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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

First published on Global Research on November 18, 2021

***

 

The main vaccines used in Italy in the “Covid-19 vaccine plan” are produced by three U.S. pharmaceutical companies – Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson – owned and controlled by the three largest U.S. investment companies: BlackRock, the largest in the world, Vanguard and State Street. These three financial firms also own and control the U.S. pharmaceutical company Merck, which first produced the “anti-Covid pill.”

BlackRock, headed by Larry Fink, has thousands of companies from all sectors in its portfolio. The capital it manages has grown in the last ten years from 3,500 to 9,500 billion dollars (more than 5 times the GDP of Italy) and is increasing further. In this way, BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street have a decision-making voice in the boards of directors of the major multinationals and banks, including central banks. The largest U.S. investment bank, Goldman Sachs (of which Mario Draghi was vice-president), is owned and controlled by the same “Big Three”. The same is true of Standard & Poor Global, the rating agency that monitors the world’s economies, failing or promoting them.

These facts show that behind the Great Reset there is Big Finance, which is implementing a plan to centralize power and social control with tools such as the “green pass”.

To these are now added others that leverage, in addition to the “pandemic risk”, the “climate risk”. As BlackRock states, “climate risk will fundamentally reshape finance and drive a significant reallocation of capital.”

To that end, while making a spectacle of global warming by announcing imminent catastrophe, they ignore the continuing deterioration of air quality, which, according to the European Environment Agency’s 2021 report, causes about 65,000 deaths per year in Italy, roughly the same number attributed to Covid-19.

The episode of Grandangolo can also be seen on this website.

*

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.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Civil Disobedience: As Long As I Breathe, I Hope

November 25th, 2021 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 @crg_globalresearch.

***

Gandhi JayantiRecently, free media have been reporting more and more exemplary activities of civil disobedience. “Civil disobedience” is “non-violent self-defence” and a form of political struggle in the sense of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

It gives rise to hope among citizens to survive the worst crisis in modern history. With his motto “Dum spiro spero”, Cicero (106 to 43 BCE) expresses this hope and the anxious question of many citizens about “To Be or Not to Be” succinctly and prosaically.

The daily horror reports about state terror measures and the path already taken towards a new fascism leave deep traces of despair and hopelessness in young and old. Who still believes in protecting the health of the population?

However, the examples of civil disobedience somewhat mitigate this omnipresent horror. The full text of Cicero’s Wisdom of Life can still inspire the budding hope. In the original letter to his friend Atticus, he writes: “Dum spiro spero; dum spero amo; dum amo vivo.” That is, “As long as I breathe, I hope; as long as I hope, I love; as long as I love, I live.”

How a nation of 80 million was plunged into misfortune

Since every awake citizen feels the new measures of violence and terror first hand, I will not repeat them here. Instead, as a “post-born” person, I will reproduce what my two parents – born in 1913 and 1923 – told me as contemporary witnesses of German fascism and what I have read about it in post-war literature. Both have been indelibly “burned” into my memory. The parallels to today’s developments are striking.

My parents told me how the “Third Reich” came about: they told me about the street battles and talked about how the “Blockwarts” were installed, how freedom of expression was suppressed, the police instrumentalised and a “SA” and “SS” created. At the same time, people were flooded with misinformation. This was very perfidious because there were no lies or truths told – they were half-truths.

When people are inundated with such half-truths, my parents said, they can no longer distinguish between what is a lie and what is the truth. And it was through this agitation and propaganda of the “Third Reich” that a Hitler had come to power and an 80-million-strong nation had been plunged into disaster.

In this context, I would also like to mention two novels that made a great impression on me and confirmed what my parents told me: Oskar Maria Graf’s oppressive portrayal of the rising fascism in the German provinces in the novel “Unruhe um einen Friedfertigen” and Lions Feuchtwanger’s book “Erfolg” from the novel trilogy “Der Wartesaal”. These three works of German exile literature deal with the events between the wars of 1914 and 1939 in terms of content and report on the “re-emergence of barbarism in Germany and its temporary victory over reason” (Feuchtwanger).

Reports of actions of civil disobedience give rise to hope

Even in a second “Nuremberg Trial”, corrupt politicians will not be able to plead obedience to so-called “leaders” for crimes committed against humanity. With their behaviour, they have promoted and helped to realise the current policy. According to Hannah Arendt, the word “obedience” in adult politics is just another word for “consent” and “support”.

The answer to political decisions that increasingly restrict the individual and social lives of citizens, eradicate the love of freedom from human hearts, and forcibly lock people into an iron band of terror so that the space for action disappears, is not obedience but civil disobedience. While civil courage ranks at the top among democratic virtues, the willingness to engage in civil disobedience is suspected of disturbing the peace of law and undermining the foundations of liberal democracy.

But since the “silent” dictatorship of democracy has been “transformed” into an “open” dictatorship in many states, civil disobedience is the order of the day. And indeed, the free media are reporting ever more impressive examples of civil disobedience around the world, despite the fact that supervisors as well as workers from all professions are suffering temporary social and financial losses as a result of their actions.

For example, both chambers of the Florida legislature recently passed a law that also bans compulsory vaccination. Like the majority of US states, they are thus relying on reason and respect for civil and fundamental rights. In doing so, they are clearly acting against the administration of the US president.

Public figures accept their media “execution” and insist on their right to bodily integrity. More and more doctors are courageously refusing to vaccinate their patients against Covid-19 because of the many incalculable side effects and are being banned from practising. Formerly responsible directors of large pharmaceutical companies are leaving the company for ethical reasons and have since been educating the public.

Courageous citizens from all over the world are not impressed by announced repressions by governments and employers, claim their right to non-violent self-defence and take to the streets. This list of examples of civil disobedience could go on and on. Please, dear citizens, inform yourself in the free media. Every single example gives hope and will find imitators.

In the end, we can be curious to see which side will prevail in this undeclared war against civil societies and this unequal struggle – after all, it is about the existential question: “To Be or Not to Be”.

*

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 Rudolf Hänsel is a retired rector, educationalist and qualified psychologist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Following Saturday’s news report by corporate-owned US media outlet CBS, which outlined alleged plans by Russia to invade Ukraine in the coming weeks as the Winter sets in, based on unverified information given to the media network by unnamed US Intelligence officials, anti-Russian hysteria in the Western mainstream media has again stepped up a notch – with Moscow already being accused of playing a key role in the ongoing migrant crisis at the Belarus-Poland border, where thousands of immigrants, many of whom are fleeing the wars and colour revolutions imposed on their countries by the US-NATO hegemony, are attempting to enter the European Union.

According to the CBS article, the key factor in preventing these alleged invasion plans from coming to fruition is an intervention from the West – or in other words, the war drums of Washington’s Neocons and regime-change lobby are now beating towards Moscow; and one only has to look at the results of previous regime-change lies to grasp the consequences that they entail.

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, and the subsequent US-led invasion of Afghanistan one month later in October of that year, the wars drums against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq would soon begin to beat in Washington – despite the fact that 20 years on, little to no evidence has been produced linking either Iraq or Afghanistan to the attacks, in stark contrast to the evidence found linking US-allies Israel and Saudi Arabia to the atrocities.

In a similar vein to their accusations of Afghanistan harbouring Osama Bin Laden, thus justifying a US-led invasion, the Western mainstream media, alongside Neoconservative think tanks such as the Project for the New American Century and AIPAC, using Benjamin Netanyahu as its spokesman, would all, in lockstep, promote the narrative that Saddam Hussein’s leadership had acquired weapons of mass destruction, and had also harboured members of Bin Laden’s CIA-created Al-Qaeda network – thus enabling another US military intervention.

In March 2003, these propaganda efforts would come to fruition with the US-led war on Iraq, leading to more than half a million deaths, the modern-day refugee crisis, and as a result of the power vacuum following the removal of Hussein’s leadership, the takeover of vast swathes of the previously secular nation by Al-Qaeda’s Iraq branch – a precursor to the wider ISIS network which would be established a decade later.

Despite the disastrous impact of these regime-change lies becoming globally apparent to onlookers, the US and its allies would again play out the same script less than eight years later, this time in Libya, who’s then-leader Muammar Gaddafi, a long-time thorn in the side of the White House and its allies, was planning a Gold Dinar currency, one which would have ended any reliance by Tripoli on the US Dollar – and which would also seal his fate in the eyes of the US-NATO hegemony.

In February 2011, the US, Britain and France would authorise a regime-change operation against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya which saw the arming, funding and training of the same Salafist terrorists that the coalition had supposedly went into Iraq to combat in the first place – with the intentions of halting the planned Gold Dinar currency and removing Gaddafi’s secular leadership via a colour revolution.

In response to alleged ‘human rights abuses’ by Tripoli against said colour revolution and the terrorists implementing it, a no-fly zone would subsequently be launched over the North African country by NATO in March 2011, with the military alliance effectively acting as an air force for their terrorist proxies; by October 2011, Gaddafi was dead, his once-thriving nation in ruins, and the flow of migrants trying to escape from what was once the most prosperous nation in Africa substantially exacerbating the refugee crisis.

At the same as this regime-change disaster was playing out in Libya, a similar colour revolution, which again saw the arming and support of Salafist groups, would also be launched against the Syrian Arab Republic, which with a similar history to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya of also refusing to kowtow to the demands of Washington and its allies, had drawn the ire of the regime-change lobby following Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s 2009 refusal to allow US-ally Qatar to build a pipeline through his country – one which would have undermined his key relationship with Russia.

In stark contrast to the fate which befell Libya however, Damascus has successfully been able to withstand the terrorist onslaught over the past decade, with an Iranian intervention at the request of the Syrian government in 2013 playing a key role in the defence of the Arab Republic, and a further Russian intervention in 2015, again at the request of Damascus, perhaps playing the most decisive factor in the conflict so far.

True to form however, Washington’s hawks would step up their propaganda efforts in a bid to counter this successful countering of their regime change attempts – in 2017 and 2018, two separate false flag chemical attacks were launched in the terrorist-held town of Khan Shaykhun and the city of Douma, the blame being attributed to the Syrian government in both situations, and both incidents resulting in the US launching cruise missile and air strikes against Syrian government targets – just stopping short of a Libya-style no-fly zone which could have easily triggered a wider conflict between NATO and Russia.

This is where similarities to the current situation involving Ukraine come into play, with Kiev having come under the control of the pro-Western leaderships of Petro Poroshenko and Volodymyr Zelensky since the 2014 Euromaidan colour revolution was launched against the Eastern European country in response to then-President Viktor Yanukovych’s 2013 decision to suspend an EU trade deal in favour of pursuing closer ties with neighbouring Russia.

With the noticeable anti-Russian sentiment of the new Western-friendly government becoming dangerously high, the mainly ethic Russian Donbass region in eastern Ukraine broke away to form the independent Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in April 2014, following Crimea’s successful reunification with Russia the previous month – and sparking a now seven-year long conflict against both Republics by Kiev, which now, perhaps with a Syria-style false-flag attack in the region intended  to implicate Moscow, threatens to expand into a wider conflict between Ukraine and Russia, one that could have grave consequences for the entire continent of Europe and indeed, 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.

Gavin O’Reilly is an activist from Dublin, Ireland, with a strong interest in the effects of British and US Imperialism. Secretary of the Dublin Anti-Internment Committee, a campaign group set up to raise awareness of Irish Republican political prisoners in British and 26 County jails. His work has previously appeared on American Herald Tribune, The Duran, Al-Masdar and MintPress News.

Featured image is from danielo / Shutterstock

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US-NATO Drums of War: From ‘Saddam’s WMDs’ to ‘Russia Is Preparing to Invade Ukraine’. Familiar “Regime Change” Propaganda Now Targets Moscow
  • Tags: , , ,

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Last week attorney Aaron Siri of Injecting Freedom reported that the FDA is going to take 55 years, or until 2076, to disclose all of the data and information it relied on before approving Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine.

Following its publication, we expected the usual constellation of conflicted neerdowell ‘fact checkers’ to shoot it down – or at least, spin what was going on.

To our surprise, that wasn’t the case. In fact, Reuters whose founder and former CEO sits on the board of Pfizer, looked into the matter and was apparently shocked:

Here’s how they explain it:

The 1967 FOIA law requires federal agencies to respond to information requests within 20 business days. However, the time it takes to actually get the documents “will vary depending on the complexity of the request and any backlog of requests already pending at the agency,” according to the government’s central FOIA website.

Justice Department lawyers representing the FDA note in court papers that the plaintiffs are seeking a huge amount of vaccine-related material – about 329,000 pages.

The plaintiffs, a group of more than 30 professors and scientists from universities including Yale, Harvard, UCLA and Brown, filed suit in September in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeking expedited access to the records. They say that releasing the information could help reassure vaccine skeptics that the shot is indeed “safe and effective and, thus, increase confidence in the Pfizer vaccine.”

But the FDA can’t simply turn the documents over wholesale. The records must be reviewed to redact “confidential business and trade secret information of Pfizer or BioNTech and personal privacy information of patients who participated in clinical trials,” wrote DOJ lawyers in a joint status report filed Monday.

The article explains how the FDA proposed releasing 500 pages per month on a rolling basis – informing the court that they only have 10 employees in the branch that would handle the review, and are currently processing around 400 other FOIA requests.

“By processing and making interim responses based on 500-page increments, FDA will be able to provide more pages to more requesters, thus avoiding a system where a few large requests monopolize finite processing resources and where fewer requesters’ requests are being fulfilled,” wrote DOJ attorneys, citing other cases in which the 500 monthly page production was upheld.

The plaintiffs, on the other hand, point out that the FDA has 18,000 employees and a budget of $6 billion – and “has itself said that there is nothing more important than the licensure of this vaccine and being transparent about this vaccine.”

Since the first batch of documents were released, people have already noted some disturbing findings. What could the rest of the documents reveal?

*

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Since the very beginning of the covid panic, the narrative has been this: implement severe lockdowns or your population will experience a bloodbath. Morgues will be overwhelmed, the death total toll will be astounding. On the other hand, we were assured that those jurisdictions that implement the lockdown would experience only a fraction of the death toll.

Then, once vaccines became available, the narrative was modified to:

“Get shots in arm and then covid will stop spreading. Those countries without vaccines, on the other hand, will continue to face mass casualties.”

The lockdown narrative, of course, has already been thoroughly overturned. Jurisdictions that did not lock down or adopted only weak and short lockdowns ended up with covid death tolls that were either similar to—or lesser than—death tolls in countries that adopted draconian lockdowns. Lockdown advocates said locked-down countries would be overwhelmingly better off. These people were clearly wrong.

Undaunted by the increasing implausibility of the lockdown narrative, the global health bureaucrats are nonetheless doubling down on forced vaccines—as we now see in Austria—and we continue to be assured that only countries with high vaccination rates can hope to avoid disastrous covid outcomes.

Yet, the experience in sub-Saharan Africa calls both these narratives into question: Africa’s numbers have been far, far lower than the experts warned would be the case.

For example, the AP reported mid November 2021 that in spite of low vaccination rates, Africa has fared better than most of the world:

[T]here is something “mysterious” going on in Africa that is puzzling scientists, said Wafaa El-Sadr, chair of global health at Columbia University. “Africa doesn’t have the vaccines and the resources to fight COVID-19 that they have in Europe and the U.S., but somehow they seem to be doing better,” she said….

Fewer than 6% of people in Africa are vaccinated. For months, the WHO has described Africa as “one of the least affected regions in the world” in its weekly pandemic reports.

Yet disaster for Africa has long been predicted for several reasons even beyond the availability of vaccines. For instance, it is known that lockdowns are especially impractical in the poorest parts of the world. This is because populations in places with underdeveloped economies can’t simply sit at home and live off savings or debt. Rather, these people must go out into the world and earn a living on a day-to-day basis. Starvation is the alternative. Moreover, much of this work is done in the informal economy, so enforcing lockdowns becomes especially difficult.

afr

Source: Our World in Data (Confirmed Deaths per Million, November 19, 2021Share of People Vaccinated against Covid-19, November 19, 2021).

It was also assumed that covid would be especially deadly in Africa due to the fact many large households live in small housing units.

But that “conventional wisdom” flies in the face of the reality of covid in Africa, which is that there have been fewer deaths.

The “experts” have groped around, looking for possible explanations.

Some sources, for example, insist that the low death totals are only an artifact of incomplete reporting on covid infections and that “a lack of good qualitative data was the issue.”

But Richard Wamai at Northeastern University rejects the claim it’s all about case reporting, and says that “local systems for reporting deaths in Africa make it difficult to hide COVID-19 casualties.” In a paper for the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Wamai and his coauthors conclude,

“[T]here is no evidence that COVID-19 mortality data is less accurately reported in Africa than elsewhere” …

“While the true picture of infections and mortality in the continent has yet to fully emerge, the quality of data for other diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, indicates that Africa has the capacity to collect and report valid disease surveillance data.”

In any case, the World Health Organization reports that covid deaths in Africa make up only 2.9 percent of covid deaths Worldwide, while Africa’s population is 16 percent of the global total.

Africa’s covid total could double or triple, and Africa would still be faring far better than Europe and the Americas.

Wamai et al. also note that at this point

“[i]t is likely that SARS-CoV-2 has already been widely disseminated through Africa…. If so, widespread infection is likely to also result in widespread natural immunity.”

In other words, continued claims by health officials—both in Africa and elsewhere—that mass death is right around the corner with the “next wave” look increasingly implausible.

It looks increasingly likely that the lack of covid mortality in Africa is not due to a data issue nor a situation in which covid has been “contained” up until now. So then why is Africa doing so much better than the wealthy West?

Naturally, the advocates of forced lockdowns and coerced vaccines would prefer to ignore this issue altogether, but the undeniable reality of Africa’s experience has forced mainstream researchers to publicly admit the many ways that many factors can explain covid’s prevalence beyond vaccination rates and mask mandates.

