taking place in the Global South:

“For example, pesticide use in California grew 10% from 2005 to 2015, while use by Bolivian farmers, though starting from a low base, increased 300% in the same period. Pesticide use is growing steeply in countries as diverse as China, Mali, South Africa, Nepal, Laos, Ghana, Argentina, Brazil and Bangladesh. Most countries with high levels of growth have weak regulatory enforcement, environmental monitoring and health surveillance infrastructure.”

And much of this growth is driven by increased demand for herbicides:

“India saw a 250% increase since 2005 (Das Gupta et al. 2017) while herbicide use jumped by 2500% in China (Huang, Wang, and Xiao 2017) and 2000% in Ethiopia (Tamru et al. 2017). The introduction of glyphosate-tolerant soybean, maize, and cotton seeds in the US, Brazil, and Argentina is clearly driving much of the demand, but herbicide use is also expanding dramatically in countries that have not approved nor adopted such crops and where smallholder farming is still dominant.”

In response to the increasing use of GBHs in India, the influential Swadeshi Jagaran Manch recently demanded a complete ban on the use of glyphosate in the country. A petition with more than 201,000 signatories favouring a complete ban on glyphosate was submitted to the minister for agriculture.

The minister was also informed that the herbicide is blatantly being used for illegally grown genetically engineered herbicide tolerant (HT) cotton. He was told that “miscreant seed companies” are trying to illegally spread HT Bt cotton on hundreds of thousands of acres of land to promote the use of glyphosate.

In a 2017 paper, academics Glenn Stone and Andrew Flachs describe how cotton farmers in India have been encouraged to change their ploughing practices, leading to more weeds. The outcome in terms of yields (or farmer profit) is arguably no better but the change (conveniently) coincided with the appearance of an increasing supply of these illegal HT cotton seeds. Farmers are being pushed onto herbicide-intensive treadmills.

Industry figures like Niels Bjerre claim pesticide use is necessary in ‘modern agriculture’. But this is not the case: there is now sufficient evidence to suggest otherwise. It is simply not necessary to have our bodies contaminated with toxic agrochemicals, regardless of how much the industry tries to reassure us that they are present in ‘safe’ levels.

There is also the industry-promoted narrative that if you question the need for synthetic pesticides in ‘modern agriculture’, you are somehow ignorant or even ‘anti-science’. This is simply not true. What does ‘modern agriculture’ even mean? It means a system adapted to meet the demands of global agrocapital and its international markets and supply chains.

As writer and academic Benjamin R Cohen recently stated:  

“Meeting the needs of modern agriculture – growing produce that can be shipped long distances and hold up in the store and at home for more than a few days – can result in tomatoes that taste like cardboard or strawberries that aren’t as sweet as they used to be. Those are not the needs of modern agriculture. They are the needs of global markets.” 

What is really being questioned is a policy paradigm that privileges a certain model of social and economic development and a certain type of agriculture: urbanisation, giant supermarkets, global markets, long supply chains, external proprietary inputs (seeds, synthetic pesticides and fertilisers, machinery, etc), chemical-dependent monocropping, highly processed food and market (corporate) dependency at the expense of rural communities, small independent enterprises and smallholder farms, local markets, short supply chains, on-farm resources, diverse agroecological cropping, nutrient dense diets and food sovereignty.  

The effects of this paradigm has had devastating ecological, environmental, social, economic and agronomic consequences on highly productive traditional agrarian systems (see Bhaskar Save’s 2006 open letter to Indian officials). Furthermore, despite claims to the contrary, it is not as though the chemical-intensive Green Revolution actually led to increased food production per capita in the first place (see Glenn Stone’s paper ‘New Histories of the Green Revolution’).  

Nevertheless, predatory agri-food conglomerates have been driving this policy paradigm. In doing so, they have actively consolidated their position throughout the entire global food system while promoting the false narrative that they and their inputs are necessary for feeding the 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.

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.

Rosemary Mason is a retired doctor and environmental campaigner.

Featured image is from CounterPunch

US-Funded “NGOs” Panic as Thailand Prepares New NGO Transparency Law

January 26th, 2022 by The New Atlas

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US-Funded “NGOs” Panic as Thailand Prepares New NGO Transparency Law

OSHA Withdraws Workplace Vaccine Mandate after Facing Lethal Blow by U.S. Supreme Court

January 26th, 2022 by Megan Redshaw

All Global Research articles 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 Biden administration withdrew its COVID vaccine-or-test mandate for large employers, saying the administration recognized the Emergency Temporary Standard could not be revived after the U.S. Supreme Court blocked it earlier this month.

The Biden administration is withdrawing its COVID vaccine-or-test mandate for large employers, the U.S. Department of Labor announced today.

In pulling the rule, the department said it recognized the Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) could not be revived after the U.S. Supreme Court blocked it earlier this month.

Instead, the Biden administration is working to set a permanent standard for the vaccine mandate based on the Supreme Court’s ruling, according to a notice provided to the court by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

OSHA said in a press release:

“Although OSHA is withdrawing the vaccination and testing ETS as an enforceable emergency temporary standard, the agency is not withdrawing the ETS as a proposed rule. The agency is prioritizing its resources to focus on finalizing a permanent COVID-19 Healthcare Standard.”

OSHA could move a version of the vaccine-or-test rule through its rule-making process, but would still likely face legal challenges, according to David Michaels, a former OSHA administrator and professor at George Washington University.

The Labor Department’s decision to withdraw the rule means pending legal proceedings will be dropped. The case was on its way back to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to be heard on the merits, although the lower court most likely would have followed the Supreme Court’s lead, The New York Times reported.

Without OSHA’s vaccine mandate in effect, employers must follow state and local laws on COVID workplace safety. Some states have banned vaccine mandates for private employees, while other states, like New York, require them.

“OSHA continues to strongly encourage the vaccination of workers against the continuing dangers posed by Covid-19 in the workplace,” the Labor Department wrote in the notice of its withdrawal.

The Supreme Court on Jan. 13, rejected the Biden administration’s employer mandate.

The court’s conservative majority said the administration overstepped its authority by imposing OSHA’s vaccine-or-test rule.

The Supreme Court’s decision reversed the lower court ruling, imposing a stay on the OSHA mandate.

The conservative majority 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.

Furthermore, the court said, Congress has “indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers,” but it “has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly.”

“Requiring the vaccination of 84 million Americans, selected simply because they work for employers with more than 100 employees, certainly falls in the latter category,” the opinion read.

The minority justices said 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.”

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.

After the ruling, many companies were left scrambling to decide whether they should abandon the mandate or force their employees to be vaccinated while the lawsuit played out in the lower courts.

Starbucks was one of the first major retailers to backtrack on its plans to require workers to be vaccinated against COVID. Starbucks last week told its 228,000 employees at more than 9,000 U.S. coffee shops it would no longer require workers be fully vaccinated or submit to weekly COVID testing.

In a Jan. 18 memo to employees, Starbuck CEO John Culver said the company respects the court’s ruling and will comply even though it doesn’t align with the company’s beliefs.

A coalition of attorneys general from 27 states called on OSHA to rescind its ETS saying the agency lacked authority to issue a broad mandate.

*

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 from CHD

President Biden Is a Tool of Big Pharma

January 26th, 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.

***

 

The lunatic occupant of the Oval Office has arbitrarily yanked from use the only “establishment approved” Covid treatment, monoclonal antibodies. As Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis correctly states: Biden’s “indefensible edict takes treatment out of the hands of medical professionals and will cost some Americans their lives. There are real-world implications to Biden’s medical authoritarianism – Americans’ access to treatment is now subject to the whims of a failing president.”

Why did the White House fool do this?

For two reasons.

One reason is to strike back at DeSantis who proved that Florida did better by ignoring the counterfactual “Covid protocols” than did the states that imposed them. DeSantis proved that Trump was right: lockdowns are unnecessary and damaging. Moreover, DeSantis set up monoclonal antibody clinics in Florida that cured infected people, thus making the dangerous “vaccine” irrelevant. Biden’s evil ruling deprives Florida’s clinics from being able to save lives. Biden is causing Florida residents to die as his punishment of DeSantis.

The other reason is that Biden is a puppet of Fauci and Big Pharma. His job is to ensure maximun vaccine profits and to protect the false narrative of deception that Fauci, Big Pharma, and the corrupt medical establishment, aided and abetted by the presstitutes, imposed on trusting Americans.

If you really believe Biden was elected, you have to accept that the American voters are the most utterly stupid people imaginable.

US regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, and public health agencies, such as NIH and CDC, have become captives of the pharmaceutical companies they are supposed to regulate. Their rulings favor the companies over public health and the people they are supposed to protect.

Americans must learn that they cannot trust any public or private institution. Everything is driven by money; nothing by truth and the public interest. The need for money has destroyed even education. In the social sciences university professors, economists for example, bring in money by producing “studies” that serve corporate interests and global capital. Physicists are primarily dependent on federal research grants, which means they must stay silent about the fake official 9/11 narrative. Our soldiers are sent to fight to defend armaments industry profits, oil interests, and Washington’s hegemony, not someone’s freedom. Wherever you look in America people cannot say what they think without being fired. You are rewarded for lying for the controlling interest groups. All the talk about defending freedom is hogwash. There is no freedom to defend.

See this.

*

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. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

Stop the Neocon from Starting a War

January 26th, 2022 by Eric Margolis

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Amid surging tensions over Ukraine, the head of Germany’s navy had the courage to voice Europe’s fears over this totally unnecessary, contrived crisis.

In a speech to an Indian think tank, Vice-admiral Kay-Achim Schonbach proposed the Western powers ‘respect’ Russian leader Vladimir Putin and accept that Crimea would remain in Moscow’s hands.

The German admiral’s remarks produced a major uproar in Washington and tut tuts in Europe where hatred of Russia has become a state fetish.  Most aggrieved were the British and Americans who deeply fear an alliance or at least entente between Germany and Russia that might undermine US domination of the continent.

Germany, Europe’s leading military force and mainstay of NATO, has hollowed out its military power.  Thanks to unqualified female defense ministers, Germany’s armed forces have degenerated into parade troops.  Armor and aircraft, once hallmarks of German military power, have become feeble toys, lacking in munitions, spare parts and capable crews.

Polls show Germans have very little interest in confronting Russia.  Memories of World War II are still raw.  Today’s Germans live in a nation that was 50% destroyed by US and British bombing.  Millions of Germans come from families driven out of eastern Europe. 

There is not a lot of sympathy for Ukraine’s current government that was installed by a US-financed and stage-managed coup in 2013-2014.  Germany’s US-dominated media and government support Washington’s hard line on Ukraine but many ordinary Germans and French don’t agree. 

America’s media and politicians strongly support the military confrontation with Russia, a low-cost way of being loudly patriotic without actually doing anything serious. 

Only Poland, the Baltic states and American neocons really hunger for war – provided it is waged by the US.  US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, a rising star among the pro-war neocons, is pushing the confrontation with Russia – yet another bureaucrat with no military experience.

Military men quickly understand the logistic and climactic problems of fighting in the Black Sea region, but not Washington’s desk warriors and their European satraps.  The US has been unwise to provoke a confrontation with Russia in its backyard.  Though Russia has lost much of its Soviet-era military power, it would be a mistake to underestimate its combat capabilities and overestimate those of NATO. 

Remember, Napoleon (who was seriously defeated in Russia) prayed ‘oh Lord, if I must go to war, please make it against a coalition.’

Washington’s sofa samurais are playing with fire.  The neocons’ latest effort to overthrow President Putin risks backfiring badly by drawing China into the fray and undermining US domination of the continent.  Let’s say US-led NATO forces thrash the 106,000 Russian troops around Ukraine’s borders. What then? An advance on Moscow? An assault on Crimea?  Might Romania join the war to recover Moldova lost in WWII?  Or tiny Finland? The Russians are unlikely to be quivering in their boots.  Romanian troops, let’s recall, were defending the flank of Germany’s 6th Army at the Stalingrad disaster.

We are not going to see a rerun of the Great Northern War of the early 1700’s.  What we are seeing is the re-birth of Russian power in its traditional sphere of influence.  Admiral Schonbach is quite right.  Russia will never relinquish Crimea any more than Germany would give over Hamburg or the US cede Baltimore to Cuban control. 

Luckily for us, Russia is currently being run by hard men from the old KGB who are experienced and cautious.  It is well that they are because Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at the US and its allies.  No one in their right mind should contemplate a nuclear confrontation.  Russia has repeatedly made clear that if backed into a corner, it may well use tactical nuclear weapons.  China is coming around to the same thinking.

Beaten in Vietnam, Iraq and now Afghanistan, the US is seeking a cheap victory in Ukraine.  But the northern rim of the Black Sea is not known for its low-hanging geopolitical fruit.  And Russia always surprises. 

Mr. Blinken, be cautious lest a hypersonic Russian missile comes flying through your office window.

*

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.

Eric S. Margolis [send him mail] is the author of War at the Top of the World and the new book, American Raj: Liberation or Domination?: Resolving the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World. See his website.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

The Scientific Misconduct Story Behind Ivermectin

January 26th, 2022 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

In mid-February 2021, Dr. Andrew Hill at Liverpool University published a scientific meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials involving the use of ivermectin. The review, funded by the World Health Organization and UNITAID, found the drug increased viral clearance and reduced COVID-19 deaths by 75%, yet the conclusion of the paper was dismissive

In early April 2021, Hill was accused of scientific misconduct by the French civic group, Association BonSens. BonSens claims Hill manipulated data to downplay the usefulness of ivermectin. Hill admitted that the study sponsor had crafted the conclusion

In early August 2021, Hill published a public notice stating one of the six studies included in his analysis had been withdrawn due to fraudulent data. A revised analysis excluding that study was published in November 2021

In the November revision, Hill included 23 randomized clinical trials, concluding ivermectin had no statistically significant effect on survival or hospitalizations

Other meta-analyses of 13 to 24 studies have found reductions in death ranging from 62% to 91%. Recent research has also found a five-day course of ivermectin at a dose of 12 mg per day sped up viral clearance, reducing the duration of symptomatic illness by three days compared to placebo (9.7 days versus 12.7 days)

*

In mid-February 2021, Dr. Andrew Hill at Liverpool University published a scientific meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials involving the use of ivermectin in 1,255 COVID-19 patients. (The paper was initially posted on a preprint server.)

The review, which was funded by the World Health Organization and UNITAID, found that ivermectin increased viral clearance and reduced COVID-19 deaths by 75%. This is a rather massive benefit, yet the conclusion of the paper was dismissive, saying additional large clinical trials were needed to make a determination about whether or not to recommend its use.

Hill Accused of Scientific Misconduct

In early April 2021, Hill and his coauthors were accused of scientific misconduct by a French civic group called the Association BonSens. The TrialSite News video report from April 5 above reviews the details of this story. BonSens — labeled by some a “controversial group” based on its anti-mask mandate stance — accused Hill of data manipulation to downplay the usefulness of ivermectin.

According to BonSens, Hill’s analysis was then used by the WHO to recommend against ivermectin, even though it appears to have significant benefit. BonSens called on Hill to retract the paper, but Hill remained “resolute and stands behind the study,” TrialSite News said.

At the time, TrialSite News claimed to have been in conversation with “relevant and associated parties,” some of whom have asked to remain anonymous, who say Hill’s study was in fact modified, but that this was done “separate and apart from the investigator,” and that Hill had no say in the matter.

However, since then, one of the six studies Hill included in his analysis has been withdrawn “due to fraudulent data.” In a public notice1 dated August 9, 2021, Hill and his coauthors addressed the matter, saying they would submit “a revised version excluding this study, and the currently posted paper will be retracted.” A revised and updated meta-analysis was published in November 2021.2

The updated review includes data from 23 randomized clinical trials with a total of 3,349 patients. Studies with “high risk of bias” were excluded. In this analysis, Hill found that “Ivermectin did not show a statistically significant effect on survival or hospitalizations,” and had only “borderline significant effect on duration of hospitalization in comparison with standard of care.”

No significant effect on clinical recovery time was detected. In conclusion, the paper states that the WHO “recommends the use of ivermectin only inside clinical trials.” Curiously, it also states that “a network of large clinical trials is in progress to validate the results seen to date.” What results might those be? Surely, they must be referring to positive results, or else a network of clinical trials would hardly be justified.

Positive Ivermectin Studies Largely Barred From Publication

December 3, 2021, TrialSite News interviewed Dr. Tess Laurie (above) about her own ivermectin analyses and that of Hill. She points out that she was concerned when she saw the initial meta-analysis Hill published, as the conclusion didn’t match the data. The reduction in death was significant, yet the conclusion was dismissive.

Laurie contacted Hill, asking him to explain his conclusion to her. He then told her that the conclusion of the paper was not his own. It had been written by his sponsor — the WHO. Laurie was shocked, she said, as this struck her as a clear conflict of interest.

In the interview, Laurie also discusses the general difficulty researchers have had, since the beginning, in getting papers published that support ivermectin. She admits her own team has downplayed the benefits by using extremely conservative analyses in an effort to get published.

“It seems, if you tell it like it is, you are not going to get published because you might be accused of overstating your case. And if you understate it, you’re told there’s not enough evidence,” Laurie says.

Strong Evidence for Ivermectin

According to Laurie, the evidence for ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 is strong. In a previous interview, she reviewed a 13-study meta-analysis that found a 68% reduction in deaths. A follow-up review that included 15 studies found a 62% to 72% reduction in deaths.3

A meta-analysis4 by Laurie and her team published in the July-August 2021 issue of the American Journal of Therapeutics, which included 24 randomized controlled trials with a total of 3,406 participants, reported reductions in death ranging between 79% and 91%.

A study published February 2021 also reported that a five-day course of ivermectin at a dose of 12 mg per day sped up viral clearance, reducing the duration of symptomatic illness by three days compared to placebo (9.7 days versus 12.7 days).5

According to Laurie, what makes ivermectin particularly useful in COVID-19 is that it works both in the initial viral phase of the illness, when antivirals are required, and in the later inflammatory stage, when the viral load drops off and anti-inflammatories become necessary.

Dr. Surya Kant, a medical doctor in India who has written a white paper6 on ivermectin, claims the drug reduces replication of the SARS-CoV-2 virus by several thousand times.7 Kant’s paper led several Indian provinces to start using ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and as treatment for COVID-19 in the summer of 2020.8

Africa and Japan Defy the Odds With Ivermectin

Japan and Africa have also defied the odds with ivermectin. As reported by NewsRescue at the end of August 2021, “Melinda Gates, co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation predicted disaster in the developing world, but so far she has been dead wrong, at least as far as Africa is concerned.”9

Indeed, despite having nearly 1.4 billion people, Africa has maintained one of the lowest COVID caseloads and death rates in the world, accounting for just 4% of the global reported death rate as of mid-May 2021.10 While media feign confusion, ivermectin may well be the explanation for this phenomenon.

A study11 published at the end of December 2020 found that African countries that participated in the African Program for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC), where intensive ivermectin mass campaigns were carried out between 1995 and 2015, had 28% lower COVID-19 mortality and 8% lower infection rates than non-APOC countries that did not participate in the ivermectin campaign.

“That a mass public health preventive campaign against COVID-19 may have taken place, inadvertently, in some African countries with massive community ivermectin use is an attractive hypothesis,” the authors said.12

Similarly, Japan has seen a massive decline in cases after adopting ivermectin as standard treatment against COVID. November 3, 2021, Free West Media reported:13

“The head of the Tokyo Medical Association appeared on national television in September urging doctors to use Ivermectin and they listened. A little over a month later, COVID-19 is under control in Japan …

Japan had slavishly adhered to all the Big Pharma prescriptions, including quarantine, contact tracing, masking, social distance, but finally the pandemic had hit them hard after they started aggressive vaccination in May 2021.

The results looked good initially, but in mid-July they started rising again and on August 6 cases hit a new all-time high and continued to rise.

Ivermectin was allowed as a treatment on August 13 and after 2 weeks the cases started to come down. In fact, they are now down 99% from the peak … In Japan, doctors can now prescribe it without restrictions, and people can buy it legally from India.”

Doctors Urge Acceptance of Ivermectin to Save Lives

In the U.S., the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has been calling for widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19.14,15

FLCCC president Dr. Pierre Kory, former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has testified to the benefits of ivermectin before a number of COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in December 2020,16 and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel January 6, 2021.17 As noted by the FLCCC:18

“The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.

Dr. Kory testified that Ivermectin is effectively a ‘miracle drug’ against COVID-19 and called upon the government’s medical authorities … to urgently review the latest data and then issue guidelines for physicians, nurse-practitioners, and physician assistants to prescribe Ivermectin for COVID-1919 …

… numerous clinical studies — including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials — showed large magnitude benefits of Ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment and also in late-stage disease. Taken together … dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy.”20

A one-page summary21 of the clinical trial evidence for Ivermectin can be downloaded from the FLCCC website. A more comprehensive, 31-page review22 of trials data has been published in the journal Frontiers of Pharmacology.

At the time of this writing, the number of trials involving ivermectin has risen to 71, including 31 randomized controlled trials. A listing of all the ivermectin trials done to date, with links to the published studies, can be found on c19Ivermectin.com.23

The FLCCC’s COVID-19 protocol was initially dubbed MATH+ (an acronym based on the key components of the treatment), but after several tweaks and updates, the prophylaxis and early outpatient treatment protocol is now known as I-MASK+24 while the hospital treatment has been renamed I-MATH+,25 due to the addition of ivermectin.

The two protocols26,27 are available for download on the FLCCC Alliance website in multiple languages.

Take Control of Your Health Care

If COVID-19 were an actual medical crisis and not an excuse for a tyrannical power grab, doctors would have been allowed, indeed encouraged, to work together to find solutions. Their successes would then have been announced everywhere. Without doubt, ivermectin would have featured heavily in such reports, as doctors around the world have attested to its benefits.

That’s not what happened, though, which tells us we’re not dealing with a medical crisis that governments actually want to solve. As reported by the FLCCC, its members have “been blocked in attempts to disseminate scientific information about ivermectin on Facebook and other social media with the FLCCC’s pages repeatedly being shut down.”28

Seasoned researchers like Laurie can’t get their research published, and the main thing they have in common is that they’re reporting positive results using ivermectin (and other common remedies). For nearly two years now, doctors and scientist have repeatedly shown we can control the COVID endemic, even with new variants. We can save the vast majority from severe illness and death.

Yet “authorities” within government, regulatory agencies and health agencies have refused to listen and insist there’s only one way forward — we need novel gene transfer injections that direct our cells to churn out the very toxin that makes COVID-19 so problematic. And when those shots are proven failures, the answer, these same “leaders” say, is more boosters!

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. The good news is you can choose who you listen to. You can listen to frontline medical experts, like the FLCCC, and follow their advice.

*

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.

Notes

1 Open Forum Infectious Diseases August 9, 2021; 8(8): ofab394

2 Open Forum Infectious Diseases November 2021; 8(11): ofab358

3 YouTube Ivermectin Discussion with Dr. Tess Laurie April 7, 2021

4 American Journal of Therapeutics July/August 2021; 28(4): e434-e460

5 International Journal of Infectious Diseases February 2021; 103: 214-216

6 Indian Journal of Tuberculosis July 2020; 67(3): 448-451

7 Antiviral Research June 2020; 178: 104787

8 Financial Express April 14, 2021

9, 10 NewsRescue August 31, 2021

11, 12 Colomb Med (Cali) December 30, 2020; 51(4): e2014613

13 Free West Media November 3, 2021

14, 16, 19 FLCCC December 8, 2020

15 Medpage Today January 6, 2021

17 FLCCC January 7, 2021 Press Release (PDF)

18, 28 Newswise December 8, 2020

20 FLCCC January 7, 2020 Press Release (PDF)

21 FLCCC Summary of Clinical Trials Evidence for Ivermectin in COVID-19 (PDF)

22 Frontiers of Pharmacology 2020 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.643369

23 c19Ivermectin.com

24, 26 FLCCC Alliance I-MASK+ Protocol

25, 27 FLCCC MATH+ Hospital Protocol

Featured image is from Zero Hedge

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell: America’s Most Dangerous Unknown Man

January 26th, 2022 by Rep. Ron Paul

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

The US Senate will soon vote on Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell’s nomination to a second term. One of the senators opposing Powell is Elizabeth Warren. I don’t often agree with Senator Warren, but I do agree with her assessment that Powell is “dangerous.” However, Warren actually doesn’t understand what makes Powell, or any Fed chairman, intrinsically dangerous to liberty and prosperity.

Warren thinks Powell is dangerous because she thinks he will not be supportive enough of imposing her desired new regulations on banks and other financial institutions. Senator Warren, like most progressives, clings to a fantastical notion that regulations benefit workers, consumers, and small businesses. The truth is most regulations benefit large corporations by imposing costs that big businesses can easily absorb, but that their smaller competitors cannot.

Powell is a threat to the American people. Under his tenure, the Fed has kept interest rates at or near zero. The Fed’s balance sheet has grown to over eight trillion dollars. This has caused prices to climb at a rate America has not seen in several decades.

At his nomination hearing before the Senate Banking Committee, Powell reiterated the Fed’s intention to fight inflation by reducing its monthly 120 billion dollars purchase of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities. Powell also stated that the Fed is planning to increase interest rates this year. However, even if the Fed follows through on this, interest rates will remain at historically low levels.

Powell, like Elizabeth Warren and other progressives, dangerously believes that the Fed should go “woke.” However, Powell is still not “woke” enough for progressives who lobbied President Joe Biden to replace Powell with Fed board member Lael Brainard, the biggest supporter of Elizabeth Warren-style regulations on the Fed board. Brainard is more committed than Powell to using monetary and regulatory policies to advance the “woke” agenda. President Biden did end up nominating Brainard to become vice chairman at the Fed.

A Powell-Brainard Fed would likely use “social and climate justice” as a justification for expanding the Fed’s easy money policies. President Biden has recently nominated Sarah Bloom Raskin to the Fed board, who also has advocated for the Fed to use its power to fight climate change.

A central bank committed to the social justice and climate change agendas will inevitably increase the Fed’s “inflation tax.” Contrary to the claims of some progressives, lower-income Americans are primary victims of this hidden and regressive tax.

Powell prefers to push his rather zealous and extremist philosophies behind the scenes. Thus, not surprisingly, he is a leading opponent of Audit the Fed. Powell claims that bringing transparency to the Fed’s conduct of monetary policy would somehow jeopardize the Fed’s independence. Powell’s claim is truly fake news. There is nothing in the Audit the Fed bill giving Congress or the executive branch any new power over monetary policy.

Any group of individuals given the power to manipulate the money supply, and manipulate the interest rates that are the price of money, poses a threat to our liberty and prosperity. The solution is not to replace Powell with a “better” Fed chairman, or to force the Fed to follow a “rule” that still allows it to erode the dollar’s value. The only way to protect the people from dangerous individuals like Jerome Powell, Lael Brainard, and the rest of the Fed board is to audit and then end the Fed.

*

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 licensed under Public Domain

Selected Articles: #TruckersConvoy2022

January 26th, 2022 by Global Research News

Dear Readers,

As everyone faces difficult times, the company which deals with the fulfillment of book sales on behalf of Global Research is no longer able to provide its services. We are unfortunately suspending the sale of print books until further notice.

We will be contacting and refunding readers who have purchased our books in print format. Meanwhile, PDF versions are still available for purchase. We hope to be able to resolve this matter as soon as possible. Our apologies for the inconvenience.

Thank you for your valuable support.

***

#TruckersConvoy2022

By Free to Fly Canada, January 26, 2022

As most of you certainly know, a growing convoy of truckers and freedom-loving Canadians are heading to Ottawa, planning to converge on January 29th. Free to Fly supports this peaceful and much-needed demonstration of collective resolve.

US to Close Borders to Unvaccinated Canadian, Mexican Truckers on Saturday

By Nate Tabak, January 26, 2022

The U.S. will close its borders to unvaccinated and partially vaccinated Canadian and Mexican truck drivers on Saturday, the Department of Homeland Security said on Thursday.

“Manifest Destiny” Done Right. China and Russia Succeed Where the U.S. Failed. Historical Analysis

By Matthew Ehret-Kump, January 25, 2022

It should be obvious that the world is being sucked into a new Cold War, with old school iron curtains, anti-communist rhetoric and even nuclear sabre rattling pushed by unipolar war hawks in the west.

History of World War II: Overview of the Nazi-Soviet War in Early 1942, Eighty Years Ago

By Shane Quinn, January 25, 2022

By the beginning of 1942 Adolf Hitler had led Nazi Germany into a desperate situation, from which there was probably no escape. At the time, this was not easily apparent to the Wehrmacht or the German population, nor indeed to the Third Reich’s enemies, particularly those in the West.

Join the Battle to End Slavery by Vaccines and 5G

By Emanuel Pastreich, January 25, 2022

The war has already started. The drive to implement 5G microwave electronic broadcast across the United States, and around the world, as a follow up to the push for the COVID-19 vaccines that contain nano-devices and the electricity-responsive toxin graphene oxide, is an indication that we are about to enter the next stage of this war.

As the Pandemic Devastates the Poor, the World’s 10 Richest Have Multiplied Their Wealth into Trillions

By Thalif Deen, January 25, 2022

The numbers are unbelievably staggering: the world’s 10 richest men more than doubled their fortunes from $700 billion to $1.5 trillion —at a rate of $15,000 per second or $1.3 billion a day, according to a new study from Oxfam International.

None Dare Call It “Encirclement”. Washington Tightens the Noose Around China

By Michael T. Klare, January 25, 2022

The word “encirclement” does not appear in the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), signed into law by President Joe Biden on December 27th, or in other recent administration statements about its foreign and military policies. Nor does that classic Cold War era term “containment” ever come up.