For instance, mentioning that obesity is an important factor in covid mortality has in the past been likely to get one savaged in the media for “fat shaming.” Yet the Africa situation has forced the well informed to admit that yes, obese populations clearly suffer more from covid. In Africa, not surprisingly, we find that obesity rates are far below those found in North America and Europe.

Other possible explanations forwarded as reasons for Africa’s situation include past exposure to other coronaviruses, youthful populations, fewer patients lacking zinc and vitamin D, past use of the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccination, climate, genetic background, and parasite load.

In addressing the African “enigma” one group of researchers in the journal Colombia medica dared even suggest it’s possible—although not conclusively shown at this point—that “a mass public health preventive campaign against COVID-19 may have taken place, inadvertently, in some African countries with massive community ivermectin use.”

africa

Source: “Global Obesity Levels,” ProCon.org, last modified March 27, 2020; Our World in Data (Share of People Vaccinated against Covid-19, November 19, 2021).

In the West, however, the media drumbeat around covid has consistently been “Shut up, stay home, get jabbed, and stop doubting the experts on forced vaccines.” Fortunately, however, the African situation has forced many researchers to ask inconvenient questions.

In fact, it’s amazing Africa has not been overcome by mass death considering that covid lockdowns and covid economic and social “mitigation” measures have contributed to the impoverishment and mass starvation on the continent. Or as Germany’s DW News puts it,

“Measures put in place to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus are pushing millions of people in Africa into severe hunger.”

And as Wamai notes,

“[S]ome of the excess deaths in Africa “can be attributed not to the disease, but to lockdown measures that cut off access to medical care for other illnesses.”

But Africa hasn’t gotten the bloodbath that was promised, and as one Nigerian put it, “They said there will be dead bodies on the streets and all that, but nothing like that happened.”

*

 

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.

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

A Pandemic of the Vaccinated

November 24th, 2021 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 @crg_globalresearch.

***

Daily Mail, November 18, 2021:

“Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said waning immunity from the initial shots is leading to a rise in severe cases among immunized Americans. ‘What we’re starting to see now is an uptick in hospitalizations among people who’ve been vaccinated but not boosted’…”

NY Times podcast, November 12, 2021; Fauci states:

“They are seeing a waning of [vaccine-induced] immunity not only against infection but against hospitalization and to some extent death, which is starting to now involve all age groups. It isn’t just the elderly.”

Translation: The vaccine is severely injuring and killing MANY people, but of course we’re calling those injuries and deaths “COVID-19 disease.” Also, our solution to this catastrophe is piling on MORE injections (boosters), which will hospitalize and kill even MORE people.

The dailyexpose.uk has the much deeper story:

“The public are being repeatedly lied to by elected officials, unelected advisors, and the mainstream media, with all of them claiming that the world is currently experiencing a Pandemic of the Unvaccinated. This could not be further from the truth.”

“But the lie has now been used to justify locking down the unvaccinated in Austria, and locking the unvaccinated out of society in Australia.”

“Now Germany is about to follow suit, Scotland is about to ban the unvaccinated from pubs and restaurants under the advice of a qualified nutritionist posing as a Pandemic expert who goes by the name of Devi Sridhar, and the authorities and media in England have gone into overdrive on the advice of the ‘nudge unit’ to sway the population into supporting a lockdown for only the unvaccinated.”

“But it all makes absolutely no sense because official Public Health data shows that over the past three months… two-thirds of Covid-19 hospitalisations [people who get very sick from the shot] have been among the fully vaccinated, and a frightening 91% of Covid-19 deaths [people who die from the shot] have been among the fully vaccinated, and projections shows things are about to get a lot worse.”

“…in the week beginning November 6th a total of 773 Covid-19 hospitalisations [people injured by the shot] were confirmed in Scotland. Of these 137 were among the unvaccinated population, whilst 363 were among the vaccinated population.”

“…the fully vaccinated accounted for the majority of hospitalisations [in Scotland] between October 16th and November 12th, and again by taking into account hospitalisations as far back as August 23rd we can see that things have been getting progressively worse for the fully vaccinated by the week.”

“In the week beginning August 21st the vaccinated accounted for 68% of hospitalisations, but fast forward to the week beginning November 6th and we can see that the vaccinated accounted for 73% of hospitalisations.”

“The worst week so far for the vaccinated however, in terms of hospitalisations, came in the week beginning October 16th which saw the vaccinated population account for 79% of Covid-19 hospitalisations [people injured by the shot].”

“[In Scotland]…the fully vaccinated accounted for the overwhelming majority of Covid-19 deaths [deaths from the shot] between October 9th and November 5th 2021. But by also taking into account the number of…deaths by vaccination status as far back as August 14th we’re able to see that things are getting significantly worse for the fully vaccinated population by the week…”

“…the week beginning August 14th the vaccinated accounted for 78% of deaths, but fast forward to the week beginning October 30th and we can see that the vaccinated accounted for 85% of deaths.”

Switching from Scotland to England:

“The latest Public Health England technical briefing on Covid-19 variants of concern has been published and it reveals that up to the 12th September 2021, 74% of all alleged Covid-19 deaths since August 2nd 2021 [people killed by the shot] have been among the vaccinated population, confirming the UK is currently experiencing a pandemic of the vaccinated.”

But don’t worry, be happy. The solution—endless toxic boosters—will surely save the day. And by “save the day,” I mean tens or even hundreds of millions of lives will be ruined and ended.

And by “save the day,” I also mean the news media will cover all this up and continue to promote an alternative fantasy of a universe, in which the vaccine is a rescuing rainbow and the unvaccinated are terrorists.

There’s magic at work here. If you believe what the news media are telling you, then you’ll remain vibrant and healthy (if you take the vaccine and all the boosters). If you don’t take the vaccine, you’re doomed. It’s really quite something. Those talking news heads are elves from the forest. With every word they utter, they cast powerful spells.

That’s why the really smart people trust the news and embrace the elves.

*

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.

Sources

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10217977/Fauci-says-Covid-hospitalizations-rising-fully-vaccinated-people.html

nytimes.com/2021/11/12/podcasts/the-daily/anthony-fauci-vaccine-mandates-booster-shots.html?showTranscript=1

https://dailyexpose.uk/2021/11/18/91-percent-covid-19-deaths-among-the-fully-vaccinated/

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

The WHO Is an Institution of Corruption

November 24th, 2021 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 @crg_globalresearch.

***

Fundamental corruption at the World Health Organization (WHO) contributed to manufacturing a “test pandemic”

Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, former head of health at the Council of Europe, explains that a pandemic used to be associated with widespread severe illness and death, but by changing the definition, removing the severity and high mortality criteria, WHO can now make a pandemic whenever it wants

COVID-19 was a “test” pandemic, not a virus pandemic, because PCR tests may give a positive result when it detects fragments of coronaviruses that have been around for 20 years, a fragment of virus too small to make you ill or a fragment of COVID-19 that was there weeks ago

The mass COVID-19 shot campaign is riddled with conflicts of interest at a fundamental level, and these conflicts are putting people’s lives at risk by putting vaccine production ahead of disease prevention

As Wodarg noted, if you want to earn money producing vaccines, you need new markets in which to use them, and new diseases so you can sell your vaccine

*

Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, an internal medicine doctor and former head of health at the Council of Europe, spoke with Planet Lockdown on the fundamental corruption at the World Health Organization and how it contributed to manufacturing a “test pandemic.”1

The seeds were sown more than a decade ago during the 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic. In 2010, Wodarg accused pharmaceutical companies of influencing WHO’s pandemic declaration, calling swine flu a “false pandemic” that was driven by Big Pharma, which cashed in on the health scare.2

According to Wodarg, the swine flu pandemic was “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.”3 As noted by Planet Lockdown, Wodarg, then a member of the German Parliament, “knew something wasn’t right when 800 cases in Mexico was declared a pandemic”:4

“He dug into the issue and discovered a hornet’s nest of lies and corruption inside the WHO. He floored a bill called Fake Pandemic and did much to deflate that fake scare at the time, to the consternation of the corrupt functionaries of these institutions.”

With a Definition Change, WHO Could Create Pandemic Anytime

Secret agreements were made between Germany, Great Britain, Italy and France with the pharmaceutical industry before the H1N1 pandemic began, which stated that they would purchase H1N1 flu vaccinations — but only if a pandemic level 6 was declared by WHO.

Six weeks before the pandemic was declared, no one at WHO was worried about the virus, but the media was nonetheless exaggerating the dangers.5 Then, in the month leading up to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, WHO changed the official definition of pandemic, removing the severity and high mortality criteria and leaving the definition of a pandemic as “a worldwide epidemic of a disease.”6

This switch in definition allowed WHO to declare swine flu a pandemic after only 144 people had died from the infection worldwide.7 While the swine flu scare was eventually deflated, this wasn’t so with COVID-19, even though the real signs of a pandemic are absent. As Wodarg explained, it used to be that a pandemic was associated with widespread severe illness and death, but that’s no longer the case:8

“There was an explanation of what a pandemic is and it always was going with many, many people dying from infections. Many severe diseases, hospitals being overcrowded. It was such a catastrophe … and everyone in the street would notice that there is a pandemic because the neighbors would get ill, the people at work would get ill. In the bus, you would see people coughing.

In a pandemic … it’s something each of us would experience. This was a pandemic. And WHO changed it.”

By removing the severity and high mortality criteria, WHO could make a pandemic whenever they wanted. “The pandemic is just a picture spread by the media, making us afraid. But what the people experience is not what we used to understand when we used the word epidemic or pandemic,” he said.9 Now, the word pandemic has to do with fear, not illnesses. “It’s a brand for fear.”

COVID-19 Is a ‘Test’ Pandemic

If there hasn’t been a true pandemic, in the old definition of the word, then how are the media and government getting all of these high case numbers for COVID-19? This is due to the PCR test.

“It was accepted by WHO, and they said when the test is positive, we have a case of COVID-19. And this is how they started counting the cases,” Wodarg said. “What they counted was the activity of testing. And the more they tested, the more cases they found.”10

Positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests are not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool as they cannot distinguish between inactive (noninfectious) viruses and “live” or reproductive ones.11

Inactive and reproductive viruses are not interchangeable in terms of infectivity. If you have a nonreproductive virus in your body, you will not get sick from it and you cannot spread it to others. Further, many if not most laboratories amplify the RNA collected far too many times, which results in healthy people testing “positive.”

The higher the cycle threshold (CT) — i.e., the number of amplification cycles used to detect RNA particles — the greater the chance of a false positive. While any CT over 35 is deemed scientifically unjustifiable,12,13 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended running PCR tests at a CT of 40.14

A test known as the Corman-Drosten paper and tests recommended by the World Health Organization were set to 45 cycles.15,16,17 When labs use these excessive cycle thresholds, you end up with a grossly overestimated number of positive tests, so what we’re really dealing with is a “casedemic”18,19 — an epidemic of false positives.

Wodarg says COVID-19 “was a ‘test’ pandemic. It was not a virus pandemic,”20 because PCR tests may give a positive result when it detects coronaviruses that have been around for 20 years. He explained:21

“The SARS viruses, they are very long RNA viruses. There are 30,000 letters in this genetic information. The PCR test only takes a very small part of them, or two parts of them. So two words out of a whole book … before you start testing, you can already estimate how often this test will be positive. If you take a sequence which is in many varieties of viruses, you will have many positive tests.”

The PCR test only tests for certain sequences of the RNA. It gives a positive result when it only finds a small fragment; it doesn’t need the whole virus. If the virus was there weeks ago or you have a touch of the virus present, but no infection, it can still test positive and add another COVID-19 “case,” even though you’re not actually sick.

COVID-19 Shot Conflicts of Interest Putting Lives at Risk

The mass COVID-19 shot campaign is riddled with conflicts of interest at a fundamental level, and these conflicts are putting people’s lives at risk by putting vaccine production ahead of disease prevention. As Wodarg noted, if you want to earn money producing vaccines, you need new markets in which to use them, and new diseases so you can sell your vaccine.

“This is a very serious matter,” he said, which has nothing to do with health or hygiene — “it has to do with criminology”:22

“When they want to sell their vaccines, they need people who are ill so they can make clinical studies. So when there is an outbreak, and they want to make clinical studies with their vaccine to protect people against this disease just breaking out … there is a conflict of interest.

If you have normal ways to stop the infection, with hygiene, with distancing, with isolating, with consulting with people, giving advice how to behave … if you stop the disease quickly, you’re not able to have enough cases for your study.”

So we have a “pandemic” that’s based on a test that doesn’t prove infection, but what it did do was make people afraid. And that fear was the basis for saying we need a vaccine. The shots, however, aren’t effective.

In November 2020, Pfizer, in a joint venture with Germany-based BioNTech, announced that their mRNA-based injection was “more than 90% effective” in a Phase 3 trial.23 This does not mean that 90% of people who get injected will be protected from COVID-19, however, as it’s based on relative risk reduction (RRR).

The absolute risk reduction (ARR) for the jab is less than 1%. “Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the jab, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a jab, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs,” researchers wrote in The Lancet Microbe in April 2021.24

Nonetheless, the jabs received emergency use authorization, which has paved the way for vaccine mandates and other assaults to your freedom and health.

Will Vaxxed People End Up Sicker?

The lack of effectiveness is one key reason why Wodarg believes most people do not need a COVID-19 jab. The other reasons include serious risks of adverse events from these experimental jabs, and the fact that, Wodarg says, cross-immunity exists due to multiple previous exposures to other coronaviruses in most people.25 “The genetically produced so-called vaccines are not necessary, because we have immunity.”26

As he stated, your immune system is well-equipped to protect you, and new viral exposures each year help to keep this complex system updated. Risk increases when you avoid regular viral exposures to keep your immune system ready:27

“Those new ones that come, this is some work for your immune system to get an update, but it doesn’t make most people very sick, only in a few, rare cases.

When we are not trained, or we didn’t have contact with viruses for a very long time, because we were isolated somewhere alone, not having our grandchildren on our knees, not experiencing any training — it’s the same when you are out of training and you suddenly have to climb a high mountain. Maybe your heart goes into failure and you die — maybe you die when you have contact with something your immune system has forgotten.”

The spike protein that the shots stimulate your cells to produce is also deeply concerning, since it’s toxic:28

“Vaccines are made to stimulate our cells, we don’t know which cells, or where the injection goes, but those cells that get contact with the vaccine, they produce spike proteins, which are very toxic. Normally, those spike proteins don’t come into the blood, this is why we don’t get seriously ill from coronaviruses. When you inject them, you bypass the natural immunity.”

This is a likely reason why there are so many side effects associated with the shots, as injecting these spike proteins is unnatural and very dangerous. It’s since been revealed that the spike protein on its own is enough to cause inflammation and damage to the vascular system, even independent of a virus.29

Further, Wodarg says, once your body has been injected with the spike protein, it may have an overreactive response the next time it comes in contact with a typical coronavirus, potentially leading to a dangerous cytokine storm.

When counting COVID-19 cases this winter, Wodarg believes it is important to ask whether the person received a COVID-19 shot or not. “I am quite sure,” he said, “that those people vaccinated will be the severe cases and that those who are not vaccinated will just experience a normal flu.”30

What’s more, once you’re vaccinated, they have all your data — the batch of the shot, the date and time. So, you’re essentially part of a clinical trial that you’ve never agreed to, and there’s no transparency about the risks involved. Wodarg believes that the pandemic “emergency” is being prolonged from month to month because it helps their injection studies, even as there are massive conflicts of interest involved.

If you listen to the media, you’ll be brainwashed that the jab is necessary, but don’t fall for the hype, including that getting the shot will earn you your freedom back. Wodarg said:31

“You won’t be free to travel. You will be controlled nevertheless, because the next virus already comes, the next jab is waiting. They want to perpetuate this game with us, with vaccines and with vaccine passports. It’s just the perfect control by this market and it has nothing to do with health. So we have to stop it.”

*

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

Notes

1, 4 Rumble, Planet Lockdown, Wolfgang Wodarg, Full Interview, October 18, 2021

2 Daily Mail January 17, 2010

3 The Times of Israel May 14, 2020

5, 7 BitChute, TrustWHO

6 Wayback Machine, WHO Pandemic Preparedness September 2, 2009 (PDF)

8 Rumble, Planet Lockdown, Wolfgang Wodarg, Full Interview, October 18, 2021, 2:05

9 Rumble, Planet Lockdown, Wolfgang Wodarg, Full Interview, October 18, 2021, 5:40

10 Rumble, Planet Lockdown, Wolfgang Wodarg, Full Interview, October 18, 2021, 8:50

11 CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel July 13, 2020 (PDF)

12 The Vaccine Reaction September 29, 2020

13 Jon Rappoport’s Blog November 6, 2020

14 FDA.gov CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel Instructions, July 13, 2020 (PDF) Page 35

15 WHO.int Diagnostic detection of Wuhan Coronavirus 2019 by real-time RT-PCR, January 13, 2020 (PDF)

16 WHO.int Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCOV by real-time RT-PCR, January 17, 2020 (PDF)

17 Eurosurveillance 2020 Jan 23; 25(3): 2000045

18 PJ Media October 27, 2020

19 AAPS October 7, 2020

20 Rumble, Planet Lockdown, Wolfgang Wodarg, Full Interview, October 18, 2021, 14:02

21 Rumble, Planet Lockdown, Wolfgang Wodarg, Full Interview, October 18, 2021, 9:40

22 Rumble, Planet Lockdown, Wolfgang Wodarg, Full Interview, October 18, 2021, 16:30

23 Pfizer November 9, 2020

24 The Lancet Microbe April 20, 2021

25 Medical Hypotheses November 2020, Volume 144, 110049

26 Rumble, Planet Lockdown, Wolfgang Wodarg, Full Interview, October 18, 2021, 29:03

27, 28 Rumble, Planet Lockdown, Wolfgang Wodarg, Full Interview, October 18, 2021, 25:15

29 Circulation Research March 31, 2021

30 Rumble, Planet Lockdown, Wolfgang Wodarg, Full Interview, October 18, 2021, 28:16

31 Rumble, Planet Lockdown, Wolfgang Wodarg, Full Interview, October 18, 2021, 34:57

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

COVID Vaccines Are a War on Children

November 24th, 2021 by Stella 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 @crg_globalresearch.