Europe in the Trenches Against the “Invented Enemy”

By Manlio Dinucci, January 25, 2022

The State Department, “as a precautionary measure against a possible Russian invasion of Ukraine”, ordered the evacuation of family members and part of the staff from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, which with 900 officials is among the largest in Europe, and raised to level 4 of risk, the maximum, the warning to U.S. citizens not to go to Ukraine.

Is Washington Under Alien Control? “The most Frightening Foreign Policy Misadventure since … “

By Philip Giraldi, January 25, 2022

The drama currently unfolding in which the Biden Administration is doing everything it can to provoke a war with Russia over Ukraine is possibly the most frightening foreign policy misadventure since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and the 1967 Lyndon Johnson attempt to sink the USS Liberty and blame it on Egypt, either of which could have gone nuclear.

What Kind of Threat Is China?

By Kim Petersen, January 25, 2022

The “brutalist philosophy” of the US was made public (曝光) by Robert Daly, a former US diplomat stationed in Beijing, in 2015. Currently, he is the director of the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States. No diplomatic niceties here, Daly frankly states the policy of the US: China must never reach the level of the US.

#TruckersConvoy2022: Collective Resolve against Covid Mandates and Lockdowns

January 26th, 2022 by Free to Fly Canada

All Global Research articles 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 most of you certainly know, a growing convoy of truckers and freedom-loving Canadians are heading to Ottawa, planning to converge on January 29th.

Free to Fly supports this peaceful and much-needed demonstration of collective resolve. Mandates and lockdowns are violating the most fundamental of our constitutional rights, not to mention destroying lives, the economy and jeopardizing the same for future generations. This convoy has been greatly encouraging and helped galvanized much of the nation saying “Enough!”.

“This path will be easier and shorter for all of us if we take it by mutual efforts and in close rank. If there are thousands of us, they will not be able to do anything with us. If there are tens of thousands of us, then we would not even recognize our country.” (Aleksander Solzenitysn)

I’m sure many of you will be lining highways or even joining in the convoy. For those who would like more information, please read further below. Let’s add tens of thousands of us from Free to Fly!

*

The East and West routes will be arriving in Ottawa on Jan 29th.

Kingston has multiple days where people will be coming thru.  The earliest people will get to Kingston is Jan 27th.  Starting Jan 28th people will begin to head up to Ottawa and the last day people will be departing out of Kingston is Jan 29th.

Participating Groups

Click image above to access more details

West Route

Click here to view details of the West route.

East Route

Click here to view details of the East route.

South Route

Click here to view details of the South route.

*

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 author

US to Close Borders to Unvaccinated Canadian, Mexican Truckers on Saturday

January 26th, 2022 by Nate Tabak

All Global Research articles 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. will close its borders to unvaccinated and partially vaccinated Canadian and Mexican truck drivers on Saturday, the Department of Homeland Security said on Thursday.

“These updated travel requirements reflect the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to protecting public health while safely facilitating the cross-border trade and travel that is critical to our economy,” Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a statement.

The restrictions, which apply to all foreign essential workers, had been expected since U.S. officials announced them in October. They follow a similar rule that took effect at the Canadian border last Saturday.

The border COVID-19 vaccine mandates are coming into force despite pushback from the truck industry. The impact will be felt most acutely for the U.S.-Canada freight market, where around 160,000 truckers regularly cross the border — 75% of whom are Canadian.

Already capacity has tightened significantly, with huge price increases in the spot market. It adds to existing pressures, including COVID-19 itself, which left many fleets operating below full strength.

“The supply chain is already fragile — so it puts all of us in a precarious situation,” Dan Einwechter, CEO of Canadian trucking and logistics firm Challenger Motor Freight, told FreightWaves.

The Canadian Trucking Alliance and American Trucking Alliance have projected that 10%-15% of drivers may leave cross-border trucking as a result of the mandates, and exacerbate existing supply chain issues. On Monday, several dozen Canadian truckers protested near the U.S. border in Emerson, Manitoba.

*

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.

Nate Tabak is a Toronto-based journalist and producer who covers cybersecurity and cross-border trucking and logistics for FreightWaves. He spent seven years reporting stories in the Balkans and Eastern Europe as a reporter, producer and editor based in Kosovo. He previously worked at newspapers in the San Francisco Bay Area, including the San Jose Mercury News. He graduated from UC Berkeley, where he studied the history of American policing. Contact Nate at [email protected].

Featured image is from Jim Allen/FreightWaves

A Europa entrincheirada contra o inimigo inventado

January 25th, 2022 by Manlio Dinucci

O Departamento de Estado, “como medida de precaução contra uma possível invasão russa da Ucrânia”, ordenou a evacuação de familiares e parte do pessoal da Embaixada dos EUA em Kiev, que com 900 funcionários é uma das maiores da Europa e elevou ao nível 4, risco máximo, a advertência aos cidadãos estadunidenses para não irem à Ucrânia ao nível 4. Imediatamente depois, o Foreign Office anunciou, com a mesma motivação, a retirada de funcionários da Embaixada Britânica em Kiev. Essas operações de guerra psicológica, destinadas a criar alarme sobre uma iminente invasão russa da Ucrânia e das três repúblicas bálticas, preparam uma escalada EUA-Otan ainda mais perigosa contra a Rússia.

A Casa Branca anunciou que o presidente Biden está considerando “deslocar milhares de soldados, navios de guerra e aviões dos EUA para países da Otan no Báltico e na Europa Oriental”. Inicialmente, espera-se a chegada de 5.500 soldados norte-americanos que, juntando-se aos 4.000 já na Polônia e seguidos por outros milhares, estenderão sua instalação permanente ao Báltico, conforme solicitado pela Letônia. Trens especiais já estão transportando tanques americanos da Polônia para a Ucrânia, cujas forças armadas são treinadas há anos, e de fato comandadas, por centenas de conselheiros e instrutores militares dos EUA, ladeados por outros da Otan. Washington, que no ano passado forneceu a Kiev armas no valor oficial de 650 milhões de dólares, autorizou a Estônia, a Letônia e a Lituânia a transferir as armas dos EUA em sua posse para a Ucrânia, em particular os mísseis Javelin. Outros armamentos são fornecidos pela Grã-Bretanha e pela República Tcheca.

A Otan informa que os países europeus da Aliança estão colocando suas forças armadas em estado de prontidão operacional e enviando outros navios de guerra e aviões de combate para serem instalados na Europa Oriental. A Itália, com os caças-bombardeiros Eurofighter, assumiu o comando da missão da Otan de “polícia aérea reforçada” na Romênia. A França está pronta para enviar tropas à Romênia sob o comando da Otan. A Espanha está enviando navios de guerra das forças navais da Otan e caças-bombardeiros para a Bulgária. A Holanda está se preparando para enviar caças F-35 para a Bulgária. A Dinamarca envia caças F-16 para a Lituânia. Ontem (24) começou o grande exercício naval Nato Neptune Strike ’22 no Mediterrâneo sob o comando do vice-almirante Eugene Black, comandante da Sexta Frota com quartel general em Nápoles Capodichino e base em Gaeta. O porta-aviões nuclear norte-americano Harry Truman participa do exercício, que dura 12 dias, com seu grupo de combate, incluindo cinco lançadores de mísseis prontos para um ataque nuclear para “tranquilizar os aliados europeus, especialmente na frente oriental ameaçada pela Rússia”.

Imediatamente após o Nato Neptune Strike ’22, o exercício da missão Clemenceau 22 ocorrerá em fevereiro, que verá engajados, em uma “operação de três porta-aviões”, o francês Charles de Gaulle, movido a energia nuclear, e seu grupo de combate, incluindo um submarino de ataque nuclear, que entrará no Adriático; o Harry Truman com seu grupo de combate e o porta-aviões italiano Cavour com os F-35 a bordo. Este exercício, é claro, também é dirigido contra a Rússia.

Enquanto a Otan ordena que a Rússia “reduza a escalada”, alertando que “qualquer agressão adicional acarretará um alto custo para Moscou”, os ministros das Relações Exteriores da União Europeia – reunidos em Bruxelas e conectados por teleconferência com o secretário de Estado dos EUA Blinken – decidiam outras medidas contra a Rússia. A União Europeia dos 27, dos quais 21 pertencem à Otan sob o comando dos EUA, ecoa a advertência  da Otan à Rússia, declarando que “qualquer agressão militar adicional contra a Ucrânia teria consequências muito sérias para a Rússia”. Desta forma, a UE participa da estratégia de tensão, através da qual os EUA criam fraturas na Europa para mantê-la sob sua influência.

Manlio Dinucci

 

Artigo original em italiano :

L’Europa in trincea contro il nemico inventato

Tradução : Resistência

Manlio Dinucci : Jornalista e geógrafo; publicado originalmente em ll Manifesto; taduzido pela redação de resistencia.cc

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on A Europa entrincheirada contra o inimigo inventado

“Manifest Destiny” Done Right. China and Russia Succeed Where the U.S. Failed. Historical Analysis

January 25th, 2022 by Matthew Ehret-Kump

All Global Research articles 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 best way to predict the future is to create it.” –Abraham Lincoln

It should be obvious that the world is being sucked into a new Cold War, with old school iron curtains, anti-communist rhetoric and even nuclear sabre rattling pushed by unipolar war hawks in the west. Unlike the first Cold War, this new variant strain features Russia and China working closely together along with Iran and a growing chorus of nations which are increasingly integrating into the Belt and Road Initiative.

What crime have these Eurasian nations committed such that the U.S./NATO military industrial complex has placed targets on them?

Simply that they have chosen to not submit to a unipolar technocratic scientific dictatorship.

Instead of embracing a dystopic destiny locked inside a shrinking geopolitical cage as Boris Yeltsin or Zhao Ziyang were happy to do not too long ago, today’s Eurasian intelligentsia has recognized that the only solution to the multifaceted crisis threatening civilization is located in the future. This may sound like a simplistic platitude to some, but from a geostrategic standpoint, the future is where creativity lives.

When resources are monopolized and systems of rules shaped by a sociopathic elite antagonistic to the basic rights of humanity, the only viable pathway of resistance to engage in successful combat is to change the rules of the rigged game and create new resources. This is done by increasing the opportunity to

1) make new discoveries which

2) create new resources,

3) translate newly discovered principles into new technological improvements that

4) increase the productive powers (mental, spiritual and physical) of humanity.

If steps 1-4 don’t exist in the present, then where are they to be found?

I say it again: The Future.

The concept of positive future ideals teleologically (1) driving society forward was a powerful notion that once governed much of western civilization. The idea that man was made in the living image of a Creator, capable of participating in the continuous process of creation itself was an empowering notion which animated some of the greatest upward leaps in scientific progress, liberty, sovereignty, increased quality of life and population growth ever seen. In the early United States, this concept became known as “manifest destiny”… that God had a plan to expand the best of civilization and extend the fruits of progress to all in order to fulfill the Biblical mandate that humanity was expected to “be fruitful and multiply” and “replenish the earth and subdue it”.

While many goods to humanity arose out of this idea, it was also a double-edged sword that did great damage if used by tyrants, slave owners, or imperialists who ignored the reality that ALL humanity was endowed by the creator with inalienable rights, and not just a select few who felt they had the right breeding, religion, language, or racial characteristics.

A popular painting extolling the virtue of manifest destiny during the pioneering days of the 19th century which at times resulted in great good and at many other times, justified great evil

A New Eurasian Manifest Destiny Awakens

In Russia, this future orientation has taken the form of a sort of 21st century “Russian Manifest Destiny” which aims to extend civilization into the Siberian Far East and Arctic, and beyond Central Asia, Mongolia, Japan, China and beyond. While many are accustomed to myopically analyze world events from a “bottom up” mode of analysis, it is clear that

Since 2018, Russia’s eastern development ambitions have increasingly merged with China’s northern extension of the BRI dubbed The Polar Silk Road which has amplified the growth of railways, roads, telecommunication hubs, ports, energy projects and sea corridors through regions long thought inhospitable to human civilization.

China has seen the birth of its own version of “Manifest Destiny” in the form of the Belt and Road Initiative, which was unveiled in 2013, displaying a power of transformation, interconnectivity, and win-win cooperation beyond anything even its greatest fans imagined eight years ago.

Within a short period of time, over $3 trillion has been spent on small, medium and large-scale infrastructure projects now involving 140 nations (to varying degrees of participation.)

Glancing across the thousands of BRI projects springing up around the globe, we find the greatest array of rail lines (including high speed: maglev and conventional), integrated development corridors, new smart cities, new industrial hubs, pipelines and advanced science initiatives touching on space exploration, atomic power, fusion research, quantum computing and much more.

These corridors of development have stretched through northern lines via Russia as well as Central Asian states which includes the “Middle Corridor of the BRI”. More recently, we have seen the blossoming of a southern route from China to Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon also take form with Syria finally signing up on January 12th, 2022. Nations across Africa have also enthusiastically jumped on board with over 48 of 54 African nations signing onto the BRI. Currently, 18 Ibero American and 20 Arab states have also joined the program.

Must Diversity Be Sacrificed for Unity?

Both China and Russia have extremely large nations with vast potential in terms of undeveloped resources, manpower, and technological needs, but they also host a diverse array of smaller cultural, religious, linguistic and ethnic groups from all walks of life.

The vast majority of Russia’s 146 million citizens live in the Westernmost 1/5th of the country with 80% of the population living in or near urban zones extending from the Baltic to Caspian Sea. In the expansive north-eastern regions of Siberia (occupying a landmass 1.3 times the size of Canada), only 24 million citizens are diffused throughout this underpopulated land.

China faces similar problems with its population density and developed sectors locked up not in the west, but narrowly along its eastern pacific coast. Nearly 94% of China’s population still lives in the east of the Heihe-Tengchong Line with the vast inner heartland housing only 6% of the Chinese population.

Russia hosts 193 ethnic groups comprising nearly 20% of its population and although China’s Han population is by far the largest demographic (representing 91% of the population), there are 56 distinct ethnic groups representing 113 million people, many of whom live scattered across Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia.

The pressing quandary faced by Eurasian leaders planning out their programs of outward expansion can be stated in the following manner:

How is it possible to extend scientific and industrial development across multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic territories both domestically and internationally without destroying the cultural heritage of the hundreds, if not thousands of smaller cultural groups along the way? Must development always occur at the expense of cultural diversity of smaller ethnic groups as has been too often the case in world history, OR is there an organic way to balance both factors?

How NOT to do Manifest Destiny

The irony is that up until recently, the concept of Manifest Destiny has been traditionally associated with the United States which shares many demographic characteristics with both China and Russia with the vast majority of population concentrated in the eastern half of the continent.

Sadly, the forces who shaped American expansion- especially during those first 125 years when Manifest Destiny had its greatest influence, have too often failed this test miserably. In its first 12 decades of life, the USA grew from 13 backward colonies in 1776 to 45 industrially-advanced states in 1900. Throughout those years, the wiser anti-slavery voices of Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Charles Sumner, William Seward, and William Gilpin were too often subverted by an anglophile deep state parasite class that ran both Wall Street in the north and the southern slave power.

This multiheaded hydra lurking within the heart of the USA had its own perverse ideas of “Manifest Destiny” which stood in diametric opposition to the ambitions of the great statesmen listed above.

Where abolitionist-leading figures like Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton encouraged the sharing of knowledge, technical skills, science and the fruits of technological progress to both blacks and natives without forcing religious conversions or crushing their local traditions, the deep state in both northern and southern zones of influence sought to only expand their power through the conquerors whip.

The southern perversion of Manifest Destiny promoted by Andrew Jackson, Jefferson Davis and Albert Pike envisioned increased black slavery and Native Americans crushed under the heel of the “superior” white race, and cordoned off into cage-like plantations or reservations never to have a say in their own destiny. Jackson’s 1830 Indian Removal Act emptied out valuable lands quickly handed over to southern cotton planters who quickly expanded the influx of black slaves from Africa vastly increasing the tension between free vs slave states leading to the inevitable Civil War of 1861-65.

It is often forgotten that under the Mazzini-connected freemasonic-laden presidency of Franklin Pierce (1853-1857), then-Secretary of War Jefferson Davis (later Confederate President) and General Albert Pike were in charge of advancing a “southern alternative” to the trans continental railway through slave states. Unlike the northern line (begun by Lincoln in 1863) which was designed to spread industrial growth and ultimately connect with China, (2) the southern version simply served as an iron cage to keep the enslaved under the control of masters. In this way, the confederate “Manifest Destiny” was no different from the Cecil Rhodes racist vision of the Cape to Cairo rail line that sought to keep the continent under the British heel or today’s EU-London “Green Belt Initiative”/OSOWOG Plan to force green energy grids from Africa to India.

During the Civil War, the British were more than happy providing weapons, warships, logistic support, intelligence hubs in Canada and funding to the rebels nearly resulting in Lincoln fighting a war on two fronts early on (one against the south and the other against the British Empire) (3).

While the legitimate defenders of American Manifest Destiny sought to avoid war, relying instead on diplomacy to grow their territories (see: the Louisiana purchase of 1804, Oregon Territory in 1848, or Alaska purchase of 1867), the “America” of Wall Street and Virginia’s slave power were always happy to pick a fight with a neighbor to spread their imperial ambitions (see the Mexican war of 1846-48, or overthrow of Hawaii’s monarchy in 1893).

Unfortunately, those American traditions that once resisted imperialism have withered away, with today’s republic a poor shell of its former self, purged of genuine patriots in positions of federal power. Today’s USA has hollowed out its industrial base, destroyed its cultural connection to Christian values and its faith in scientific progress resulting in an alienated nation of nihilistic consumers without a vision for the future.

The Growth of Eco-Colonialism in the 20th Century

The racist program of ghettoization of natives in the form of tribal reservations has segregated First Nation tribes from the rest of society for generations, keeping them locked into cycles of dependence, poverty, substance abuse, infant mortality rates and suicide magnitudes higher than the national average.

This manipulation of Native Americans has also seen these abused people used by game masters attempting to block broader continental development projects under a policy of “human ecosystems-management”. Since the late 1960s, it has become increasingly fashionable to treat native populations as just extensions of their local ecosystems- both of which are presumed to exist in stationary equilibrium by computer models which have been used to calculate conservation regions and optimal population growth for decades.

For anyone struggling to understand why the large-scale economic growth policy advanced by the likes of Franklin Roosevelt and JFK were derailed in the late 1960s with the onset of the Vietnam War, understanding this racist use of native reserves and ecosystem management is vital. The vast growth of conservation parks and federal lands kept off limits from all infrastructure investment was not the effect of warm-hearted nature lovers as many have been led to believe, but rather the effect of a cold calculated policy by geopolitical gamemasters intent on keeping society locked into a small controlled world of “limited resources”.

Source: Conservation lands (top) and national reserve parks (below): National Academy of Sciences of North America

While liberal imperialists shed crocodile tears for the plight of natives long abused by selfish white colonizers, they were too happy supporting mass sterilization of native women throughout the 1970s, and keeping the natives without clean drinking water, reliable electricity, healthcare or even access to quality jobs.

One of the most vocal proponents of the trans-continental railway (extending into Eurasia) was Lincoln-ally William Gilpin (Colorado Governor during the Civil War) who astutely identified the reservations to be “like blocks of stone in the wall of a jail against the frontier line”.

Under the veil of this new type of modern colonialism, money was often infused into the coffers of corrupt tribal leaders who have been happy letting oil cartels exploit their resources while keeping their people locked in cycles of dependence and zero technological growth.

From this perspective, one can see a clear parallel in the application of a similar neo-colonial policy applied to Africa.

China: A Manifest Destiny with Dignity

Despite the loud denunciations from the western Five Eyes-managed political class, China’s approach to both African BRI partners and their own minority groups stands in stark contrast to this nefarious tradition of exploitation and cultural genocide deployed by the western oligarchy for generations.

What we have seen in places like Tibet and Xinjiang are cultural heritage centers, exploding literacy rates, the celebration and teaching of traditional languages, songs, stories and dances given full government patronage. In Xinjiang per capita GDP has increased 100 fold since 1979 and average life expectancy increased from 30 years on average in 1949 to 72 years today.

As I write this, running from Lanzhou-Urumqi totalling 1776 km and running parallel to the electrified Lanxin passenger railway completed in 2014. With the new high-speed route completed, the Lanxin passenger railway will be transformed to freight rail servicing the Eurasian Continental Landbridge with goods flowing 11,000 km from East China to Rotterdam.

Other rail projects now underway in Xinjiang involve the Ruoqiang-Hotan railway which completes a loop circling the Taklamakan desert, and also the 600 km Kashgar to Osh railway from China to Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. This latter project will provide a vital boost of needed growth to Uzbekistan’s Ferhana Valley which has served as a landing point for Saudi Wahabism since the 1990s, where radicalized jihadis were infused into Pakistan and Afghanistan (and also back into China). A new highway from Kashgar City in Southern Xinjiang to Pakistan is now being finalized as an extended component of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor as well as a new railway cutting through the desert.

While evidence of this cultural growth has grown across all minority ethnic zones, we have also seen a dramatic growth in longevity, population density, quality of life, poverty reduction, infant mortality reduction, and access to advanced industrial skills, clean water, internet and abundant electricity.

On a religious level, over 24,400 mosques currently exist in Xinjiang, not to mention 59 Buddhist temples and 253 churches. In only eight years, the bane of Saudi-US funded terrorism in China has been dealt with without a single Arab state bombed back to the stone age which is no small accomplishment.

In Tibet, high speed and conventional rail has connected the local communities that had long lived in poverty, to broader global markets with durable technical skills and training growing vibrantly among the younger population.

Buddhist temples are also thriving with the full support of the government. NED-controlled propaganda outlets in either region would have you remain blind to these demonstrable facts of Chinese life.

While concessions favoring Chinese firms are certainly built into most BRI-connected projects springing up across Southwest Asia, Africa, and beyond, the fact is that infrastructure (both hard and soft), new industrial hubs and educational opportunities are springing to life at breakneck speed.

Across Africa, we have found local cultural traditions thrive in tandem with the same policy we have witnessed in Tibet and Xinjiang. If this is news to you, try putting down the Epoch Times and watching some local African news or CGTN’s African channels.

China’s approach stands in stark contrast to those IMF-World Bank-USAID programs that have systematically kept poor nations in usurious debt-trap enslavement for decades providing money to buy a few fish, but never allowed the capability to fish for themselves. China, on the other hand has encouraged the growth of vast construction projects, manufacturing hubs, and perhaps most importantly, advanced engineering skills.

Overcoming Russia’s Monetarist Obstacles

In Russia, a privatized central banking system still largely influenced by monetary protocols shaped by the IMF has made actualizing Putin’s Far Eastern vision much more difficult than in China where a vibrant state owned banking system provides an invaluable instrument of long-term growth. Russia’s private central bank, established (in its current form) in 1990, still suffers from deep-seeded structural ties to the IMF, WTO and liberal ideologues swarming across the bureaucratic landscape ensuring that a doctrine of “balanced budgets” and free markets takes precedence over the emission of productive credit.

Despite these blocks, Russia’s unique version of Manifest Destiny has begun to spring into life with Sergei Shoigu’s “grand masterplan for Siberia” starting with the construction of five new cities housing 500,000 to a million citizens.

Additionally, the plans to expand and improve both the 9300 km Trans-Siberian Railway and its 4300 km southern Baikur-Amal Mainline rail being modernized, double tracked and integrated ever more deeply into Mongolia, China and even Japan. This dovetails the expanding International North South Transportation Corridor from Moscow to India via central Asia and Iran which should now be seen as another dimension of BOTH the BRI and Far East Vision [see map below]. As the project advances, freight traffic along these rail lines will increase from 120 million tons/year to 180 million tons/year in 2024.

This rail expansion is tied closely to Russia’s Development Plan for the Northern Sea Route adopted in 2019 and which seeks to increase annual shipments to 80 million tons by 2024. On top of ports and new arctic mining hubs, this plan includes the construction of 40 new vessels (including more nuclear icebreakers), railways, and northern seaports which will see 10 days of shipping time slashed from goods between China and Europe.

If this wasn’t enough, on January 15, 2022, Putin announced that proposals to construct a long awaited Arctic railway to the Barents Sea must be submitted by May 10 2022.  This rail will extend to the Indiga Port in the Nenets Region which will host a year-round arctic port with a capacity of processing 80-200 million tons of cargo/year.

China and Russia have agreed to build Arctic science research centers in 2019 in order to “promote the construction of ‘Silk Road on Ice’”, while new designs for a new international scientific research base in Yamal called Snezhinka (aka: “Snowflake”) will be opened in 2022. In both instances, pure scientific research on Astro-climatology (the Arctic is the densest entry point for interstellar cosmic radiation which plays a driving role in climate change), species evolution and chemistry will be done in such new centers. Perhaps the most exciting fields of research will involve the testing of new artificial ecosystem designs requisite for sustaining human life comfortably not only in the Arctic but also on other celestial bodies like the Moon or Mars. Both nations have after all, agreed to co-develop a permanent lunar base which will be unveiled in the coming decade.

If we can avoid the trappings of nuclear war, then the discoveries that will be made along this exciting new chapter of inter-civilizational development are beyond the capacity of any computer model to predict, but they will happen nonetheless. The unleashing of creative discoveries by educated, inspired, goal-oriented human minds will increasingly awaken new technologies, and redefine humanity’s relationship to the periodic table of elements as new uses are found for the atom with wider access to the thousands of isotopes that still have yet to find a role in our economic systems. In this way, space and time itself will be condensed as magnetic levitation rail, nuclear propulsion systems and new energy sources will be brought online revolutionizing our ideas of “near”, “far”, “slow” and “fast” in dramatic ways.

Just think of the many months one would have to travel from old to new worlds in colonial days, to the mere hours such a transit takes on a hypersonic plane today. This is the sort of quantum leap expected as the 300 days transit to Mars currently required with chemical rockets will fall to a matter of weeks with nuclear propulsion.

Perhaps one might wish to accuse me of an overabundance of idealism, but so what?

This process is already unfolding before our very eyes, as political and scientific realities which many thought impossible only a decade ago, have already begun changing the trajectory of our collective future. If humanity’s phase shift into a mature self-conscious species is subverted once more… at a time when thermonuclear weapons litter the globe, there is no guarantee that we will get another chance.

*

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 first published on The Canadian Patriot.

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series and Clash of the Two Americas (which you can purchase by clicking those links or the book covers below). In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

(1) The term “teleological” refers to the idea that there is an intrinsic purpose or design shaping the material world, and that human ideas of law, and even economic ambitions are only good to the degree that they square with this purpose built into the fabric of the universe.

(2) One of the Trans Continental Railways most vigorous champions was Senator Charles Sumner, who passed a resolution in defense of the 1867 Alaska purchase (through which rail and telegraph lines were planned to move from the Americas through Eurasia via the Bering Strait crossing): “To unite the East of Asia with the West of America is the aspiration of commerce now as when the English navigator (Meares) recorded his voyage. Of course, whatever helps this result is an advantage. The Pacific railroad is such an advantage; for, though running westward, it will be, when completed, a new highway to the East.”

(3) This 2nd front against Britain was nearly sparked in 1861 due to the Trent Affair

All images in this article are from TCP unless otherwise stated

The Clash of the Two Americas

Vol. 1 & 2

by Matthew Ehret

In his new two volume series The Clash of the Two Americas, Matthew Ehret introduces a new analysis of American history from the vantage point that the globally-extended supranational shadow government that managed the British Empire was never fully defeated and has acted within the USA itself since 1776 as a continuous multi-generational fifth column managing every significant event and assassination of American presidents for the next 250 years.

Click here to order.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Manifest Destiny” Done Right. China and Russia Succeed Where the U.S. Failed. Historical Analysis
  • Tags: , , ,

L’Europa in trincea contro il nemico inventato

January 25th, 2022 by Manlio Dinucci

Il Dipartimento di Stato, «quale misura precauzionale contro una possibile invasione russa dell’Ucraina», ha ordinato l’evacuazione dei familiari e di una parte del personale dall’Ambasciata Usa a Kiev, che con 900 funzionari è tra le maggiori in Europa, e ha elevato a livello 4 di rischio, il massimo, l’avvertimento ai cittadini statunitensi di non andare in Ucraina. Subito dopo il Foreign Office ha annunciato, con la stessa motivazione, il ritiro del personale dall’Ambasciata britannica a Kiev. Queste operazioni di guerra psicologica, miranti a creare allarme su una imminente invasione russa dell’Ucraina e delle tre repubbliche baltiche, preparano una ulteriore e ancora più pericolosa escalation Usa-Nato contro la Russia.

La Casa Bianca ha annunciato che il presidente Biden sta considerando di «dispiegare diverse migliaia di soldati Usa, navi da guerra e aerei nei paesi Nato del Baltico e dell’Europa Orientale». Si prevede che inizialmente arriveranno 5.500 soldati Usa che, unendosi ai 4.000 già in Polonia e seguiti da altre migliaia, estenderanno al Baltico il loro schieramento permanente, come ha richiesto la Lettonia. Speciali convogli ferroviari stanno già trasportando carrarmati Usa dalla Polonia all’Ucraina, le cui forze armate sono da anni addestrate, e di fatto comandate, da centinaia di consiglieri militari e istruttori Usa affiancati da altri della Nato. Washington, che l’anno scorso ha fornito a Kiev armi per l’ammontare ufficiale di 650 milioni di dollari, ha autorizzato Estonia, Lettonia e Lituania a trasferire all’Ucraina armamenti Usa in loro possesso, in particolare missili Javelin. Altri armamenti sono forniti dalla Gran Bretagna e dalla Repubblica Ceca.