***

The first battles in the Covid War on Children began with the lockdown, forcing kids into isolation, depriving them of education, smothering them with masks, strangling their innate joy and playfulness, and denying them contact with God-given images of human faces.

The tyrants won those first battles, vanquishing our kids. Children are committing suicides in numbers never before seen; their health has plummeted with terrifying rates of obesity and diabetes, their intellectual and social development is languishing, and they are suffering intensely.

Now with children sicker and weaker than ever before, and with parents desperate for a return to “normal,” the tyrants are moving in for the kill with vaccines. The Pop Culture Brigade unleashed Big Bird to tweet about the joys of the jab, promised kids super powers from the vaccines in a grotesque Pfizer ad, and invited a pop star to the White House to push “Let’s end this pandemic together” to kids.

The medical establishment enthusiastically joined the attack. The American Medical Association urged parents to “seize the opportunity to vaccinate younger kids against Covid-19,” warning them, “Now it is time for parents to act.”  The American Academy of Pediatrics flogged the need for instant FDA approval, while its New York branch demanded vaccine mandates for kids to attend school, helpfully adding that “religious or philosophical exemptions should not be given.”

And, of course, the government struck hard with the ultimate power of coercion. California became the first state to mandate vaccines for kids ages 5 and older, denying kindergartners an education until they’re jabbed. New York, fresh from deploying Covid to kill 15,000 nursing home residents, pivoted to kids with a bribery campaign conceived in the pits of hell.  Mayor de Blasio announced that jabbed kids are eligible for a $100 gift, which he cheerfully informed them “buys a whole lot of candy.” Sugar destroys the immune system and sets up kids for a lifetime of metabolic dysfunction, but who cares about that? The vaccines are for their health!

The tyrants have been consistent in their messaging onslaught from the beginning: healthy living and natural immunity play no part in overcoming Covid; only the divine gift of pharmaceutical experiments can confer redemption from the viral demon. Now the tyrants are salivating at the profits to be made by plunging lucrative gene modulators into children’s flesh. Already, Pfizer is boasting that it will make as much money from its Covid vaccine in 2021 than it made from all its products in 2020. And wait until 2022, when Fauci assures us that even babies and toddlers will be stabbed with the jab! The tyrants have decreed their right to colonize and exploit your children’s bodies, and your job as parents is to thank them, pay them, and submit.

In this face of this blitzkrieg of intimidation, coercion, and agitprop, how can parents protect their children? What weapons do parents have to fight back? As in any war, the way to win is through courage, unity, and knowledge of the enemy. So, I’ve provided some facts to fortify your information and share with others.

The vaccine is already proven to be dangerous. On November 12th, the CDC released the latest figures from the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System). To date, children ages 12 to 17 have suffered 22,782 total adverse events, including 1,400 rated as serious, and 29 reported deaths. Among the deaths: a 17-year-old girl from Washington, a 12-year-old girl from South Carolina, a 13-year-old girl from Maryland, and a 17-year-old girl from Texas. 59 cases of life-threatening anaphylaxis were reported in this age group – with 96% attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine. 552 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation) were reported, with all but 10 linked to Pfizer, and 131 cases of blood clotting disorders, with 100% linked to Pfizer.

Vaccine injuries in kids are being censored from the media and buried by the FDA. Maddie de Garay is a 13-year-old girl in Ohio whose mother signed her up for Pfizer’s Covid vaccine clinical trial. She is now catastrophically disabled and has been hospitalized three times in recent months. Yet Comcast refused to show an ad about Maddie, frustrating Maddie’s mother who hoped it would force those responsible to admit to Maddie’s injuries. You can see Maddie’s ad here.  Mrs. de Garay documented Maddie’s medical records and submitted them to the CDC, FDA, and NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke without getting any meaningful response. Pfizer has categorized Maddie’s systemic injuries as “functional abdominal pain.”

Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Taiwan have stopped vaccinating younger groups because of reported heart damage and other injuries. (See here, here, and here.) All four countries report worrisome rates of myocarditis and pericarditis, which cause heart inflammation, in younger people injected with Covid vaccines. And in Germany, federal data shows that children aged 12 to 17 were far more likely to be damaged from Covid vaccines than from Covid. Children were hospitalized post-vaccine with myocarditis, pericarditis, thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Around the world, children are suffering from Covid vaccines.

Pfizer conducted NO long-term studies on their vaccine’s impact on kids – none, nada, zilch, zip. Pfizer admits in its application to the FDA that they will study the long-term effects on kids AFTER they receive authorization. Pfizer’s clinical trials consist of just two small studies of approximately 2,000 kids each. One group was followed for about two weeks after vaccination; the other for two months. That’s it. Two months! That’s the entire basis for injecting millions of kids with experimental vaccines that have unknown consequences for their genetic, reproductive, neurological, immunological, respiratory, and cardiovascular health. What on earth happens to our future if something goes wrong?

Fauci and the FDA admit they don’t know if the vaccines are safe for kids. “The real question that we have not yet answered is the safety data of an mRNA vaccine in young people vis-a-vis myocarditis,” Fauci told Reuters in October. And Dr. Eric Rubin, a voting member of the FDA panel that endorsed the vaccine and editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, casually noted, “We’re never going to learn about how safe the vaccine is unless we start giving it. That’s just the way it goes.” In other words, what’s important to these “experts” isn’t protecting your kids. It’s protecting the vaccine, with your kids as the unfortunate guinea pigs.

Children’s risk of Covid death or serious illness remains extremely low. Large studies in Britain confirm that children’s risk of being hospitalized or dying from Covid is negligible. 25 children out of 12 million kids in Britain died of Covid, and most of them had severe co-morbidities. Furthermore, children are not significant drivers of infection, and pose almost no risk to adults. They do not get frequently infected, and if they do, they typically have mild symptoms.

Prominent doctors have formed The Unity Project to help partents and groups fight vaccine mandates for children.

The tyrants who want your children’s bodies are relentless. They’ve orchestrated the battlefield so that you’re mandated to permanently alter your children’s biology with unknown substances for protection against a disease for which they’re not at risk. In times of chaos and despair, return to the time-tested basics. The best way to shield your kids is by bolstering their God-given immune system with healthy whole foods, sunshine, joyful play and exercise, sleep, and family time for gratitude. The war will be won by parents who protect their kids.

*

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 Rumble video screengrab via American Thinker

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In an appalling breach of human rights, 38 indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory have been hauled into quarantine camps by the army.

The Australian army has begun forcibly removing residents in the Northern Territories to the Howard Springs quarantine camp located in Darwin after nine new Covid-19 cases were identified in the community of Binjari. The move comes after hard lockdowns were instituted in the communities of both Binjari and nearby Rockhole on Saturday night.

Northern Territory Chief Minister Michael Gunner announced today that the “Residents of Binjari and Rockhole no longer have the five reasons to leave their homes,.” The five allowable reasons to avoid lockdown that he referred to are buying food and supplies, exercising for up to two hours, care or caregiving, work, or education. It is a case of if it can’t be done from home, and to get vaccinated at the nearest possible location.

Howard Springs, Quarantine Camp, Northern Territory

“They can only leave for medical treatment, in an emergency, or as required by law.” says Gunner, he continues that “It’s highly likely that more residents will be transferred to Howard Springs today, either as positive cases or close contacts,” adding “We have already identified 38 close contacts from Binjari but that number will go up. Those 38 are being transferred now.”

Gunner said that he had contacted the Prime Minister last night and that they are grateful for the support of about 20 ADF personnel, as well as army trucks to assist with the transfer of positive cases and close contacts – and to support the communities. He also said “We are doing an assessment today of what extra resources we might need from the Feds, and the Prime Minister is ready to help further – I thank him for that.”

The video below shows the Northern Territory Chief Minister Michael Gunner as he announces the news.

Quarantine facilities

There are two mandatory supervised quarantine facilities in the Northern Territory; Centre for National Resilience in Howard Springs, Darwin, and the Alice Springs Quarantine Facility, Alice Springs. As stated on the Northern Territory Government website, A person in quarantine must;

  • stay in the person’s allocated room, including on any veranda space allocated to the room, unless permitted by an authorised officer; and
  • when not in their room, or on their veranda, residents must take all reasonable measures to stay at least 1.5 metres away from any other person in the quarantine facility, except for the person’s spouse, de facto partner, child or parent; and
  • wear a face mask when outside their room unless an authorised officer permits the person to remove the face mask; and
  • comply with any directions given by an authorised officer to avoid people congregating in a quarantine zone; and
  • must not leave the quarantine zone in which the person’s allocated room is located unless the person is escorted by an authorised officer, except in an emergency.

Chief Health Officer Direction 52 of 2021 sets out what a person must do when in quarantine at the Centre for National Resilience and at Alice Springs Quarantine Facility.  This direction is law – every person in quarantine must do what the Direction says. If a person does not follow the Direction, the Northern Territory Police may issue an Infringement Notice with a financial penalty. (Source)

The Northern Territory as of today, November 22nd, 2021, has a total of 38 “Cases” of what they deem to be COVID-19, which makes it even more blatantly obvious that the excessive new measure has nothing to do with a virus.

*

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 Expose

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A dissenting perspective from COVID-19 orthodoxy has found its way into one of the medical establishment’s most prestigious voices, with a letter by a German epidemiologist criticizing the narrative that COVID now represents a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

Dr. Günter Kampf is associate professor for hygiene and environmental medicine at the University Medicine Greifswald, Institute for Hygiene and Environmental Medicine in Germany. His letter, published in The Lancet’s November 20 edition, highlights “increasing evidence that vaccinated individuals continue to have a relevant role in transmission” of the virus, and therefore the idea that “the unvaccinated threaten the vaccinated” is “far too simple.”

“In the USA, a total of 10,262 COVID-19 cases were reported in vaccinated people by April 30, 2021, of whom 2,725 (26.6%) were asymptomatic, 995 (9.7%) were hospitalized, and 160 (1.6%) died,” Kampf explained. “In Germany, 55.4% of symptomatic COVID-19 cases in patients aged 60 years or older were in fully vaccinated individuals, and this proportion is increasing each week.”

“Historically, both the USA and Germany have engendered negative experiences by stigmatizing parts of the population for their skin color or religion,” Kampf concluded. “I call on high-level officials and scientists to stop the inappropriate stigmatization of unvaccinated people, who include our patients, colleagues, and other fellow citizens, and to put extra effort into bringing society together.”

Kampf elaborated on these concerns in an October 29 essay published by the Brownstone Institute. There he added that the vaccinated can contribute to the development of virus variants, and may actually accelerate the spread of COVID by changing their behavior after getting their shots.

“Vaccinated people usually behave in a more risk-taking way, they have more contacts, go to concerts and parties more often,” he explained. “They are no longer tested in Germany and are not quarantined. It is a carte blanche for an almost normal social life. If they become infected, they often have no or only mild symptoms and thus do not recognize their infection or recognize it too late. As a result, the expected wave among the vaccinated would hardly be visible.”

In the United States, a body of data suggests that the mass vaccination strategy for defeating COVID-19 has failed. The federal government considers more than 196 million Americans (59% of the eligible) to be “fully vaccinated” (a moving target given the vaccines’ temporary nature), yet ABC News reported in October that more Americans died of COVID-19 this year (353,000) than in all of 2020 (352,000), according to data from Johns Hopkins University.

Meanwhile, vaccine hesitancy persists thanks to unaddressed concerns about the vaccines’ safety, stemming largely from the fact that they were developed and released far faster than any previous vaccine.

Defenders stress that their development did not start from scratch, but rather relied on years of prior research into mRNA technology; and that one of the innovations of Operation Warp Speed was conducting various aspects of the development process concurrently rather than sequentially, eliminating delays unrelated to safety. However, those factors do not fully account for the condensing of clinical trial phases — each of which can take anywhere from 1-3 years on their own — to just three months apiece.

While cases of severe harm reported to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) after taking COVID shots represent less than one percent of total doses administered in the United States, a 2010 report submitted to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ (HHS) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) warned that VAERS caught “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events.” May reporting from NBC News quotes several mainstream experts acknowledging “gaps” in federal vaccine monitoring.

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 LifeSiteNews

US, Australia, UK Sign Key Deal in Nuclear Sub Alliance

November 24th, 2021 by The Economic Times

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Australia formally embarked Monday on a hotly-contested programme to equip its navy with nuclear-powered submarines in a new defence alliance with Britain and the United States.

Defence Minister Peter Dutton joined US and British diplomats in signing an agreement allowing the exchange of sensitive “naval nuclear propulsion information” between their nations.

It is the first agreement on the technology to be publicly signed since the three countries announced in September the formation of a defence alliance, AUKUS, to confront strategic tensions in the Pacific where China-US rivalry is growing.

The deal will help Australia to complete an 18-month study into the submarine procurement, Dutton said after signing it in Canberra with US Charge d’Affaires Michael Goldman and British High Commissioner (ambassador) Victoria Treadell. 

Details of the procurement have yet to be decided, including whether Australia will opt for a vessel based on US or British nuclear-powered attack submarines. 

“With access to the information, this agreement delivers, coupled with the decades of naval nuclear-powered experience our UK and US partners have Australia will also be positioned to be responsible and reliable stewards of this technology,” Dutton said in a statement. 

Ahead of the signing, US President Joe Biden said in a memorandum approving the deal on Friday that it would improve the three countries’ “mutual defence posture”. 

Under the AUKUS deal, Australia would obtain eight state-of-the-art, nuclear-powered but conventionally armed submarines capable of stealthy, long-range missions. It also provides for sharing cyber, artificial intelligence, quantum and unspecified undersea capabilities. 

The agreement has angered China, which describes it as an “extremely irresponsible” threat to stability in the region. 

It has also infuriated France, which discovered at the last moment that its own diesel-electric submarine contract with Australia — recently estimated to be worth Aus$90 billion ($65 billion) — had been scrapped. 

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has been unapologetic about his handling of the agreement, insisting it was in his country’s national interest and that he knew it would “ruffle some feathers”. 

*

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 US Navy

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The battle in Yemen has almost entirely shifted to Ansar Allah’s favor, after several weeks and months of successful military operations.

Marib, the Saudi-led coalition’s last bastion in northern Yemen, is an “impenetrable wall,” said Yemen’s puppet government’s foreign minister.

The Houthis (Ansar Allah), who seized the capital Sanaa in 2014, have intensified their fight for Marib this year, but have come under heavy bombardment from the Saudi-led military coalition, and still their offensive continues.

Meanwhile, on November 20th the Iran-aligned Houthi movement said it had fired 14 drones at several Saudi Arabian cities, including at Saudi Aramco facilities.

The Houthi military spokesman Yahya Saree said that the group had attacked Aramco’s refineries in Jeddah as well as military targets in Riyadh, Jeddah, Abha, Jizan and Najran.

Curiously, the Ansar Allah statement mentioned the wrong name for the international airport in Jeddah and the wrong location for the King Khalid base, saying it was in Riyadh when it is actually in the southern part of the kingdom.

The Saudi-led coalition said that it had destroyed three drones launched towards southern Saudi Arabia and a fourth over Yemen. It said the group “failed to launch two ballistic missiles” and that they fell inside Yemen.

Riyadh’s forces also responded, by attacking 13 targets in Yemen. The operation hit weapons depots, air defense systems and drones’ communication systems in Sanaa, Saada, and Marib provinces, the coalition said.

In addition to Marib, al-Hudaydah and Taiz are becoming increasingly volatile points.

Earlier, the Saudi-led coalition partially withdrew from the port city to redeploy forces and likely to support the fight for the central city of Marib. It is quite possible that this is part of a larger plan to attempt and stretch Houthi forces and resources in defending and attacking several locations.

On November 21, Saudi-backed forces managed to expel the Houthis from the district of Hays, some 100 km to the south of the al-Hudaydah provincial center.

Saudi-backed forces also advanced in the districts of al-Jarrahi and Jabal Ra’s. At the same time they managed to secure some positions in the district of Maqbanah in the nearby province of Taiz.

The coalition claims that the decision to withdraw from al-Hudaydah was the result of the Houthis’ repeated violations of the UN-brokered ceasefire and the group’s control over several Red Sea ports, including that of al-Hudaydah, but it is obvious that supporting Marib was the main reason.

Saudi-backed forces kicked off a military operation in the central province of Shabwah on November 20, just to pressure the Houthis.

Clashes around Marib and other locations throughout Yemen are likely to intensify before the end of the year, as the increased activity on both sides is more than evident. The Houthis appear to have the upper hand, but no crushing blow of any sort has been dealt to the Saudi-led coalition.

*

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

A Memorial to the Terrorists. Michael Moore

November 24th, 2021 by Michael Moore

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Eleven days ago on Veterans Day, while watching the cable news, I learned that our Congress, never missing a chance to ingratiate themselves with what they think Middle America wants — more money for the military, more flags flying everywhere, more fake patriotism and more pandering to the fake patriots — decided it was time to create a brand new national memorial on the already overcrowded National Mall in Washington, D.C., between the Lincoln Memorial and the U.S. Capitol building. The memorial will be called “The Global War on Terrorism Memorial.” I’m not making this up. 

And what patriotic politician or red-blooded American wouldn’t be in favor of that!

Well, me. I’m not in favor of it. And I hope you won’t be, either.

A memorial to the victims, the brave Americans who’ve died in The Global War on Terrorism. Is this an Onion prank? An Orwell novel? Because my first question is — the victims of whose terrorism? The scattered actions of a few crazed Muslims?

Or the massive, organized, government-sponsored terror from a half-crazed Christian nation where half of its people still worship an orange man in a long red tie?

It turns out, this proposed memorial is not to honor those Third World people who’ve been slain by the sword in our hands. It’s for our dead! Would anyone mind if I stated an inconvenient fact? Other than the horrific, tragic loss of nearly 3,000 people in just two hours on that one day in September of 2001, the total number of Americans slaughtered by foreign terrorists over the past 50 years, is perhaps an average grand total of 10-20 people a year.

Every life is precious. But let me give this some perspective. By any means of mathematics, history, or honesty, when it comes to creating terror and killing the innocent, the USA is the modern day Genghis Khan and Bubonic Plague rolled into one. Whether it’s the four million we killed invading and bombing Southeast Asia in the 60s and 70s, or the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed by the sanctions we’ve imposed on Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, the former Yugoslavia and Syria over the years, or the 200,000 George W. Bush killed in his 2003 Iraqi invasion, or the one million Iranians who died when Bush’s Daddy and Reagan backed and armed Saddam in his invasion of Iran in the ‘80s (and when that killing wasn’t enough, we switched and began selling arms to both sides, just for fun).

As D.H. Lawrence once pointed out, “the essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer.” Our European ancestors came here and committed an unimaginable genocide of the Native Peoples, and it would not be until the democratically-elected Adolph Hitler came to power that the world would once again see such a level of bloodshed and madness.

While we were killing off the American Indians, our European forefathers also went to Africa to kidnap human beings and bring them in chains to America and force them, under the most brutal conditions, to build this new country for us, to farm it for us, to raise many of our children — all while our white slave masters raped their women on a daily basis and lynched any of them who dared to learn to read. Terror? Oh, ya. We wrote the user’s manual on it.

But this new potential National Monument on Global Terror is not about the terror we’ve committed. It’s to honor Americans who’ve been killed by foreign terrorists. And to honor our troops who have killed those terrorists and their innocent families. The irony is so rich and so depressing. A nation that terrorized and slaughtered the people who were already here, and that has been killing Black people from 1619 right up through George Floyd and beyond, a nation populated by numerous white supremacist terrorists who will never see a day in jail (in fact, they now get seats in Congress), and the nearly two million people of color incarcerated, hunted, detained, chained by an ankle bracelet — mostly to terrorize their neighbors and families to prove to them just exactly who it is that runs this damn country.

So now the chief terrorists are planning to build a memorial to themselves, to heap praise on themselves over how valiantly they have fought terrorism. Wow. Talk about hubris! Like the Brits constructing a memorial to themselves for how well they fought off the Catholics in Belfast.

Or the Spanish honoring their vicious Inquisition.

Or the Israelis building a monument to how many Palestinian civilians they’ve killed.

Or a statue to “Feminist Leader Mitch McConnell” for his work in getting the government to take control over women’s reproductive organs.

Please. Let’s get our definition of terms straight. It is terrorism when thousands of police are hired to contain the poor in slums and trailers. It is terrorism to seize a family’s home because they can’t pay their child’s hospital bill. It is terrorism to send those children to dilapidated schools ensuring their lifetime of poverty. It is terrorism when 40 million people in your country are hungry, 50 million can’t read or write above a 5th grade level, and a million others must sleep on the streets or under bridges. Infrastructure! It’s all about the optics when terrorizing the poor is the main idea.

And what good terrorist wouldn’t want to claim the mantle of the victim instead of being the terrorizer? Of course, many whom we have labeled as “terrorists” are in fact the victims of ours or others’ terror. Is a Palestinian mother whose home has been bulldozed and her children killed — and then she responds in what we would call the self-defense of her family and country with an act of violence against those who did the killing — is she a terrorist? Or is she a patriot, a colonial, a Yank, a freedom fighter? When we invaded Iraq and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, and then some of those civilians in turn made IEDs and placed them on the roads to kill our invading troops, were they the “enemy terrorists,” or were they simply trying to defend their homes and save their own lives?

The nation that terrorizes not only the world but its own people (as we do) does not have the moral right to build a memorial to itself as the “victims” of terror and the defenders of the innocents. And to build it right next to the Vietnam War Memorial, a monument that exists to remind us of our own senseless acts of terrorism on the Vietnamese people, a memorial that stands with its nearly 60,000 names as an apology to our young dead, a monument that sorrowfully screams NEVER AGAIN. A granite wall that is inscribed with the names of the nine boys from my high school who were sent there to die. In vain. For nothing. That’s why you honor them with a memorial.

But our current Congress hopes we will stand by and allow a monument to a Lie sit beside the World War II memorial to my uncle killed in the Philippines, your grandfather who died on the beach in Normandy, your father who sacrificed his life that day in Pearl Harbor. Let’s not allow this degradation of their lives by those who seek to politicize our National Mall. We already have numerous 9/11 memorials. We need a Wounded Knee memorial. We need restitution (or something similar) to the descendants of slaves. We need a monument to the millions of American women raped by American men, and the hundreds of millions of women who since our beginning have been held back, held down, the door shut in their face, the better job denied, only allowed, to this day, to hold just 26% of the seats in Congress when they are, in fact, the majority gender. We need a Rosa Parks Day.

We need someone to forgive us.

*

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

On November 28, more than 5 million Hondurans will be asked to elect the President of the Republic, 128 deputies to the National Congress, 20 to the Central American Parliament, 298 mayors and more than 2 thousand municipal councillors.

As the election date approaches, the political atmosphere has become polarized, conflict has intensified and social tension grown.

No one has forgetten the violent repression of 2017 against those who protested against the gross electoral fraud that prolonged the agony of the current government regime. At that time, more than thirty people lost their lives violently and these crimes have remained in total impunity.

The bloody events of the last few days reawaken the ghosts of that violence and repression.

On November 11, a Liberal Party candidate for councillor, Óscar Moya, was shot several times in Santiago de Puringla (La Paz). Two days later the mayor of Cantarranas (Francisco Morazán) and candidate for reelection for the Liberal Party, Francisco Gaitán, was assassinated.

The following day the leader of the opposition Libertad y Refundación (Libre) Party, Elvir Casaña, and a Liberal Party activist, Luis Gustavo Castellanos, were killed in San Luis (Santa Bárbara) and San Jerónimo (Copán), respectively. Two other activists were wounded in the deadly attack on Castellanos.

On November 15, another attack killed Dario Juarez, a Liberal Party vice-mayor candidate in the municipality of Concordia (Olancho). Two days later, unknown persons made an attempt on the lives of Héctor Estrada, independent candidate for mayor of Campamento (Olancho) and Juan Carlos Carbajal, candidate for mayor of El Progreso for the Salvador Party of Honduras.

According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Honduras and the National Violence Observatory (ONV) of the National Autonomous University of Honduras (UNAH), more than 30 violent deaths have been registered in the context of the current electoral process, which is shaping up to be even more violent than that of 2017.

The Observatory reported at least 64 cases of electoral violence up until October 25, including 27 homicides and 11 attacks. To these must be added the most recent attacks that took the lives of five people in five days (as detailed above) and other non-fatal attacks.

The OHCHR condemned these acts of electoral violence “that affect the right to political participation” and urged the authorities to carry out “prompt, thorough and impartial investigations”.

A legacy of impunity

“These murders of local leaders are a prelude to what could happen during and after the elections. Let us remember that all this is happening after the approval in Congress of reforms and laws that deepen the criminalization of social protest and citizen mobilization,” warned Bertha Oliva, coordinator of the Committee of Relatives of the Detained and Disappeared in Honduras (Cofadeh).

“They have been practically legalizing repression against those who demonstrate their discontent and defend human rights. These are the results,” she added.

In 2017, repression against those protesting the electoral fraud orchestrated by the ruling National Party claimed the lives of 37 innocent victims (Cofadeh 2018). Of all these cases only one was successfully prosecuted and the charges against the police officer accused of shooting and killing were dismissed.

“The chain of command was never investigated, nor the context in which these deaths were caused. The dictatorship gave the military police guarantees of impunity to capture, torture and execute opponents in the streets. This only generates the conditions for similar and even more violent events to be repeated”, predicted the human rights defender.

In this sense, Cofadeh will be monitoring and denouncing any electoral crimes committed before and during Election Day, as well as violations against people exercising their right to vote.

Three for the presidency

Of the 16 presidential aspirants, only three have a real chance of winning: Xiomara Castro of the opposition Libre Party, who leads most polls; Nasry “Tito” Asfura Zablah of the National Party, main opponent of the former first lady and Yani Rosenthal of the Liberal Party, representing the other traditional party in Honduras but with little chance of victory.

For Xiomara Castro, this is her second attempt to reach the presidency of the country, after the allegations of fraud around the questionable defeat she suffered in 2013 at the hands of Juan Orlando Hernandez.

After the public presentation of her “Government Plan to Refound Honduras 2022-2026”, Castro and Salvador Nasralla (of the Salvador Party of Honduras) formed an alliance, joined by the Innovation and Unity Party (Pinu), some sectors of the Liberal Party and an independent candidacy. In order to join efforts and potential votes, Nasralla renounced his presidential candidacy and supported Libre’s candidacy.

Nasralla, an eccentric, well known sports talk show host, was the 2017 presidential candidate of the Opposition Alliance against the Dictatorship, which also included Libre and Pinu and which received the support of a wide range of social, popular and union organizations.

On that occasion, the Alliance denounced the unconstitutionality of a new candidacy of Juan Orlando Hernández, since in Honduras the Constitution prohibited presidential reelection. The Alliance also mobilized for weeks against the electoral fraud that deprived Nasralla of the presidential seat, with the tacit consent of the United States, the European Union and the OAS.

“Tito” Asfura, popularly known as “Papi a la orden”, has been mayor of Tegucigalpa for two terms (2014-2022) for the ruling National party. A businessman with more than 30 years occupying governmental and legislative positions, he was a shareholder of an offshore company in Panama while still a public official. In the end, the said company ended up under the control of Banco Ficohsa, owned by the powerful Atala Faraj family.

In June of this year, the Court of Appeals suspended a pre-trial hearing against Asfura for abuse of authority, use of false documents, embezzlement of public funds, fraud and money laundering. In order to reactivate the hearing, the Superior Court of Accounts will have to carry out a special audit on the funds investigated by the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

According to information published in recent days, the former mayor of Tegucigalpa has also been linked to the notorious “Diamante” corruption case involving the mayor of San José, Costa Rica, Johnny Araya, who is being investigated by Costa Rican authorities for alleged bribes in exchange for public works.

The third candidate is former congressman and banker Yani Rosenthal, who in 2017 was indicted and sentenced to three years in prison in the United States for participating in financial transactions using illicit proceeds (drug money laundering). He voluntarily turned himself in and was held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York but returned to Honduras in mid-2020.

Both the investigations carried out by US prosecutors and the media Pandora Papers investigation revealed the connection between the Rosenthal family, one of the richest in the region, and several offshore companies that may have been used to launder money.

Programs and proposals

In her government program, Xiomara Castro points out the need to rebuild the democracy broken by the 2009 coup and to re-found the country through a Constituent Assembly that “gathers all sectors to agree on the legal bases of their future coexistence in a new consensual order”, leading the nation towards the construction of a democratic socialist state. While, by contrast, both Asfura and Rosenthal propose the same worn out neoliberal recipes that have led Honduras to be among the poorest and most unequal countries of the continent.

“Xiomara proposes a government of national reconciliation that includes all sectors of the opposition. A government that aims to overcome these disastrous years that have deepened the neoliberal model, privatizing services, ceding national territory, handing over public goods, expanding extractivism, putting national sovereignty up for sale,” said Gilberto Ríos, candidate for congressman for Libre.

The social movement leader explained that Libre’s government plan proposes to move from a deeply oligarchic State to a democratic socialist one. Among many other points, it intends to repeal all those laws and reforms approved by the dictatorship, which deeply harm the interests and rights of the immense majority of the Honduran population.

Thus, we are talking about, among others, the Hourly Employment Law that deepens labor insecurity and annuls the rights of workers, the Secrecy Law that blocks public auditing of State funds, as well as the Surveillance Law  that allows spying on the political opposition and too the Organic Law of the Economic Development Zones (ZEDEs) that violates national sovereignty. It is also expected to reverse reforms made to the Penal Code that criminalize social protest and mobilization.

“It will be a more redistributive government, of social works and projects, that defends human rights, consistent with the needs and security of the population. In this sense – clarified Ríos – we differentiate ourselves from the other candidates and political parties because they are openly neoliberal and represent the interests of the Honduran oligarchy, transnational capital and the old bipartisanship. That is what it is all about: defeating the traditional bipartisanship and neoliberalism”.

How is Honduras now?

The Central American country arrives at these elections in difficult conditions, to put it euphemistically.

Honduras currently ranks among the most unequal countries in Latin America, with 62 percent of the population mired in poverty and almost 40 percent in extreme poverty (EPHPM 2020). According to a recent report by the National Institute of Statistics (INE 2021), removed from the institution’s website twelve hours after its publication, in July 2021 poverty had reached 73.6 percent of the population.

That increase is also the result of disappointing government management in the face of the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic and the two hurricanes that struck the country last year.

According to figures from the Technical Unit for Food and Nutritional Security (Utsan), 1.3 million Hondurans face food insecurity and almost 350 thousand people are in a “critical situation”. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate has reached 10% of the economically active population (EAP), perhaps the highest in the Latin American region. There are at least 4 million Hondurans with employment problems and more than 700 thousand unemployed workers.

Faced with this scenario, thousands of families have taken irregular migration as their only option, the vast majority of whom are being held up at the borders. It is a portrait of one of the deepest tragedies of the last 40 years.

“In the last ten years Honduras has had a frank deterioration, not only in the rule of law in general, in democratic institutionality, in the population’s access to basic services and in the fight against poverty, but also socio-economically. When one looks at all these indicators, one realizes that rather than a failed state, we should speak of a dead state,” said Ismael Zepeda, economist at the Social Forum on Foreign Debt and Development of Honduras (Fosdeh).

Currently Honduras’ public debt exceeds 70% of GDP: the country’s economic growth is concentrated mainly in three sectors: financial, energy and telecommunications.

“These are sectors that do not produce development, nor do they generate redistribution, rather they produce more concentration of weath. In addition, we have an army of more than 250,000 public employees who absorb almost 50% of the budget, while there is a worrying drop in revenue. The situation is unsustainable and will represent a very heavy burden for whoever wins the elections”, explained Zepeda.

For years, the National Party has maintained a supernumerary staff, mainly composed of party activists. In practice, it has plundered the State so as to employ its political leaders and create client networks so as to stay in power.

State reengineering

For the Fosdeh economist, an immediate reengineering of the government, a reconversion of the productive system, a fiscal pact to dynamize the economy and efforts towards progressive taxation are necessary. Likewise, it is imperative to guarantee transparency, accountability and the fight against corruption, while promoting a strategy of internal and external debt reduction.

Finally, the generation of decent jobs, the creation of programs that prevent the deepening of poverty, more equitable management and redistributive policies to reduce social inequality, are also key elements the new government must implement.

“When a country is mired in a multiple crisis and has badly deteriorated, it is easy, so to speak, for a candidate to make promises. The most important thing, then, is not so much what is offered, but the way in which things eventually get done”, concluded Zepeda.

Labor insecurity

The 2009 coup d’état in Honduras not only broke the institutional framework and strengthened the oligarchy and elite power groups, but also allowed the governments that followed the coup to deepen the neoliberal extractivist model, encouraging the plundering of national territory and public wealth and increasingly deregulating the labor market.

For Joel Almendares, secretary general of the United Confederation of Honduran Workers (CUTH), the impacts of these policies on labor and union rights have been devastating for the vast majority of the population.

“There has been a growing deregulation of labor, coupled with the deepening of labor flexibilization and insecurity. One of the most nefarious laws has undoubtedly been the Hourly Employment Law: rights have been lost and permanent jobs have been made precarious,” said Almendares.

“There were also companies or institutions that simply changed their name or corporate name and did away with unions. Others created parallel unions to counteract a genuine organizing process,” he added.

Regression

All of these anti-worker measures have negatively impacted the safeguarding of rights.

“There are clear setbacks in the right to free unionization and collective bargaining. The programs to generate employment have been a mockery, tailored to the interests of large transnationals. Juan Orlando Hernández has definitely been a disaster for the labor and union sector”, stated the CUTH general secretary.

Another factor contributing to the deepening of the crisis has been the behavior of the government’s labor authorities.

“Shielding themselves behind the need to generate employment and supposed development, they have been biased and have systematically protected the interests of big national and transnational capital. They have done so at the expense of the rights of workers, abandoning them and allowing the violation of their rights. They have not protected them, and have been their executioners instead,” he lamented.

In view of this situation, the CUTH presented the Libre candidate with the political proposal of the union sector where, among other points, it calls for the immediate repeal of the above mentioned laws, to put a stop to outsourcing and labor insecurity, and to guarantee respect for the Teachers’ Statute and the ILO conventions[1].

The cancer of corruption

On November 17, the feature film “At the edge of the shadows” (you can see it here) was released in a movie theater in Tegucigalpa, a documentary that reflects the web of corruption, impunity, territorial dispossession and violence experienced by the Honduran people, forced to confront perverse plans that operate from the shadows.

Luís Méndez, member of the collective ‘La Cofradía’ that made the documentary, explained that the objective of the work is precisely to show citizens how corruption networks are formed and how they are articulated to involve politicians, public officials, national and transnational economic groups in a way cutting across all society.

The documentary addresses four crucial areas: the looting of Social Security and the health crisis caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, the dispossession of territories and pubic wealth, the co-optation of the justice system and its collusion with corruption, organized crime and the criminalization of protest. The fourth area has to do with the concept of democracy in a context as broken as the Honduran one.