La Nato comunica che i paesi europei dell’Alleanza stanno mettendo le loro forze armate in stato di prontezza operativa e inviando altre navi da guerra e aerei da combattimento agli schieramenti in Europa Orientale. L’Italia, con i cacciabombardieri Eurofighter, ha preso il comando della missione Nato di «polizia aerea potenziata» in Romania. La Francia è pronta a inviare truppe in Romania sotto comando Nato. La Spagna sta inviando navi da guerra nelle forze navali Nato e cacciabombardieri in Bulgaria. L’Olanda si prepara a inviare caccia F-35 in Bulgaria. La Danimarca invia caccia F-16 in Lituania. Ieri è iniziata nel Mediterraneo la grande esercitazione navale Nato Neptune Strike ’22 sotto il comando del viceammiraglio Eugene Black, comandante della Sesta Flotta con quartier generale a Napoli Capodichino e base a Gaeta. All’esercitazione, che dura 12 giorni, partecipa la portaerei nucleare Usa Harry Truman col suo gruppo di battaglia, comprendente 5 unità lanciamissili pronte all’attacco nucleare per «rassicurare gli Alleati europei soprattutto sul fronte orientale minacciato dalla Russia».

Subito dopo la Nato Neptune Strike ’22, si svolgerà in febbraio l’esercitazione Mission Clemenceau 22 che vedrà impegnate, in una «Operazione di tre portaerei», la francese Charles de Gaulle a propulsione nucleare col suo gruppo di battaglia, comprendente anche un sottomarino da attacco nucleare, che entrerà nell’Adriatico; la Harry Truman col suo gruppo di battaglia e la portaerei italiana Cavour con a bordo gli F-35. Anche questa esercitazione, ovviamente, è diretta contro la Russia.

Mentre la Nato intima alla Russia di «de-escalare», avvertendola che «qualsiasi ulteriore aggressione comporterà un alto costo per Mosca», i ministri degli Esteri dell’Unione Europea (per l’Italia Pietro Benassi in sostituzione di Luigi Di Maio) – riuniti a Bruxelles e collegati in teleconferenza col segretario di stato Usa Blinken – hanno decretato ieri altre misure contro la Russia. L’Unione Europea dei 27, di cui 21 appartengono alla Nato sotto comando Usa, riecheggia l’avvertimento Nato alla Russia, dichiarando che «qualsiasi ulteriore aggressione militare contro l’Ucraina avrebbe pesantissime conseguenze per la Russia». In tal modo la UE partecipa alla strategia della tensione, attraverso cui gli Usa creano fratture in Europa per mantenerla sotto la loro influenza.

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on L’Europa in trincea contro il nemico inventato

Join the Battle to End Slavery by Vaccines and 5G

January 25th, 2022 by Emanuel Pastreich

All Global Research articles 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.

***

We spent decades preparing to fight the Second World War again and we piled up over-priced fighter planes, flawed tanks, bulky battle ships, and antiquated aircraft carriers that now rust away in silence.

But the next world war, and more critically, the next civil war, are shaping up to be fundamentally different in nature, if not in motivation.

The war has already started. The drive to implement 5G microwave electronic broadcast across the United States, and around the world, as a follow up to the push for the COVID-19 vaccines that contain nano-devices and the electricity-responsive toxin graphene oxide, is an indication that we are about to enter the next stage of this war. The conflict of Ukraine, real or imagined, is dwarfed in comparison.

When I say that it is a war over slavery, just like the civil war of 1861 to 1865 was, the comparison is not idle.

In the 1850s in America, slavery was expanding, the rights of slave owners over runaway slaves was strengthened, and the rights of Americans were in decline. The aristocracy of the South, with finance from the North, had taken steps to render all common men without land in the South, black or white, the equivalent of slaves before the law.

The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison denounced this catastrophe, as he would surely have denounced mRNA vaccines and unregulated 5G radiation. He attacked those who were silent about slavery thus:

“They who desire me to be dumb on the subject of slavery, unless I will open my mouth in its defense, ask me to give the lie to my professions, to degrade my manhood, and to stain my soul. I will not be a liar, a poltroon, or a hypocrite, to accommodate any party, to gratify any sect, to escape any odium or peril, to save any interest, to preserve any institution, or to promote any object. Convince me that one man may rightfully make another man his slave, and I will no longer subscribe to the Declaration of Independence. Convince me that liberty is not the inalienable birthright of every human being, of whatever complexion or clime, and I will give that instrument to the consuming fire. I do not know how to espouse freedom and slavery together.”

We face such a moment again when freedom is promoted in the media and slavery is the reality on the ground.

The bogus vaccines to weaken the body through mRNA, the 5G assault on the body and mind, the degraded educational and journalistic content that we drown in, all of this is aimed at reducing us to slavery, those of us who survive.

At the core of the drive for a new slavery, in response to false gods of finance, lies the cynical extension of the methods for creating meat at factory farms into the governance of man. The destruction of the genetic code of cows and pigs that rendered them as a helpless GMOs is being repeated right now as our citizens are made GMOs by vaccination.

The identification and tracking of cows and pigs by QR codes will soon be a universal reality for all of us.

The feeding of slop pumped full of chemicals to cows and pigs is identical with the feeding to our citizens of chemical-laden processed foods churned out by multinational corporations.

And the endless injection of cows and pigs with growth hormones, stimulants and, yes, a range of bogus vaccines, is the precise model for what is being done to us.

Cows and pigs are worse than chattel today. They are like flies to the wanton technocrats and bio-fascists who kill them for their sport. Those cows and pigs are our leaders. They show us the way to the grim future that awaits us.

The process for rendering us as slaves can be divided into four steps.

The first step is the demolition of constitutional rights and the creation of a metastasized corporate-government administrative structure that is accountable to no one and that makes all long-term policy in response to demands from the super-rich, multinational investment banks and IT monopolies like Facebook, Amazon and Google (Alphabet).

This horrific rape of democracy has been going for a long time. The Federal Reserve and Department of the Treasury were outsourced in toto to global finance already starting in the Clinton years. [The Financial Services Modernization Act]

The second step is the destruction of the local economy so that citizens can no longer produce anything for themselves and must obtain food, services and all products from multinational corporations. At the same time, they can only find work in organizations run, directly or indirectly, by such multinational corporations.

This step towards economic slavery, although undetectable to the naked eye, fundamentally altered the structure of society through the concentration of wealth and the loss of independent thinking among citizens, and does so to a degree that is not easily reversed.

A class of billionaires, like the antebellum Southern planters, has emerged that treats the rest of humanity as its slaves.

The third step is the destruction of bodily autonomy through the forced vaccinations and for-profit corporate medicine. We can trace the origins of this abomination back to John D. Rockefeller’s purchase of doctors and medical schools exactly one hundred year ago, but the process of decay has sped up exponentially. The corporate state stealthily has laid the foundations for a claim, by means of a bogus pandemic, to ownership of the bodies of all citizens.

The bombardment of citizens with advertising on TV, which they have no choice but to watch, that encourages the thoughtless use of pharmaceutical products detrimental to the body is also part of this campaign.

The fourth step is the destruction of spiritual autonomy and of intellectual freedom. The billionaires are set on creating a new class of trans-humans.

Trans-humans are slaves who are dependent on AI, who have nano-devices in their blood and in their brains, and who are reduced to passive customers whose desires are dictated to them by corporations.

These four steps will render the entire population as physical, economic, spiritual, and intellectual slaves without the vast majority even being capable of understanding what is taking place.

There is no sign of a meaningful opposition to the enforcement of vaccines and the illegal irradiation of citizens by 5G.

We must go back to that brave decision of John Brown and his followers to oppose the secret and silent war of slavery against humanity at Harper’s Ferry on October 16, 1859.

Do not deceive yourself into thinking that a criminal attack on citizens, on this scale, can be stopped by passing few laws or by a posting a few memes on Facebook.

The start of C-Band 5G service by AT&T and Verizon is scheduled for this month, January 2022, in the United States, a month that will live in infamy.

The Biden administration has pushed for it at every level to pay back its supporters in high tech, media, and global finance.

Thousands of medical and scientific studies have confirmed with undisputable evidence that high EMF’s (electric and magnetic fields) are dangerous. Thousands more scientists have signed petitions calling for the immediate halt of 5G deployment. Its negative impact on navigation in airplanes as well is a proven fact.

The bogus pandemic slowed down your mail service, and made it impossible to see a doctor, but construction of 5G networks has only sped up.

Vaccines, 5G and other schemes to control the us, and to play nations against each other, are part of the “Great Reset,” the “fourth industrial revolution.”

This multi-trillion dollar scheme, promoted by the World Economic Forum, is a move to connect everyone to the grid, like it or not, and thereby enable those who control technology to have a complete lock on manufacturing, food production, sales, public services, transportation, finance, and education. It is not an accident that this plan is being pushed for at precisely the moment that the vaccines and 5G are deployed to destroy the capacity to resist.

Some 10,000 peer-reviewed clinical studies describe the molecular injury (damage to the DNA) that results from exposure to 5G and link that damage to the degradation of cellular function and organ function.

The impact on the brain of 5G is most obvious. The functionality of the brain is modified by exposure with resulting loss of memory and concentration, the onset of depression, and other long-term psychiatric conditions.

Diseases that can be traced directly back to 5G radiation include low fertility, cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, strokes, heart attacks, and autism.

Numerous studies, dismissed or ignored by the corporate media, show that COVID-19 vaccines are meant to ready the bodies of citizens for control via these powerful 5G irradiation platforms, broadcasting systems whose intensity can be increased without the knowledge of citizens.

The vaccines released by Moderna, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, and others contain nano-devices and materials sensitive to electricity intended to create a direct link between 5G broadcasts and the functionality of the body.

Nano-routers, nano-antennas, and most importantly the toxin graphene oxide have been found in these fluids.

The nano-devices and microdots that can operate in the bloodstream and circulate though the body to the brain, are no fantasy. The Department of Defense’s research institute DARPA has conducted numerous projects in this field (many of which are classified, but some of which are accessible).

These devices can be activated by 5G radiation as they enter the nervous system—thus allowing for manipulation of the emotions, the thinking and the actions of the citizen via external stimulation.

Graphene oxide is attracted to electrical activity and therefore gravitates to the spine, the brain, and the heart: the organs that release the largest amounts of electricity. We have already witnessed the resulting heart attacks, and the sudden deaths, among athletes resulting from vaccines containing graphene oxide.

The combination of vaccines that contain nano-structures with the intensification of 5G broadcast will usher in the next stage of this war. You may be able to avoid a vaccination if you have money, or if you can work at home. But no one who interacts with society will escape the dangers of 5G.

We must first recognize the dire situation and end the psychology of denial and distraction.

We must first admit that we live under a complete dictatorship that cloaks its daggers and maces with the trappings of democratic process on minor issues.

This is what happens when a nation carelessly trusts presidents and legislators whose campaigns are bankrolled by the telecomm giants and Silicon Valley tyrants and listens to a media empire ruled by serial liars running disinformation campaigns for private interests.

We must also think deeply about how we can create institutions that will replace these corrupt criminal syndicates that lead us to slaughter. That process is not a matter of elections, or of passing laws, or of interpreting the law by courts, or even of posting critical articles in newspapers. It is already far too late for that.

We must undertake a revolutionary transformation while at the same time remaining loyal to the Constitution and to our moral principles.

It will be an extremely difficult painful process. But, at this point, we have no choice.

*

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 usprovgov.asia.

Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from https://worldunitednews.blogspot.com/

I Shall Fear No Evil

Why we need a truly independent candidate for president

Author: Emanuel Pastreich

Paperback ISBN: 9781649994509

Pages: 162

Click here to order.

.

.

Video: Turkish-Kurdish War Gaining Momentum in Northern Syria

January 25th, 2022 by South Front

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

As of January 21, the Turkish military is still struggling to secure the areas occupied by its forces in Syria’s northern and northwestern region. Syrian government forces has been also facing security challenges in the country’s central and southern regions.

In the northern region, a new rocket attack targeted the Turkish-occupied area of Afrin on January 20.

Several rockets hit Afrin city center, killing six people, including three children and a woman. At least 24 others were wounded, including ten children and seven women.

The rockets were reportedly launched from a small pocket of land in southern Afrin held by Kurdish forces, namely the Syrian Democratic Forces.

The Turkish military and its proxies responded to the deadly rocket attack by shelling the Kurdish-held pocket. Material losses were reported. A child was also wounded.

Kurdish forces may have carried out the attack to commemorate the fourth anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Afrin that began on 20 January 2018. Turkey could use the attack to justify a new military operation in Syria.

In the northwestern region, known as Greater Idlib, the situation was not better for the Turkish military and its proxies.

On January 19, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) shelled the outskirts of a Turkish military post near the town of Qoqfin. No casualties or material losses were reported.

On January 20, the army’s artillery pounded the outskirts of Qoqfin post once again, without causing any losses. Later during the same day, the army struck another Turkish military post located near the town of Kansafra. This time, the shelling wounded three of the post’s guards. The wounded were reportedly Turkish service members and Syrian militants of the Turkish-backed Sham Legion.

The real target of the SAA’s recent artillery strikes was likely militants of al-Qaeda-affiliated Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and its allies, who usually take shelter near Turkish posts.

Meanwhile in Syria’s central region, government forces and their allies continue to operate against ISIS cells.

On January 20, the SAA and other government formations kicked off a new large-scale combing operation in the region. The operation will cover the eastern Homs countryside, the Hama-Aleppo-Raqqa triangle and the western desert of Deir Ezzor.

Warplanes of the Russian Aerospace Forces carried out a series of airstrikes on hideouts of ISIS in the eastern Homs countryside and the western desert of Deir Ezzor in support of the new operation. The airstrikes claimed the lives of eight terrorists and wounded at least ten others.

The pressure mounted by government forces and their allies have forced ISIS cells in central Syria to temporary halt their operations. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the terrorist group’s insurgency will be over soon.

In the southern region, the security situation appears to be deteriorating, once again. Two attacks were reported in Daraa’s eastern countryside.

On January 18, unidentified gunmen attacked a checkpoint of the SAA’s 52nd Brigade and the Air Force Intelligence Directorate near the town of Mlaiha al-Garbiah. Two service members were allegedly killed.

On January 19, at least 14 Syrian security officers were lightly wounded when an improvised explosive device (IED) targeted a bus that was carrying them as it was passing on a road between the towns of Saida and Eastern Ghariyah. The officers on their way back from the Nassib crossing on the border with Jordan to their base in the capital Damascus.

Government forces may soon impose strict security measures in Daraa. This could anger the locals leading to a new conflict in the governorate.

The situation in Syria will not likely improve much in the near future. In fact, a new military confrontation between Turkish and Kurdish forces may start soon.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Turkish-Kurdish War Gaining Momentum in Northern Syria
  • Tags: ,

As the Pandemic Devastates the Poor, the World’s 10 Richest Have Multiplied Their Wealth into Trillions

January 25th, 2022 by Thalif Deen

All Global Research articles 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 numbers are unbelievably staggering: the world’s 10 richest men more than doubled their fortunes from $700 billion to $1.5 trillion —at a rate of $15,000 per second or $1.3 billion a day, according to a new study from Oxfam International.

These phenomenal changes in fortunes took place during the first two years of a Covid-19 pandemic that has seen the incomes of 99 percent of humanity fall, and over 160 million more people forced into poverty—60 million more than the figures released by the World Bank in 2020.

“If these ten men were to lose 99.999 percent of their wealth tomorrow, they would still be richer than 99 percent of all the people on this planet,” said Oxfam International’s Executive Director Gabriela Bucher.

“They now have six times more wealth than the poorest 3.1 billion people.”

“It has never been so important to start righting the violent wrongs of this obscene inequality by clawing back elites’ power and extreme wealth including through taxation —getting that money back into the real economy and to save lives,” she said.

According to Forbes magazine, the 10 richest people, as of 30 November 2021, who have seen their fortunes grow, include Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bernard Arnault & family, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Ballmer and Warren Buffet.

The pandemic has hit the poorest people, women and racialized and marginalized groups the hardest. For example, in the US, 3.4 million Black Americans would be alive today if their life expectancy was the same as White people —this is directly linked to historical racism and colonialism, according to the study titled “Inequality Kills” released January 17, ahead of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) online Davos Agenda.

The report finds that a new billionaire is created every 26 hours while inequality is contributing to the death of at least 21,000 people each day, or one person every four seconds.

Other findings include:

  • The pandemic has set gender parity back from 99 years to now 135 years. 252 men have more wealth than all 1 billion women and girls in Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean combined.
  • During the second wave of the pandemic in England, people of Bangladeshi origin were five times more likely to die of COVID-19 than the White British population. Black people in Brazil are 1.5 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than White people.
  • Inequality between countries is expected to rise for the first time in a generation. The proportion of people with COVID-19 who die from the virus in developing countries is roughly double that in rich countries.

Asked for his comments, Ben Phillips, author of How to Fight Inequality, told IPS the new report “confirms four vital truths about inequality are now proven beyond doubt.

Firstly, inequality kills. Inequality is not just inefficient and unfair. As the data shows, it is deadly.

Secondly, inequality is spiralling. The driving cause is neoliberalism, but it has now been supercharged by the pandemic.

Thirdly, inequality is a political choice. The rise in inequality is not inevitable. Governments can reduce inequality if they decide to do so.

Fourthly, policy-makers will only shift if we make them do so. A reversal in inequality depends on us, ordinary citizens, organizing to push our leaders to make them do their job and put in place the policies that will deliver a fairer, safer, world.”

Striking a hopeful note, Phillips said:

“Though the crisis has made inequality even worse and even harder to bear,” he said, “the crisis also, paradoxically, has generated an opportunity for transformational shift to tackle inequality, if we seize this moment”.

“We know the policy mix needed – get the vaccine to everyone by sharing the rights and recipes, drop the debt, expand public services like free health and education, raise up ordinary people’s wages and worker’s rights, tackle discrimination, put money in the hands of ordinary people, and properly tax, and restrain the economic and political power, of big corporations and the super-rich.”

Change depends on ordinary people, Phillips said.

“The myths of equal opportunity and rising tides have been busted, but the truth alone will not set us free. Left to itself, the rigged economy will continue to worsen inequality. Left to themselves, politicians will allow it, even enable it, to do so.

Only pressure from below can secure a reversal of rising inequality. The good news is that around the world, frustration is increasingly being channelled into a resurgence of organizing that has potential to shift the balance of power.

Unions, community organizations, women’s groups, progressive faith organizations and social movements are standing up and standing together. This is the source of hope. This is our chance – if enough people join in. Inequality defines this moment but need not be our fate,” declared Phillips.

According to the Oxfam report, billionaires’ wealth has risen more since COVID-19 began than it has in the last 14 years. At $5 trillion dollars, this is the biggest surge in billionaire wealth since records began. A one-off 99 percent tax on the ten richest men’s pandemic windfalls, for example, could pay:

  • to make enough vaccines for the world;
  • to provide universal healthcare and social protection, fund climate adaptation and reduce gender-based violence in over 80 countries;
  • All this, while still leaving these men $8 billion better off than they were before the pandemic.

“Billionaires have had a terrific pandemic. Central banks pumped trillions of dollars into financial markets to save the economy, yet much of that has ended up lining the pockets of billionaires riding a stock market boom. Vaccines were meant to end this pandemic, yet rich governments allowed pharma billionaires and monopolies to cut off the supply to billions of people. The result is that every kind of inequality imaginable risks rising. The predictability of it is sickening. The consequences of it kill,” said Bucher.

Extreme inequality is a form of economic violence, where policies and political decisions that perpetuate the wealth and power of a privileged few results in direct harm to the vast majority of ordinary people across the world and the planet itself.

Oxfam recommends that governments urgently:

  • Claw back the gains made by billionaires by taxing this huge new wealth made since the start of the pandemic through permanent wealth and capital taxes.
  • Invest the trillions that could be raised by these taxes toward progressive spending on universal healthcare and social protection, climate change adaptation, and gender-based violence prevention and programming.
  • Tackle sexist and racist laws that discriminate against women and racialized people and create new gender-equal laws to uproot violence and discrimination. All sectors of society must urgently define policies that will ensure women, racialized and other oppressed groups are represented in all decision-making spaces.
  • End laws that undermine the rights of workers to unionize and strike, and set up stronger legal standards to protect them.
  • And rich governments must immediately waive intellectual property rules over COVID-19 vaccine technologies to allow more countries to produce safe and effective vaccines to usher in the end of the pandemic.

Antonia Kirkland, global lead for Legal Equality & Access to Justice at Equality Now, told IPS the socio-economic fallout of COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted women, compounding pre-existing inequalities in the home and workplace. Women have been more likely to shoulder an even greater burden of responsibility for unpaid childcare and household chores in comparison to men.

“Women have lost paid work and had to take on more unpaid work, and of particular concern is how mothers have been pushed out of the workforce because of a lack of affordable childcare options. The expectations put on mothers in particular to take on the lion’s share of childcare and manage their children’s remote schooling forced many women to reduce their working hours, be furloughed, or drop out of the labor force altogether. Unequal pay because of gender discrimination means women in heterosexual family households have been more likely to leave employment if their spouse or partner brings in more income.”

She said the unprecedented disruption caused by the COVID19 pandemic should be seized upon as a catalyst for positive change and business recovery planning needs to prioritize attracting and retaining women within the workplace. This includes fostering flexible, inclusive working policies and practices, and supportive hiring and promotion processes that benefit women and families.

“As this startling report – Inequality Kills – shows, income inequality and gender inequality are intimately linked. And to stop COVID related inequality from killing women and other vulnerable people and instead put both gender and income equality first, States must get rid of all discriminatory laws. Sexist laws and gender stereotypes during the pandemic have perpetuated economic violence against women and exacerbated physical domestic violence,” Kirkland declared.

Download the “Inequality Kills” report and summary and the methodology document outlining how Oxfam calculated the statistics in the report.

Oxfam’s calculations are based on the most up-to-date and comprehensive data sources available. Figures on the very richest in society come from Forbes’ 2021 Billionaires List. Figures on the share of wealth come from the Credit Suisse Research Institute’s Global Wealth Databook 2021. Figures on the incomes of the 99 percent are from the World Bank.

*

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 UNICEF/Malumbo Simwaka

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on As the Pandemic Devastates the Poor, the World’s 10 Richest Have Multiplied Their Wealth into Trillions
  • Tags: ,

Is Washington Under Alien Control? “The most Frightening Foreign Policy Misadventure since … “

January 25th, 2022 by Philip Giraldi

All Global Research articles 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 drama currently unfolding in which the Biden Administration is doing everything it can to provoke a war with Russia over Ukraine is possibly the most frightening foreign policy misadventure since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and the 1967 Lyndon Johnson attempt to sink the USS Liberty and blame it on Egypt, either of which could have gone nuclear.

I can well recall the Robert Heinlein sci-fi book The Puppet Masters, later made into a movie, which described how alien-slugs, arriving by way of a flying saucer landing in Iowa, invaded the earth and parasitically attached themselves to the central nervous systems of humans and became able to completely control their minds. What the humans know, they know. What the slugs want, no matter what, the human will do. And the tale gets really scary in geopolitical terms when some Secret Service Agents are “occupied” by the invaders and they are thereby poised to capture the President of the United States. I would point out that the movie came out when Bill Clinton was president, which should have provoked some concerns about whether it was fact or fiction.

Well, does anyone currently wonder why I think of The Puppet Masters when an incoherent Joe Biden in particular makes a speech? And also consider the befuddled look of Secretary of State Tony Blinken or the bewildered expressions of Vice President Kamala Harris or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, all of which might also suggest that the slugs now completely control the Administration. The Biden and Blinken possibly slug-controlled automatons are now stating their conviction, based on no evidence whatsoever, that Russia is about to invade Ukraine and they are threatening sanctions like Putin “has never seen before.” There will no doubt be more slug-derived pronouncements to reinforce that warning in the next few days after the latest round of talks breaks down. Evacuation of US Embassy staff families in Kiev is already underway, deliberately escalating rather than attempting to defuse the crisis which could lead to nuclear war, destroying the human race and replacing it with the alien slugs.

Consider for a moment the inconsistencies and sheer contradictions in US foreign policy, which might support the credibility of the alien slug theory. The State Department’s management of foreign relations is supposed to serve the interests of the American people, but has not actually done so for decades. Can anyone explain why Washington’s foreign policy during the decade 2010 to 2020 constantly hammered at Russia, which, if anything, should have been the one country with which the US would seek to have a respectful relationship. Where is the logic in condemnation of Russia’s non-violent annexation of the Crimea, which was carried out based on a long-term historic relationship and a popular referendum, while also enabling “allies” like Israel’s illegal occupation and annexation of both Palestinian and Syrian land which has relied on force majeure to drive hundreds of thousands of local inhabitants from their homes. And then there are the Saudis using American made weapons to terrorize and kill the people of Yemen. Slug Biden is now considering aiding the murderous Saudi onslaught by declaring Yemen’s Houthis to be terrorists, legitimizing their slaughter.

Even if one rejects the alien slug theory, at a minimum, there has been a great deal of hypocrisy in terms of how Washington deals with the rest of the world and that has been increasingly the case under both Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

Targeting and killing civilian populations and permanently driving them from their homes are, by the way, unambiguously war crimes and the United States is signatory to the Geneva Conventions that define the Israeli and Saudi actions as such. Israel, which claims a form of perpetual victimhood thanks to the so-called holocaust narrative, is the only nuclear power in the Middle East, though its arsenal is regarded as so secret that US government officials are not allowed to mention it, possibly another indication of alien slug control. It uses that advantage to carry out undeclared open and covert warfare against its neighbors, most notably targeting Syria and Lebanon as presumed proxies for its number one designated enemy Iran. Saudi Arabia for its part does not seem to care at all regarding the devastation it is delivering on the largely defenseless Yemenis.

Israel goes far beyond the actions of any other belligerent nation in the world, and the US is the only nation that even comes close, as recent reports regarding a particularly reckless bombing in Syria suggest. Israel, often with American complicity, engages in covert sabotage and assassination operations inside Iran, which have been sometimes reported, though hardly condemned, in the mainstream Western media. Less well covered are the more-or-less routine bombing attacks conducted against Syria, frequently also violating Lebanese airspace when the Israeli jets stand off in the Mediterranean Sea to fire their missiles at the Syrian targets. It should be noted that attacking a nation with which one is not at war and which poses no direct threat is also a war crime, in this case a war crime that the Israeli and Saudi governments repeat on a regular basis without any objection coming from Washington, which itself has attacked Syria on at least four occasions while also illegally stationing troops inside the country to “protect” its oilfields.

A recent devastating attack by Israel on Syrian targets consisted of a missile strike launched by Israeli air force planes against the Mediterranean port of Latakia on December 28th. Israel’s attack on Latakia has to a certain extent shifted the focus of the war on Syria being conducted by Israel and the United States and their Gulf allies including the UAE and Saudi Arabia. In the past, the port was protected by its proximity to the major Russian base at Tartus in Syria and the actual presence of some Russian personnel assisting in Latakia ship cargo unloading operations, which threatens to bring Moscow more directly into the conflict. And as Washington is Israel’s enabler that will no doubt lead to US involvement in the UN and other fora if any attempts are made to limit or even condemn the Israeli actions. The situation is nasty and threatens to explode if Israel stages a false flag attack intended to lead to demands for direct military action by the US, a concern that some outside the Biden Administration have expressed.

What is particularly disturbing is the fact that while Israel and the Saudis continue to do their best to engage the United States in their own quarrels in the Middle East, President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Tony Blinken do nothing but look the other way so as not to annoy the Israeli leaders and their powerful domestic lobby in the US. At the same time, they unnecessarily provoke a nuclear armed and capable Russia and an emerging superpower China, both of which are regularly demonized both in the media and by leading politicians from both parties. The actions taken together are so irrational as to suggest that Robert Heinlein knew what he was writing about.

And then there is what might be described as the “hidden hand.” It should be observed that many of those US politicians and government officials most keen on baiting Russia are strong and vocal supporters of Israel. Many are neocons, who have penetrated the foreign and national security teams of both political parties and are dominant in the media while also having close ties to the Israeli government. Most of them are Jewish, to include all four of the top officials in the Department of State, while prominent politicians in both political parties, to include the president, have self-described as Zionists. For various reasons, many in the Jewish diaspora have a visceral hatred of Russia, so Israel in an odd way is part of the war party machinations to provoke an armed conflict over Ukraine.

That America is Israel’s poodle and both Russia and China are considered fair game to score political points is really the crux of the matter and it makes Americans complicit in Israeli crimes as Washington provides both arms and money as well as political cover to Jerusalem. It also reduces major US national interests involving Moscow and Beijing to sideshows and in so doing turns American national security on its head, supporting the unspeakable to make political points and ignoring what is important. One might even suggest that never before in history has a great nation so enthusiastically pursued policies that could easily lead to its own destruction. It is not in our interest, or even our survival, to continue along this path and it is past time that the politicians and bureaucrats begin to recognize that fact. Or maybe I should instead be addressing my advice to that alien-slug mothership hidden somewhere in a corn field in Iowa.

*

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 The Unz Review.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TUR

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Is Washington Under Alien Control? “The most Frightening Foreign Policy Misadventure since … “
  • Tags: , ,

Biden Exaggerates US’ “Total Unanimity” with EU Against Russia in Ukraine Crisis

January 25th, 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.

***

At a time when Washington continues its campaign of escalations in Ukraine in the hope that Russia will make a gross miscalculation so that a NATO intervention can be justified, Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby said that up to 8,500 US troops have been told that they can be deployed to Eastern Europe. Kirby said that the “bulk of” US troops placed on heightened alert were intended to bolster NATO’s quick response force.

“The United States has taken steps to heighten the readiness of its forces at home and abroad, so they are prepared to respond to a range of contingencies, including support to the NATO response force if it is activated,” Kirby said, noting that the NATO Response Force “comprises [of] around 40,000 multinational troops.”

Prior to the troop alert announcement, Biden had spoken with some of his European counterparts and said “I had a very, very, very good meeting – total unanimity with all the European leaders.” However, this is a gross exaggeration as the meeting was not with “all the European leaders,” but just the leaders of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and officials of the European Union.

In fact, the agreement between the meeting participants was for the fact that harsher sanctions against Russia should be imposed if it invades Ukraine, something that the Kremlin has repeatedly stressed that it has no intention of doing.

There still remains huge divisions within the West on how to resolve the Ukraine crisis, with the Anglo Alliance of Washington and London, along with its Polish and Baltic partners, opting for escalations. The rest of the European Union wants dialogue and calmness to prevail instead. For this reason, Russian and Ukrainian officials will meet with their French and German counterparts in Paris on Wednesday to find an impasse out of the crisis.

Whilst the French and Germans are attempting to deescalate the crisis, the Anglo Alliance (with minor partner Australia), started the process of withdrawing diplomats from Ukraine only hours before announcing that up to 8,500 US troops are on deployment alert.

It is recalled that the head of European diplomacy, Josep Borrell, responded to the Anglo diplomatic withdrawal from Ukraine, saying: “We are not going to do the same thing because we don’t know any specific reasons. I don’t think we had to dramatize as far as the negotiations are going on.”

Despite Biden claiming that there is “total unanimity with all the European leaders” and the Anglo press and media running similar headlines (such as the BBC’s “Western leaders declare unity against Russia threat”), there was not a united Western front against Russia, just merely on the fact that sanctions should be strengthened if the Russian military were to invade Ukraine.

In action, there are clear differences between the Anglo and European (with the obvious exceptions of Poland and the Baltic states) responses to the crisis in Ukraine, with the Europeans seeking de-escalation as they will be the ones to directly face the consequences of a major war on the continent. Such a war would not be like the one in Donbass, that for now has been contained only in the region and at a low intensity. Such a war would spill across European borders and could see millions of refugees, thousands killed and a major energy crisis.

For a European Union that primarily prioritizes on economic development, such a scenario would be disastrous and one that the US would not be directly impacted by. Britain is also fanatically emboldening Poland and the Baltic States as it too would not be directly impacted by a war on the continent – in fact, such a war could be advantageous for the British in form of enacting revenge on a European Union that it still has deep animosities with.

None-the-less, despite the Polish and Baltic states de-Sovietisation transforming into ultra-nationalism and Russophobia, for now calmer heads are prevailing among the real power brokers of the European Union – France and Germany. For now, Russian patience and European desire to negotiate is prevailing, but amidst the Anglo Alliance’s provocations and escalations, the delicate line between war and peace is being challenged.

*

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 NaturalNews.com

What Kind of Threat Is China?

January 25th, 2022 by Kim Petersen

All Global Research articles 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 “brutalist philosophy” of the US was made public (曝光) by Robert Daly, a former US diplomat stationed in Beijing, in 2015. Currently, he is the director of the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States. No diplomatic niceties here, Daly frankly states the policy of the US: China must never reach the level of the US.

Paolo Urio, a professor emeritus at the University of Geneva, points out in his book, America and the China Threat: From the End of History to the End of Empire (Clarity Press, 2022), that the US has “started to understand that China’s development risked putting an end of the world that America made, the foundation of the dominant U.S. role in the world … certainly for the U.S. establishment, the major threat.” (p 5)

The Barack Obama administration with its “pivot to Asia” sought to contain China. (p 22)

Obama boasted in his 2016 State of the Union Address of US leadership:

Surveys show our standing around the world is higher than when I was elected to office, and when it comes to every important international issue, people of the world do not look to Beijing or Moscow to lead–they call us. (p 27)

One might argue that the mere fact that Obama felt the need for such bluster indicated some anxiety.

“American reactions to China’s rise is the fear of losing the U.S. capacity to lead the world, to lose the status of sole super-power that sets the rules of the international system…” (p 232) President Joe Biden recognizes that fear to which he said “That’s not going to happen on my watch because the United States is going to grow and expand.” (p 235)

America and the China Threat examines the validity of the the China threat and whether the US will succeed in denying China’s ascendancy. The book is divided into three chapters with a concluding section. In chapter one, Urio debunks myths about the United States and China. In chapter 2, he examines the ideological differences between the US and China throughout history. Chapter 3 is titled “The Policy and Power Divide,” which again examines the differences over time between the US and China. The book concludes by pondering the question “If America Is Back, Then What Kind of America Is It?”

Urio begins by dismantling the myth of a free market upon which US capitalism is rooted. The Swiss author cites Adam Smith who promoted “a market free from the realization of rent (in his time, the rent from land) that is not the result of work.” (p 44) The market that exists now, writes Urio, is one massively tilted in favor of a tiny wealthy minority. (p 45)

Next, Urio exposes the myth of democracy. Within capitalist countries, the major problem, finds Urio, are the interferences of the economy and major political organizations. (p 48) And, of course, there is the influence of money. (p 49) Concerning the protest movement in Hong Kong, Urio writes that the West depicts it as “a desperate demand for democracy due to the interferences of the Chinese dictatorship. There is certainly some truth in this…” (p 53) What was this “some truth”? Urio did not elaborate. He did state that it was not about a democratic deficit but rather the inequality in Hong Kong.

Urio makes clear later that China is not a dictatorship. (p 86-92) The government serves the needs of the Chinese people and is supported widely by the people. (p 91)

Urio derides what passes for democracy in western media: a merger between political and economic elitists. (p 57) The US, he says, is a non-democracy: a plutocracy. (p 341) In contrast, author Wei Ling Chua wrote, “The strength of China’s political system is that they need not compromise with corporate interests like in the West…”1

Urio writes, “Since the beginning of the 20th century the U.S. has not won a single great war on its own.” (p 61) Two riders hang on this claim. First there is nothing great about war. But obviously, Urio refers to a large war. In the 20th century, there were only two large wars: WWI (which many call the Great War) and WWII. There were so many combatants involved in these large wars that renders “on its own” nugatory. The US has won a few wars on its own (e.g., the invasion of Panama and Grenada), but such wars against comparatively tiny opponents reveals the US to be at best a bully. A bully is a morally deficient person. That the United States is a morally flawed entity is clear from the deeply racist history of European settler-colonists having spawned the country through wars and broken treaties against the Original peoples on Turtle Island. (p 207-209) This was followed by the forced transfer of Africans to provide slave labor. (p 79-83) Urio did not mention, what is usually omitted from history, that Indigenous peoples were also enslaved in America.2

American superiority and invincibility is another myth that is deflated in America and the China Threat. The US is a warring nation, having been at war for 229 out of 239 years (93%) of its existence from 1776 to 2015. (p 66) To that number can be added the continuation of warring from 2016 to 2022. The belief in military superiority is dangerous reveals Urio, especially when applied to China: “The consequence of over-estimating present power can be … devastating if a competitor is on an ascending trajectory as far as its power resources are concerned.” (p 74)

China’s last war was its shameful, truncated invasion of Viet Nam in 1979.

Another myth debunked about China is the claim that it has a state-capitalist economy. Urio explains that, among other reasons, China is a socialist-market economy: land is collective property, its anti-neoliberal orientation is people first, and banking is controlled by the state.( p 94-95)

To anyone closely observing the agricultural and technological leaps by China, the myth of China being a copycat manufacturer is balderdash. Robert Temple wrote of the myriad inventions that sprang first from the Chinese mind in The Genius of China: 3000 Years of Science, Discovery and Invention (1998), based on the research of Dr. Joseph Needham. Chinese innovations today are a continuation of its historical creativity.

However, China’s being at the technological, innovative forefront chagrins many westerners. A prime example is the vendetta against the 5G, and 6G on the way, communications leader Huawei.

This has evoked enormous jealousy and consternation among US elitists. Among the many examples of Chinese excellence is its state-of-the-art high-speed train network, including maglevs; cutting-edge AI and robotics technology; quantum computing breakthroughs; it announced plans to construct the Circular Electron–Positron Collider (CEPC), five times larger than the CERN Large Hydron Collider in Switzerland; China continues research into nuclear fusion and its “artificial sun” — Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) — project has sustained a nuclear fusion reaction for more than 17 minutes; in space, there is humanity’s first soft landing on the far side of the moon, China is the first nation to carry out an orbiting, landing, and rovering mission on Mars successfully on its first try. The US shut China out of participation in the International Space Station, so China put the Tiangong space station into orbit, to which China invites foreign participation.

Won’t the growing Chinese middle class demand a western style political system? The expectation that Chinese would pine for the purportedly superior western political system likeliest reflects western smugness. One ought to give the highly educated Chinese more credit. The mere fact is that China has risen so far and so fast, conquered extreme poverty, and is preparing to put a nuclear-powered research station on the moon while a sizeable segment of the West still struggles with tent cities, hunger, unemployment, stagnant wages, drug addiction, etc. Why would Chinese people opt for the western political system that has wrought so much misery?

Oria also debunks the notion of China becoming imperialist. Chairman Xi has on many occasions denounced hegemony. As Oria notes, the West seems stuck in projecting itself onto other countries. (p 114)

American ideology is predicated on its chosenness, its exceptionalism, its having a manifest destiny, being the indispensable nation, and being the leader of the free world. (p 120-131) Being the leader, it has the right to decree what is right or wrong and to intervene at its choosing. Writes Urio, “the U.S. tendency has remained, constantly and consistently, to intervene everywhere, whenever possible, by any means, to diffuse the good news of the new world order.” (p 131)

The Monroe Doctrine has been expanded around the world. Thus, the US breaks promises and sends military assets to the Russian frontier, to the former Soviet republic, Ukraine — what Russia has indicated is a redline. The US feels no embarrassment to tell NATO-ally Germany to not buy Russian gas. “This is another example of how the U.S. plans to lead the world and tell its allies what their interests are.” (p 145)

The key US-designated adversary, though, is China. (p 150)

Urio contrasts the static ideology of the US with the Chinese view of the world as perpetually changing. Thus, China remains prepared to adjust accordingly to seek harmony. The vehicle for that harmonization since 1949 has been Marxist-Leninism adapted to Chinese circumstances. Confucianism, molded to the present circumstances, holds the ruler is duty-bound to be moral and look after the people. (p 171, 187, 203) To this end, the Chinese people, writes Urio, will stand by the CPC as long as they can live comfortably. (p 186)

Urio identifies the US as in decline because the politicians have favored the capitalists over the well-being of the country and its people. (p 243) Spending for the military-industrial complex is rampant (p 244) and has diminished spending in other social areas. (p 247) It is a priority markedly different than in China.

Militarism is obviously out of the question to any sane analysis against a formidable, nuclear-armed China. Propagandizing is left as a tactic of choice. The US has targeted, in particular, Tibet, Xinjiang, and Hong Kong. Available facts belie western propaganda, disinformation, and incitement concerning these regions. Moreover, given that the continental US is based on the genocide and dispossession of the Original peoples, that Hawai’i was dispossessed from the Hawaiian people, that Guam, Saipan became administered territories of the US through far flung wars, it seems, moderately speaking, outrageous to criticize another country.

Under Xi, the goal is attaining the Chinese Dream. Part of paving the way for the Chinese Dream means getting the economy right. In terms of economic growth China is faring extremely well, but as is detailed in America and the China Threat, getting the balance right between rural and urban, among the regions, and the narrowing the gap between the wealthy and struggling people (China has a high GINI coefficient) is a work in progress. Urio finds, “The overall result is that China is improving the living conditions of all strata of its society, thus realizing a satisfactory level of social cohesion, stability, unity and harmony, in spite of the persistence of disparities.” (p 287)

One challenge for China, and other nations, is obtaining a level playing field in global commerce to break the stranglehold of the US dollar. Urio describes how this is being realized by China and other countries. China has entered several economic associations, among them the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), BRICS, and effective since 1 January 2022, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a “free” trade agreement among the Asia-Pacific nations of Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Some indications point to the supremacy of the US dollar eroding.

Near the end of the book, the lynchpin of the Chinese policy, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is fleshed out. The BRI is daring and brilliant. With a road belt across Eurasia and a maritime road connecting Africa, the BRI encircles the globe. It is an ever-expanding project encouraging economic development, sharing possibilities among several countries, and attracting the interest of other countries. Who’d like to be left out of such a massive project? The US is opposed to the BRI since it represents leadership by China. Part of the genius of the BRI is that it skirts much of the US military encirclement of China. Says Urio, “BRI is above all a geo-strategic project that, if fully realized, will allow China to reclaim its status as a world power, thereby putting an end to the unipolar ‘world America made.’” (p 337)

Biden and preceding administrations have not understood that it is economic not military values that will attract other countries. (p 349) China seeks win-win relationships, respects national sovereignty, and does not interfere in the domestic affairs of other nations. (p 351)

On January 18, 2022, Vice Foreign Minister Le Yucheng spoke to a forum hosted by Renmin University:

Let the 1.4 billion Chinese people live a good life and satisfy the people’s yearning for a better life is the goal of the Communist Party of China. You must know that there are still 1 billion people in China who have never been on a plane, and more than 200 million Chinese families do not have toilets. The proportion of Chinese people who have obtained a college degree or above is only 4%, compared with 25% in the United States. This is what we should attach great importance to and strive to change. Compared with whether GDP is super beautiful, we value our ideology, governance ability, and contribution to the world to catch up and surpass, and strive to be more advanced, more in line with people’s expectations, and more in line with the trend of the times.

Does that sound threatening? America and the China Threat lays out the background and foreground in detail to the dynamism between the US and China. One can comprehend the apprehension of US empire observing the unabating ascendance of China, and the US’s unwillingness to accept the rise of China. For most observers it is a fait accompli. The US can squawk about China ascendancy or work with it. Volens nolens, China will continue ascending.

*

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.

Notes

  1. Wei Ling Chua, author of Democracy: What the West Can Learn from China (review: location 1692.
  2. See Andrés Reséndez, The Other Slavery: The Uncovered Story of Indian Enslavement in America (2016).

None Dare Call It “Encirclement”. Washington Tightens the Noose Around China

January 25th, 2022 by Michael T. Klare

All Global Research articles 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 word “encirclement” does not appear in the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), signed into law by President Joe Biden on December 27th, or in other recent administration statements about its foreign and military policies. Nor does that classic Cold War era term “containment” ever come up. Still, America’s top leaders have reached a consensus on a strategy to encircle and contain the latest great power, China, with hostile military alliances, thereby thwarting its rise to full superpower status.

The gigantic 2022 defense bill — passed with overwhelming support from both parties — provides a detailed blueprint for surrounding China with a potentially suffocating network of U.S. bases, military forces, and increasingly militarized partner states. The goal is to enable Washington to barricade that country’s military inside its own territory and potentially cripple its economy in any future crisis. For China’s leaders, who surely can’t tolerate being encircled in such a fashion, it’s an open invitation to… well, there’s no point in not being blunt… fight their way out of confinement.

Like every “defense” bill before it, the $768 billion 2022 NDAA is replete with all-too-generous handouts to military contractors for favored Pentagon weaponry. That would include F-35 jet fighters, Virginia-class submarines, Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, and a wide assortment of guided missiles. But as the Senate Armed Services Committee noted in a summary of the bill, it also incorporates an array of targeted appropriations and policy initiatives aimed at encircling, containing, and someday potentially overpowering China. Among these are an extra $7.1 billion for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, or PDI, a program initiated last year with the aim of bolstering U.S. and allied forces in the Pacific.

Screenshot from the armed-services.senate.gov

Nor are these just isolated items in that 2,186-page bill. The authorization act includes a “sense of Congress” measure focused on “defense alliances and partnerships in the Indo-Pacific Region,” providing a conceptual blueprint for such an encirclement strategy. Under it, the secretary of defense is enjoined to “strengthen United States defense alliances and partnerships in the Indo-Pacific region so as to further the comparative advantage of the United States in strategic competition with the People’s Republic of China,” or PRC.

That the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act passed with no significant opposition in the House or Senate suggests that support for these and similar measures is strong in both parties. Some progressive Democrats had indeed sought to reduce the size of military spending, but their colleagues on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees instead voted to increase this year’s already staggering allotment for the Pentagon by another $24 billion — specifically to better contain (or fight) China. Most of those added taxpayer dollars will go toward the creation of hypersonic missiles and other advanced weaponry aimed at the PRC, and increased military exercises and security cooperation with U.S. allies in the region.

For Chinese leaders, there can be no doubt about the meaning of all this: whatever Washington might say about peaceful competition, the Biden administration, like the Trump administration before it, has no intention of allowing the PRC to achieve parity with the United States on the world stage. In fact, it is prepared to employ every means, including military force, to prevent that from happening. This leaves Beijing with two choices: succumb to U.S. pressure and accept second-class status in world affairs or challenge Washington’s strategy of containment. It’s hard to imagine that country’s current leadership accepting the first choice, while the second, were it adopted, would surely lead, sooner or later, to armed conflict.

The Enduring Lure of Encirclement

The notion of surrounding China with a chain of hostile powers was, in fact, first promoted as official policy in the early months of President George W. Bush’s administration. At that time, Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice went to work establishing an anti-China alliance system in Asia, following guidelines laid out by Rice in a January 2000 article in Foreign Affairs. There, she warned of Beijing’s efforts to “alter Asia’s balance of power in its own favor” — a drive the U.S. must respond to by deepening “its cooperation with Japan and South Korea” and by “maintain[ing] its commitment to a robust military presence in the region.” It should, she further indicated, “pay closer attention to India’s role in the regional balance.”

This has, in fact, remained part of the governing U.S. global playbook ever since, even if, for the Bush team, its implementation came to an abrupt halt on September 11, 2001, when Islamic militants attacked the Twin Towers in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., leading the administration to declare a “global war on terror.”

Only a decade later, in 2011, did official Washington return to the Rice-Cheney strategy of encircling China and blunting or suppressing its growing power. That November, in an address to the Australian Parliament, President Obama announced an American “pivot to Asia” — a drive to restore Washington’s dominance in the region, while enlisting its allies there in an intensifying effort to contain China. “As president, I have… made a deliberate and strategic decision,” Obama declared in Canberra. “As a Pacific nation, the United States will play a larger and long-term role in shaping this region and its future… As we end today’s wars [in the Middle East], I have directed my national security team to make our presence and mission in the Asia Pacific a top priority.”

Like the Bush team before it, however, the Obama administration was blindsided by events in the Middle East, specifically the 2014 takeover of significant parts of Iraq and Syria by the Islamic State, and so was forced to suspend its focus on the Pacific. Only in the final years of the Trump administration did the idea of encircling China once again achieve preeminence in U.S. strategic thinking.

Led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the Trump effort proved far more substantial, involving as it did the beefing-up of U.S. forces in the Pacific; closer military ties with Australia, Japan, and South Korea; and an intensified outreach to India. Pompeo also added several new features to the mix: a “quadrilateral” alliance between Australia, India, Japan, and the U.S. (dubbed the “Quad,” for short); increased diplomatic ties with Taiwan; and the explicit demonization of China as an enemy of Western values.

In a July 2020 speech at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library, Pompeo laid out the new China policy vividly. To prevent the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) from demolishing “the rules-based order that our societies have worked so hard to build,” he declared, we must “draw common lines in the sand that cannot be washed away by the CCP’s bargains or their blandishments.” This required not only bolstering U.S. forces in Asia but also creating a NATO-like alliance system to curb China’s further growth.

Pompeo also launched two key anti-China initiatives: the institutionalization of the Quad and the expansion of diplomatic and military relations with Taiwan. The Quad, or Quadrilateral Security Dialogue as it’s formally known, had initially been formed in 2007 by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (with the support of Vice President Dick Cheney and the leaders of Australia and India), but fell into abeyance for years. It was revived, however, in 2017 when Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull joined Abe, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Donald Trump in promoting a stepped-up effort to contain China.

As for Taiwan, Pompeo upped the ante there by approving diplomatic missions to its capital, Taipei, by senior officials, including Health Secretary Alex Azar and Undersecretary of State Keith Krach, the highest-ranking members of any administration to visit the island since 1979, when Washington severed formal relations with its government. Both visits were roundly criticized by Chinese officials as serious violations of the commitments Washington had made to Beijing under the agreement establishing ties with the PRC.

Biden Adopts the Encirclement Agenda

On entering the White House, President Biden promised to reverse many of the unpopular policies of his predecessor, but strategy towards China was not among them. Indeed, his administration has embraced the Pompeo encirclement agenda with a vengeance. As a result, ominously enough, preparations for a possible war with China are now the Pentagon’s top priority as, for the State Department, is the further isolation of Beijing diplomatically.

In line with that outlook, the Defense Department’s 2022 budget request asserted that “China poses the greatest long-term challenge to the United States” and, accordingly, that “the Department will prioritize China as our number one pacing challenge and develop the right operational concepts, capabilities, and plans to bolster deterrence and maintain our competitive advantage.”

In the meantime, as its key instrument for bolstering ties with allies in the Asia-Pacific region, the Biden administration endorsed Trump’s Pacific Deterrence Initiative. Proposed PDI spending was increased by 132% in the Pentagon’s 2022 budget request, rising to $5.1 billion from the $2.2 billion in 2021. And if you want a measure of this moment in relation to China, consider this: even that increase was deemed insufficient by congressional Democrats and Republicans who added another $2 billion to the PDI allocation for 2022.

To further demonstrate Washington’s commitment to an anti-China alliance in Asia, the first two heads of state invited to the White House to meet President Biden were Japanese Prime Minister Yoshi Suga and South Korean President Moon Jae-in. In talks with them, Biden emphasized the importance of joint efforts to counter Beijing. Following his meeting with Suga, for instance, Biden publicly insisted that his administration was “committed to working together to take on the challenges from China… to ensure a future of a free and open Indo-Pacific.”

On September 24th, in a first, leaders of the Quad all met with Biden at a White House “summit.” Although the administration emphasized non-military initiatives in its post-summit official report, the main order of business was clearly to strengthen military cooperation in the region. As if to underscore this, Biden used the occasion to highlight an agreement he’d just signed with Prime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia to provide that country with the propulsion technology for a new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines — a move obviously aimed at China. And note as well that, just days before the summit, the administration formed a new alliance with Australia and the United Kingdom, called AUKUS, and again aimed at China.

Finally, Biden has continued to increase diplomatic and military contacts with Taiwan, beginning on his first day in office when Hsiao Bi-khim, Taipei’s de facto ambassador to Washington, attended his inauguration. “President Biden will stand with friends and allies to advance our shared prosperity, security, and values in the Asia-Pacific region — and that includes Taiwan,” a top administration official said at the time. Other high-level contacts with Taiwanese officials, including military personnel, soon followed.

A “Grand Strategy” for Containment

What all these initiatives have lacked, until now, is an overarching plan for curbing China’s rise and so ensuring America’s permanent supremacy in the Indo-Pacific region. The authors of this year’s NDAA were remarkably focused on this deficiency and several provisions of the bill are designed to provide just such a master plan. These include a series of measures intended to incorporate Taiwan into the U.S. defense system surrounding China and a requirement for the drafting of a comprehensive “grand strategy” for containing that country on every front.

A “sense of Congress” measure in that bill provides overarching guidance on these disparate initiatives, stipulating an unbroken chain of U.S.-armed sentinel states — stretching from Japan and South Korea in the northern Pacific to Australia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Singapore in the south and India on China’s eastern flank — meant to encircle and contain the People’s Republic. Ominously enough, Taiwan, too, is included in the projected anti-China network.

That island’s imagined future role in such an emerging strategic plan was further spelled out in a provision entitled “Sense of Congress on Taiwan Defense Relations.” Essentially, this measure insists that Washington’s 1978 pledge to terminate its military ties with Taipei and a subsequent 1982 U.S.-China agreement committing this country to reduce the quality and quantity of its arms transfers to Taiwan are no longer valid due to China’s “increasingly coercive and aggressive behavior” toward the island. Accordingly, the measure advocates closer military coordination between the two countries and the sale of increasingly sophisticated weapons systems to Taiwan, along with the technology to manufacture some of them.

Add all this up and here’s the new reality of the Biden years: the disputed island of Taiwan, just off the Chinese mainland and claimed as a province by the PRC, is now being converted into a de facto military ally of the United States. There could hardly be a more direct assault on China’s bottom line: that, sooner or later, the island must agree to peacefully reunite with the mainland or face military action.

Recognizing that the policies spelled out in the 2022 NDAA represent a fundamental threat to China’s security and its desire for a greater international role, Congress also directed the president to come up with a “grand strategy” on U.S.-China relations in the next nine months. This should include an assessment of that country’s global objectives and an inventory of the economic, diplomatic, and military capabilities the U.S. will require to blunt its rise. In addition, it calls on the Biden administration to examine “the assumptions and end-state or end states of the strategy of the United States globally and in the Indo-Pacific region with respect to the People’s Republic of China.” No explanation is given for the meaning of “end-state or end states,” but it’s easy to imagine that the authors of that measure had in mind the potential collapse of the Chinese Communist government or some form of war between the two countries.

How will Chinese leaders react to all this? No one yet knows, but President Xi Jinping provided at least a glimpse of what that response might be in a July 1st address marking the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party. “We will never allow any foreign force to bully, oppress, or subjugate us,” he declared, as China’s newest tanks, rockets, and missiles rolled by. “Anyone who would attempt to do so will find themselves on a collision course with a great wall of steel forged by over 1.4 billion Chinese people.”

Welcome to the new twenty-first-century Cold War on a planet desperately in need of something else.

*

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.

Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is the five-college professor emeritus of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and a senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association. He is the author of 15 books, the latest of which is All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon’s Perspective on Climate Change. He is a founder of the Committee for a Sane U.S.-China Policy.

Europe in the Trenches Against the “Invented Enemy”

January 25th, 2022 by Manlio Dinucci

All Global Research articles 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 State Department, “as a precautionary measure against a possible Russian invasion of Ukraine”, ordered the evacuation of family members and part of the staff from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, which with 900 officials is among the largest in Europe, and raised to level 4 of risk, the maximum, the warning to U.S. citizens not to go to Ukraine. Immediately afterwards the Foreign Office announced, with the same motivation, the withdrawal of staff from the British Embassy in Kiev. These operations of psychological warfare, aimed at creating alarm about an imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine and the three Baltic republics, prepare for a further and even more dangerous US-NATO escalation against Russia.

The White House announced that President Biden is considering “deploying several thousand U.S. troops, warships and aircraft to NATO countries in the Baltics and Eastern Europe.” Initially, 5,500 U.S. troops are expected to arrive, joining the 4,000 already in Poland and followed by thousands more, extending their permanent deployment to the Baltic, as Latvia has requested. Special rail convoys are already transporting U.S. tanks from Poland to Ukraine, whose armed forces have been trained for years, and in fact commanded by hundreds of U.S. military advisers and instructors flanked by others from NATO. Washington, which last year provided Kiev with weapons for the official amount of 650 million dollars, has authorized Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to transfer to Ukraine US weapons in their possession, in particular Javelin missiles. Other armaments are provided by Great Britain and the Czech Republic.

NATO informs that the European countries of the Alliance are putting their armed forces in a state of operational readiness and sending other warships and fighter planes to the Eastern Europe deployments. Italy, with Eurofighter fighter-bombers, has taken command of NATO’s “enhanced air policing” mission in Romania. France is ready to send troops to Romania under NATO command. Spain is sending warships in NATO naval forces and fighter-bombers to Bulgaria. The Netherlands is preparing to send F-35 fighters to Bulgaria. Denmark is sending F-16 fighters to Lithuania. Yesterday began in the Mediterranean Sea the great NATO naval exercise Neptune Strike ’22 under the command of Vice Admiral Eugene Black, commander of the Sixth Fleet with headquarters in Naples Capodichino and base in Gaeta. The exercise, which lasts 12 days, involves the US nuclear aircraft carrier Harry Truman with its battle group, including 5 missile launchers ready for nuclear attack to “reassure the European Allies especially on the eastern front threatened by Russia”.

Immediately after the NATO Neptune Strike ’22, the exercise Mission Clemenceau 22 will take place in February. It will involve, in an “Operation of three aircraft carriers”, the French nuclear-powered Charles de Gaulle with its battle group, including a nuclear attack submarine, which will enter the Adriatic; the Harry Truman with its battle group and the Italian aircraft carrier Cavour with the F-35 on board. This exercise, of course, is also directed against Russia.

While NATO enjoins Russia to “de-escalate”, warning that “any further aggression will involve a high cost for Moscow”, the foreign ministers of the European Union – meeting in Brussels and connected by teleconference with the US Secretary of State Blinken – have decreed yesterday other measures against Russia. The European Union of 27, of which 21 belong to NATO under US command, echoes NATO’s warning to Russia, declaring that “any further military aggression against Ukraine would have very serious consequences for Russia”. In this way the EU participates in the strategy of tension, through which the U.S. create fractures in Europe to keep it under their influence.

*

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 in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Yemen Conflict: Blowback of Obama’s Botched Syria Policy

January 25th, 2022 by Nauman Sadiq

All Global Research articles 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.

***

After Arab Spring protests erupted in the Middle East in 2011, toppling longtime dictators of the Arab World, including Ben Ali in Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Yemenis also gathered in the capital’s squares demanding removal of Ali Abdullah Saleh.

Instead of conceding to protesters’ fervent demand of holding free and fair elections to ascertain democratic aspirations of demonstrators, however, the Obama administration adopted the convenient course of replacing Yemen’s longtime autocrat with a Saudi stooge Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi.

Having the reputation of a “wily Arabian fox” and being a Houthi himself, Ali Abdullah Saleh wasn’t the one to sit idly by and retire from politics in ignominy. He colluded with the Houthi rebels and incited them to take advantage of the chaos and political vacuum created after the revolution to come out of their northern Saada stronghold and occupy the capital Sanaa in September 2014.

Meanwhile, while events were unfolding in Yemen in the aftermath of the Arab Spring movements, the Saudi-Iran conflict in the Middle East region was also exacerbating. Saudi Arabia, which was vying for power as the leader of Sunni bloc against the Shia-led Iran in the regional geopolitics, was staunchly against the invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration in 2003.

The Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein constituted a Sunni Arab bulwark against Iran’s meddling in the Arab World. But after Saddam was ousted from power in 2003 and subsequently when elections were held in Iraq which were swept by Shia-dominated parties, Iraq has now been led by a Shia-majority government that has become a steadfast regional ally of Iran. Consequently, Iran’s sphere of influence now extends all the way from territorially contiguous Iraq and Syria to Lebanon and the Mediterranean coast.