Through key characters and experts, and with the participation of the current head of the Specialized Prosecutor Unit against Corruption Networks (Uferco), Luis Javier Santos, to tie up loose ends, the film rocks the country’s foundations, shaking up the conscience of the people, showing how Honduras is controlled by a criminal network that has ruled since the 2009 coup, and has become entrenched in the state apparatus.

“The documentary provokes disappointment, anger and rage, but also leaves the feeling that we are not defeated, that it is possible to fight, as many organizations and people do from the territories and cities.

In the midst of so much State violence, in the midst of a State held hostage – continued Méndez – there is resistance and struggle. As Berta Cáceres said, our peoples know how to do justice and they do it following their own trajectory, from their resistance, from their struggle for emancipation”.

Enough is enough!

A few days before the elections, the Convergence against Continuity, a platform made up of several organizations and personalities, made a public statement and recalled that these elections “are being held in a context of narco-dictatorship, whose creators came to control the State by violent and unconstitutional means and are not willing to hand over power by democratic political means”.

In this sense, the Convergence ratified its repudiation of “the mafia led by Juan Orlando Hernandez” and warned of the possibility that, in view of an imminent defeat, “he may orchestrate a new and violent electoral fraud by manipulating the voting process and vote counting”.

Finally, they made a vehement call to the Honduran people to “mobilize massively to the polls” and defend their vote “from these anti-democratic machinations”.

They also urged them to punish with their vote “the criminal group that has hijacked the State” and to vote for those candidates “who have shown firm signs of being against the narco-dictatorship, of fighting against corruption and for the defense of national sovereignty”.

Violence against human rights defenders

Several international reports, including “Last Line of Defense” published this year by the British organization Global Witness, point to Honduras as one of the most dangerous places in the world for human rights defenders, especially for those who defend land and common wealth.

The emblematic cases of the murder of Berta Cáceres, the disappearance of the Garífuna activists of Triunfo de la Cruz and the illegal imprisonment of the eight water and life defenders of Guapinol are a clear example of what is happening in the country.

The use and abuse of the justice system and the collusion of the State with extractive companies are two of the elements that characterize the systematic violation of human rights in Honduras.

According to Global Witness, in 2020 at least 129 Garifuna and indigenous people suffered attacks for opposing extractive projects and 153 defenders have been murdered in the last decade. In addition, the Center for Information on Business and Human Rights (Ciedh) points to Honduras as the country with the most judicial harassment against human rights defenders.

The situation of women and LGBTI people is also dramatic.

The Women’s Human Rights Observatory of the Women’s Rights Center (CDM) reports that in the first five months of the year, the Public Ministry registered a total of 1,423 complaints of sexual crimes (9.5 per day). Of these, 1,238 were attacks against women (8.1 per day) and 63.4 percent (785) were against minors. These data confirm that in Honduras a woman or girl is sexually assaulted every 3 hours.

In the last ten years, 4,707 women have been murdered in Honduras. 710 were killed in the last two years (2019-2020) and 301 women were victims of femicide up until November 15 of this year. Impunity is practically absolute.

According to the Observatory of Violent Deaths of the Catrachas Lesbian Network, in just over 12 years 390 LGBTI people have been murdered, 17 so far this year. Ninety-one percent of the cases remain in complete oblivion and impunity. Only 9 percent of perpetrators are convicted.

In recent months, a large and representative group of women’s and feminist organizations held a discussion with Xiomara Castro to present their demands and proposals. The activity led to the signing of a ‘State Pact’, the content of which will be implemented if Xiomara is elected as the first woman president of Honduras.

Similarly, in her government plan, Xiomara pledged to implement public policies safeguarding the existence and guaranteed access to fundamental human rights for LGBTI people (p.64).

Voting against the dictatorship

The Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (Copinh) added its voice “in moments of the battle for survival in the face of the maximum expression of dispossession, fear and violence in the history of our country under a de facto and authoritarian government.”

Although the ballot box will not change Honduras – explains the Copinh communiqué – voting against the dictatorship that governs us will be a step. The Honduran people, for the most part, will cast a vote of rejection in the face of all the accumulated suffering.

The organization co-founded by Berta Cáceres alerted the population that “the conditions for fraud are in place” and expressed that as citizens “we are preparing to reject the electoral fraud at grass roots”.

Finally, Copinh urged the immediate convocation of a Popular and Democratic Constituent Assembly “that will give rise to the reconstruction of our country, assuming the historical demands of the indigenous, black and peasant communities, women, migrant communities, workers, LGBTI community, church sectors, among others, to repeal all legislation that exposes the peoples to the surrender of their territories and the violation of their rights”.

“We call on the peoples – concludes the communiqué – to activate the organizational, articulation and debate processes to achieve Berta Cáceres’ urgent dream of re-founding Honduras. The people of Honduras need a people’s government to confront the economic sectors that have enriched themselves unjustly in these 12 years of attacks on indigenous, black and peasant peoples and the majority of the population”.

The challenge of putting an end to neoliberalism

Undoubtedly, next Sunday’s elections represent a very important move on the Honduran political and social chessboard.

“The citizenry has an enormous desire for change. They want to have an alternative to what they have had to live through during these years. They expect a process to begin of recovery of lost rights. They want to have opportunities, that their territories and national sovereignty be respected,” explained sociologist and political analyst Eugenio Sosa.

“Honduras is at a crossroads. It must choose between the continuity of a regime and its failed model or the beginning of a process of openness and change”, added the analyst.

Will the regime respect an eventual defeat or will it seek, as in 2017, an illegal way to retain power, asks Sosa.

“People have not forgotten what happened four years ago. There is a lot of uncertainty around how the electoral authorities will behave, the vote count, the transmission of results, the identification of poll station personnel to avoid the purchase of credentials. At the same time there is a determination never seen before and Xiomara (Castro) has been able to rescue and bring together a consensus of wide and diverse sectors of Honduran society”, he concluded.

*

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 Spanish here.

Notes

[1] Conventions on freedom of association, collective bargaining, labor relations in the public administration, domestic workers, violence and harassment in the world of work, free, prior and informed consultation.

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Bergner, who formerly belonged to the FDP parliamentary group in the Thuringian state parliament, has meanwhile switched to the Citizens for Thuringia party. She had commissioned two statisticians to investigate whether there was a connection between the vaccination rate and excess mortality in the 16 German federal states.

Prof. Dr. Rolf Steyer and Dr. Gregor Kappler analyzed the period from week 36 to week 40 and the results are truly disconcerting. The summary of the analysis states that excess mortality can be found in all 16 states.

The number of Covid deaths reported by the RKI in the period under review consistently only represents a relatively small part of excess mortality and above all cannot explain the critical issue – the higher the vaccination rate, the higher the excess mortality.

The most obvious explanation however is that being fully vaccinated increases the likelihood of death.

Of course, other explanations are possible but not very likely:

  • The higher the proportion of old people, the higher the vaccination rate and excess mortality. Therefore, the vaccination rate and excess mortality also correlate. (This explanation is not very plausible, however, as the proportion of old people would have to have changed significantly between 2016-2020 on the one hand and 2021 on the other.)
  • Higher vaccination rates are achieved through increased stress and anxiety in the country concerned, and the latter lead to higher numbers of deaths.

“Further explanations are by no means excluded. Some of them may be backed up with numbers and should be investigated further. We are very grateful for suggestions of this kind,” Bergner said.

Thuringia (4 percent) and Saxony (2 percent), the two states with the lowest vaccination rates, also have the lowest excess mortality. The front runner is Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania with a vaccination rate of 66 percent and an excess mortality rate of 16 percent. All the vaccinated states showed a double-digit increase.

Results require ‘urgent clarification’

The correlation coefficient is +0.31. In the eyes of the two data scientists this is “astonishingly high”. Especially since the believers in the vaccine are claiming the opposite but provide no proof for their notion of “protection”. One should at the least expect a different relationship: the more vaccinations, the lower the mortality. After all, the intention was to protect people.

“The excess mortality increases with the increase in the vaccination rate. This requires urgent clarification,” demanded the two statisticians. Furthermore, in view of “the pending political measures aimed at containing the virus […] this figure is worrying and requires explanation if further political measures are to be taken with the aim of increasing the vaccination rate.”

The study was handed over to the Thuringian state parliament for assessment.

At the end of her speech, Ute Bergner emphasized: “A person’s worth does not depend on their vaccination status.”

*

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: Dr Ute Bergner. Facebook

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The UK is sleepwalking into a racist two-tier system of citizenship following the revelation that Home Secretary, Priti Patel, had quietly introduced a highly controversial plan last week to strip people of citizenship without giving them notice to appeal. The question is, is this really about combatting Daesh terrorists or does Patel have a new target in mind?

New proposals smuggled into the Nationality and Border Bill, will give power to British officials to deprive a person of their citizenship while exempting the government from having to give notice if it is not “reasonably practicable” to do so.

Revoking someone’s citizenship is generally seen as a highly controversial move and a feature of extremely repressive authoritarian regimes. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines having a nationality as a right and forbids governments from arbitrarily depriving someone of their citizenship. A UN convention from 1961 goes further, and bans the withdrawal of citizenship based on race, religion or someone one’s political views.

Governments that have included revocation of citizenship in their authoritarian arsenal usually justify it on the grounds of combatting terrorism, a term which, in recent years, has been abused to include political opposition and, in Israel, human rights groups that have been exposing the occupation state’s many violations. Critics point out that, not only is revocation of citizenship a modern form of banishment, it also inadvertently hampers global security by leaving terrorists abroad, rather than imprisoning—or at least controlling—them domestically.

As is often the case with draconian laws, justified invariably on the grounds that they will be used in exceptional circumstances, the revocation of citizenship has become a standard practice uniting autocrats and dictators across the world with democracies.

In the UK, where the power to strip British nationals of citizenship was introduced as far back as 2005 following the terrorist attack in London, the practice has been constantly on the rise. Though this power was used on rare occasions at the beginning, a decade later it became a feature of the Tory government. In the five years during which former Prime Minister, Theresa May, served as Home Secretary, 33 individuals were stripped of their British nationality, a report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found. These numbers continued to increase, reaching to as high as one hundred in 2017 that were stripped of their citizenship in a single year.

With the new proposals introduced by Patel, the Tory government is set to remove all constraints and weaponise citizenship in a manner not seen in the UK. Under current rules, the Home Office must make some effort to notify the person before revoking citizenship. This is no longer the case. The proposal also grants powers to strip citizenship retrospectively to cases where an individual was stripped of citizenship without notice before the clause became law, raising questions about their ability to appeal.

Unsurprisingly, the proposal has been met with strong condemnation. “This clause would give Priti Patel unprecedented power to remove your citizenship in secret, without even having to tell you, and effectively deny you an appeal,” Maya Foa, the Director of Reprieve is reported saying. “Under this regime, a person accused of speeding would be afforded more rights than someone at risk of being deprived of their British nationality. This, once again, shows how little regard this government has for the rule of law”.

Arguing that the proposal violated the basic principle of the rule of law, a Guardian editorialdescribed the move as an “unfair and draconian measure that MPs ought to be ashamed to pass into law.” It also raised concerns over the proposal’s targeting of British Muslims saying that “despite being born and brought up in the UK and having no other home, their citizenship is far from secure.”

A petition to block the proposal coming into law is nearing 100 thousand signatures. Pointing out that even the worst criminals are allowed the right of appeal, the petition warned that the proposal is “especially problematic to British Asian Muslims against whom this law has been used.” It also stressed that Muslims born in the UK will be living in constant fear and that their protected status as a citizen will no longer carry the same value as the protected status of all other groups in society. Interestingly, a petition which ran for six months urging the UK government to revoke citizenship only received eight signatures.

Patel’s timing of the proposal, which coincides with her designation of Palestinian resistant movement Hamas as a terrorist organisation, has also raised suspicion over the intended target of the proposal. “The quick succession in which the government’s right to remove anyone’s citizenship without notice, and the designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation, were passed, could not have been a coincidence” said British political commentator, Dr Anas Al-Tikriti.

It does not take much imagination to see how the designation of Hamas as a terrorist group could pave the way for the Tory government to target pro-Palestinian activists and aid workers raising money for the two million besieged Palestinians living under Israel’s brutal siege and strip British activists of their citizenship over alleged support of another group added to the ever-growing list of terrorist organisations.

Patel is, after all, a great friend of Israel. She sparked controversy in her previous role as British aid minister when she asked officials within her department to look into whether UK development aid money could be funnelled into serving the Israeli army; conducted 12 secret meetings with high level Israeli officials, discussed British government business with former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, without Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) officials being present and ignored strict government ministerial guidelines demanded of her office.

When details of her unauthorised meetings with Israeli officials were uncovered, Patel apologised for misleading the public. She initially claimed she had gone on a family holiday to Israel when, in fact, her trip was organised by the Conservative Friends of Israel lobby (CFI). Not only was Patel accused of running a private parallel foreign policy, senior Conservative MP’s also complained that the British media were turning a blind eye to the corrupt relationship that has allowed Israel to “buy access” in Westminster. Israeli opposition politician, Isaac Herzog, and the current President described Patel’s fall from grace as a “great loss for Israel.”

To repeat Al-Tikriti “Who gets to benefit from over 4 million British citizens constantly worrying whether or not a letter will come through declaring them non-nationals and ordering them to leave?”

It’s hard to see how Patel’s attempt to drag UK further to the right and align the country with Arab autocrats and an apartheid Israeli regime that labels peaceful human rights advocacy groups as terrorists, serves in any shape or form Britain’s interest.

*

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.

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

It is increasingly apparent that America’s political and military elites are almost never held to account for their blunders or even outright crimes. The latest episode is the Pentagon’s multi-year campaign to conceal information about a March 2019 airstrike in Syria that killed as many as 64 civilians, including women and children. Despite the New York Times’ expose, there is no indication that the individuals responsible for that atrocity or the subsequent cover up will face any serious consequences.

The military’s behavior in that case is essentially the same as its obfuscation and reluctant backpedaling about the August 2021 drone strike in Kabul that killed an innocent aid worker and his family. At the time the attack took place, the Pentagon insisted that the targeted individual was a terrorist affiliated with ISIS-K, and that “secondary explosions” after the drone missile hit the van he and the other passengers were riding in proved that the vehicle was carrying bombs and bomb-making components. Gen. Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, went out of his way to describe the drone response not just as a necessary military action, but as a “righteous strike.”

Washington’s official version of events soon unraveled. Yet even when the military belatedly recanted the initial cover story and admitted that numerous children had been killed, Pentagon leaders simply shrugged off the incident as a regrettable “error.” Typically, not only were the personnel who negligently authorized the attack shielded from punishment, so were the official propagandists who had lavishly circulated the original misinformation.

None of this should come as a surprise. The latest episodes are reminiscent of the Navy’s behavior when one of its warships in the Persian Gulf, the USS Vincennes, shot down an Iranian airliner with 290 people aboard in July 1988. Navy spokesmen initially insisted to a credulous news media that the Iranians were entirely responsible – that the flight took place outside the boundaries of the civilian air corridor, that the plane was not sending signals on a proper civilian transponder, and that the plane was descending in a potentially threatening manner toward the Navy vessel. All of those statements were false. Even when the truth finally began to emerge months later, though, no disciplinary actions were taken against the individuals responsible for the tragedy or their colleagues who tried to cover it up. Indeed, some of them were awarded medals.

Given that the institutions guilty of such misconduct are not held to account, it is hardly surprising that the leaders of those power centers enjoy similar immunity. Indeed, even when it is indisputable that they have committed outright crimes, they escape punishment entirely or receive nothing more than the proverbial slap on the wrist. Several cases in recent years confirm that corrupt reality, especially the sweetheart deals given to Bill Clinton’s former national security adviser, Samuel R “Sandy” Berger, former CIA director David Petraeus, and FBI assistant general counsel Kevin Clinesmith. .

After leaving the Clinton administration, Berger served as a top foreign policy adviser to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) during Kerry’s 2004 run for president. But evidence emerged during the campaign that in 2000 Berger had illegally removed classified documents on two separate occasions from the National Archives – reportedly by stuffing them down his pants before exiting a secure reading room. The following year, after months of negotiations with federal prosecutors, he entered a guilty plea to a single misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified material.

It was, to put it mildly, an extremely generous offer by the government. Berger had to pay a $50,000 fine and relinquish his security clearance for three years. The court also sentenced him to 100 hours of community service. Someone with Berger’s economic status likely could pay $50,000 out of the family’s petty cash account, and losing access to classified material for only three years instead of permanently was stunningly mild.

The Petraeus case appeared to be an even clearer example of the Washington establishment protecting one of its own. His criminal conduct occurred when he served as the commander of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, although it did not come to light until later when he was head of the CIA during Barack Obama’s administration. After a lengthy FBI investigation, Petraeus admitted that he gave highly-classified journals to his lover, Paula Broadwell, who was writing his biography. He also admitted that he had lied to FBI and CIA investigators about his conduct when first questioned.

Despite such misconduct, he only had to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified information. As part of the plea bargain, the general did not have to serve a single day behind bars. His sentence consisted of two years’ probation and a $100,000 fine. Although the latter might seem to be a significant financial penalty, it is reportedly less than Petraeus still charges for a single speaking engagement on his very active lecture circuit.

A similar sweetheart deal occurred in January 2021, when federal judge James Boasberg sentenced Kevin Clinesmith, who admitted falsifying evidence submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court for a warrant to spy on onetime Trump foreign-policy adviser Carter Page. Clinesmith’s principal offense was altering an email (which confirmed that Page had been a CIA source) to create one that said the exact opposite. One might think that committing forgery to mislead the FISA court so that the bogus Russia collusion investigation could continue would be considered a serious, criminal offense, but apparently it was not deemed so. Boasberg sentenced Clinesmith to 12 months’ probation and 400 hours of community service.