The Saudi royal family was resentful of Iran’s encroachment on the traditional Arab heartland. Therefore, when protests broke out against the Shia-led Syrian government in the wake of the Arab Spring uprisings of 2011, the Gulf States along with their regional Sunni allies, Turkey and Jordan, and the Western patrons gradually militarized the protests to dismantle the Iranian resistance axis comprised of Iran, Syria and their Lebanon-based proxy, Hezbollah.

The decade-long conflict in Syria that gave birth to myriads of militant groups, including the Islamic State, and after the conflict spilled across the border into neighboring Iraq in early 2014 was directly responsible for the spate of Islamic State-inspired terror attacks in the West from 2015 to 2017.

Since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in August 2011 to June 2014, when the Islamic State overran Mosul and Anbar in Iraq, an informal pact existed between the Western powers, their regional Arab and Turk allies and jihadists of the Middle East against the Iranian resistance axis. In accordance with the pact, militants were trained and armed in the training camps located in the border regions of Turkey and Jordan to battle the Syrian government.

This arrangement of an informal pact between the Western powers and the jihadists of the Middle East against the Iran-allied forces worked well up to August 2014, when the Obama Administration made a volte-face on its previous regime change policy in Syria and began conducting air strikes against one group of militants battling the Syrian government, the Islamic State, after the latter overstepped its mandate in Syria and overran Mosul and Anbar in Iraq from where the US had withdrawn its troops only a couple of years ago in December 2011.

After this reversal of policy in Syria by the Western powers and the subsequent Russian military intervention on the side of the Syrian government in September 2015, the momentum of jihadists’ expansion in Syria and Iraq stalled, and they felt that their Western patrons had committed a treachery against the jihadists’ cause, hence they were infuriated and rose up in arms to exact revenge for this betrayal.

If we look at the chain of events, the timing of the spate of terror attacks against the West was critical: the Islamic State overran Mosul in June 2014, the Obama Administration began conducting airstrikes against the Islamic State’s targets in Iraq and Syria in August 2014, and after a lull of almost a decade since the Madrid and London bombings in 2004 and 2005, respectively, the first such incident of terrorism occurred on the Western soil at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in January 2015, and then the Islamic State carried out the audacious November 2015 Paris attacks, the March 2016 Brussels bombings, the June 2016 truck-ramming incident in Nice, and three horrific terror attacks took place in the United Kingdom within a span of less than three months in 2017, and after that the Islamic State carried out the Barcelona attack in August 2017, and then another truck-ramming atrocity occurred in Lower Manhattan in October 2017 that was also claimed by the Islamic State.

More to the point, the dilemma that the jihadists and their regional backers faced in Syria was quite unique: in the wake of the false-flag Ghouta chemical weapons attacks in Damascus in August 2013, the stage was all set for yet another no-fly zone and “humanitarian intervention” a la Gaddafi’s Libya, as Obama had unequivocally stated that a chemical weapons attack by the Bashar al-Assad government was a “red line” for his administration.

The war hounds were waiting for a finishing blow and then-Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and former Saudi intelligence chief Bandar bin Sultan were shuttling between the Western capitals to lobby for the military intervention. Francois Hollande, then the president of France, had already announced his intentions and David Cameron, then the prime minister of the UK, was also onboard.

Here it should be remembered that even during the Libyan intervention, the Obama administration’s policy was a bit ambivalent and France under the leadership of Nicolas Sarkozy, then the president of France, had taken the lead role. In Syria’s case, however, the British parliament forced David Cameron to seek a vote for military intervention in the House of Commons before committing the British troops and air force to Syria.

Taking cue from the British parliament, the US Congress also compelled Obama to seek approval before another ill-conceived military intervention, and since both the administrations lacked the requisite majority in their respective parliaments and the public opinion was also fiercely against another Middle Eastern war, therefore Obama and Cameron dropped their plans of enforcing a no-fly zone over Syria.

In the end, France was left alone as the only Western power still in favor of intervention; at that point, however, the seasoned Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov staged a diplomatic coup by announcing that the Syrian government was willing to ship its chemical weapons stockpiles out of Syria and subsequently the issue was amicably resolved.

Turkey, Jordan and the Gulf Arab states, the main beneficiaries of the proxy war against the Baathist government in Syria, however, had lost a golden opportunity to deal a fatal blow to their regional rivals.

To add insult to the injury, the Islamic State, one of the numerous militant outfits fighting in Syria, overstepped its mandate in Syria and overran Mosul and Anbar in Iraq in 2014, from where the US troops had withdrawn only a couple of years ago in December 2011.

Additionally, when the graphic images and videos of Islamic State’s executions surfaced on the internet, the Obama administration was left with no other choice but to adopt some countermeasures to show that it was still sincere in pursuing Washington’s dubious “war on terror” policy; at the same time, however, it assured its Turkish, Jordanian and Gulf Arab allies that despite fighting a war against the maverick jihadist outfit, the Islamic State, the Western policy of training and arming the so-called “moderate” Syrian militants will continue apace and that Bashar al-Assad’s days were numbered, one way or the other.

Moreover, declaring the war against the Islamic State in August 2014 served another purpose too: in order to commit the US Air Force to Syria and Iraq, the Obama administration needed the approval of the US Congress which was not available, but by declaring a war against the Islamic State, which was a designated terrorist organization, the Obama administration availed itself of the war on terror provisions in the US laws and thus circumvented the US Congress.

But then Russia threw a spanner in the works of NATO and its regional Middle Eastern allies in September 2015 by its surreptitious military buildup in Latakia that was executed with an element of surprise unheard of since General Rommel, the Desert Fox.

When Russia deployed its forces and military hardware to Syria in September 2015, the militant proxies of Washington and its regional clients were on the verge of drawing a wedge between Damascus and the Alawite heartland of coastal Latakia, which could have led to the imminent downfall of the Bashar al-Assad government.

With the help of the Russian air power, the Syrian government has since reclaimed most of Syria’s territory from the insurgents, excluding Idlib in the northwest occupied by the Turkish-backed militants and Deir al-Zor and the Kurdish-held areas in the east, thus inflicting a humiliating defeat on Washington and its regional clients.

Therefore, although Turkey, Jordan and the Gulf States still toe Washington’s line in the region publicly, behind the scenes there is bitter resentment that the US let them down by making an about-face on the previous regime change policy in Syria and the subsequent declaration of war against one group of Sunni militants in Syria, the Islamic State. This change of policy by the US directly benefited the Iranian-led axis in the region.

Coming back to Yemen, after Ali Abdullah Saleh colluded with the Houthi rebels and incited them to take advantage of political vacuum created after the revolution to come out of their northern Saada stronghold and occupy the capital Sanaa in September 2014, meanwhile a change of guard took place in Riyadh as Saudi Arabia’s longtime ruler King Abdullah died and was replaced by King Salman in January 2015, while de facto control of the kingdom fell into hands of ambitious and belligerent Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman.

Already furious at the Obama administration for not enforcing its so-called “red line” by imposing a no-fly zone over Syria after the false-flag Ghouta chemical weapons attacks in Damascus in August 2013 and apprehensive of security threat posed to the kingdom from its southern border along Yemen by Houthi rebels under the influence of Iran, the crown prince immediately began a military and air warfare campaign against regional rivals with military assistance from the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and de facto ruler of UAE, Mohammad bin Zayed al-Nahyan, in March 2015.

Mindful of the botched policy it had pursued in Libya and Syria and aware of the catastrophe it had wrought in the Middle East region, the Obama administration had to yield to the dictates of Saudi Arabia and UAE by fully coordinating the Gulf-led military campaign in Yemen not only by providing intelligence, planning and logistical support but also by selling billions of dollars’ worth of arms and ammunition to the Gulf States during the conflict.

After the Democrats lost the presidential election in November 2016, the Yemen conflict has further escalated during four years of Trump presidency, who was on even friendlier terms with the Saudi royal family. In order to appreciate the nature of cordial relationship between the Trump family and the Gulf’s petro-monarchs, here are a few relevant excerpts from Bob Woodward’s book, Rage.

In an informal conversation with Woodward, Trump boasted that he protected Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman from congressional scrutiny after the brutal assassination of Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi at Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October 2018. “I saved his ass,” Trump said in 2018, according to the book. “I was able to get Congress to leave him alone. I was able to get them to stop.”

When Woodward pressed Trump if he believed the Saudi crown prince ordered the assassination himself, Trump responded: “He says very strongly that he didn’t do it. Bob, they spent $400 billion over a fairly short period of time,” Trump said.

“And you know, they’re in the Middle East. You know, they’re big. Because of their religious monuments, you know, they have the real power. They have the oil, but they also have the great monuments for religion. You know that, right? For that religion,” the president noted. “They wouldn’t last a week if we’re not there, and they know it,” he added.

*

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.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

More than 100 Years Ago: Commemorating Victory in the “Great War”. “Stirring the War Drums for the Next Big War”

January 25th, 2022 by Dr. Rudolf Hänsel

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

First published on GR in November 2018.

On November 11, 100 years ago, the First World War ended. At glamorous commemorative events, Western leaders will shed thick crocodile tears over the “twentieth-century catastrophe.”

However, this does not stop them from stirring the war drums for the next big war on behalf of the ruling elite at the same time: The US-led Nato exercises in Norway near the Russian border with 50,000 soldiers from 31 countries ever before the “emergency”, the two Great powers Russia and China are already preparing for war to protect their countries. (1) Instead of “kneeling down” on the occasion of this centenary of the millions of victims of the largest military conflict in world history to date, the leading Western elite seeks sole world domination and gigantic war profits.

Reports from contemporary witnesses of the Great War from 1914 to 1918 remind us of what war means to combatants and civilians alike. But the Godless and history-forgotten warmongers of the Deep State and their puppets in politics and corporate media will not stop even in the face of these terrifying contemporary witnesses.

Erich Maria Remarque: “The youth died before they could begin to live.”

The German writer Remarque (1898-1970) was drafted into the imperial army as a reserve recruit in November 1916, joined the Western Front as a soldier in June 1917 and was wounded at the end of July. In the army hospital in Duisburg he worked in a writing room and began to write down his war experiences here. (2) After his recovery he returned to the army. His famous work “Im Westen nichts Neues” (“All Quiet on the Western Front”), the “classic experience book of a front soldier”, first appeared in 1928 and was translated into more than 50 languages.

Remarque begins his novel with a personal explanation:

“This book is neither an accusation nor a confession. It is only an attempt to report on a generation that was destroyed by war – even if it escaped its shells.” (3)

He then describes the cruelty of the First World War from the perspective of a young front-line soldier who sees himself and his comrades as a lost generation. At the age of 18, his class had already joined the voluntary military service at the insistence of the teacher. They all went straight to war from their school desks, without being able to develop a perspective for their lives beforehand.

Countless comrades lost their lives during missions on the Western Front. Some of the fallen are replaced by inexperienced soldiers from the recruiting camp who are helplessly at the mercy of the extreme demands of the war of positions. The front-line soldier experiences how his comrades are killed in hopeless battles; they are killed in drumfire, shredded by grenades or suffocated by gas attacks. He himself falls shortly before the end of the war as the last of his group on a very quiet day: the army report reports that there is all quiet on the Western front.

Three years after the classic “All Quiet on the Western Front”, Remarque’s anti-war novel “The Way Back” appears as a consistent continuation. In it he paints the picture of a “youth who died before they could begin to live”. The content can be summarized as follows: “November 2018: finally peace. From France, a few front-line soldiers retreat to their homeland, the path to life. The revolution is raging in Germany, nothing has remained of the enthusiasm with which they were sent into the struggle for their fatherland years ago. Instead, the former heroes are met with incomprehension, indifference and open contempt. They feel strange and superfluous, desperately searching for a meaning: ‘Our ideals are bankrupt, our dreams broken’. All that remains is comradeship, but even that is gradually crumbling.” (4) 

The course of the historical events has bitterly proved Erich Maria Remarque’s stirring accusation right. For this reason he called for a “fight against the threatening militarization of the youth, against militarism in all its forms” for the time after the end of the war. (5) In Nazi Germany his works were banned as “harmful and undesirable literature” and publicly burned in 1933. He himself was expatriated from Germany in 1938.

Ernst Friedrich: “War against War!”

Ernst Friedrich (1894-1967) was an anarchist pacifist. Between the two World Wars he was politically, agitatorially and artistically engaged against the war. When he was drafted into the First World War, he refused military service for reasons of conscience. Since he refused to wear a uniform, he was sent to an observation station for the mentally ill. He was sentenced to prison in 1917 for sabotage in an important factory. (6) 

With his book “Krieg dem Kriege!” (in the original in four languages: Krieg dem Kriege! Guerre à la Guerre! War against War! Oorlog aan den Oorlog!), which first appeared in 1924 and was translated into another 50 languages, Friedrich erected a monument to the victims of the Great War. The book shows its true face: battlefields, the horrors of the trenches, the severely wounded, the mutilated, the executed, the suffering, the misery and the dying. Friedrich tried to shake the people awake by showing the horrors of war. The book also attracted worldwide attention because the disfigured war victims were largely hidden from the public in secluded homes for the war-disabled.

Kurt Tucholsky (1890-1935), politically committed journalist, writer and one of the most important publicists of the Weimar Republic, commented on the book “War against War!”: “The photographs of the battlefields, the photographs of the war-mutilised are among the most terrible documents I have ever seen”. (7) And he made the suggestion: “To those who have so often affirmatively listened to me, I suggest: to buy the book in one or more copies and to ensure its distribution”. (8) For Robert Jungk (1913-1994), Austrian publicist, journalist and one of the first futurologists, the book “War against War!” was an “eye opener”: “Ernst Friedrich opened my eyes to the most terrible of all epidemics, to the great cripple, the senseless destroyer war. (9) 

But Ernst Friedrich also writes positive and encouraging things in his book: He made far-sighted suggestions on how to prevent wars. Addressing to parents, he writes in the chapter “Prevention of war”: “(…) How many people overlook all too easily the fact that in their own home, in their family, war is prepared voluntarily! And here is the beginning of all vice. (…) You parents, who do not want your sons of other parents to murder loving sons, you should bear in mind that the child you bestow with helmet, sabre and rifle plays its tender soul from the young body! But those children who are brought up to love and solidarity, to unconditional respect for the inviolably holy life of man, the children will certainly be unfit for military service and war use. (…).“ (10) 

Rudolf Archibald Reiss / Henri Barbusse: “The eyewitness accounts of the war crimes in Serbia caused horror in the civilized world.”

The First World War is commonly referred to as the “primal catastrophe of the twentieth century”, because without a thorough examination of this great war European history would not be understood. It had determined the further course of the 20th century – until today. An example are the wars in former Yugoslavia. The “primordial catastrophe” began with the fact that Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on 28 July 1914 after the Sarajevo shots and a completely unacceptable ultimatum. It was waged by the great and powerful nation with extreme harshness and cruelty.

On the occasion of the hundredth anniversary of the outbreak of the First World War, the “Serbian Literature Co-operative” together with the “Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals” published the excellently researched historical work “Serbia in the Great War 1914-1918”. It was also published in English, Russian and German. The authors are two famous Serbian historians and members of the board of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (SANU), Mira Radojevic and Ljubodrag Dimic. In the introduction to the book, they state their motive: “The authors of this book had the modest intention, born out of a desire to affirm the scientific results of Serbian historiography, to embed them in the stimulating scientific perceptions of historians of other cultures, and thus to draw attention to the shameful effects of a politically motivated revision of history”. (11) 

This war was waged by Austria-Hungary not only against Serbia as a state, but also against the entire Serbian people. This is evident from the statements of the German Emperor, who was allied with Austria, as well as from the orders of the army leadership, which it gave to the Austro-Hungarian soldiers when they invaded Serbia. The famous “guiding principle” of Emperor Wilhelm II before the beginning of the war is well known: “Now or never”, followed by the words: “The Serbs must be cleared up, and soon. Everything goes without saying, and these are truisms.” (12) The Austrian cultural critic Karl Kraus has described the Serbophobe mood prevailing in Austria at that time in the World War tragedy “The last days of mankind” with the winged cry “Serbia must die! – whether it wants to or not”. (13)

The order of General Lothar Elder von Hortstein, commander of the 9th Corps of the Austro-Hungarian Army, which he gave after the entry of his troops into Serbia, also revealed the intentions of the great power Austria: “The war leads us into an enemy country with a population that is full of fanatical hatred against us; into a country, where the assassination, as the catastrophe of Sarajevo shows, is permitted even to higher classes, where it is even celebrated as heroism. Against such a population any humanity and generosity is completely out of place, it is even harmful (…). I order that during the operations and throughout the war everyone be treated with extreme harshness, severity and mistrust. (…) Above all, I cannot tolerate the imprisonment of ununiformed but armed inhabitants of the enemy country (…); they must be killed unconditionally. Those who show mercy in such cases will be severely punished.” (14)

In order to inform the world of the crimes committed against the Serbian civilian population as a result of these orders, the Serbian government commissioned a group of criminologists to investigate their character and extent. The famous Swiss physician and university professor Rudolf Archibald Reiss led this group of experts. His first report, based on the collected facts, had the title: “How Austria-Hungary Fought in Serbia”. What is written in this report is difficult to bear: “The type of death chosen by the executioners was very diverse. Very often the victims were mutilated before or after death. I noticed the following types of killing or mutilation: The victims were perforated by shots, murdered, their throats were cut with a knife, raped and then murdered, stoned, hanged, beaten to death with shafts and sticks, stabbed, burnt alive; there were victims (…)”. (15) What follows becomes more and more cruel and sadistic. 

The reports of Archibald Reiss were confirmed by other doctors and eyewitnesses and “caused horror in the civilized world”. (16) Shocking facts about the crimes committed in Serbia were also reported by other foreign correspondents such as the American journalist John Reed and the French politician and writer Henri Barbusse (1873-1935), known from his war diary “The Fire” published in 1916. 

In the book “Serbia in the Great War 1914-1918” Radojevic and Dimic write: “According to Henry Barbusse, the population was ‘driven mad by terror and fear’. For the Austro-Hungarian army began ‘its annihilation work as soon as it entered Serbia’ with cruelty and ‘hellish orgies’. ‘How often have I been petrified with shock,’ he says, ‘given the results of the murderous drunkenness, fires or sadism of these soldiers who belong to a great country proud of its civilization! What Austria wanted ‘a great and powerful nation, throwing itself at a small people, was nothing other than to destroy Serbia, and had sworn to do it systematically, with fire and sword, with the destruction and burning down of towns and villages, and also with the annihilation and massacre of the Serbs’.“ (17)

*

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 the “Neue Rheinische Zeitung NRhZ”.

Notes

(1) „RT Deutsch“ vom 30.10.2018: „Russischer UN-Diplomat: ’Ja, Russland bereitet sich auf einen großen Krieg vor’“ und „Chinas Präsident Xi Jinping ordnet für das Militär Kriegsvorbereitung an“.

(2) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Maria_Remarque.

(3) Remarque, E. M. (1957). Im Westen nichts Neues. West-Berlin. Buchdeckel. 

(4) Remarque, E. M. (20097). Der Weg zurück. Köln. „Über das Buch“.

(5) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Maria_Remarque.

(6) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Friedrich.

(7) Friedrich, E. (2004). Krieg dem Kriege. München. Buchdeckel.

(8) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krieg_dem_Kriege.

(9) A.a.O.

(10) Friedrich, E. (2004). Krieg dem Kriege. München, S. 10.

(11) Radojevic, M./Dimic, L. (2014). Serbien im Großen Krieg… Belgrad, S. 9.

(12) A.a.O., S. 94.

(13) Kraus, K. (2014). Die letzten Tage der Menschheit. Salzburg und Wien, S. 75f.

(14) Radojevic, M./Dimic, L. (2014) Serbien im Großen Krieg… Belgrad, S. 143.

(15) A.a.O., S. 144f.

(16) A.a.O.

(17) A.a.O., S. 146f.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on More than 100 Years Ago: Commemorating Victory in the “Great War”. “Stirring the War Drums for the Next Big War”

Selected Articles: FDA Dr Rubin Admits to Unknown Safety of Experimental Jabs

January 25th, 2022 by Global Research News

FDA Dr Rubin Admits to Unknown Safety of Experimental Jabs

By Dr. Mark Trozzi, January 25, 2022

On October 26, 2021 The FDA met to debate the approval of the Pfizer Covid Injection for children. One of the voting FDA members Dr Eric Rubin said: “We’re never gonna learn about how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it. That’s just the way it goes… I do think we should vote to approve it,” and they did.

Thailand Government Will Pay Compensation for Vaccine “Side Effects” and Deaths: One Billion Baht

By Bangkok Post, January 25, 2022

What is important in this report by the Bangkok Post is that the Royal Thai Government (member state of the UN and the WHO) firmly acknowledges the deaths and adverse events affecting Thais who have taken the vaccine jab.

COVID Vaccines Were Designed to Fail; That’s How They Won Authorization

By Jon Rappoport, January 25, 2022

For the past two years, I’ve been demonstrating that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a fake. It doesn’t exist. Now let’s enter the bubble where people assume the virus is real, and examine a few of the major crimes and contradictions that exist inside that lunatic bubble.

Big Pharma Conglomerate with a Criminal Record: Pfizer “Takes Over” the EU Vaccine Market. 1.8 Billion Doses

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 25, 2022

These shots are NOT vaccines.  They are not meant to protect you against the virus. And why on Earth would you trust a Big Pharma company which has a criminal record? Did you know that?

COVID-19 Booster Mandates in Light of Emerging Evidence of Viral Transmission and Severe Harm. Letter to University Administrators

By Children’s Health Defense, January 24, 2022

It is clear at this point that there is no scientific or public health justification to mandate COVID-19 injections. We now know that none of the available COVID-19 injections are capable of stopping the spread of the virus, especially with respect to the now-dominant variant, Omicron.

Vaccine Mandates for US, Canadian and Mexican Truck Drivers: Disruption of Supply Chains. Food Shortages in Canada

By Brian Shilhavy, January 24, 2022

A COVID-19 mandatory vaccine requirement for all non-U.S. citizens coming across the borders from Canada and Mexico that includes truck drivers went into effect today, Saturday, January 22, 2022.

“Vaccination Is Suicide”, Criminal Forced Vaccinations. Booster Farce Exposed

By Rodney Atkinson, January 24, 2022

The COVID tyranny is on the retreat! The UK Office for National Statistics admits just 6,000 people died of Covid-19 in England and Wales between Feb 2020 and Dec 2021. This is less than the rate of those killed in car accidents.

Alberta Canada Inadvertently Published (and Quickly Deleted) Health Data Exposing that More Than Half of Vaccinated Deaths Have Been Counted as Unvaccinated

By Julian Conradson, January 24, 2022

In yet another absolute bombshell revelation the government of Alberta, Canada exposed itself this week when it accidentally published damning evidence that exposes how the public health authorities have been manipulating the Covid-19 statistics.

Rockets Destroy Ozone and Cause Climate Change – Aerospace Programs’ Deadly Impacts to the Earth

By Nina Beety, January 24, 2022

Since its beginnings, the space industry has used PR, Hollywood, and a parade of stars to carve itself into the public psyche, including targeting children. Aerospace costs have been largely ignored or hidden, but these costs are serious and accelerating.

US Military Supports Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi National Guard. Are US Forces Involved in Combat Operations?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 24, 2022

The influx of US and NATO Special Forces involved in the training of the Neo-Nazi Azov battalion has not been discontinued.  According to the Ottawa Citizen (December 2021) the U.S. Congress in 2018 “banned the use of U.S. funds to provide arms, training and other assistance to the Azov Battalion because of its links to the far-right and neo-Nazis”.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: FDA Dr Rubin Admits to Unknown Safety of Experimental Jabs

Open Letter from Medical Doctors and Health Professionals to All Belgian Authorities and All Belgian Media

January 25th, 2022 by Docs4opendebate

All Global Research articles 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 originally published in September 2020.

We, Belgian doctors and health professionals, wish to express our serious concern about the evolution of the situation in the recent months surrounding the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. We call on politicians to be independently and critically informed in the decision-making process and in the compulsory implementation of corona-measures. We ask for an open debate, where all experts are represented without any form of censorship. After the initial panic surrounding covid-19, the objective facts now show a completely different picture – there is no medical justification for any emergency policy anymore.

The current crisis management has become totally disproportionate and causes more damage than it does any good.

We call for an end to all measures and ask for an immediate restoration of our normal democratic governance and legal structures and of all our civil liberties.

‘A cure must not be worse than the problem’ is a thesis that is more relevant than ever in the current situation. We note, however, that the collateral damage now being caused to the population will have a greater impact in the short and long term on all sections of the population than the number of people now being safeguarded from corona.

In our opinion, the current corona measures and the strict penalties for non-compliance with them are contrary to the values formulated by the Belgian Supreme Health Council, which, until recently, as the health authority, has always ensured quality medicine in our country: “Science – Expertise – Quality – Impartiality – Independence – Transparency”. 1

We believe that the policy has introduced mandatory measures that are not sufficiently scientifically based, unilaterally directed, and that there is not enough space in the media for an open debate in which different views and opinions are heard. In addition, each municipality and province now has the authorisation to add its own measures, whether well-founded or not.

Moreover, the strict repressive policy on corona strongly contrasts with the government’s minimal policy when it comes to disease prevention, strengthening our own immune system through a healthy lifestyle, optimal care with attention for the individual and investment in care personnel.2

The concept of health

In 1948, the WHO defined health as follows: ‘Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or other physical impairment’.3

Health, therefore, is a broad concept that goes beyond the physical and also relates to the emotional and social well-being of the individual. Belgium also has a duty, from the point of view of subscribing to fundamental human rights, to include these human rights in its decision-making when it comes to measures taken in the context of public health. 4

The current global measures taken to combat SARS-CoV-2 violate to a large extent this view of health and human rights. Measures include compulsory wearing of a mask (also in open air and during sporting activities, and in some municipalities even when there are no other people in the vicinity), physical distancing, social isolation, compulsory quarantine for some groups and hygiene measures.

The predicted pandemic with millions of deaths

At the beginning of the pandemic, the measures were understandable and widely supported, even if there were differences in implementation in the countries around us. The WHO originally predicted a pandemic that would claim 3.4% victims, in other words millions of deaths, and a highly contagious virus for which no treatment or vaccine was available.  This would put unprecedented pressure on the intensive care units (ICUs) of our hospitals.

This led to a global alarm situation, never seen in the history of mankind: “flatten the curve” was represented by a lockdown that shut down the entire society and economy and quarantined healthy people. Social distancing became the new normal in anticipation of a rescue vaccine.

The facts about covid-19

Gradually, the alarm bell was sounded from many sources: the objective facts showed a completely different reality. 5 6

The course of covid-19 followed the course of a normal wave of infection similar to a flu season. As every year, we see a mix of flu viruses following the curve: first the rhinoviruses, then the influenza A and B viruses, followed by the coronaviruses. There is nothing different from what we normally see.

The use of the non-specific PCR test, which produces many false positives, showed an exponential picture.  This test was rushed through with an emergency procedure and was never seriously self-tested. The creator expressly warned that this test was intended for research and not for diagnostics.7

The PCR test works with cycles of amplification of genetic material – a piece of genome is amplified each time. Any contamination (e.g. other viruses, debris from old virus genomes) can possibly result in false positives.8

The test does not measure how many viruses are present in the sample. A real viral infection means a massive presence of viruses, the so-called virus load. If someone tests positive, this does not mean that that person is actually clinically infected, is ill or is going to become ill. Koch’s postulate was not fulfilled (“The pure agent found in a patient with complaints can provoke the same complaints in a healthy person”).

Since a positive PCR test does not automatically indicate active infection or infectivity, this does not justify the social measures taken, which are based solely on these tests. 9 10

Lockdown

If we compare the waves of infection in countries with strict lockdown policies to countries that did not impose lockdowns (Sweden, Iceland …), we see similar curves.  So there is no link between the imposed lockdown and the course of the infection. Lockdown has not led to a lower mortality rate.

If we look at the date of application of the imposed lockdowns we see that the lockdowns were set after the peak was already over and the number of cases decreasing. The drop was therefore not the result of the taken measures. 11

As every year, it seems that climatic conditions (weather, temperature and humidity) and growing immunity are more likely to reduce the wave of infection.

Our immune system

For thousands of years, the human body has been exposed daily to moisture and droplets containing infectious microorganisms (viruses, bacteria and fungi).

The penetration of these microorganisms is prevented by an advanced defence mechanism – the immune system. A strong immune system relies on normal daily exposure to these microbial influences. Overly hygienic measures have a detrimental effect on our immunity. 12 13 Only people with a weak or faulty immune system should be protected by extensive hygiene or social distancing.

Influenza will re-emerge in the autumn (in combination with covid-19) and a possible decrease in natural resilience may lead to further casualties.

Our immune system consists of two parts: a congenital, non-specific immune system and an adaptive immune system.

The non-specific immune system forms a first barrier: skin, saliva, gastric juice, intestinal mucus, vibratory hair cells, commensal flora, … and prevents the attachment of micro-organisms to tissue.

If they do attach, macrophages can cause the microorganisms to be encapsulated and destroyed.

The adaptive immune system consists of mucosal immunity (IgA antibodies, mainly produced by cells in the intestines and lung epithelium), cellular immunity (T-cell activation), which can be generated in contact with foreign substances or microorganisms, and humoral immunity (IgM and IgG antibodies produced by the B cells).

Recent research shows that both systems are highly entangled.

It appears that most people already have a congenital or general immunity to e.g. influenza and other viruses. This is confirmed by the findings on the cruise ship Diamond Princess, which was quarantined because of a few passengers who died of Covid-19. Most of the passengers were elderly and were in an ideal situation of transmission on the ship. However, 75% did not appear to be infected. So even in this high-risk group, the majority are resistant to the virus.

A study in the journal Cell shows that most people neutralise the coronavirus by mucosal (IgA) and cellular immunity (T-cells), while experiencing few or no symptoms 14.

Researchers found up to 60% SARS-Cov-2 reactivity with CD4+T cells in a non-infected population, suggesting cross-reactivity with other cold (corona) viruses.15

Most people therefore already have a congenital or cross-immunity because they were already in contact with variants of the same virus.

The antibody formation (IgM and IgG) by B-cells only occupies a relatively small part of our immune system. This may explain why, with an antibody percentage of 5-10%, there may be a group immunity anyway. The efficacy of vaccines is assessed precisely on the basis of whether or not we have these antibodies. This is a misrepresentation.

Most people who test positive (PCR) have no complaints. Their immune system is strong enough. Strengthening natural immunity is a much more logical approach. Prevention is an important, insufficiently highlighted pillar: healthy, full-fledged nutrition, exercise in fresh air, without a mask, stress reduction and nourishing emotional and social contacts.

Consequences of social isolation on physical and mental health

Social isolation and economic damage led to an increase in depression, anxiety, suicides, intra-family violence and child abuse.16

Studies have shown that the more social and emotional commitments people have, the more resistant they are to viruses. It is much more likely that isolation and quarantine have fatal consequences. 17

The isolation measures have also led to physical inactivity in many older people due to their being forced to stay indoors. However, sufficient exercise has a positive effect on cognitive functioning, reducing depressive complaints and anxiety and improving physical health, energy levels, well-being and, in general, quality of life.18

Fear, persistent stress and loneliness induced by social distancing have a proven negative influence on psychological and general health. 19

A highly contagious virus with millions of deaths without any treatment?

Mortality turned out to be many times lower than expected and close to that of a normal seasonal flu (0.2%). 20
The number of registered corona deaths therefore still seems to be overestimated.

There is a difference between death by corona and death with corona. Humans are often carriers of multiple viruses and potentially pathogenic bacteria at the same time. Taking into account the fact that most people who developed serious symptoms suffered from additional pathology, one cannot simply conclude that the corona-infection was the cause of death. This was mostly not taken into account in the statistics.

The most vulnerable groups can be clearly identified. The vast majority of deceased patients were 80 years of age or older. The majority (70%) of the deceased, younger than 70 years, had an underlying disorder, such as cardiovascular suffering, diabetes mellitus, chronic lung disease or obesity. The vast majority of infected persons (>98%) did not or hardly became ill or recovered spontaneously.

Meanwhile, there is an affordable, safe and efficient therapy available for those who do show severe symptoms of disease in the form of HCQ (hydroxychloroquine), zinc and AZT (azithromycin). Rapidly applied this therapy leads to recovery and often prevents hospitalisation. Hardly anyone has to die now.

This effective therapy has been confirmed by the clinical experience of colleagues in the field with impressive results. This contrasts sharply with the theoretical criticism (insufficient substantiation by double-blind studies) which in some countries (e.g. the Netherlands) has even led to a ban on this therapy. A meta-analysis in The Lancet, which could not demonstrate an effect of HCQ, was withdrawn. The primary data sources used proved to be unreliable and 2 out of 3 authors were in conflict of interest. However, most of the guidelines based on this study remained unchanged … 48 49

We have serious questions about this state of affairs.

In the US, a group of doctors in the field, who see patients on a daily basis, united in “America’s Frontline Doctors” and gave a press conference which has been watched millions of times.21 51

French Prof Didier Raoult of the Institut d’Infectiologie de Marseille (IHU) also presented this promising combination therapy as early as April. Dutch GP Rob Elens, who cured many patients in his practice with HCQ and zinc, called on colleagues in a petition for freedom of therapy.22

The definitive evidence comes from the epidemiological follow-up in Switzerland: mortality rates compared with and without this therapy.23

From the distressing media images of ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome) where people were suffocating and given artificial respiration in agony, we now know that this was caused by an exaggerated immune response with intravascular coagulation in the pulmonary blood vessels. The administration of blood thinners and dexamethasone and the avoidance of artificial ventilation, which was found to cause additional damage to lung tissue, means that this dreaded complication, too, is virtually not fatal anymore. 47

It is therefore not a killer virus, but a well-treatable condition.

Propagation

Spreading occurs by drip infection (only for patients who cough or sneeze) and aerosols in closed, unventilated rooms. Contamination is therefore not possible in the open air. Contact tracing and epidemiological studies show that healthy people (or positively tested asymptomatic carriers) are virtually unable to transmit the virus. Healthy people therefore do not put each other at risk. 24 25
Transfer via objects (e.g. money, shopping or shopping trolleys) has not been scientifically proven.26 27 28

All this seriously calls into question the whole policy of social distancing and compulsory mouth masks for healthy people – there is no scientific basis for this.

Masks

Oral masks belong in contexts where contacts with proven at-risk groups or people with upper respiratory complaints take place, and in a medical context/hospital-retirement home setting. They reduce the risk of droplet infection by sneezing or coughing. Oral masks in healthy individuals are ineffective against the spread of viral infections. 29 30 31

Wearing a mask is not without side effects. 32 33 Oxygen deficiency (headache, nausea, fatigue, loss of concentration) occurs fairly quickly, an effect similar to altitude sickness. Every day we now see patients complaining of headaches, sinus problems, respiratory problems and hyperventilation due to wearing masks. In addition, the accumulated CO2 leads to a toxic acidification of the organism which affects our immunity. Some experts even warn of an increased transmission of the virus in case of inappropriate use of the mask.34

Our Labour Code (Codex 6) refers to a CO2 content (ventilation in workplaces) of 900 ppm, maximum 1200 ppm in special circumstances. After wearing a mask for one minute, this toxic limit is considerably exceeded to values that are three to four times higher than these maximum values. Anyone who wears a mask is therefore in an extreme poorly ventilated room. 35

Inappropriate use of masks without a comprehensive medical cardio-pulmonary test file is therefore not recommended by recognised safety specialists for workers.

Hospitals have a sterile environment in their operating rooms where staff wear masks and there is precise regulation of humidity / temperature with appropriately monitored oxygen flow to compensate for this, thus meeting strict safety standards. 36

A second corona wave?

A second wave is now being discussed in Belgium, with a further tightening of the measures as a result. However, closer examination of Sciensano’s figures (latest report of 3 September 2020)37 shows that, although there has been an increase in the number of infections since mid-July, there was no increase in hospital admissions or deaths at that time. It is therefore not a second wave of corona, but a so-called “case chemistry” due to an increased number of tests. 50

The number of hospital admissions or deaths showed a shortlasting minimal increase in recent weeks, but in interpreting it, we must take into account the recent heatwave. In addition, the vast majority of the victims are still in the population group >75 years.

This indicates that the proportion of the measures taken in relation to the working population and young people is disproportionate to the intended objectives.

The vast majority of the positively tested “infected” persons are in the age group of the active population, which does not develop any or merely limited symptoms, due to a well-functioning immune system.

So nothing has changed – the peak is over.

Strengthening a prevention policy

The corona measures form a striking contrast to the minimal policy pursued by the government until now, when it comes to well-founded measures with proven health benefits such as the sugar tax, the ban on (e-)cigarettes and making healthy food, exercise and social support networks financially attractive and widely accessible. It is a missed opportunity for a better prevention policy that could have brought about a change in mentality in all sections of the population with clear results in terms of public health. At present, only 3% of the health care budget goes to prevention. 2

The Hippocratic Oath

As a doctor, we took the Hippocratic Oath:

“I will above all care for my patients, promote their health and alleviate their suffering”.

“I will inform my patients correctly.”

“Even under pressure, I will not use my medical knowledge for practices that are against humanity.”

The current measures force us to act against this oath.

Other health professionals have a similar code.

The ‘primum non nocere’, which every doctor and health professional assumes, is also undermined by the current measures and by the prospect of the possible introduction of a generalised vaccine, which is not subject to extensive prior testing.

Vaccine

Survey studies on influenza vaccinations show that in 10 years we have only succeeded three times in developing a vaccine with an efficiency rate of more than 50%. Vaccinating our elderly appears to be inefficient. Over 75 years of age, the efficacy is almost non-existent.38

Due to the continuous natural mutation of viruses, as we also see every year in the case of the influenza virus, a vaccine is at most a temporary solution, which requires new vaccines each time afterwards. An untested vaccine, which is implemented by emergency procedure and for which the manufacturers have already obtained legal immunity from possible harm, raises serious questions. 39 40 We do not wish to use our patients as guinea pigs.

On a global scale, 700 000 cases of damage or death are expected as a result of the vaccine.41

If 95% of people experience Covid-19 virtually symptom-free, the risk of exposure to an untested vaccine is irresponsible.

The role of the media and the official communication plan

Over the past few months, newspaper, radio and TV makers seemed to stand almost uncritically behind the panel of experts and the government, there, where it is precisely the press that should be critical and prevent one-sided governmental communication. This has led to a public communication in our news media, that was more like propaganda than objective reporting.

In our opinion, it is the task of journalism to bring news as objectively and neutrally as possible, aimed at finding the truth and critically controlling power, with dissenting experts also being given a forum in which to express themselves.

This view is supported by the journalistic codes of ethics.42

The official story that a lockdown was necessary, that this was the only possible solution, and that everyone stood behind this lockdown, made it difficult for people with a different view, as well as experts, to express a different opinion.

Alternative opinions were ignored or ridiculed. We have not seen open debates in the media, where different views could be expressed.

We were also surprised by the many videos and articles by many scientific experts and authorities, which were and are still being removed from social media. We feel that this does not fit in with a free, democratic constitutional state, all the more so as it leads to tunnel vision. This policy also has a paralysing effect and feeds fear and concern in society. In this context, we reject the intention of censorship of dissidents in the European Union! 43

The way in which Covid-19 has been portrayed by politicians and the media has not done the situation any good either. War terms were popular and warlike language was not lacking. There has often been mention of a ‘war’ with an ‘invisible enemy’ who has to be ‘defeated’. The use in the media of phrases such as ‘care heroes in the front line’ and ‘corona victims’ has further fuelled fear, as has the idea that we are globally dealing with a ‘killer virus’.

The relentless bombardment with figures, that were unleashed on the population day after day, hour after hour, without interpreting those figures, without comparing them to flu deaths in other years, without comparing them to deaths from other causes, has induced a real psychosis of fear in the population. This is not information, this is manipulation.

We deplore the role of the WHO in this, which has called for the infodemic (i.e. all divergent opinions from the official discourse, including by experts with different views) to be silenced by an unprecedented media censorship.43 44

We urgently call on the media to take their responsibilities here!

We demand an open debate in which all experts are heard.

Emergency law versus Human Rights

The general principle of good governance calls for the proportionality of government decisions to be weighed up in the light of the Higher Legal Standards: any interference by government must comply with the fundamental rights as protected in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Interference by public authorities is only permitted in crisis situations. In other words, discretionary decisions must be proportionate to an absolute necessity.

The measures currently taken concern interference in the exercise of, among other things, the right to respect of private and family life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association, the right to education, etc., and must therefore comply with fundamental rights as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

For example, in accordance with Article 8(2) of the ECHR, interference with the right to private and family life is permissible only if the measures are necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, the economic well-being of the country, the protection of public order and the prevention of criminal offences, the protection of health or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, the regulatory text on which the interference is based must be sufficiently clear, foreseeable and proportionate to the objectives pursued.45

The predicted pandemic of millions of deaths seemed to respond to these crisis conditions, leading to the establishment of an emergency government. Now that the objective facts show something completely different, the condition of inability to act otherwise (no time to evaluate thoroughly if there is an emergency) is no longer in place. Covid-19 is not a cold virus, but a well treatable condition with a mortality rate comparable to the seasonal flu. In other words, there is no longer an insurmountable obstacle to public health.

There is no state of emergency.

Immense damage caused by the current policies

An open discussion on corona measures means that, in addition to the years of life gained by corona patients, we must also take into account other factors affecting the health of the entire population. These include damage in the psychosocial domain (increase in depression, anxiety, suicides, intra-family violence and child abuse)16 and economic damage.

If we take this collateral damage into account, the current policy is out of all proportion, the proverbial use of a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

We find it shocking that the government is invoking health as a reason for the emergency law.

As doctors and health professionals, in the face of a virus which, in terms of its harmfulness, mortality and transmissibility, approaches the seasonal influenza, we can only reject these extremely disproportionate measures.

  • We therefore demand an immediate end to all measures.
  • We are questioning the legitimacy of the current advisory experts, who meet behind closed doors.
  • Following on from ACU 2020 46  we call for an in-depth examination of the role of the WHO and the possible influence of conflicts of interest in this organisation. It was also at the heart of the fight against the “infodemic”, i.e. the systematic censorship of all dissenting opinions in the media. This is unacceptable for a democratic state governed by the rule of law.43

Distribution of this letter

We would like to make a public appeal to our professional associations and fellow carers to give their opinion on the current measures.

We draw attention to and call for an open discussion in which carers can and dare to speak out.

With this open letter, we send out the signal that progress on the same footing does more harm than good, and call on politicians to inform themselves independently and critically about the available evidence – including that from experts with different views, as long as it is based on sound science – when rolling out a policy, with the aim of promoting optimum health.

With concern, hope and in a personal capacity.

*

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

Notes

  1. https://www.health.belgium.be/nl/wie-zijn-we#Missie
  2. standaard.be/preventie
  3. https://www.who.int/about/who-we-are/constitution
  4. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-rights-and-health
  5. https://swprs.org/feiten-over-covid19/
  6. https://the-iceberg.net/
  7. https://www.creative-diagnostics.com/sars-cov-2-coronavirus-multiplex-rt-qpcr-kit-277854-457.htm
  8. President John Magufuli of Tanzania: “Even Papaya and Goats are Corona positive” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=207HuOxltvI
  9. Open letter by biochemist Drs Mario Ortiz Martinez to the Dutch chamber https://www.gentechvrij.nl/2020/08/15/foute-interpretatie/
  10. Interview with Drs Mario Ortiz Martinez https://troo.tube/videos/watch/6ed900eb-7459-4a1b-93fd-b393069f4fcd?fbclid=IwAR1XrullC2qopJjgFxEgbSTBvh-4ZCuJa1VxkHTXEtYMEyGG3DsNwUdaatY
  11. https://infekt.ch/2020/04/sind-wir-tatsaechlich-im-blindflug/
  12. Lambrecht, B., Hammad, H. The immunology of the allergy epidemic and the hygiene hypothesis. Nat Immunol 18, 1076–1083 (2017). https://www.nature.com/articles/ni.3829
  13. Sharvan Sehrawat, Barry T. Rouse, Does the hygiene hypothesis apply to COVID-19 susceptibility?, Microbes and Infection, 2020, ISSN 1286-4579, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2020.07.002
  14. https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30610-3?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867420306103%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
  15. https://www.hpdetijd.nl/2020-08-11/9-manieren-om-corona-te-voorkomen/
  16. Feys, F., Brokken, S., & De Peuter, S. (2020, May 22). Risk-benefit and cost-utility analysis for COVID-19 lockdown in Belgium: the impact on mental health and wellbeing. https://psyarxiv.com/xczb3/
  17. Kompanje, 2020
  18. Conn, Hafdahl en Brown, 2009; Martinsen 2008; Yau, 2008
  19. https://brandbriefggz.nl/
  20. https://swprs.org/studies-on-covid-19-lethality/#overall-mortality
  21. https://www.xandernieuws.net/algemeen/groep-artsen-vs-komt-in-verzet-facebook-bant-hun-17-miljoen-keer-bekeken-video/
  22. https://www.petities.com/einde_corona_crises_overheid_sta_behandeling_van_covid-19_met_hcq_en_zink_toe
  23. https://zelfzorgcovid19.nl/statistieken-zwitserland-met-hcq-zonder-hcq-met-hcq-leveren-het-bewijs/
  24. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html
  25. http://www.emro.who.int/health-topics/corona-virus/transmission-of-covid-19-by-asymptomatic-cases.html
  26. WHO https://www.marketwatch.com/story/who-we-did-not-say-that-cash-was-transmitting-coronavirus-2020-03-06
  27. https://www.nordkurier.de/ratgeber/es-gibt-keine-gefahr-jemandem-beim-einkaufen-zu-infizieren-0238940804.html
  28. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-germany-banknotes/banknotes-carry-no-particular-coronavirus-risk-german-disease-expert-idUSKBN20Y2ZT
  29. 29. Contradictory statements by our virologists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K9xfmkMsvM
  30. https://www.hpdetijd.nl/2020-07-05/stop-met-anderhalve-meter-afstand-en-het-verplicht-dragen-van-mondkapjes/
  31. Security expert Tammy K. Herrema Clark https://youtu.be/TgDm_maAglM
  32. https://theplantstrongclub.org/2020/07/04/healthy-people-should-not-wear-face-masks-by-jim-meehan-md/
  33. https://www.technocracy.news/blaylock-face-masks-pose-serious-risks-to-the-healthy/
  34. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200315/Reusing-masks-may-increase-your-risk-of-coronavirus-infection-expert-says.aspx
  35. https://werk.belgie.be/nl/nieuws/nieuwe-regels-voor-de-kwaliteit-van-de-binnenlucht-werklokalen
  36. https://kavlaanderen.blogspot.com/2020/07/als-maskers-niet-werken-waarom-dragen.html
  37. https://covid-19.sciensano.be/sites/default/files/Covid19/Meest%20recente%20update.pdf
  38. Haralambieva, I.H. et al., 2015. The impact of immunosenescence on humoral immune response variation after influenza A/H1N1 vaccination in older subjects. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26044074/
  39. Global vaccine safety summit WHO 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJXXDLGKmPg
  40. No liability manufacturers vaccines https://m.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20200804_95956456?fbclid=IwAR0IgiA-6sNVQvE8rMC6O5Gq5xhOulbcN1BhdI7Rw-7eq_pRtJDCxde6SQI
  41. https://www.newsbreak.com/news/1572921830018/bill-gates-admits-700000-people-will-be-harmed-or-killed-by-his-covid-19-solution
  42. Journalistic code https://www.rvdj.be/node/63
  43. Disinformation related to COVID-19 approaches European Commission EurLex, juni 2020 (this file will not damage your computer)
  44. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30461-X/fulltext
  45. http://www.raadvst-consetat.be/dbx/adviezen/67142.pdf#search=67.142
  46. https://acu2020.org/
  47. https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0049384820303297?token=9718E5413AACDE0D14A3A0A56A89A3EF744B5A201097F4459AE565EA5EDB222803FF46D7C6CD3419652A215FDD2C874F
  48. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext
  49. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31324-6/fulltext
  50. There is no revival of the pandemic, but a so-called casedemic due to more testing.
    https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/crucial-viewing-understanding-covid-19-casedemic1
  51. https://docs4opendebate.be/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/white-paper-on-hcq-from-AFD.pdf
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Open Letter from Medical Doctors and Health Professionals to All Belgian Authorities and All Belgian Media

The U.S. Betrays Its Heritage by Threatening World War III Against Russia and China

January 25th, 2022 by Anton Chaitkin

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Americans who cherish our country’s legacy are horrified by our headlong rush to war. America at its best was the very motor of world progress, higher living standards and peace.

That is our true national identity. We betray “the better angels of our nature” by making military threats against those who are advancing world powers, as we once were. We commit suicide when we dishonor historic agreements that keep the world safe from nuclear annihilation.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the U.S. promised Russian leaders that the U.S.-led military alliance known as NATO would not be extended eastward toward Russia. The transatlantic Globalist war-making faction broke this promise. NATO has moved eastward with eight new members, heavily armed and hostile to Russia. The U.S. installed a far-right anti-Russian regime in Ukraine on Russia’s border, and armed them for conflict.

China has been similarly ringed by threatening U.S. fleets and military bases.

Russia and China have made it plain they find this intolerable, and cannot permit it to go further.

The world is hurtling toward the unimaginable horror of nuclear war.

We must look soberly and deeply into U.S. history to see how our nation changed from a force for peace into an aggressive provocateur.

We were industrialized by progressive patriots. They won out against Southern slave-owners and imperial financiers who blocked American progress. The U.S. at its best boosted other nations to technological prowess.

Abraham Lincoln and his allies organized the greatest advances ever made in technology and living standards, and a long era of peace with the world. Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy sought a partnership with Russia to bring peace and a humane existence to all mankind.

America changed course after Kennedy’s murder. We gave up our industries and lost our skills. We gave power to unaccountable Globalist financiers. Their speculation and deindustrialization have bankrupted the Western world. Other powers are now rising who won’t follow Globalist rules into poverty and national suicide.

The gravest danger now comes from America abandoning its own historic mission, which is to elevate the common man. Those who know history are especially challenged to act now, to speak out, so that we may protect the civilization that America at its best did so much to advance.

Over the past half century since Kennedy’s death, the United States, guided by a transatlantic war-making faction, has launched war after war, winning nothing and bringing chaos and suffering to countless millions.

Our greatest past leaders warned that waging aggressive war would destroy our country

George Washington led our Revolution against the British Empire’s invading armies. But as President, Washington sought peace with the world. He warned,

The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred … is a slave to its animosity … which … lead[s] it astray from its duty and its interest. [This hatred] disposes each [country] more readily to offer insult and injury … and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur … The government … makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim.”

(Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796)

Abraham Lincoln as a congressman exposed the lies that President James Polk used to justify aggressive war against Mexico. (Lincoln’s “Spot Resolutions,” December 22, 1847). And just before he himself ran for President, Lincoln denounced war-makers as barbarians:

From the first appearance of man upon the earth … the words “stranger” and “enemy” were … almost synonymous. Long after civilized nations had defined robbery and murder as high crimes, and had affixed severe punishments to them, when practiced … upon their own people … it was deemed no offence, but even meritorious, to rob, and murder, and enslave strangers, whether as nations or as individuals … To correct the evils … which spring from want of sympathy … among strangers … is one of the highest functions of civilization.

(Lincoln, speech to Wisconsin Agricultural Fair, September 30, 1859).

As President, leading the defense of the Union against the slave-owners’ attack, Lincoln urged peace with the world:

With malice toward none; with charity for all … let us … do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

(Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865)

President Franklin Roosevelt organized the United Nations and proposed that world peace and poverty-fighting must be centered on continuing the anti-fascist partnership of the U.S., Russia, Britain and China.

The UN Charter begins,

We the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war…

This is the bedrock of real human rights, not a phony cover-up for regime-change.

President John Kennedy pulled the USA and Russia away from nuclear catastrophe by a deal that removed U.S. missiles from Turkey in exchange for Russian missiles taken out of Cuba.

Kennedy asked Americans to

re-examine our attitude toward the Soviet Union… the American people [should] not … fall into the same trap as the Soviets, … to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, … [with] communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements—in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage….

[Our] two countries have … [a] mutual abhorrence of war…. [W]e have never been at war with each other. And no nation … ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in … the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives…. A third of the nation’s territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland…

Today, should total war ever break out again … all we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours…. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists’ interest to agree on a genuine peace….

(Kennedy, Commencement Address at Washington University, June 10, 1963)

A pioneering international treaty partially banning nuclear weapons was soon thereafter signed by the U.S., U.S.S.R., and 100 nations.

President Kennedy fired top officials (Allen Dulles, CIA, and Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer, Pentagon) who treacherously sabotaged U.S. peace policy. As he was working to prevent full-scale war in Vietnam, and seeking diplomatic ties with Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Kennedy was murdered.

Martin Luther King risked increased government oppression and even the condemnation of his civil rights allies when he took upon himself leadership of the movement against the Vietnam War.

King’s 1967 New York speech reaches out to us today and calls us to action.

I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours…

Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies… they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism…

The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality…, we will find ourselves organizing [anti-war] committees for the next generation… [We will have war] without end, unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy…

[The] words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable” …

[The] Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch antirevolutionaries….

[We] call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class, and nation … an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind…

We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation…

A time comes when silence is betrayal…

(Martin Luther King, Speech at Riverside Church, April 4, 1967)

Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy and King, who inspired America and the world, urge us not to remain silent when humanity’s existence is threatened.

*

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 Matthew Ehret for sending us this article.

Historian Anton Chaitkin is the author of Who We Are: America’s Fight for Universal Progress, from Franklin to Kennedy (Volume 1, 2020, Amazon).

Featured image: George Washington (Image by W Kennedy on wikimedia commons)

An Appreciation of a Modern-day Troubadour. “The Meat Loaf Story”

January 25th, 2022 by Tom Clifford

All Global Research articles 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.

***

.

.

.

.

Voice? Check. Lyrics? Check. Looks? Ahhhhh. Well, as Marvin Lee Aday, who died on Jan 20 at 74, like to say….Two Out Of Three Ain’t Bad.

The stage name? Meat Loaf. For Crying Out Loud. OK.

How’s this for a pitch in 1977 to record companies for the breakthrough hit, Bat Out Of Hell? It’s a song about a guy on a motorbike crashing, dying, with his heart leaving his body like a bat.

That song will give the album its title, then we’ll have a song about a guy rejecting his girl by telling her there ain’t no way I’m ever going to love you and another about a man who wants to end the relationship and is praying for the end of time so I can end my time with you.

What record producer in their right mind would consider such an outlandish proposal? Remember, this was the late seventies. The Carter presidency. Music was polarized. In the blue corner, disco. In the red, punk. Bruce Sprinsgteen and Queen were fighting the good fight but the dross seemed overwhelming.  Rudely flapping its wings along comes the Bat Out of Hell album with its Wagnerian overtones and sense of Gotterdamerung and an overweight singer named after a dish not known for its gastronomic appeal. T-bone steak, roast lamb, leg of pork, roast potatoes maybe, but Meat Loaf?

After a slow burn, something happened, word of mouth and radio play resurrected it and soon, say 1978, no high school or college dance was complete without a track or two, especially Two Out of Three Ain’t Bad. This was before MTV. It’s still appealing to young and not-so-young romantics with global sales in excess of 40 million and the album sales hit 200,00 a year.

But Meat Loaf was never about commercial success. At first he worked in harmony with songwriter Jim Steinman who died last year aged 73 before he fell out of harmony and then reunited.

Meat Loaf and Steinman gave angst-ridden teens, and I was a card-carrying member of the group, a tutorial in Wagnerian emotion and intensity. Music as theater with more than a hint of opera. Melodramatic? Yes but never schmaltzy. Meat Loaf was aiming not for intelligence but for the heart, for an adrenaline rush. We were teens or in our early 20s. All Reved Up With No Place To Go. Every Saturday night we felt the fever grow. This was soul music but not spiritual and not as we knew it. The frustration, the angst, the pent-up energy. He Took The Words Right Out Of My Mouth.

 

Sure, at times it verged on the ridiculous. I’m Going To Love Her For Both Of Us is utter nonsense. And there is nothing uplifting about Not A Dry Eye In The House.

But when on song, Meat Loaf made music fun. Especially with his use of melodrama. Rock And Roll Dreams Come Through or Life Is A Lemon And I Want My Money Back. Go on listen to them and stop your feet from moving.

Bombastic, certainly but never bullying or threatening. Sad, melancholy at times, especially when he was Left In The Dark.

Never morbid either. Not all the albums worked but when they did, when it all came together, you could imagine angels singing along.

The music wasn’t just for teens He could pack venues with all ages.

Meat Loaf was not for the faint hearted, after all faint heart never won fair maiden. With his music young men became knights of the night.

I first heard him when I was a teenager. Now I am past 60. I have never revved a motorbike’s engine. But he made me feel as if I could.

His voice was the soundtrack to my life. Memories? It’s All Coming Back To Me Now.

*

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.

Geopolitical analyst Tom Clifford reporting from Beijing. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is licensed under Public Domain

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on An Appreciation of a Modern-day Troubadour. “The Meat Loaf Story”

COVID Vaccines Were Designed to Fail; That’s How They Won Authorization

January 25th, 2022 by Jon Rappoport

All Global Research articles 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 the past two years, I’ve been demonstrating that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a fake. It doesn’t exist. Now let’s enter the bubble where people assume the virus is real, and examine a few of the major crimes and contradictions that exist inside that lunatic bubble.

I wrote and posted this piece while the clinical trials of the COVID vaccine were in progress. It reveals how and why those trials were doomed to fail. They did fail. Since then, nothing has changed.

The vaccine makers DESIGNED a series of clinical trials that, even on their own terms (“the virus is real, fear the virus”) were destined to be a complete flop.

PART ONE:

Peter Doshi, associate editor of the medical journal BMJ, and Eric Topol, Scripps Research professor of molecular medicine, have written a devastating NY Times opinion piece about the ongoing COVID vaccine clinical trials.

They expose the fatal flaw in the large Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna trials.

September 22, 2020, the Times: “These Coronavirus Trials Don’t Answer the One Question We Need to Know” [1]:

“If you were to approve a coronavirus vaccine, would you approve one that you only knew protected people only from the most mild form of Covid-19, or one that would prevent its serious complications?”

“The answer is obvious. You would want to protect against the worst cases.”

“But that’s not how the companies testing three of the leading coronavirus vaccine candidates, Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca, whose U.S. trial is on hold, are approaching the problem.”

“According to the protocols for their studies, which they released late last week, a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.”

“To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick. That’s not what these trials will determine.”

This means these clinical trials are dead in the water.

They are only designed to show effectiveness in preventing “mild cases of COVID,” which nobody should care about, because mild cases (cough, fever) naturally run their course and cause no harm. THERE IS NO NEED FOR A VACCINE THAT PREVENTS MILD CASES.

The leading vaccine clinical trials are useless, irrelevant, misleading, and deceptive.

Now let’s go deeper. Read the next section from the Times piece, and then I’ll make comments.