One need only compare such treatment of elite political insiders with the penalties meted out to whistleblowers who dare expose the crimes of US military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies to see a flagrant double standard in operation. CIA agent John Kiriakou was given 30 months in federal prison for leaking documents confirming the Agency’s misdeeds. Daniel Hale, an analyst with the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, who disclosed classified information in the course of highlighting US government lies and abuses, also discovered the perverse double standard. Hale leaked documents from the US military conceding that up to 90 percent of people in drone strikes were not the intended targets, but were in many cases innocent civilians. Hale received 45 months for his temerity. Army Private Chelsea Manning’s penalty was the most shocking and draconian of all. For exposing the military’s war crimes in Iraq to WikiLeaks, including a fatal attack on Reuters correspondents, she was sentenced to 35 years, although President Obama commuted her sentence once she had served seven years. One can only imagine what Edward Snowden or Julian Assange will face if US authorities ever get their hands on either man.

The current political and legal system crucifies whistleblowers and other critics who expose the misdeeds of – or even just embarrass – the mandarins in charge of national security policy. Conversely, high-level officials and the institutions they serve are rarely, if ever, held accountable, even when there is evidence of criminal misconduct. It is then unsurprising that there is even less likelihood that they will face any meaningful consequences merely for malfeasance or incompetence. It is notable, for example, that no civilian or military official – none – has been fired for the spectacularly mismanaged withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan. America’s inept, corrupt, and pampered elites just sail on unimpeded, leaving the mounting wreckage of a country in their wake.

*

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.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is the author of 12 books and more than 950 articles on defense, foreign policy, and civil liberties issues.

Featured image is from the US Department of 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 @crg_globalresearch.

***

This report should be no surprise to visitors to this site. From the Russian government’s TASS news agency

US bombers practiced using nuclear weapons against Russia this month – Shoigu

Also see: B-52s join fellow nuclear-capable U.S. bombers in skies of Europe

U.S. expands deployment of all three strategic/nuclear-capable bombers to Europe

U.S. nuclear bombers complete latest deployment to Baltic and Black Seas

NATO chief: U.S. nuclear weapons could be transferred to nations bordering Russia

Russia sees US strategic bombers’ intensified activity in close proximity to its borders, Russia’s Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said on Tuesday.

“We are witnessing a considerable increase in the US strategic bombers’ activity near the Russian borders. Over the past month, they conducted about 30 flights to the borders of the Russian Federation, or 2.5 times more compared to the same period of last year,” Russia’s defense chief said during talks with his Chinese counterpart Wei Fenghe.

As the Russian defense minister stressed,

“this month, in the course of the US Strategic Command’s Global Thunder exercise, 10 strategic bombers practiced employing nuclear weapons against Russia actually simultaneously from the western and eastern directions.”

“The minimal distance from our state border was 20 km,” Shoigu pointed out.

US strategic bombers stepped up flights near eastern Russia, Shoigu says

US Air Force strategic bombers have significantly increased their activity close to the Russian eastern border as the pilots are practicing missile strikes, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said on Tuesday.

The flights also threaten China, he said during talks with China’s Defense Minister Wei Fenghe. There were 22 such flights in 2020 over the Sea of Okhotsk, up from three in 2019, Shoigu said.

‘’In the course of these activities, US bomber crews conduct practice approaches to cruise missile firing points with subsequent mock missile strikes,’’ Shoigu said.

From last year.

*

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.

Rick Rozoff, renowned author and geopolitical analyst, actively involved in opposing war, militarism and interventionism for over fifty years. He manages the Anti-Bellum and For peace, against war website

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

NATO Conducting Provocative Drills in Latvia

November 24th, 2021 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 @crg_globalresearch.

***

Once again, NATO is conducting a rather dangerous maneuvers in Eastern Europe with the aim of provoking Russia. Latvia is the new military drill arena for the Western Alliance, with the country receiving troops from across the Atlantic for a military event called the Winter Shield. This event is annual and provides the opportunity for forces from Latvia and the rest of NATO to act together, training war tactics for possible combat scenarios. However, as has become tradition in NATO, each year the exercises become more aggressive, bringing together a large number of agents, equipment and resources for the sole purpose of showing strength against Russia.

The Latvian armed forces issued a statement earlier this week in which it is possible to read: “From 21 November to 4 December, Latvia will host international military exercise ‘Winter Shield’ to test and upgrade the combat capabilities of Latvian and allied Armed forces units along with their integration and interoperability within Baltic region’s collective defense system”. Since Sunday, the forces of Latvia and other nations of the Alliance have been conducting maneuvers in the country, with a huge presence of agents and equipment from different countries.

Despite the presence of troops from the most diverse armies, the units that most allocated people to conduct drills were the Land Force Mechanized Infantry Brigade, National Guard, Special Operations Command, NATO Enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group, Baltic Battalion, and the US Special Operations Command Europe. As was to be expected, the Baltic countries sent in the greatest number of troops. It is also notorious the presence of foreign agents in the other Baltic nations during the exercises, with no restriction to the Latvian territory.

The Winter Shield is an annual military event, which is why its occurrence in 2021 was expected by all experts in geopolitics and military matters. However, this year the strength of the event seems to stand out even more. It is known that NATO has been concerned with making its operations in Eastern Europe – especially in the Baltics – more and more severe, significantly increasing the level of aggressiveness in its conduct in the region. With that, there is an effort for the exercises to show progressively more strength. While on previous occasions the maneuvers in Latvia did not receive much attention due to the large number of NATO simultaneous tests in the region, this year the event tends to be emphasized by the experts, both due to its long duration (two weeks) and for its intensity.

Apparently, one of the biggest focuses of the Winter Shield 2021 will be strengthening tactical air-to-land integration operations. In the announcement from the Latvian armed forces it is written: “A significant aspect of the exercise is also air to land integration with various air assets, including ‘AH-64 Apache’ Attack Helicopters from the 101st Combat Aviation Brigade falling under US Army Europe (USAREUR) and Operation ‘Atlantic Resolve’”. The tactical value of this type of operation grows every day, in a military context with great emphasis on the role played by air war vehicles.

In the same sense, these exercises complement the air-sea integration, which has been prominent in NATO’s Black Sea maneuvers. It is notorious that the Western alliance is creating a combat strategy focused on land operations in the Baltics and naval operations on the Ukrainian coast, with air warfare as the tactical integration point. The objective is to militarily occupy Eastern Europe in all possible ways, intensifying the encircling strategy against Russia.

Indeed, the main problem with these exercises is that they promote an unnecessary escalation of tensions amidst a complicated context of Russian-NATO relations. Recently, bilateral diplomacy between Moscow and the alliance was broken, after Russian diplomats were expelled from NATO headquarters due to unsubstantiated accusations of “espionage”. The organization has also been conducting increasingly dangerous operations in the Black Sea and progressively encouraging the extremist anti-Russian stance of the Kiev government – which is currently largely shared by the Baltic states.

There is also the issue of Central Asia, where NATO is openly considering allocating dozens of military bases in the coming months, under the excuse of “fighting terrorism”, further expanding its anti-Russia encircling strategy. So, the current moment is problematic and tense. Carrying out events with large military exercises in the current situation is admitting a high possibility of frictions and conflicts.

Unfortunately, for NATO, the possibility of conflict no longer appears to be a problem, but a goal. All recent episodes of aggressive military conduct and diplomatic disrespect have occurred on the part of NATO, which is increasingly violating the Russia-NATO Founding Act (a 1997 bilateral agreement which establish terms for peace between Moscow and NATO). In fact, the organization appears to be intensely seeking to create a conflict situation, which should be reason enough for international sanctions to be imposed as soon as possible on all member countries of the alliance that participate in such provocative maneuvers.

*

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 research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

The War on the ‘Unvaccinated’ Is a Desperate Attempt to Demonize and Destroy the Control Group

By Jordan Schachtel, November 23, 2021

Not a single “public health expert”-hailed mitigation or suppression measure, including the COVID shots, has done anything significant to solve the reality that lots of people get sick during their area’s annual respiratory season. This global war on a virus is going about as well as the War on Afghanistan went when it came to eliminating the Taliban.

Justin Trudeau Served with Legal Paperwork. You Too Can Serve Your Own Notice of Liability Especially if You’re a Parent Wanting to Protect Your Child!

By Howard Bertram, November 23, 2021

This PDF is a Notice of Liability to: Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, Dr Theresa Tam Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, Attorney General for Canada David Lametti and Superintendent Brenda Lucki, Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Lethal Injection; Frontline E.R. Doctor Gives Chilling Account of Unusual Vaccine-Induced Illness

By Mike Whitney, November 23, 2021

Mortality is rising because more people are dying. And more people are dying because more people have been vaccinated. There’s a link between rising mortality and the Covid-19 vaccine.

World-renowned ICU Doctor Sues Hospital for the Right to Use Safe and Effective COVID Treatments

By Dr. Leon Tressell, November 23, 2021

Dr Paul Marik, one of the world’s most published intensive care specialists, has filed a lawsuit against Sentara Norfolk Hospital to overturn its prohibition on him using FDA approved repurposed medicines in the ICU he oversees.

“Death Sentence of WEF’s “Great Reset”: Uniting Local Farmers with Local Buyers. The Imperative of Our Time

By Julian Rose, November 23, 2021

Independent small and medium sized farms have been handed a death sentence by Klaus Schwab head of The World Economic Forum. Schwab, and fellow architects of top-down control, have officially let it be known that under the policy known as ‘Green Deal’ traditional family farms are no longer wanted and the foods they produce are to be replaced by laboratory and genetically engineered synthetic lookalikes.

VAERS Data Reveals 50 X More Ectopic Pregnancies Following COVID Shots than Following All Vaccines for Past 30 Years

By Brian Shilhavy, November 23, 2021

While we reported on Saturday that the latest data dump into the government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) showed 2,620 fetal deaths, which are more fetal deaths than are reported following ALL vaccines for the past 30 years in VAERS, one “symptom” that is tracked in VAERS that I did not account for, is an ectopic pregnancy which also results in a fetal death.

Global Organization Attempts to End Free Speech Worldwide

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, November 23, 2021

If you suspected censorship was being coordinated on a global scale, you’d be right. The International Grand Committee on Disinformation (IGCD) consists of “an international array of legislators, policy advisers, and other experts” who work together “to forge international alliances that bring shared, effective strategies into the battle against online disinformation.” What could possibly go wrong?

Appeal for an Anti-Globalist Alliance: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

By His Excellency Carlo Maria Viganò, November 23, 2021

For two years now we have been witnessing a global coup d’état, in which a financial and ideological elite has succeeded in seizing control of part of national governments, public and private institutions, the media, the judiciary, politicians and religious leaders.

At Arms, the Enemy Is at the Gates! Frenzied US-NATO Militarization Escalation against Russia

By Manlio Dinucci, November 23, 2021

NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg met President Draghi on November 17 in Rome to address “the current security challenges” arising from “Russia’s military build-up in and around Ukraine”. Stoltenberg thanked Italy because it “contributes to our presence in the Baltic Region with the air policing and troops”.

Will the Unvaccinated Become an Enemy of the State? Close to the Breaking Point of Total Tyranny

By Timothy Alexander Guzman, November 23, 2021

Fascism has made its way back into Europe as Austria has become one of the first countries in the world to declare war on the unvaccinated as they recently announced that a lockdown will be in place for those who refuse the experimental injections, but they also decided to do the same for the vaccinated resulting in another lockdown of the country.

History of World War II: Operation Barbarossa, Analysis of Fighting, The Germans Surround Kiev and Leningrad

By Shane Quinn, November 23, 2021

In the second half of August 1941, the German strategic plan in their invasion of the USSR was drastically altered. Most of Army Group Center’s armor was dispatched southward to the Ukraine, with the Wehrmacht’s advance on Moscow postponed temporarily.

Remembering John F. Kennedy’s Vision for the Future that Should Have Been

By Matthew Ehret-Kump, November 23, 2021

Where China and Russia are currently leading a new paradigm of cooperation and development, it is too easily forgotten that America itself had once embodied this anti-colonial spirit under the foreign policy vision of John F. Kennedy. Even though the young leader died in office before the full effect of his grand vision could take hold, it is worth revisiting his fight and stated intention for a post-colonial world governed by win-win cooperation.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Appeal for an Anti-Globalist Alliance: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

On Sunday November 21, the international media began to report that the ousted interim Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok in the Republic of Sudan had been reinstated by the leader of the military junta General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan.

Hamdok had been held under house arrest after being deposed by the military on October 25 amid mass demonstrations, an earlier reported attempted coup and fierce debates over the future of the oil-rich state.

The revised deal between Hamdok, some technocratic leaders and others appointed to the al-Burhan-created new Sovereign Council, provides for the reconfiguration of yet another transitional administration that will oversee the country’s affairs until elections can be held supposedly during July 2023. Immediately skepticism was voiced by numerous opposition parties, mass organizations, trade unions and youth groupings.

Demonstrations which were scheduled for November 21 continued prompting even more repression by the police and military against the people. Several people were killed by the security forces as hundreds of thousands went into the streets to demand that the military junta leave their positions of absolute authority in Sudan.

The civilian-led Forces for Freedom and Change (FFC) have categorically dismissed the Hamdok statement made on November 21 as evidence that the military coup of October 25 is still in force. Hamdok was echoing the military plans to create what they have referred to as a “technocratic” cabinet that would obviously remain under military domination.

FFC elements among others are demanding a complete return to civilian rule. The military in their opinions have forfeited any capacity to govern Sudan without state repression. Since the October 25 coup led by al-Burhan, more than forty people have been killed in demonstrations and resistance related activities.

In an article published by the Sudan Tribune it says of the response of the opposition that:

“’We were surprised by the signing of a political declaration between His Excellency Mr. Abdallah Hamdok, the Prime Minister, and His Excellency General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces,’ said the FFC in a short statement issued on Sunday (Nov. 21). The political coalition further stressed they were not part of the deal and voiced its support for the demand of the Sudanese people to restore civilian rule. The FFC supported protests calling for the release of Hamdok and the other detainees and to restore the civilian-led transition…. The Sudanese Professionals Association (SPA) which led the December revolution against the regime of ousted President Omar al-Bashir also rejected the ‘treason agreement’…. The Sudanese Congress Party, Sudanese Communist Party, National Umma Party, Unionist Alliance, SLM led by Abdel Wahid al-Nur, and Resistance Committees rejected the agreement.”

Although the FFC had included as a main demand within their program that Hamdok be released from custody, the ultimate objective of the democracy movement is to remove the domineering influence of the military within the Sudanese political and economic structures. Many sectors of the national economy are utilized by the military elites to enrich themselves while maintaining hegemony over the functional operations of the state.

Sudan and the International Situation

The al-Burhan regime, which has called itself the Transitional Military Council (TMC), has close ties with the monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) which after they seized power in April 2019, pledged several billion dollars in direct assistance. Moreover, Washington under the former administration of President Donald Trump and his successor, President Joe Biden, have demanded the payment of hundreds of millions of dollars by the Sudanese state to survivors of victims of several bombing attacks carried out in Kenya (1998), Tanzania (1998) and the Gulf of Aden (2000).

In exchange for these payments, the U.S. is removing Sudan from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. This agreement will make Sudan eligible for loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other global financial institutions.

However, to date, the Sudanese masses do not appear to have benefited from any of these deals struck with the interim administrations which have come and gone since April 2019. With the advent of a renewed Hamdok-military alliance, many are unconvinced that the situation will improve for the tens of millions of youth, women, workers, professionals and impoverished people in general.

Neighboring Egypt, a state closely aligned with the United States, is seeking to maintain its relations with the military regime in Sudan. Egypt opposes the filling of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Project (GERD) which has caused tensions with the Addis Ababa government of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. Sudan has once again raised the issue of a border dispute with Ethiopia while Addis Ababa itself is battling a Washington-backed insurgency attempting to overthrow the administration of Prime Minister Abiy.

Therefore, the domestic crisis in Sudan has regional, continental and international implications due to the geographically strategic location of the country and its vast oil and other natural resources. The initial Sovereign Council under Hamdok and al-Burhan, signed onto the Abraham Accord which ostensibly normalized relations with Tel Aviv even though such a maneuver is in violation of the Israeli Boycott Act of 1958. The decision to boycott Israel was made by an elected parliament and national government just two years after the independence of Sudan from British imperialism in 1956. Any move to reverse this course at the aegis of the U.S. and its allies, would surely appear to be in contravention of Sudanese constitutional law. Until an elected government of the people can be established, there cannot be any real political debate on the relationship of Sudan to those occupying Palestinian land.

Forcing the Abraham Accord on as many states within West Asia and Africa as possible is designed to further undermine the Palestinian struggle for statehood and independence from Israeli control. Yet the Palestinians are continuing to resist the colonial occupation as was evident in the uprising which occurred during May 2021.

The political balance of forces within Sudan is of importance to imperialism and its allies throughout the African continent and West Asia. Consequently, Washington under Trump or Biden does not want a revolutionary government taking power in Khartoum. A genuinely revolutionary democratic government in Sudan would inevitably be in solidarity with the Palestinians and all progressive forces throughout Africa and the world.

According to a report written by Joseph Krauss for the Associated Press and reprinted by the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) as it relates to the role of Tel Aviv in the Sudanese internal political crisis:

“Israel is also seen as a potential ally of the generals, who were the guiding force behind Sudan normalizing relations with it last year in exchange for removal from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism…. Israel’s Walla news website reported that an Israeli delegation met with Sudan’s generals days after the coup. The Israeli government has not commented on the coup or its aftermath.”

Although the U.S. has expressed opposition to the military coup of October 25, the objective of Washington in the short-term is a partnership between the Sudanese military and a technocratic elite to govern the country. The U.S. does not want a civilian administration that would oppose its designs on Sudan.

Nonetheless, this is exactly what is needed inside Sudan and other territories throughout the African Union (AU) member-states. U.S. dominance over the internal and foreign affairs of post-colonial African governments has served as the major impediment to genuine development, sovereignty and revolutionary social transformation.