“The Moderna and AstraZeneca studies will involve about 30,000 participants each; Pfizer’s will have 44,000. Half the participants will receive two doses of vaccines separated by three or four weeks, and the other half will receive saltwater placebo shots. The final determination of efficacy will occur after 150 to 160 participants develop Covid-19…”

Here’s how it works. The vaccine companies are looking for a total of 150 mild COVID cases to occur, combined, in the two groups— those receiving the placebo and those receiving the vaccine. How would that happen? The researchers believe “the coronavirus is spreading everywhere” and it will pounce on some of the volunteers in the clinical trial.

Let’s say that, during the trial, 100 people receiving the placebo develop mild COVID-19, and only 50 people receiving the vaccine develop mild COVID.

The vaccine companies would say, “We just proved the vaccine is 50% effective in preventing COVID, and that’s all we need to do, in order to win emergency authorization from the FDA. Release the vaccine. Inject the world.”

The outcomes for 150 people equal “let’s shoot up seven billion people.” That’s staggering.

But it gets even worse. The magic number of 150 COVID cases? How is a COVID case defined? The authors of the Times piece have the answer:

“In the Moderna and Pfizer trials, even a mild case of Covid-19 — for instance, a cough plus a positive lab test — would qualify and muddy the results. AstraZeneca is slightly more stringent but would still count mild symptoms like a cough plus fever as a case.”

But wait. The NY Times itself recently published an article [2] stating that up to 90% of US COVID cases could very well be false positives—in other words, not cases at all. Why? Because the diagnostic PCR test, as it is performed by many labs, is too sensitive. It registers “positive for COVID” when it shouldn’t.

So, in these vaccine clinical trials, the whole process of determining that “150 people developed COVID-19” is completely unreliable, useless, absurd, and nonsensical. On the one hand, a positive PCR test is unreliable and means nothing. On the other hand, a cough and fever (“mild COVID”) are nothing to worry about, and don’t require a vaccine at all. We’re talking about 150 cases of “who cares.” That’s what the COVID vaccine is designed to prevent.

“So the magic number is 150? That’s the number that will decide the immediate fate of the planet?”

“Of course.”

“And these 150 people, who you say develop mild COVID-19…no one should care, because those symptoms cure themselves, and no vaccine is needed.”

“Correct.”

“And come to think of it, the people receiving the vaccine in the clinical trials could develop symptoms indistinguishable from mild COVID-19, as a result of the effects of the vaccine.”

“Yes, that’s right.”

“But you’re very confident in the success of the vaccine.”

“Indeed.”

“Why?”

“I have to be confident. If we’re exposed as incompetent frauds, our bottom line will take a huge hit. And we’ll wind up in prison.”

“Thank you, sir. And that’s tonight’s news. Make sure you take the vaccine, everyone. It’s vital. This is Fred J Clown, for CBS-NBC-ABC-CNN-FOX-PBS-AP-Reuters and all official news sources East, West, North, and South. The News, brought to you by Venom-X-2, a medicine that has only 463 adverse effects. Ask your doctor if Venom is right for you.”

PART TWO: THE DEVIOUS TRICK:

Now I’m going to go over the vital information again, but this time I’m going to show you how…

The vaccine companies can use the fatal flaw in their protocol design to…

Actually win approval of their COVID vaccine.

Stick with me. This is big.

Only 150 people are needed to make the major clinical trials of a COVID vaccine look like a success.

Out of 30,000 volunteers in a trial, researchers are waiting for 150 people to “come down with COVID-19.” MILD cases. They assume this will happen because they believe the coronavirus is everywhere, and it’ll infect their volunteers.

Of course, their definition of a mild case of COVID-19 is meaningless. Cough plus fever, and a positive PCR test. The test spits out false positives like a rigged slot machine, and the visible mild symptoms could result from flu, polluted air, or too many candy bars.

Nevertheless, the researchers are waiting for a total of 150 people to “catch a mild case of COVID.” When that number is reached, everything stops.

Now comes the big moment. How many of those 150 COVID cases occurred in the group that received the vaccine, and how many in the group that received the placebo shot of salt water?

Let’s say only 50 COVID cases occurred in the vaccine group, and 100 in the placebo group. The researchers pop champagne corks. They say, “Look, the vaccine is 50% effective at preventing COVID, and that’s all we need to win emergency authorization from the FDA.”

BUT suppose 75 cases occurred in the vaccine group and 75 in the placebo group? No good. No good at all. No way to call the vaccine effective.

Now comes the “reshaping of the data.”

HERE WE GO.

The researchers say, “Wait. Thirty of the COVID cases in the vaccine group were REALLY just adverse reactions to the vaccine. They weren’t cases of COVID. You see, the vaccine can cause symptoms that are indistinguishable from mild COVID. Cough, fever, chills. ACTUALLY, there were only 40 cases of COVID in the vaccine group. There were 110 in the placebo group. The vaccine IS effective. We’re good. We’re golden. We can get emergency authorization from the FDA right now to shoot up everybody.”

Vaccine manufacturers HAVE KNOWN ALL ALONG that they could pull this trick.

Why leave things to chance?

Why risk a few hundred billion dollars of profit on a random distribution of mild COVID cases among the volunteers in their clinical trials?

The definition of a mild COVID case is EXACTLY what the vaccine manufacturers needed. It enabled them to hatch a plan, to make sure they didn’t fail.

They could pawn off a MILD case of COVID as a reaction to the vaccine. They could fake that without causing ripples. The FDA would say, “The vaccine reactions aren’t serious. All right, no problem. We’ll approve this vaccine for emergency use.”

However…If the manufacturers designed their clinical trial protocol to prevent serious cases of COVID, they would be waiting to see 150 cases of really sick people to occur. That might never happen.

If it did happen, and the manufacturers had to pull their devious switcheroo trick and blame the vaccine for some of these SERIOUS cases…

They would have to tell the FDA that their vaccine was causing life-threatening pneumonia; and the FDA, under a lot of scrutiny these days, would find it very difficult to overlook that.

FDA: “We can’t approve this vaccine. It could cause a few million cases of dire pneumonia…”

The vaccine companies didn’t make a titanic stupid mistake in their protocol design. In gearing the protocol to prevent MILD COVID cases, they did what they did on purpose. It allows them to “reshape their data” and win FDA emergency approval for their vaccine.

These companies have no intention of failing, starting over, and spending a year recruiting 30,000 new volunteers. They want success and money now. They want to win the race.

And they will win, if the truth isn’t known and shared widely.

EPILOGUE:

The punchline.

Every “expert,” in August 2021, is instructed to say the vaccine is definitely protecting people against severe illness and hospitalization. This is their promotional message to the world.

“Yes, even if you’re vaccinated, you could become infected with the virus, you could develop COVID, and you could pass the virus to other people, BUT you must take the shot. It will protect you from becoming severely ill.”

As you can see from what I’ve written above, this is a straight-out lie.

It was always a fantastic lie, from the beginning of COVID vaccine development, because the design of the clinical trials had nothing to do with preventing serious illness.

*

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.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Notes

[1] nytimes.com/2020/09/22/opinion/covid-vaccine-coronavirus.html

[2] nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on COVID Vaccines Were Designed to Fail; That’s How They Won Authorization
  • Tags:

Japan, Korea, and Northeast Asia – The Abe Shinzo Legacy

January 25th, 2022 by Gavan McCormack

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Japan, Korea, and Northeast Asia – The Abe Shinzo Legacy

FDA Dr Rubin Admits to Unknown Safety of Experimental Jabs

January 25th, 2022 by Dr. Mark Trozzi

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

On October 26, 2021 The FDA met to debate the approval of the Pfizer Covid Injection for children. One of the voting FDA members Dr Eric Rubin said: “We’re never gonna learn about how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it. That’s just the way it goes… I do think we should vote to approve it,” and they did.

Here’s a 47 second recording of the FDA’s Dr Rubin stating this in the meeting. We agree with the video source’s musical out-take, and we understand how Dr Rubin and the FDA made the criteria for his channel called “Bullshit Man”.

Despite Dr. Rubin’s admission, the panel’s decision ended up being unanimous, with one abstention, in favor of formally recommending Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine for kids 5 to 11 years old under the current emergency use authorization.

They admittedly chose to experiment with children’s lives, on mass. They did this despite the fact that children have statistical zero risk of serious disease or death from covid. The FDA, like others, already knew about the record setting death and harm caused by these injections. So we rightfully accuse them of voting for child sacrifice.  Anyone who still trusts government with their health and their children’s lives, has not been paying attention.

*

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

Big Pharma Conglomerate with a Criminal Record: Pfizer “Takes Over” the EU Vaccine Market. 1.8 Billion Doses

January 25th, 2022 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

First published by Global Research on April 27, 2021

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

***

“Hundreds of millions of people have taken an injection that allows a bio-reactive “gene-therapy” molecule to be injected into their bodies because of fear, ignorance, and a refusal to consider that the people who are promoting this … have ulterior motives.” (Edward Curtin, April 2021)

***

Author’s Note and Update

There is evidence that Pfizer is routinely involved in bribing numerous politicians at the highest levels of  government. 

In turn, draconian governmental measures are being applied which consist in instructing people to take the mRNA  vaccine,  despite ample evidence that this so-called “vaccination program” has already resulted in countless deaths and injuries, most of which are documented by official statistics. 

These shots are NOT vaccines.  They are not meant to protect you against the virus. 

And why on Earth would you trust a Big Pharma company which has a criminal record? Did you know that?  

The media has failed to remind us that in 2009 Pfizer Inc. pleaded guilty to criminal charges. It was “The Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement” in the History of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

And now Pfizer is upheld as a “Reliable Partner” by the President of the European Commission (EU) representing some 450 million citizens in the EU’s 27 countries.

The criminality surrounding the 2020-21 mRNA vaccine far surpasses the 2009 “fraudulent marketing” charges directed against Pfizer.

“Fraudulent marketing” of an illegal and experimental “vaccine” is an understatement.

What is at stake is the outright “Criminalization of the state apparatus” whereby politicians, members of parliament, senior government officials are routinely bribed, coopted or threatened to abide by a diabolical project which is literally destroying people’s lives Worldwide.

In recent developments (September 26, 2021

“The European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly, the EU’s chief accountability and governance officer, has launched an investigation into the European Commission’s refusal to reveal the content of communications between Ursula von der Leyen and the CEO of an unnamed pharmaceutical company.

 

In April, the New York Times reported that von der Leyen had spent a month exchanging texts and calls with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla as part of negotiations to procure vaccines for the EU. The newspaper cited “personal diplomacy” as having contributed largely in securing the vaccines.”

Corruption and Fake Science

Say NO to the Covid Vaccine. 

Michel Chossudovsky,  September 27, 2021

***

Introduction

On April 14, 2021, the President of the European Commission confirmed that Brussels is negotiating  a contract with Pfizer for the production of 1.8 billion mRNA vaccine doses.

This astronomical figure represents 23 percent of the World’s population. It is exactly four times the population of the 27 member states of the European Union (448 Million, 2020 data). 

This is the largest vaccine project in World history which is accompanied by the imposition of a diabolical “Timeline” on the people of the European Union consisting of recurrent mRNA inoculations over “the next two years and beyond”.

The entire process will be coupled with a relentless fear campaign and the embedded ID vaccine passport, approved by the European Parliament barely a few weeks prior to the EU’s announcement.

The EU Digital Vaccine Passport to be implemented by Pfizer BioNTech is part of  the infamous ID2020 project sponsored by Bill Gates’ Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) “which uses generalized vaccination as a platform for digital identity“.

If this EU contract with Pfizer extending into 2023 were to be  carried out as planned, every single person in the European Union would be vaccinated four times over a two year period (2021-2023).

And bear in mind, at the time of writing, Pfizer’s mRNA (as well as those of its competitors including Astrazeneka, Moderna and J & J) are legally categorized (in the US) as “unapproved” and “experimental products”. They are illegal drugs.

In the US, the FDA in its ambiguous statement  provided a so-called Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, namely “to permit the emergency use of the unapproved product, … for active immunization…” (see below)

I have checked this statement with a prominent lawyer. It is blatantly illegal to market an “unapproved product” (irrespective of government permissions pertaining thereto).

A Multi-billion Dollar Bonanza for Pfizer BioNTech

Coinciding with the EU April 14, 2021 historic decision, Pfizer has announced that the price of its vaccine has been hiked up to $23 a dose.

Big Money for Big Pharma. The 1.8 billion doses vaccine project will cost 41 billion dollars, largely to be financed by the creditors of EU member states. The vaccine project will thereby contribute to the spiralling public debt crisis affecting most European countries, which was triggered by the closure of economic activity and the lockdowns in the course of last 13 months.

Meanwhile, Pfizer has extended its global market largely to the detriment of its competitors.

  • A contract to supply the US with up to 600 million doses,
  • Brazil, approximately 100 million,
  • South Africa 20 million doses,
  • Philippines, 40 million,
  • etc.

The Medium Term: 2021-2023 and “Beyond”. No Return to the “New Normal” once Vaccinated

What is envisaged in the EU is a so-called “medium term” plan extending into 2022/23. Does this “medium term” timeline imply a fourth and a fifth wave?

The “medium term” project will be carried out in liaison with the “Great Reset” proposed by the World Economic Forum. It will most probably be accompanied by lockdown and other restrictive measures. No foreseeable return to the “New Normal” is contemplated:

But let me [President of EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen] also focus on the medium term. ... It is clear that to defeat the virus decisively, we will need to be prepared for the following: … we might need booster jabs to reinforce and prolong immunity; … we will need to develop vaccines that are adapted to new variants; and we will need them early and in sufficient quantities. Having this in mind we need to focus on technologies that have proven their worth. mRNA vaccines are a clear case in point.

Based on all this, we are now entering into a negotiation with BioNTech-Pfizer for a third contract. This contract will foresee the delivery of 1.8 billion doses of vaccine over the period of 2021 to 2023. And it will entail that not only the production of the vaccines, but also all essential components, will be based in the EU.

The negotiations we are launching today [April 14, 2021]– and hope to conclude very rapidly – are a further important step in Europe’s response to the pandemic.

…

I want to thank BioNTech-Pfizer. It has proven to be a reliable partner. It has delivered on its commitments, and it is responsive to our needs. This is to the immediate benefit of EU citizens. ( President of EU Commission)

Reliable Partner? Pfizer’s Criminal Record

There is another dimension, a “can of worms” which the EU does not want to open. The largest vaccine project of an “unapproved drug” is to be implemented by a Big Pharma company which has a longstanding record of bribing medical doctors and public health officials.

Pfizer has been a “habitual offender,” persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results. Since 2002 the company and its subsidiaries have been assessed $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. (Dr Robert G. Evans, National Institutes of Medicine)

Moreover, Pfizer has a criminal record in the US, indicted by the US Department of Justice in 2009 for “fraudulent marketing”. 

“Pfizer, the world’s largest drugs company, has been hit with the biggest criminal fine in US history as part of a $2.3bn settlement with federal prosecutors for mispromoting medicines and for paying kickbacks to compliant doctors.”(Guardian)

In a historic US Department of Justice decision in September 2009, Pfizer Inc. pleaded guilty to criminal charges. It was “The Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement” in the History of the U.S. Department of Justice.

To view the C-Span Video Click Screen below 

 

How on Earth can you trust a Big Pharma vaccine conglomerate which pleaded guilty to criminal charges by the US Department of Justice (DoJ) including “fraudulent marketing” and “felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act”? 

In this 2009 DOJ Judgment, Pfizer was so to speak “Put on Probation” for a four year period. Pfizer was ordered to enter into “a corporate integrity agreement” with the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting as a de facto “Parole Officer”. “That agreement provided for “procedures and reviews to … avoid and promptly detect” (future) misconduct on the part of Pfizer, Inc.

The Killer “Vaccine”

Corporate Integrity? Pfizer BioNTech’s “Fraudulent Marketing” behaviour prevails with regard to the projected 1.8 billion doses of its  “unapproved” “experimental” mRNA COVID‑19  Tozinameran “vaccine”, sold under the brand name Comirnaty.

What we are dealing with is the “fraudulent marketing” of what is best described as a killer “vaccine”.

But in fact, the mRNA “vaccine” which modifies the human genome “is NOT” a vaccine. It is based on gene therapy combined with an embedded ID vaccine passport.

Deaths and Injuries Resulting From the MRNA “Experimental Vaccine”

Is the European Commission intent on edging out Astrazeneka and J & J (on behalf of Pfizer??). Official statements suggest that Pfizer BioNTech will eventually be taking over the entire EU vaccine market.

In early March 2o21, 18 European countries including France, Italy, Germany and Spain decided to suspend the AstraZeneka mRNA vaccine. Astrazeneka was the target of national EU governments, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as well as the EU Commission.

The EU has now confirmed that it will not renew its contracts with J and J and AstraZeneka despite the fact (according to EU and UK data) that the deaths and injuries resulting from the Pfizer BioNTech “vaccine” are much higher than those of AstraZeneka.

Official EU data pertaining to vaccine deaths and injuries  for Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca point to: 3,964 Dead and 162,610 Injuries  (December 27, 2020 – March 13, 2021) 

The Breakdown (Astrazeneka, Pfizer, Moderna)

Total reactions for the experimental vaccine AZD1222 (CHADOX1 NCOV-19) from Oxford/ AstraZeneca: 451 deaths and 54,571 injuries to 13/03/2021

Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine Tozinameran (code BNT162b2, Comirnaty) from BioNTech/ Pfizer: 2,540 deaths and 102,100 injuries to 13/03/2021

Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine mRNA-1273 (CX-024414) from Moderna: 973 deaths and 5,939 injuries to 13/03/2021

UK data also confirms  that the so-called side effects of the mRNA are significantly higher for the Pfizer BioNTech “vaccine” (in comparison with AstraZeneka). See British Government Shocking Report on Side Effects of Corona Vaccines: Strokes, Blindness, Miscarriages

So why are Pfizer’s competitors, namely Astrazeneka and J & J being shoved out of the EU market?

There is War within Big Pharma. 

Concluding Remarks

Amply documented, the vaccine is not required.  There is no pandemic. 

And why would the EU Commission representing 450 million people in 27 countries commit itself to purchasing 1.8 billion doses of Pfizer’s mRNA Tozinameran”vaccine” which at the very outset is known to have resulted in countless deaths and injuries including autoimmune reactions. blood clotting abnormalities, stroke and internal bleeding?

Who is behind this despicable project??

See the Rebuttal of Doctors for Covid Ethics addressed to the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

Say NO to the Killer Virus. The EU sponsored Pfizer “vaccine” must be the object of  a coordinated grassroots movement in all 27 member states of the European Union, as well as  Worldwide.

The scientific evidence amply confirms that a Covid-19 vaccine is NOT required. Quite the opposite.

The estimates of so-called covid-19 positive cases are based on the RT-PCR test which according to the WHO’s latest statement (January 20, 2021)  is totally unreliable and which has served to hike up the numbers, while also justifying the need for a mRNA vaccine, which in effect is not a vaccine.

See:The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis

While the media will highlight the “Killer virus”, with scanty and contradictory “evidence”, what is at stake is best described as “a killer vaccine”.

Misleading Covid Death Estimates

Moreover, the estimates of Covid deaths used to justify the need for a vaccine are fake. In the US, certifiers have been instructed to indicate the “underlying cause of death” as Covid-19 “more often than not”.

See Covid-19 and the Falsification of Death Certificates: The CDC’s “More Often Than Not” Clause

For a broader review see Michel Chossudovsky’s ten chapters E-Book entitled:

The 2020-21 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”

***

 

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

Video: The Legitimacy of the “Official” Covid-19 Narrative Collapses Like a House of Cards. Crolla l’impalcatura dei dati ufficiali sulla Covid. Manlio Dinucci, Michel Chossudovsky

January 24th, 2022 by Manlio Dinucci

All Global Research articles 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 TV Documentary by Pangea featuring Manlio Dinucci and Michel Chossudovsky was broadcast live on the evening of December 31st, 2021 in all major regions of Italy.

***

Crolla l’impalcatura dei dati ufficiali sulla Covid A questa puntata di Grandangolo partecipa l’economista Michel Chossudovsky, direttore di Global Research (Centro di ricerca sulla globalizzazione con sede a Montreal in Canada), visiting professor in Europa, Asia e America Latina, consigliere economico di paesi in via di sviluppo e consulente di diverse organizzazioni internazionali, autore di libri pubblicati in decine di lingue. Rivolgendosi al pubblico italiano, il prof. Chossudovsky, uno degli analisti più impegnati a smascherare le menzogne mediatiche sul Covid e i vaccini, ringrazia Byoblu, il canale televisivo che dice la verità.

La rassegna stampa si apre con una notizia esplosiva, nascosta dal mainstream: il CDC – il Centro statunitense per il controllo e la prevenzione delle malattie – comunica ufficialmente che, dopo il 31 dicembre 2021, ritirerà la richiesta di autorizzazione all’uso del test molecolare RT-PCR per il rilevamento di Covid-19, usato dal febbraio 2020. Il CDC raccomanda di adottare, al suo posto, un metodo che possa “facilitare il rilevamento e la differenziazione dei virus della Covid e dell’influenza”.

Ciò significa che il test molecolare RT-PCR, definito anche dal nostro Ministero della Salute “il gold standard internazionale per la diagnosi di Covid-19”, non è in grado di distinguere in modo affidabile il virus della Covid da quello dell’influenza. Crolla in tal modo l’impalcatura dei dati ufficiali diffusi dall’Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità: in circa 2 anni 280 milioni di “casi confermati di Covid-19”, equivalenti al 3,5% popolazione mondiale, tra cui 5,4 milioni di decessi equivalenti al 0,06% della popolazione mondiale, ossia lo 0,03% su base annua. Nonostante ciò, si usano metodi sempre più coercitivi per imporre l’uso dei vaccini, e le principali aziende che li producono – Pfizer, Moderna e BioNTech – realizzano enormi profitti, in continuo aumento.

La puntata di Grandangolo si conclude con un intervento del prof. Chossudovsky su “Natale e Nuovo Anno sotto lockdown”: una sintetica, chiara analisi dell’attacco in corso alla democrazia e delle basi di un fronte internazionale di resistenza.

*

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

  • Posted in Italiano, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Video: The Legitimacy of the “Official” Covid-19 Narrative Collapses Like a House of Cards. Crolla l’impalcatura dei dati ufficiali sulla Covid. Manlio Dinucci, Michel Chossudovsky

The Sinister Social Agenda behind the Covid Crisis: Interview with Dr. Rudolf Hänsel

January 24th, 2022 by Dr. Rudolf Hänsel

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

Interview questions already answered on 16 June 2021, but interview appeared only in the January / February Geopolitika issue 2022.

“Rudolf Hänsel, renowned scientist in the field of education, graduate psychologist, in an interview with “Geopolitika” magazine ‘Serbs, follow the teachings of Archibald Reiss'”.

Geopolitika: Dear Mr. Hänsel, you are one of the most active German intellectuals dealing with the geopolitical situation in the world. You have been particularly active since the beginning of the so-called Corona pandemic. How do you see the emergence of the corona virus and what is the ultimate goal of the Covid-19 project?

Dr. Rudolf Hansel: First of all, I would like to thank you for the appreciation you have shown me. I am glad that the important magazine “Geopolitika” will appear again and that I will have the opportunity to express my personal opinion.

Then two things to clarify: a free thinker never claims to have the truth. For the free mind there is an unlimited number of truths to be discovered and subject to change. What is true is what is not a dogmatic shackle and does not separate people into believers and non-believers or those of other faiths, but rather benefits the coexistence of people and promotes their understanding. In this sense, I am only giving my personal opinion. And as a guest in your country, the dictates of decency forbid me to express criticism of your government’s policies.

Now to your questions: I feel it is my civic duty not to leave political and social developments to politicians alone, but, in the spirit of the Swiss poet and politician Gottfried Keller, to step outside the front door myself to see what’s what.

Despite the rising mood of fear and panic about a possibly deadly virus, I did not fall into an obedience reflex at the beginning of 2020, but discussed what was going on in the world with safe friends. We felt very quickly that something was rotten in the state of Denmark. Since I grew up free of fear, my parents did not demand absolute obedience from me and I was able to study psychology in adulthood with an excellent psychotherapist, a student of Alfred Adler, I retain my common sense even in difficult situations.

Since the civil societies of all countries were the leading victims of the state-imposed deprivation of liberty and other coercive measures, I felt that civil disobedience, vocal protest and genuine solidarity with the victims of state despotism were the order of the day. In countless comments and articles, which are clearly compiled in “Global Research” (www.globalresearch.ca), I have therefore tried to educate my fellow citizens and to encourage them to say no.

The emergence of an invisible and threatening “enemy” in the form of a virus was, according to independent scientists, planned and virtually acted out decades ago by an ultra-rich global “elite” and its institutions, which is why it can be assumed that the virus was deliberately brought among the people by a bio-lab.

The goal of the Covid 19 project should by now be well known to all alert and well-informed citizens. Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos called it “The Great Reset” in his publications.

Geopolitika: Most people do not seem to see the real danger lurking behind the Covid 19 mask, which is the fulfilment of the UN Agenda 2030, whose goal is a monopoly on seeds, food, water, the depopulation of humanity, the abolition of cash, digital man and total control of life. Do you agree with my statement?

Dr. Rudolf Hansel: The majority of people who do not have access to alternative media cannot see the danger because of the sinister role of the mass media. These are entirely at the service of their governments, do not publish any dissenting expert opinions, and every day they fuel anew the citizens’ fears of a possibly agonising death by suffocation.

Therefore, as a rational, well-informed and self-thinking person, one can fully agree with your statement.

Geopolitika: As a professional psychologist, can you tell us what consequences the Corona crisis and the political measures taken have for people’s mental health? Are children more affected? Are there statistics on how many people have committed suicide?

Dr. Rudolf Hansel: The consequences for the mental health of the people affected are catastrophic and irreparable. In the meantime, not only independent psychologists, psychiatrists, medical doctors and sociologists report on this, but also government institutions. Depression, exaggerated fears, insomnia, suicidal thoughts and completed suicides are mentioned unanimously.

Our children and young people are particularly hard hit by the inhumane political measures such as social distacing, bans on cultural and sporting leisure activities and digital lessons: Feelings of loneliness, fear of life, increase in computer game addiction and drug use, domestic (also sexual) violence as well as suicidal thoughts and completed suicides were and are the result. I wrote the well-received article “We are killing our children’s souls” on this subject, saying that parents, teachers and educators are complicit if they do not stand up against this lockdown madness.

I don’t know official statistics on this issue because they are not published. But I have read a lot of horror stories from heads of German youth psychiatries.

Geopolitika: From a professional point of view, can you tell us why people around the world are afraid of death because of the virus, even though all the relevant facts show that the mortality rate from the virus is much lower than from, for example, cardiovascular diseases and cancer? Does the mainstream media influence people’s awareness so strongly?

Dr. Rudolf Hansel: Yes, that is correct: the mainstream media play a sinister role worldwide. According to national and international agreements, they are obliged to provide truthful information to citizens and to promote peace. They could thus make an important contribution to educating and encouraging people. But the opposite is the case: they are tools and servants of heavy men behind the scene who pull the strings. On their behalf, they stir up irrational fears day after day. This leads to an obedience reflex and mind paralysis in most people. Stirring up irrational fears has been a tried and tested means of discipline and domination since time immemorial.

It is the business of journalists in the mainstream media to distort the truth, bluntly lie, pervert, vilify, grovel at the feet of mammon and sell their own country and people for their daily bread. These journalists are, in a sense, “intellectual prostitutes” (John Swinton). This is why alternative media and independent magazines are crucial in raising the consciousness of the people.

Geopolitika: How do you think the story will end with the Corona pandemic? While the “world’s legal team” led by lawyer Dr. Reiner Füllmich filed lawsuits against the WHO, Bill Gates and all governments involved in the Corona genocide, the “creators of human destiny” announce a new, even more deadly virus wave. So a game without borders?

Dr. Rudolf Hansel: The worldwide class action lawsuit of the German lawyer Reiner Füllmich and his qualified team is a great hope for the peoples, because the situation is very serious. But who can predict whether it will succeed in view of the worldwide corruption in all professions.

Furthermore, renowned medical experts report that the gene therapy experiments that have been carried out for some months now with the so-called vaccinations will have a very disastrous effect on the vaccinated people in the following years. As we know, the all-knowing eugenicists are planning to reduce the world’s population.

Also disturbing are press reports in alternative media that the present health dictatorship will be followed by a climate dictatorship – after the Corona lockdown a climate lockdown. The current Corona measures and “newly discovered” virus variants would only be a prelude to what would soon follow. It would indeed be a satanic game without limits. Let us hope for the best.

Geopolitika: You are closely following the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. How do you see this conflict and is it being manipulated by NATO and America to get as close as possible to the borders of the Russian Federation?

Dr. Rudolf Hansel: I think that you don’t have to be a historian to see the role that the US-NATO and many European governments have played in the conflict you mentioned since the Ukraine coup in 2014. It is a game of fire. One can only hope (and pray) that this conflict does not degenerate into open war. At any rate, the US-NATO is doing everything it can at the moment to provoke Russia and is crossing “red lines” in the process. How long will Russian President Putin put up with this?

The peoples of Europe do not want a war against Russia. See a “Public Declaration” initiated by me and a friend in the “Neue Rheinische Zeitung” (NRhZ) of 8/9 May 2018 in five languages with the possibility to sign: “We Europeans say NO to a war against Russia!”

Geopolitika: Why does the Western world not understand the Slavs, especially the Serbs and Russians? Slavs are even seen as a low race.

Dr. Rudolf Hansel: This is an important question. It would be the task of historians, sociologists, cultural scientists and other experts to scientifically clarify when and why these prejudices against Slavic people and peoples arose. What I can contribute to this question is modest: I believe that it is geopolitical reasons that led to the inhuman prejudices and why they continue to be upheld. The Vatican plays a decisive role in this. Christians within Slavic peoples are in fact viewed and treated quite differently from Orthodox fellow citizens.

As I said, these are prejudices that have nothing to do with reality. But these prejudices have existed for generations and it is high time to erase them from the minds of arrogant Western rulers. The “ordinary” people, in my opinion, do not have them.