Sudan through the independent initiatives of the mass organizations, youth, women, trade unions and professional groupings, could serve as an example for a revolutionary movement which emerges from the people. Under such a dispensation, relations with other neighboring states would be based on the principles of peaceful co-existence and mutual cooperation.

*

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

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sudanese Continue to Demonstrate for Democracy Despite Reinstalment of Hamdok as Prime Minister
  • Tags: ,

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

 

Beijing’s top envoy in Washington has pushed back against US assertions that China should obey “traffic rules” set by the White House and accused the United States of trying to erect another “Berlin Wall” to contain China.

In his first remarks since US President Joe Biden’s meeting with President Xi Jinping, Qin Gang, China’s ambassador to the US, questioned the US’ mandate to assert those rules.

“The US says that its China policy is for defending the ‘rules-based international order’ and ensuring the implementation of ‘rules of the road’,” Qin said at a Brookings Institution event on Thursday, according to a transcript released by the Chinese embassy in Friday.

“But what are the rules? Who made these rules? Who are the traffic police? The US has not made itself clear on these questions.”

Observers said the Qin’s remarks underlined Beijing’s deep discontent with the Biden administration and cast doubt on prospects of a temporary detente, despite the conciliatory tone the two leaders struck on Tuesday.

On Saturday, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi also urged Washington to honour its summit commitments on Taiwan and avoid a new cold war with Beijing.

Wang also denounced Washington’s alliance-based approach to counter China, which he said would “create barriers and divisions [and] provoke conflicts and confrontations”.

Click here to read the full article.

*

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 Public Domain

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Top Chinese Envoy Hits Back at US Demands to Follow White House ‘Rules of the Road’
  • Tags: ,

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The implications of the Baghuz Massacre should deeply underscore the integrity, morality, and vital importance of WikiLeaks and its heroic publisher and political prisoner Julian Assange. The Baghuz Massacre was a failed cover-up by the United States. WikiLeaks is the journalistic enterprise that shines a spotlight on the egregious crimes of states.

Assange is imprisoned under tortuous conditions because he exposed how the US governmental-corporate-military machine operates. WikiLeaks published the video “Collateral Murder” wherein a US Apache helicopter crew gunned dead 12 civilians walking in a New Baghdad street.

The Baghuz massacre points to how the criminal state operates, by covering up its crimes. WikiLeaks threw light on the crimes in support of the public’s right to know what their country is up to.

Baghuz is part of a long line of murderous military actions. It begins with several extermination campaigns against the Original Peoples of Turtle Island, among them the Gnadenhutten Massacre, to the Wounded Knee Massacre, and the Trail of Tears. The massacres spread overseas to subjugate and colonize the Philippines; at the tail end of WWII there was the Tokyo firebombing and the obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by nuclear bombs. Then it was on to the Korean peninsula which was cut in two by the US. Among the gruesome US exploits were the No Gun Ri massacre in South Korea and the Sinchon Massacre in North Korea. North Korea was devastated by a massive scorched earth campaign. Next up was the My Lai Massacre in Viet Nam. In Iraq, among the war crimes were the Amiriyah shelter bombing and Haditha massacre. In Afghanistan there have been wedding parties bombed, the infamous Bagram torture facility, the Kandahar massacre, etc. The US has continued its murderous swath through Haiti, Honduras, Libya, and on to Syria. None of these countries had attacked the US. (Even 9-11 is purportedly carried out by Saudis according to American authorities.)

In Syria, the US intelligence has either been duped or complicit in blaming president Bashar al Assad for chemical weapon attacks to launch missile attacks, to support the ISIS terrorists, and to loot Syrian oil. Along the way, the deeply concealed Baghuz Massacre that killed dozens of Syrian civilians in a 2019 bombing has bubbled to public awareness.

The US is not alone in the war crimes extravaganza. Much of the western world is participating in the criminal militarism or otherwise colluding with the US. Sweden stands out as a neutral country that set the trap to ensnare Assange, so that Britain might hold him for extradition to the US. It is no wonder that the western-state apparatus that conspires to bury exposure of its war crimes has carried out a merciless campaign to eliminate Assange who exposes the crimes for the public.

The Baghuz Massacre is just another ripple in the ocean of massacres that would require a voluminous manuscript to chronicle. Assange and WikiLeaks are the exposing tonic needed to halt the war machine.

The Baghuz Massacre adds fuel to the calls for Assange to be released forthwith so that WikiLeaks and its publisher may, if Assange is up to it after the psychological trauma he has endured, shed a spotlight on war crimes. Awareness of the crimes of state can point the way for peoples of the world to renounce forever violence and warring — leading instead to peaceful co-existence.

*

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@gmail. Twitter: @kimpetersen. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: The SDF besieging al-Baghuz Fawqani, 12 February 2019 (Source: Public Domain)

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

“Americans are scared to death…. People are walking off the job, not because they want to lose their jobs, but they don’t want to die from the vaccine! … They say, ‘Listen, I don’t want to die. That’s the reason I’m not taking the vaccine.’ It’s that clear.” Dr. Peter McCullough

A report in the U.K. Telegraph explains how the Covid-19 vaccine has led to a sharp rise in excess deaths. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

“Nearly 10,000 more people than usual have died in the past four months from non-Covid reasons, as experts called for an urgent government inquiry into whether the deaths were preventable….

Latest figures from the Office for National Statistics showed that England and Wales registered 20,823 more deaths than the five-year average in the past 18 weeks. Only 11,531 deaths involved Covid.” (“Alarm grows as mortuaries fill with thousands of extra non-Covid deaths“, UK Telegraph)

Mortality is rising because more people are dying. And more people are dying because more people have been vaccinated. There’s a link between rising mortality and the Covid-19 vaccine. Naturally, the media wants to shift responsibility for the fatalities to “delayed treatments” and “the lack of preventable care”. But this is just a diversion. The primary cause of death is the injection of a toxic pathogen into the bloodstreams of roughly 70% of the population. That’s what’s causing the clotting, the bleeding, the pulmonary embolisms, the heart attacks, the strokes, and the premature deaths. It’s the vaccine. Here’s more

“Weekly figures for the week ending November 5 showed that there were 1,659 more deaths than would normally be expected at this time of year. Of those, 700 were not caused by Covid.

The excess is likely to grow as more deaths are registered in the coming weeks.

Data from the UK Health Security Agency show there have been thousands more deaths than the five-year average in heart failure, heart disease, circulatory conditions and diabetes since the summer.

The number of deaths in private homes is also 40.9 per cent above the five-year average, with 964 excess deaths recorded in the most recent week, which runs up to November 5.” (“Alarm grows as mortuaries fill with thousands of extra non-Covid deaths“, UK Telegraph)

The sudden surge in mortality is not a meaningless blip on the radar. It’s a red flag indicating a significant break in the five-year trend. Something has gone terribly wrong. Mass vaccination was supposed to reduce the number of cases, hospitalizations and deaths. Instead, the fatalities continue to rise.

Why?

The answer to that question can be found in the data itself. As the author admits, there has been a sharp uptick in heart failure, heart disease, circulatory conditions and strokes. (Diabetes is the outlier) These are precisely the ailments one would expect to see if one had just injected millions of people with a clot-generating biologic that triggers a violent immune response that attacks the inner lining of the blood vessels inflicting severe damage to the body’s critical infrastructure. So, yes, all-cause mortality is up, and it is certain to climb even higher as more people are vaccinated and gradually succumb to the (frequently) delayed effects of a hybrid concoction that is the cornerstone of a malign plan to dramatically reduce global population. Check out this chart followed by a brief comment by diagnostic pathologist, Dr Claire Craig:

Dr Clare Craig @ClareCraigPath

“Since summer there have been twice as many covid deaths, but seven times as many excess deaths as last year.” (Twitter)

And here’s another blurb from Craig:

“If you start at week 22 and add up all the deaths since for each year, then something very abnormal is happening this year among 15-19 yr old males.”

So, not only are more people dying, but the demographic has shifted downwards as younger and younger people are drawn into the vaccine vortex. Simply put, the number of young people dying from vaccine-inflicted cardiac arrest and myocarditis continues to increase with no end in sight.

Not surprisingly, all-cause mortality is higher among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated which, again, makes it easier to trace the problem back to its root, a cytotoxic “poison-death shot” that suppresses the innate immune system, damages vital organs and shaves years off the lives of normal, healthy people.

Perhaps, you’ve seen one of the many short videos of fit, young athletes who suddenly have dropped dead on the field of play or been rushed to hospital shortly after getting injected. If not, here’s a link to two of them. (Athletes collapse following vaccination: See here and here)

According to Israeli Real-Time News, there has been a “500% increase in deaths of players in 2021… Since December, 183 professional athletes and coaches have suddenly collapsed! 108 of them died!”

“500% increase in the deaths” of athletes?!? What are we to make of this?

For starters; the Covid-19 vaccine is not a medication. It is the essential component in the elitist plan for industrial-scale extermination. It is designed to inflict severe physical injury on the people who take it. It’s shocking that people are so deep in denial that can’t see what’s going on right before their eyes. (Please, watch the video clips of the athletes. These are the fittest people on the planet and, yet, they are being struck down by the mystery substance in the vaccine.) Here’s how South African doctor Shankara Chetty summed it up in a recent video posted on Bitchute:

“The pathogen that is causing all the deaths from the illness is the spike protein. And the spike protein is what the vaccine is supposed to make in your body. …Spike protein is one of the most contrived poisons that man has ever made. And, the aim of this toxin, is to kill billions of people without anyone noticing it. So it is a poison with an agenda.” (“South African Physician Dr. Shankara Chetty Talks about “The Bigger Plan”, Bitchute)

There it is in a nutshell. And Chetty is not alone in linking the vaccine to the agenda of the globalist elites who plan to use the cover of a pandemic to implement their “population management” scheme. Former Pfizer vice president, Mike Yeadon, offered a similar view just days ago on his website. He said:

“We are in the midst of the biggest depopulation program the world has ever seen, where most of humanity are acting as useful idiots to it and to their own demise.”

Indeed, and we have tried to provide as much information as possible on the biologic agent that is being used to pursue this malign agenda, the spike protein. In early reports we passed along the research of Dr. Patrick Whelan who grasped the danger of the spike protein before anyone else. Here’s a brief recap of his analysis from a letter he submitted to the FDA on December 8, 2020:

“I am concerned about the possibility that the new vaccines aimed at creating immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein have the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver, and kidneys in a way that does not currently appear to be assessed in safety trials of these potential drugs.

… Meinhardt et al…. show that the spike protein in brain endothelial cells is associated with formation of microthrombi (clots)… In other words, viral proteins appear to cause tissue damage without actively replicating virus…. The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (BNT162b2) is composed of an mRNA that produces a membrane-anchored full-length spike protein. The mouse studies suggest that an untruncated form of the S1 protein like this may cause a microvasculopathy in tissues that express much ACE2 receptor.

…it appears that the viral spike protein… is also one of the key agents causing the damage to distant organs that may include the brain, heart, lung, and kidney. Before any of these vaccines are approved for widespread use in humans, it is important to assess in vaccinated subjects the effects of vaccination on the heart…. As important as it is to quickly arrest the spread of the virus by immunizing the population, it would be vastly worse if hundreds of millions of people were to suffer long-lasting or even permanent damage to their brain or heart microvasculature as a result of failing to appreciate in the short-term an unintended effect of full-length spike protein-based vaccines on these other organs. (“FDA shrugs off dire warning about lethal spike protein“, Truth in the Age of Covid)

From the very beginning, government regulators and their allies in public health establishment have ignored (or censored) the warnings of capable physicians and researchers. They also waved-off career immunologist and vaccinologist, Dr Byram Bridle who was the first in his profession to identify the spike protein as “a specific causative agent of disease”; aka–“a pathogen”. Here’s Bridle:

“‘We have known for a long time that the spike protein is pathogenic…. It is a toxin. It can cause damage in our body if it’s in circulation. Now, we have clear-cut evidence that . . . the vaccine itself, plus the protein, gets into blood circulation.’”

Once that happens, the spike protein can combine with receptors on blood platelets and with cells that line our blood vessels. This is why, paradoxically, it can cause both blood clotting and bleeding. ‘And of course the heart is involved, as part of the cardiovascular system… That’s why we’re seeing heart problems. The protein can also cross the blood-brain barrier and cause neurological damage.…

‘In short,… we made a big mistake. We didn’t realize it until now. We didn’t realize that by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.”… (“Vaccine scientist: ‘We’ve made a big mistake’“, Conservative Woman)

Here again, we have a highly-regarded immunologist, with more than 3 decades of experience under his belt, who offered his informed and evidence-based research on an issue that should have been of great interest to the regulators that were making decisions about the long-term safety of the experimental drug they were foisting on millions of people across the country. But there was no interest at all. Despite the fact that the science supported his conclusions, Bridle was viciously attacked, censored, dragged through the mud, and forced to leave his place of employment.

Why?

Because he drew the same conclusions as Dr. Patrick Whelan. There’s really no substantive difference between the two except that Bridle’s comments attracted more attention in the media which made him a greater threat to the “universal vaccination” strategy. That was his real crime; he discovered the truth and made his findings available to the public, basically alerting them to the dangers of the “poison-death shot”. For that he was crushed.

Bridle has since made other claims that should concern anyone whose cancer might be in remission. Here’s what he said in a recent interview:

“What I’ve seen way too much of is people who had cancers that were in remission, or that were being well controlled; their cancers have gone completely out of control after getting this vaccine. And we know the vaccine causes a drop in T-cell numbers, and those T-cells are part of our immune system and they are part of the critical weapons our immune system has to fight off cancer cells; so there’s a potential mechanism there. All I can say, is I’ve had way too many people contact me with these reports for me to feel comfortable. I would say that is my newest major safety concern, and it’s also the one that’s going to be the most under-reported in the adverse data base, because if someone has had cancer before the vaccine, there’s no way public health officials will ever link it to the vaccine.” (“Dr Byram Bridle speaks”, Bitchute, :55 second-mark)

So, the vaccine suppresses the immune system?

Yes, it does, and author Alex Berenson provided evidence of this just recently in an article he posted on Substack. Here’s an excerpt:

“… the British government…. admitted today, in its newest vaccine surveillance report, that:

“N antibody levels appear to be lower in people who acquire infection following two doses of vaccination.” (Page 23)

What’s this mean?…

What the British are saying is they are now finding the vaccine interferes with your body’s innate ability after infection to produce antibodies against not just the spike protein but other pieces of the virus….

This means vaccinated people will be far more vulnerable to mutations in the spike protein EVEN AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN INFECTED AND RECOVERED ONCE

… it probably is still more evidence the vaccines may interfere with the development of robust long-term immunity post-infection.” (“URGENT: Covid vaccines will keep you from acquiring full immunity EVEN IF YOU ARE INFECTED AND RECOVER”, Alex Berenson, Substack)

Berenson’s observations square with research that was compiled earlier in the year by scientists in The Netherlands and Germany who:

….warned that the … (COVID-19) vaccine induces complex reprogramming of innate immune responses that should be considered in the development and use of mRNA-based vaccines… the research team from Radboud University Medical Center and Erasmus MC in the Netherlands… showed that the vaccine altered the production of inflammatory cytokines by innate immune cells following stimulation with both specific (SARS-CoV-2) and non-specific stimuli.

Following vaccination, innate immune cells had a reduced response to toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4), TLR7 and TLR8 – all ligands that play an important role in the immune response to viral infection…. an unexplored area is whether BNT162b2 vaccination has long-term effects on innate immune responses

This could be very relevant in COVID-19, in which dysregulated inflammation plays an important role in the pathogenesis and severity of the disease,” writes the team. “Multiple studies have shown that long-term innate immune responses can be either increased (trained immunity) or down-regulated (innate immune tolerance) after certain vaccines or infections.” (Research suggests Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine reprograms innate immune responses, new-medical-net)

Berenson’s finding also align with with cutting-edge research showing that the spike protein greatly “impedes adaptive immunity” by preventing DNA from repairing damaged cells. The paper suggests that the spike protein does in fact “impact on the nucleus of the cell, where we store our DNA, our core genetic material.” Here’s more from Berenson’s breakdown of the paper:

“…. our cells have mechanisms to repair their own DNA.

But – at least in the experiments these two scientists ran – the spike protein appeared to interfere with our own DNA repair proteins: “Mechanistically, we found that the spike protein localizes in the nucleus and inhibits DNA damage repair by impeding key DNA repair protein BRCA1 and 53BP1 recruitment to the damage site.”

To be clear, the scientists did NOT prove the spike protein was causing these problems in people, or even animals… Nonetheless, at a time when advanced countries that have high mRNA (and DNA/AAV) vaccination rates are seeing unusually full hospitals and higher-than-normal death rates, they are yet more cause for concern. As the authors explained:

“Our findings reveal a potential molecular mechanism by which the spike protein might impede adaptive immunity and underscore the potential side effects of full-length spike-based vaccines.” (“URGENT: Worrisome paper about the spike protein’s impact on DNA and DNA repair”, Alex Berenson, Substack)

Bottom line: If the vaccine does in fact inhibit the body’s innate immune response, then people are going to get alot sicker from seasonal infections that routinely spread through the population. Their path to recovery will also be alot more difficult.

But rather that belabor the immunity angle, let’s move on to the research of Dr Charles Hoffe who was the first physician to provide hard evidence that the vaccines generate blood clots by triggering an immune response in which the body attacks the thin layer of cells lining the walls of the blood vessels. Hoffe found that 62% of his patients that had been vaccinated tested positive for blood clots on a D-dimer test. Naturally, he was alarmed by what he found, particularly since the vaccine “was causing serious neurological events, and even death.When he raised his concerns with the BC College of Physicians, they immediately implemented a gag order, and reprimanded him in an attempt to intimidate, and silence him.”