Geopolitika: In intellectual circles you are considered to be a person who is very familiar with the political situation in the Balkans, especially in Serbia. How do you see the current geopolitical situation in Serbia? What advice would you give to the Serbian leadership?

Dr. Rudolf Hansel: Although I am a friend of the Serbs and have lived here for over a year and a half, I doubt I am familiar with the political situation in your country. Moreover, as a German who was very kindly received in Serbia, it is not for me to give advice to the political leadership. The only thing I can contribute to your question comes from the political testament “Ecoutez, Serbes!” / “Uyjte me, Spbi!” by the Swiss criminologist and university professor Rudolf Archibald Reiss, a great friend of Serbia.

In his appeal of 1 June 1928, Reiss denounced both the politics and the society of Yugoslavia and Serbia because they seemed to him thoroughly corrupt. But he implored the Serbian people: “Do not allow the nation (…) to be enslaved by a handful of criminal profiteers and usurers. (…) Remember your glorious past, the ‘true’ democracy of the peasant community, morality, hospitality and patriotism.”

Geopolitika: How would you evaluate the Serbian people? What are the good and what are the bad sides of the Serbian people?

Dr. Rudolf Hansel: I cannot and do not want to evaluate the Serbian people. They are a people like many other peoples. Courageous, full of life and capable of suffering. But one quality stands out: the Serbian people do not moan about their fate – and that distinguishes them very pleasantly from my pampered compatriots and the other Westerners.

Geopolitika: At the end of the interview I would like to ask you how you see the future of the world? Will the satanic agenda of the New World Order and the resetting of the old civilisation continue, or will good prevail as 95% of the world’s population wants – as opposed to the minority who rule from their shadows?

Dr. Rudolf Hansel: As a psychologist and because of my research work as an educationalist, I am convinced that human beings are good and social. The striving for violence and the sick lust for power of a few is the result of their upbringing and the capitalist system. I therefore hope that good will eventually triumph. But this will not happen automatically, that is, without our courageous action.

The greed for power and the desire for violence in society must be reduced and instead community feelings must be cultivated and strengthened. If we muster the courage to give up the fear of authority and the accompanying obedience reflex and make use of our own intellect, then we will associate with our fellow human beings in freedom and build a humane future together with them – for ourselves and our children.

*

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.

Click here to read the Serbian version. 

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel is a graduate psychologist and educationalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from CODEPINK

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Sinister Social Agenda behind the Covid Crisis: Interview with Dr. Rudolf Hänsel

UK, US Accuse Russia of Preparing Regime Change in Ukraine

January 24th, 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.

***

 

 

Once again, the West is spreading fake news and unfounded theses about Russian-Ukraine relations. Now, American, and British officials are claiming that Russia plans to install a new, pro-Russian government in Kiev. As expected, there is no data to support this narrative, being just another unsubstantiated rhetoric with the sole purpose of defaming Russia.

This weekend, the West launched a new kind of anti-Russian narrative. On Sunday, the UK Foreign Office formally accused Moscow of trying to install a pro-Russian government in Kiev. No details were provided on how the British government would have reached such conclusions. There is no information on the investigation methods used or any mention of external sources, which makes the allegations really unjustified.

UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said:

“The information being released today shines a light on the extent of Russian activity designed to subvert Ukraine, and is an insight into Kremlin thinking (…) Russia must de-escalate, end its campaigns of aggression and disinformation, and pursue a path of diplomacy”.

In the same sense, Britain’s deputy prime minister Dominic Raab stated:

“There’ll be very serious consequences if Russia takes this move to try and invade but also install a puppet regime”.

At a later time, the accusations made by the British were endorsed by Washington. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said during an interview to CNN that the US had previously alerted its allies about possible Russian plans similar to those described by the UK. In his own words:

“I can’t comment on specific pieces of intelligence. But we’ve been warned about just this kind of tactic for weeks and we’ve spoken about it publicly. Just last week we sanctioned four Russian agents, Ukrainians in Ukraine, seeking to destabilize the government. This is part of the Russian tool kit. It runs the gamut from a large convention incursion in an attempt to topple the government. It’s important that people be on notice about that possibility”.

Blinken also briefly commented on the measures that would be “necessary” to prevent Russia from continuing to try to operate its plans in Kiev. For him, US sanctions are means of deterring Russia, and must be applied carefully so that they do not lose their deterrent effect. When asked by the interviewer if he could foresee a scenario of American intervention in the conflict, Blinken stated that the possibilities are being analyzed and that the American objective is to make it clear to Russia that there will be serious consequences in the case of failure of diplomatic resolution attempts:

“So when it comes to sanctions, the purpose of those sanctions is to deter Russian aggression. And so if they’re triggered now, you lose the deterrent effect. All of the things that we’re doing, including building up in a united way with Europe massive consequences for Russia, is designed to factor into President Putin’s calculations and to deter and dissuade them from taking aggressive action, even as we pursue diplomacy at the same time (…) We’re building up our defense, we’re building up our deterrence to make sure that Russia understands that if it doesn’t follow the diplomatic course, if it renews its aggression, there’ll be very significant consequences”.

What we are seeing here is no change in attitude on the part of the West. On the contrary, the US and UK continue to use the same tactic they have been using for years: inventing narratives about an alleged Russian threat in order to justify coercive measures, sanctions, military mobilizations and all their interventionist apparatus in Eastern Europe. The only thing that is partially changing is the content of the narrative itself. Until now, Washington and London were concerned with convincing the world that Moscow would attack Ukraine – now the tactic is to say that the Russians will “subvert” Kiev.

This seems like an interesting way of trying to maintain the validity of Western discourse. Global public opinion is less and less confident in the discourse about Russian invasion, considering that year after year, since 2014, this issue remains and so far no invasion has taken place. If public opinion ceases to believe in the existence of a Russian threat, the Western governments’ plans to boycott Moscow are in risk of entering into a crisis of legitimacy. So, it is necessary to renew the speech. The bet now is on spreading the news that Moscow is planning regime change in Kiev.

For now, this new narrative may seem more convincing. In a world marked by color revolutions and regime change operations, it may seem likely that this is the Russian plan for Ukraine. But, as happened with the speech about the invasion plan, this narrative will lose validity with time because Russia will not promote such a change – simply because that is not Moscow’s plan either.

*

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 da Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.

Spotlight Ukraine: Latest Blinken-Lavrov Aftermath

January 24th, 2022 by Michael Averko

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

From a distance, one gets the impression that this past Friday’s face to face meeting between US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, could’ve been done over the phone. Both sides reiterated their differences and announced another meeting, with the Biden administration saying that it’ll soon provide a written answer to the Russian government’s security proposal. 

The Biden-Lavrov get together in Geneva gave the two parties a setting to further highlight their respective views to a world media giving them prime coverage. As expected, the usual slants were put in place in much of the coverage. At the same time, there’s an increased acknowledgement of Russian geostrategic concerns.

On the media bright side, CGTN America featured an informatively diverse panel, with Serhiy Kudelia, Anton Fedyashin, Vladimir Golstein and Lincoln Mitchell. The core views of Fedyashin and Goldstein are typically omitted in the major Western mass media venues.

Over the past weekend, Fedyashin provided excellent insight in a CNN segment. CNN nonetheless remains skewed in an anti-Russian leaning direction. In that CNN segment, Fedyashin sarcastically wonders whether British Intel is using Christopher Steele on the claim of a Kremlin plan to install a pro-Russian Ukrainian government.

I’ve some disagreement with Kudelia’s uncritical reference of a poll saying that 54% of Ukrainian citizens are pro-NATO membership. The Ukrainian NATO membership issue is discussed further down this article. Mitchell’s belief that the situation in Donbass isn’t so much a civil Ukrainian conflict as a Russia-Ukraine dispute is addressed in my commentary of this past December 17.

Speaking from Lviv, Kudelia observes that the majority of Ukrainians aren’t expecting a Russian attack. US President Joe Biden and some others in the West differ. Anti-Russian leaning pro-NATO expansion advocates, tend to be the most enthusiastic believers of an impending Russian strike on Ukraine.

These individuals will use that action as a basis to expand NATO and seek to somehow end the German initiated Nord Stream 2 pipeline. This joint Russo-German project benefits Europe. Utilizing a non-Russian alternative will be more problematical and costly.

Lavrov’s press conference highlights Russia’s differences with Western neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters. In his answer to a CNN reporter, the issue is brought up of a nation having the right to choose its own military alliance at the expense of the security of another country.  On CNN, The New York Times’ David Sanger (who is also a CNN contributor) brings up the matter of Ukrainian public opinion on NATO membership, while noting that Ukraine continues to be lacking in democracy.

When mentioned, Western mass media has tended to uncritically reference the survey putting  Ukrainian pro-NATO membership support at 54%. That poll result has been credibly challenged. There’s also a canvass finding a Ukrainian majority opposed to NATO exercises in Ukraine.

Regardless, upon further review, the subject of Ukraine joining NATO exhibits the ongoing differences within the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR. If I’m not mistaken, Crimea (reunified with Russia in 2014) and the rebel Donbass area, weren’t included in the 54% pro-NATO membership result. In majority terms, these two territories don’t support the further expansion of NATO.

In Kiev regime controlled Ukraine, there’re noticeable differences. Paraphrasing Volodymyr Ishchenko:

The western part of Ukraine, once affiliated with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, is the most pro-NATO territory of that former Soviet republic. In central Ukraine, there’s a plurality of support for NATO membership. Putting aside central Ukraine and the former Habsburg ruled western portion, the rest of Kiev controlled Ukraine is under 50% in favor of NATO membership.

Concerning the mood in Kiev, I came across a rather interesting conversation.

Kiev regime controlled Ukraine signed the UN approved Minsk Protocol, which supports a negotiated autonomy for the rebel Donbass area. Since then, the Ukrainian government has openly expressed its reluctance to honor that agreement. Ukraine’s democratically challenged status and censoring of pro-Russian sentiment are main obstacles to securing a more stable situation.

The British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss unintentionally gave support to the pro-Russian position in Ukraine, when she said “Ukraine is a proud country with a long history. They have known invading forces before – from the Mongols to the Tatars.” That very same thought applies to Russia which shares a lengthy history of togetherness with Ukraine. Some Brits and others are quite ironic in their historical overview of Russia-Ukraine. That aspect prompted Paul Robinson’s rebuttal to the Scottish UK Defence Minister Ben Wallace.

The same Robinson says that a US State Department report on RT (released about the time of the Lavrov-Blinken meeting) lies about an article of his at that venue. The timing of the report’s release appears to be a further sign of the US government looking to decrease the likelihood of improved US-Russian relations. I trust that Robinson will provide details to substantiate his comment. From the US State Department, I’m reminded of a put mildly misinformative report on the Strategic Culture Foundation and some other venues in August of 2020.

During Lavrov’s press conference, a BBC reporter presented an editorialized question, suggesting Russia was seeking a chaotic situation in Ukraine, for the purpose of coaxing it into a Russian sphere of influence. Lavrov replied by noting how some American elites question the regional alliance of others far away from America’s borders in a most hypocritical way. He noted Blinken questioning the legitimacy of Russian forces being invited into Kazakhstan by the Kazakh government and a prevailing EU mindset that Russian relations in the Balkans should be limited, unlike what Brussels does there.

Lavrov also addressed what’s negatively associated with the spheres of influence term. Specifically, a previous era when empires encompassed vast areas of territory now comprising independent nations.

Realist oriented folks who aren’t in a diplomatic position can be less negative towards the spheres of influence term. On the matter of Lavrov’s exchange with a BBC reporter, I’m reminded of this excerpt from my commentary of this past December 24:

“Many Russians including Putin and other former Soviets, have a reasoned basis to oppose the level of suffering which occurred on account of how the Soviet breakup happened. This belief isn’t by default synonymous with a yearning to recreate the USSR.

Among numerous Russians, the romantic recollection of the past is often balanced by a realistic understanding about the present and most probable future realities running counter to the likelihood of another Soviet Union or Russian Empire. By the way, it’s not as if many mainstream thinking Russians don’t acknowledge the shortcomings of the Russian Empire and Soviet Union.

A key difference is their non-acceptance of the negative inaccuracies pertaining to their nation’s past and present. There’re also the categories of some support and sympathy for the Russian Empire/not as much for the Soviet Union and vice versa – indicative of the diversity level among Russians.

Post-Soviet Russia has formally recognized the independence of the non-Russian former Soviet republics. Keeping in mind the EU and NATO memberships of the three former Soviet Baltic republics, this Russian recognition includes having a noticeable, but not complete sphere of influence approach. That stance is on par with how former colonial powers like France and the UK maintain close economic and/or military ties with some of its onetime colonies.

It’s understandable for Russia to oppose actions which are unnecessarily anti-Russian and premised on misinformation.“

A sphere of influence scenario doesn’t necessarily involve a major power completely dominating others in its near abroad. The economically and militarily Russian allied Kazakh, Belarusian and Armenian governments dominate what goes on in their respective nation. These non-Russian former Soviet republics don’t always agree with Russia.

The post-Soviet period has seen several high profile instances where superior military force was used by the American government on lands far away from the US. American National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said the Biden administration would take decisive action if Russia were to deploy a military presence in Venezuela and/or Cuba.

A more balanced understanding of geopolitics is likely to limit questionable calls for provocation. Over a year ago, the Washington Post ran an article “The Less Americans Know About Ukraine’s Location, the More They Want the US to Intervene“. This dynamic brings into play US government efforts to demean some venues with a viably different perspective. An objectively greater knowledge of issues like the former Soviet Union poses a greater challenge to neocon-neolib leaning foreign policy elites.

I’ve acknowledged media imperfections in Russia. No one is perfect, with the “false equivalency” claim not always being so evident as some suggest.

*

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 Eurasia Review.

Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic. 

Featured image: Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken meets with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva, Switzerland, on January 21, 2022. [State Department photo by Ron Przysucha/ Public Domain]

COVID-19 Booster Mandates in Light of Emerging Evidence of Viral Transmission and Severe Harm. Letter to University Administrators

January 24th, 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.

***

Dear University Administrators:

We are writing to demand that you immediately rescind your recent, ill-advised mandate that all students receive a COVID-19 “booster” as a condition to returning to or remaining on campus for Spring Semester.

The university may have originally believed that mandating a COVID-19 vaccine product at the start of the Fall Semester was the most reasonable and effective measure to protect the university community against viral transmission and infection; however, now that we possess more global data regarding the lack of safety and effectiveness of these products, your university is under a legal, ethical, and moral obligation to discontinue its forced vaccination policy.

COVID-19 Vaccines Do Not Prevent Infection or Transmission

It is clear at this point that there is no scientific or public health justification to mandate COVID-19 injections. We now know that none of the available COVID-19 injections are capable of stopping the spread of the virus, especially with respect to the now-dominant variant, Omicron.[i] In fact, credible and alarming statistical evidence from places like Israel, Iceland and Gibraltar – several of the most highly vaccinated jurisdictions in the world – demonstrate that COVID-19 vaccination rates are highly correlated to massive increases in both Delta and Omicron cases.[ii] Similarly, recent data out of Germany indicates that 96% of their reported Omicron cases were fully vaccinated individuals, including almost 30% who had received at least one booster, as well.[iii]

Conversely, we have data from some of the least vaccinated jurisdictions in the world, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, indicating that these are some of the least impacted jurisdictions by both the Delta and Omicron variants.[iv] This data further indicates that Omicron appears to be completely resistant to vaccination, and may even be more prevalent among the fully vaccinated. Indeed, with the number of nearly fully-vaccinated university populations across the United States now experiencing widespread COVID-19 outbreaks,[v] it is no longer credible to claim that any of these COVID-19 vaccine products serve a useful purpose in helping to stop outbreaks on your campus.

Mandating Boosters for a Clearly Failing Product Is Unscientific, Illegal, and is Likely to Cause Irreparable Harms

Given the evident ineffectiveness of the original COVID-19 injections, it is unclear how mandating “boosters” of the same failing products would solve the problem of campus infection or spread. In fact, emerging data appears to show that booster effectiveness is even worse. For example, a December 2021 UK National Statistics survey indicates that those who have received three doses of experimental vaccine are 4.45 times more likely than those who had received none to develop a case of Omicron.[vi] The CDC’s own data now indicates that vaccination, even with a booster, has very limited capacity to stop viral transmission, and that vaccinated individuals transmit the virus just as much as unvaccinated individuals[vii] As a result, any university booster requirement to attend or continue attending school for Spring Semester makes no common sense and is not supported by “the science” or medicine. It also raises serious legal and ethical concerns, as more evidence emerges of COVID-19 injection harms.

The CDC’s/FDA’s own vaccine adverse event reporting system (“VAERS”) currently shows over 21,000 deaths closely following COVID-19 injection, with other less severe, but still significant, harms reported in the hundreds of thousands.[viii] Adverse effects such as myocarditis, pericarditis, and thrombocytopenia are admittedly now occurring far more often than originally expected.[ix] Relevant to your own vaccination policies, a number of studies now show that the risk of myocarditis from a COVID-19 injection in young men ages 18-25 is far more likely than the risk of myocarditis from the disease itself.[x] In addition, while originally dismissed as female hysteria or unreliable anecdotal evidence, emerging studies now confirm that women are experiencing significant changes to their menstrual cycles following COVID-19 injection, which could affect ovarian reserve in women and impair fertility long-term.[xi] Students suffering harms like this due to their involuntary compliance with your illegal university vaccine mandate will certainly expose the university to numerous viable legal claims,[xii] but even worse is how tragic it will be when your university’s own hastily-imposed, ill-advised COVID-19 mandates, including a booster requirement, is the cause of significant, irreversible damage to your students’ hearts, lungs, and other vital organs, and impairs their reproductive abilities.

Adding an Unnecessary New Booster Requirement Mid-Year is Unethical

Requiring young adults who are at little risk of severe COVID-19 to take an experimental vaccine violates a core principle of medical bioethics – medical necessity for the treatment.[xiii] Adding a senseless booster requirement in the middle of an ongoing academic year after students and their parents believed that compliance with the university’s original vaccine mandate would be sufficient raises numerous other ethical concerns. First, adding a new vaccine burden mid- year shamelessly utilizes unequal power dynamics and direct threats to a student’s ongoing academic progress to achieve unstated university goals that clearly have nothing to do with stopping viral transmission. Adding it just after accepting students’ Spring Semester tuition and fees also casts the university administration in a staggeringly unflattering light. The additional fact that this booster requirement is being imposed while these already vaccinated students are now literally catching and transmitting the virus themselves, without the university also offering an exemption due to these students’ post-infection immunity, is already causing significant psychological distress among students and parents, as well as a complete loss of trust in the university’s intentions.[xiv]

Deciding whether or not to take a medical intervention should always be an individual’s personal choice,[xv] even more so when the proffered medical intervention is still in the clinical trial stages.[xvi] Requiring your students to take emergency use vaccine products that are still not fully FDA approved in order to be entitled to an in-person university education was always illegal and unethical on your part, even if you had the best of intentions at the onset. Now, however, where it is glaringly obvious that these injections are neither safe nor effective at stopping transmission, infection, hospitalization, or death and might actually cause and heighten these harms, proceeding with a mandatory injection and/or booster policy is not only unscientific and illegal, but increasingly corrupt and sinister.

We demand that you return critical medical decisions to students and their families, and make any COVID-19 vaccination policy, including booster policies, voluntary — before any further damage is done to your community.

Sincerely,

Legal Team,
Children’s Health Defense

*

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.

Notes

i See e.g., CDC Director Walensky stating “what [the COVID-19 vaccines] can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.” https://twitter.com/CNNSitRoom/status/1423422301882748929. See also https://www.cdc.gov/mm wr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htmof (74% of those infected were fully vaccinated for Covid-19); https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/pdf/10654_2021_Article_808.pdf (“Increases in Covid-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States”); https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34596015/ (“high transmissibility of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant among twice
vaccinated and masked individuals”).

ii https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.19.21262111v1.

iii https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/new-study-shows-vaccines-must-be; see also https://www.skirsch.com/covid/GermanAnalysis.pdf

iv https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.26.21254377v1

v https://cornelliansagainstboostermandate.wordpress.com/2022/01/08/open-letter-to-cornell-university-board-of- trustees-and-president-martha-pollack/.

vi https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/adhocs/14114 coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveyukcharacteristicsrelatedtohavinganomicroncompatibleresultinthosewhotestpositiv eforcovid1923december2021

vii https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0730-mmwr-covid-19.html; see also supra, note i.

viii https://openvaers.com; see also https://palexander.substack.com/p/21-x-higher-death-rate-covid-vaccination; https://palexander.substack.com/p/so-you-say-dr-alexander-you-keep (list of studies showing harms).

ix https://pubmed.ncbi.nih.gov/34406358; https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0.pdf

x https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056583; see also https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v1.

xi https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/covid-19-vaccination-associated-small-temporary-increase- menstrual-cycle-length-suggests-nih-funded-study; see also https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/06/2021-06-15-children_and_covid-19_vaccines_full_guide.pdf (fertility concerns); . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213333X21003929 (thromboembolism in women after vaccine).

xii Causes of actions may include civil claims for negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, assault, and battery. It may also expose the university to criminal charges as well.

xiii Persons in this age range are at a statistically zero risk of death from COVID-19, and near zero risk of severe illness.

xiv https://palexander.substack.com/p/breaking-news-while-vaccines-fail; See https://noorchashm.medium.com/a- letter-of-warning-to-fda-and-pfizer-on-the-immunological-danger-of-covid -19-vaccination-in-the-7d17d037982d.

xv See e.g., The Nuremberg Code (1947), 313 BMJ 1448 (1996) (“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person…[is] able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of…coercion.”); see also UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6(1).

xvi To date, the only “FDA approved” COVID-19 vaccine is the Biontech “Comirnaty” vaccine, which is not available to anyone in the United States. Accordingly, all COVID-19 vaccine products are currently only available under emergency use authorization (“EUA”). Under federal law, all EUA products require informed consent and the right to refuse the product. See 21 U.S.C. Sec 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III).

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on COVID-19 Booster Mandates in Light of Emerging Evidence of Viral Transmission and Severe Harm. Letter to University Administrators
  • Tags: , ,

Vaccine Mandates for US, Canadian and Mexican Truck Drivers: Disruption of Supply Chains. Food Shortages in Canada

January 24th, 2022 by Brian Shilhavy

All Global Research articles 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 COVID-19 mandatory vaccine requirement for all non-U.S. citizens coming across the borders from Canada and Mexico that includes truck drivers went into effect today, Saturday, January 22, 2022.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security confirmed that it will require non-U.S. individuals – including truck drivers – seeking entry into the United States from Canada and Mexico to provide proof of vaccination beginning Saturday, Jan. 22.

“Starting on Jan. 22, the Department of Homeland Security will require that non-U.S. individuals entering the United States via land ports of entry or ferry terminals along our northern and southern borders be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and be prepared to show related proof of vaccination,” Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas said in a news release. “These updated travel requirements reflect the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to protecting public health while safely facilitating the cross-border trade and travel that is critical to our economy.” (Source.)

Canada implemented a similar COVID-19 vaccine mandate for U.S. truck drivers entering Canada last week, and it is already disrupting the supply chains in Canada.

Canada’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for cross-border truckers went into effect over the weekend. Now, the United States plans to implement a similar mandate beginning Saturday, Jan. 22.

Each country’s rule prevents unvaccinated or partially vaccinated foreign national truckers from crossing the border. Both rules have been criticized because they could create more supply chain disruptions.

Bloomberg reported this week that Canada’s rule already has led to a surge in produce prices. George Pitsikoulis, president of Montreal-based distributor Canadawide Fruits, told Bloomberg that the cost of transporting produce out of California and Arizona to Canada jumped 25%. In addition, a recent Wall Street Journal article stated that two-way trade in merchandise goods between the United States and Canada totaled more than $600 billion in 2019. It is estimated that about 80% of those goods moved on trucks.

The rules could lead to a significant reduction in truckers willing to cross each country’s border. The American Trucking Associations estimates that about half of truck drivers have not received the COVID-19 vaccine. According to an OOIDA Foundation survey from April 2021, about 75% of OOIDA’s members who responded said they didn’t plan to receive the vaccine.

Canada’s rule requires American truck drivers to be fully vaccinated before crossing into Canada. (Source.)

Besides higher prices, food shortages have also been reported in Canada this past week.

Overwhelmed supply chains and truck driver shortages worsened when Canada imposed new border mandates prohibiting unvaccinated American truckers. With low vaccination rates among US drivers, Canadian supermarkets are already reporting rising food inflation and shortages of certain products, according to Bloomberg.

Canada’s vaccine mandate for truckers came into effect on Saturday. The new rule requires US truckers to be vaccinated to cross the border. We warned earlier this week such a mandate would have “consequences.”

The vaccine mandate has exacerbated the shortage of truck drivers and made wait times at border crossings even longer. Eighty percent of trade between the US and Canada is transited by truck. America exports about 90% of Canada’s fruits and vegetables during the winter season. As shipments decline because only about half of US truck drivers are vaccinated, grocery stores report shortages.

“We’re seeing shortages,” said Gary Sands, senior vice president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers. “We’re hearing from members they’re going into some stores where there’s no oranges or bananas.’”

Source.

Canadian truck drivers protested earlier this week at a Manitoba border crossing.

Defiant Canadian truckers are protesting the federal government’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate today after the federal government flip-flopped on reversing the policy last week.

A rolling protest by a transport convoy at the Manitoba border crossing has already led to major delays for travellers hoping to cross into the US.

@TissenTobias

According to one driver, trucks are blocking all lanes at the border as they slowly follow a circular route along Hwy. 75 while blasting horns in opposition to the federal government.

“Truck drivers are circling MB-75 between Emerson Duty Free and the Commercial Inspection station blocking all lanes heading south to the United States and Northbound traffic coming from the USA,” Jamie Throp told Global News. (Source.)

A Canadian truck convoy, The Convoy For Freedom 2022, has started with Canadian truck drivers from all parts of Canada heading to the Canadian capital in Ottawa for a rally next Saturday, January 29, 2022. There is a Gofundme page setup to solicit funds for the truck drivers to help with their expenses in driving to Ottawa, and it has already raised more than $1.6 million.

A group of truckers is planning to drive across the country to protest a federal vaccine mandate in Canada’s capital.

The first leg of the convoy, dubbed The Convoy For Freedom 2022 , is set to leave B.C. on Sunday. Convoy organizers plan to arrive in Ottawa on Jan. 29, where truckers from other provinces will join.

“I know a lot of drivers who are impacted by this. It has basically removed them from the workforce,” B.C. truck driver Colin Valentim told the Vancouver Sun .

Valentim will lead the B.C. leg of the convoy taking the western route and expects to be accompanied by others along the way. Two other convoys have different starting points: The eastern route is to begin on Jan. 27 in Enfield, Nova Scotia. The southern route will leave on the same day from Windsor, Ont.

A Go Fund Me page for the cause has raised more than ($1.6 million) to help with food, lodgings and fuel for the truckers.

“We are taking our fight to the doorsteps of our Federal Government and demanding that they cease all mandates against its people,” wrote Go Fund Me organizer Tamara Lich. “Small businesses are being destroyed, homes are being destroyed, and people are being mistreated and denied fundamental necessities to survive.”

The decision for Canadian truckers to meet in Ottawa to protest the vaccine mandate comes as the industry struggles with issues , such as disruptions to the supply chain and a shortage of drivers.

The federal vaccine mandate could result in a loss of 12,000 to 16,000 cross-border commercial drivers, according to the Canadian Trucking Alliance. (Source.)

There is as of now no vaccine mandate for truck drivers entering Mexico, but depending on how strict they are at the Mexican borders on enforcing the U.S. mandate on Mexican truck drivers, this could have devastating impacts on the U.S. economy.

The top imports from Mexico are:

1. Machinery & Electrical 

Over one fifth (22%) of U.S. imports from Mexico are classified as machinery and electrical products—items like televisions, household appliances, and smartphones. Mexico is a major manufacturing hub for some of the largest global brands, including Samsung. The South Korean electronics giant sources much of its Amazon-bound inventory from Querétaro.

2. Chemicals & Allied industries

Chemical products make up nearly 15% of U.S. imports from Mexico in 2020. This includes household staples like soap, garden fertilizer, and multivitamins.

Some of the world’s largest brands source their chemical products from Mexico. Colgate, for example, imports its toothpaste from Monterrey.

3. Vegetable Products

Just over 10% of the U.S.’s 2020 imports from Mexico are classified as vegetable products.  A broad category, Vegetable Products includes plant products like fresh-cut flowers, dried fruit, and an Amazon staple: roasted coffee beans.

Beloved by caffeine lovers, Mexican beans account for much of the global supply of coffee, including 60% of the world’s organic coffee.

Source.

The top imports from Canada are:

1. Crude oil and petroleum

Canada’s largest export to the U.S., by far, is crude oil with the vast majority coming from Alberta’s oil sands to the Western and Southern U.S.

2. Vehicles

Combining the large and medium-sized passenger vehicle categories, car exports make up approx. 13% of Canadian exports. Canada’s automobile-related exports are a legacy of the Auto Pact under which American car companies set up plants in Canada and parts were shipped back and forth across the border.

3. Natural gas

Like oil, most of the natural gas is produced in Alberta. Using a similar distribution pattern as oil, Canadian exports go from Alberta into the Western and Southern U.S.

4. Potassium chloride

Potassium chloride is found in potash, which is used to make the world’s fertilizers. Saskatchewan is the second largest producer of potash in the world.

5. Gold

Canada is a major exporter to the U.S. of non-monetary gold – bullion, powder or any other semi-manufactured form. It does not include watches or jewelry. Although the United States is a net exporter of gold, much of its production depends on higher prices for gold to make it profitable.

6. Wood

Canada is the United States’ main supplier of wood.

Source.

*

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 WOKE Guru