Hoffe has been interviewed a number of times and always provides a detailed and riveting account of his findings. In a recent interview, he predicted that some vaccinees suffering from clot-related issues would likely die in just three years. Here’s what he said:

“… once you block off a significant number of blood vessels to your lungs, your heart must pump at a much greater resistance to get the blood through your lungs. That causes a condition called pulmonary artery hypertension, which is high blood pressure in your lungs because so many of the blood vessels in your lungs are blocked. And the terrifying thing about this is that people with pulmonary artery hypertension usually die of right-sided heart failure in three years… And not only is the long-term outlook very grim, but with each successive shot, the damage will add and add and add. It’s going to be cumulative because you are getting more and more damaged capillaries.” (“Shock: Doctor Warns That Majority Of Vaccinated Patients Could HavePermanent Heart Damage, Some May Die Within Three Years”Permanent Heart Damage, Some May Die Within Three Years”, Infowars; Minute 6:10)

Once again, there is no discrepancy between the analysis of Whelan, Bridle and Hoffe. And while the focus of their attention might vary slightly, their conclusions are the same. These experimental injections pose serious risks for anyone who allows himself to be inoculated.

Now check out how similar Hoffe’s analysis is to Dr. Rochagne Kilian who was an Emergency Room physician at the GBHS hospital until she resigned in protest. This is a particularly important video as it describes the “oddball” symptoms and exceedingly rare conditions that are now presenting in emergency rooms everywhere following the mass vaccination of millions of people with the “poison-death shot”. (I transcribed the video myself, so there could be errors.)

Dr Rochagné Kilian – Blows the Whistle on Covid-19 Vaccines and D-Dimer Levels

“What I was seeing in my ER department especially in the last 8 to 9 months is related to the D-Dimer levels. We use D-Dimers specifically related to pulmonary embolisms as well as Deep Vein Thrombosis. D-Dimer detects any thrombosis (clots) in the body but it doesn’t give you a diagnosis it gives you a basis for going further and doing an ultrasound and CT scan to either confirm or deny the presence of a pulmonary embolism or Deep Vein Thrombosis.

The first part of 2020 was probably the slowest ever in the emergency department, but when we went into 2021 and the vaccination rollout started, we ended up seeing an increase in stroke, transient ischemic attacks and stroke like presentations. (There were) definitely significant larger numbers of those people coming in. I ended up doing D-dimer tests on these people and never before in my clinical experience had I seen D-dimers and the amount of people with positive D-dimers higher than 2,000, higher than 3,000 and higher than 5,000. My clinical experience told me a needed to go look for a large clot either in their legs or their lungs. And I ended up doing a CT scan on these people. Most of them, and I will say almost all of them, had negative scans which started making me think that if there was not a significant clot in their lungs, but my D-dimer was so much higher than what I was usually seeing, it might not be concentrated in one clot. But that it is multiple micro-thrombi extended throughout the body, and that is so easy to miss because the CT scan is not going to pick it up.

“These people coming into the ER were all people anywhere from about a week to four months after receiving their 2nd injections. There are certain factors that can influence a D-dimer test that can give you a sense of a higher level than would be expected in the body. That said, the patients I was doing D-Dimer tests on did not have a level of maybe a positive 500 or 400 reading. It was more than 3500, more than 5000 ng/ml. So those are significantly positive without any proof of having a pulmonary embolism. If I was seeing high levels of D-dimer without a definite diagnosis, I needed to ask more questions.

One study said, never ignore extremely elevated D-dimer levels. They are specific for serious illness, including venous thrombosis, sepsis, and/or cancer. Even if sharply elevated D-dimer are a seemingly solitary finding, clinical suspicion of severe underlying disease should be maintained.

There were two conditions that stood out and the first one was disseminated intravascular coagulation also known as DIC. The second one is antiphosphlipid syndrome. Both of these conditions are related to an abnormality in either the initiation or the feedback of the coagulation pathway as well as thrombosis or the thrombosis cycle where clots are being broken down. DIC is a serious sometimes life threatening situation in which the proteins in the blood involved in blood clotting become overactive. It’s a cascade that’s difficult to stop once it’s reached a certain level. There are certain conditions that trigger DIC; significant sepsis, underlying viruses, trauma, major surgery, pregnancy and childbirth. And less common causes toxic drug reaction, blood transfusion reaction, and organ transplants. So there was a connection with intravascular products and a possible DIC.

Most cases of DIC are diagnosed rapidly and suddenly which is the acute presentation. But there are cases where it develops gradually, occurring over a longer period of time. This is known as a chronic form of DIC and I would go as far to say a subacute form of DIC that is very easy to miss. Simultaneous clotting and bleeding can occur with chronic DIC. The bleeding part comes in blood in the urine, headaches and other symptoms associated with brain bleeds, bruising, inflammation of red, small dots on the limbs, bleeding at sites of wounds and mucosal bleeding. which means bleeding out of the gums and nose. I definitely saw an increase in nose bleeds and bleeding from previous wound sites. ulcers, as well as rashes that couldn’t be explained. Blood clotting symptoms and signs were symptoms like chest pains, heart attacks, strokes, TIAs, and headaches either related to bleeding or not. As well as symptoms related to kidney failure, because of the clotting of those smaller blood vessels that go to the kidneys. Antiphosphlipid syndrome is a very similar type of condition. But the basis of the antiphosphlipid syndrome is an autoimmune disorder meaning that the body’s immune system makes proteins–known as antibodies–that mistakenly attacks its own body or tissues. That gives the skin the cascading effect of clotting disorder but it is linked to an autoimmune trigger. Basically, it presented in exactly the same way; high blood pressure which I was seeing alot of; first diagnosis of high blood pressure, heart attacks, strokes, TIAs, heart valve problems, repeated headaches or migraines, vision loss, balance and mobility problems, difficulty concentrating or thinking clearly,

The astute listener would start forming a picture of what we’ve been told about Covid-19, and there are research papers connecting Covid 19 with an underlying vascular disease. One of these was a study called “Covid 19; unraveling the clinical progression of Nature’s Virtually perfect Biological weapon.”

“SARS-Cov-2, presenting as Covid-19 syndrome, was not a respiratory basis, but an underlying vascular basis. which had certain phases of incubation, pulmonary phase, pro inflammatory phase, (which once again comes into a cytotoxic inflammation process) then moves into a protothrombic phase . Covid-19 is a thrombotic disease. implications for prevention, antithrombotic therapy and follow up…..

This picture shows us certain risk factors, Homeostatic Abnormalities, as well as clinical outcomes. It indicates increased D-dimer levels. It also mentions Venous Thromboembolism, Myocardial Infarction, and Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation that is connected to postulated mechanisms of coagulathopy as well as parthenogenesis of thrombosis in Covid-19…

I started asking the question, if we are able to detect certain connections between vascular abnormalities and Covid-19, and we based our proposed treatment on the spike protein, which includes the Pfizer and Moderna injections, shouldn’t we be looking for similar side effects or complications from that same injection?

If we are mandating certain treatments, we do need to do the due diligence to make sure what the side effects and complications especially in a time where there has not been long term studies.”And that’s what led me to focusing on D-dimers.” (“Dr Rochagné Kilian – Blows the Whistle on Covid-19 Vaccines and D-Dimer Levels“, Bitchute)

Kilian’s statement should be read over and over again. It is the most detailed description we have of the mysterious and deeply sinister machinations of a laboratory-engineered bioweapon that, in effect, turns the vascular and immune systems against the person who was vaccinated. Disseminated intravascular coagulation and antiphosphlipid syndrome are names that are entirely unknown to the American people, and yet, these freakish conditions are now responsible for a growing number of patients that are experiencing bleeding, clotting, headaches, rashes, bruising, high blood pressure, and inflammation . And– in more extreme cases– chest pains, heart attacks, strokes, heart-valve problems, and brain bleeds. One can only guess how the media will try to cover-up these extraordinarily-rare and potentially life-threatening conditions??

When Kilian asks:

“If we are able to detect certain connections between vascular abnormalities and Covid-19… shouldn’t we be looking for similar side effects or complications from that same injection?”

Bingo! If the spike protein produced by the vaccines, inflicts the same internal damage as Covid-19, then shouldn’t doctors expect to see the same symptoms?

Yes, they should. And if the symptoms are the same, then there’s a good chance that vaccine-induced injuries are being misdiagnosed as Covid-19.

Think about that for a minute. That would be the perfect scenario for the pandemic managers and their billionaire backers who’d love to see the impending mountain of carnage blamed on the waning virus instead of on their own poison-death shot.

And that is the evil-genius of the globalist strategy; to remove the fingerprints from the smoking gun before the investigators even arrive at the scene of the crime.

The amount of planning that must have gone into this scam, is simply breathtaking.

*

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, 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.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

 

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

I wanted to turn your attention to a side-by-side comparison map comparing the COVID pandemic of last year to this year. It is a true “photo is worth a million words”:

The symmetry is indeed amazing. And the conclusion, after over 600 days of COVID mania, could not be more clear.

Not a single “public health expert”-hailed mitigation or suppression measure, including the COVID shots, has done anything significant to solve the reality that lots of people get sick during their area’s annual respiratory season. This global war on a virus is going about as well as the War on Afghanistan went when it came to eliminating the Taliban.

The lockdowns failed to stop a virus.

The universal masking regime failed to stop a virus.

The millions and millions of societal restrictions and business closures failed to stop a virus.

And now it’s become pretty clear that the highly-touted “miracle”  mRNA shots are failing to stop a virus.

Instead of accepting this reality, world governments are doubling, tripling, and quadrupling down on the madness. Despite incredibly high compliance rates, with an estimated 7.5+ billion COVID shots delivered in arms, the mRNA “cure” has not lived up to its admittedly impossible to achieve standards.

In the span of 6 months, we went from:

“You’re not gonna get COVID if you have these vaccinations”

And:

Vaccinated people don’t get the virus and don’t get sick”

And:

“All three vaccines are 100 percent effective against hospitalization and death:”

To our current reality of another season of lockdowns, restrictions, and the usual, nonsensical “public health measures.”

7.5+ billion shots later, those of us who’ve followed the data closely have found out that all of the aforementioned statements, endorsed by the most renowned Government Health officials in the world, were complete nonsense. Weapons-grade nonsense. They were nowhere near remotely close to even representing a scintilla of truth.

Today we know that the shots serve as something akin to a potential 6-9 month prophylactic with unknown long-term side effects. The expiring efficacy, which was best observed through first-mover nations like Israel and Ireland, brought about the booster shot regime, but no recognition from world governments that the shots seem to be expiring. The boosters have been sold under this weird idea that you can get “extra protection,” even though you’ve been told you were already “fully vaccinated.”

Government Health officials and major pharmaceutical companies have leveraged these half-truths, as part of a CYA campaign for elected officials, and a money grab for Pfizer, Moderna, and those interested in injecting 5-year-olds with expiring experimental shots.

And the booster, which is the exact same formulation as the original shots, unsurprisingly seems to have the same lack of virus-killing power as the first two shots. In Gibraltar, the most vaccinated place on Earth, 100% of the population is vaccinated and 40% with booster, but:

But you and I, we’re not the majority here, sadly. Those of us who are thinking clearly about this issue are a growing coalition, but we still face an uphill battle.

World governments, with the assistance of Big Tech, have convinced the masses, without any legitimate evidence, that it’s the “unvaccinated” who are responsible for our continuing COVID problem.

Check out the logic used by the leader of Austria, the first Western country to mandate COVID shots on the entire population.

Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg, who has imposed a nationwide lockdown on his country, told the media this weekend:

“Increasing the vaccination rate — and I think we’re all in agreement on this — is our only way to break out of this vicious cycle of viral waves and lockdown discussions for good. We don’t want a fifth wave, we don’t want a sixth and seventh wave.”

Austrian police randomly check the vaccination status of shoppers after lockdown of unvaccinated:

Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg said:

“It hurts that such measures still have to be taken.”

Schallenberg is lying and he knows it. The shots will not prevent another wave of sickness. These “waves” are simply the reality of a seasonal respiratory effect that happens every single year. The global ruling class has been lying to the masses for a long time. They’d rather not admit to all of these sunk costs, so the political elite will continue to uphold the myth that the COVID shots are still some kind of magic bullet that they are not.

Those who did not comply from the beginning of COVID Mania serve to pose the biggest threat to the power of these maniacal politicians. That’s why they’re attacking us so ferociously. The political elite pretends as if they care about COVID, but it’s not the virus that is keeping them up at night. It’s those pesky individuals who refuse to bend the knee – those are the ones in the crosshairs. The control group is the biggest threat to the people in power. They simply can’t survive the political ramifications of a control group outperforming the citizens living under the weight of destructive COVID Mania mandates and societal edicts.

*

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 above

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

This PDF is a Notice of Liability to: Prime Minister of Canada, Justin TrudeauDr Theresa Tam Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, Attorney General for Canada David Lametti and Superintendent Brenda Lucki, Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

“This letter constitutes a request on behalf of Canadian parents of 5 to 11 year old children that a criminal investigation be immediately opened with regard to fraudulent submission of Pfizer Corp. regarding the provision of the Pfizer Vaccine to children 5 through 11 years of age.”

(Submitted by Jeffrey Rath, L.L.B. of Rath&Company, Barristers&Solicitors, Foothills, Alberta, Canada)

Here is also an open letter and Notice of Liability from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the members of the European Parliament regarding Covid-19 vaccination.

Also here is an International Tribunal Order to Cease and Desist to:  Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister, Dr Theresa Tam, Canada Chief Health Officer and Dr Supriva Sharma, Chief Medical advisor for Health Canada.

and finally …

A PDF “Vaccine” Notice of Liability for parents to fill out and serve accordingly.

Ironically, on November 6, 2021, leading physicians from all over the world gathered to talk about their recent Physicians’ Declaration update, which includes their commitment to fighting authoritarian public health measures, such as:

  1. Forced child vaccination,
  2. Mandatory vaccination of the COVID recovered, and
  3. Questionable interference with physician practices, such as early intervention.

Hosted by Florida physician Dr. John Littell, speakers and panelists included Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Heather Gessling, Dr. Ryan Cole, Dr. Brian Tyson, Dr. Richard Urso, Dr. Li-Meng Yan, Dr. Mollie James, Dr. Paul E. Alexander and Dr. Peter McCullough.

This summit emphasized that under no circumstances should children be vaccinated with these new experimental gene therapies.

Dr Peter McCullough directly and indirectly, brought forth at this Summit a reminder to all Politicians, Public Servants, Public Health Officials, Doctors and Hospitals, Employers and anyone else including a biased and censored Media in his talk entitled:

Dr Peter McCullough – Our Public Health Agencies Are Getting In The Way Of Saving Lives, watch the video here.

at 00:18:00:

“I have been following my patients carefully – 70% of my patients took the vaccine in December, January, February and like a good doctor I didn’t encourage them or discourage them.

Remember the vaccines are all research, they’re all research!

If I told a patient in one of my research studies (and I have a lot of them) that you have to be in my research study in order for me to see you in my office … you have to be in my research study … do you know what … I would be called on the carpet by the Institutional Review Board. I would probably be put up for FDA review. I would probably be incredibly penalized for that improper conduct.

There is a code of conduct it’s called the Nuremberg Code and that means under no conditions will a doctor ever, ever put any pressure, coercion or threat of reprisal for someone to either participate or not participate in research.

So every single doctor, every single medical society, every single employer that has stepped over that line and told somebody that they should be involved in vaccine research or suffer some consequence has trampled over a fundamental bioethics.”

If you forward this e-mail or International Tribunal Order to Cease and Desist and/or initiate your own Notice of Liability:

Please keep a record of all the individuals, politicians, government officials, public and private agencies including public health, workplaces, schools and school boards, etc. you send this out to so when litigation explodes in a post covid world – these leaders and public/private officials will not use the excuses:

1) we were not aware (there is a plethora of ignored valid research that demands an immediate STOP to this ‘vaccine’ insanity)

2) we were only following orders (for a politician their excuse would be – Health Canada, Dr Tam, WHO, Bill Gates etc.)

Unfortunately we do not have a Prime Minister or a Provincial Premier that is as independent thinking and competent as Governor Desantis of Florida.

It’s up to We The People to say: I no longer consent to medical and political tyranny!

It’s time to draw that red line in the sand!

It’s time to protect 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.

Featured image is from the author

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The “feel-good” from Tuesday’s  virtual meeting between President Joe Biden and President Xi Jinping leaps out of the US-Russian summit in Geneva in June. 

Biden’s talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin apparently sought to create a “stable and predictable” relationship with Russia but there is talk of war today. 

On Tuesday, Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser, said during a briefing about the summit that the US and like-minded partners would write the “rules to advance their interests and values” and push back on China. 

On Thursday, Biden revealed that he is considering a diplomatic boycott of the Winter Olympics in Beijing. 

On Friday, the US state department announced that a US-Taiwan Economic Prosperity Partnership Dialogue will be held today to strengthen commercial and economic cooperation, highlighting that Taiwan will remain a serious flashpoint in the US-China relationship and the Biden Administration will step up military and technology cooperation with Taipei. 

On Saturday, the head of the US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral John Aquilino reaffirmed America’s commitment to achieving a free and open Indo-Pacific region and stressed to the allies the urgency to address rising tensions with China and its military actions. 

Senior White House officials have since urged Beijing to abide by “the rule of the road”, or “traffic rules” alternately.

On Friday, China hit back. Qin Gang, ambassador to the US, bluntly questioned the US’ mandate to assert that Beijing should obey “traffic rules” set by the White House and accused the US of trying to erect another “Berlin Wall” to contain China. read more

In comparison, the Biden-Putin summit at Geneva has had more shelf-life. Yet, the US is now warning allies that Russia appears to be heading toward war in Ukraine. 

Fundamentally, on the diplomatic plane, the Biden administration’s objective is to set up “guardrails” to avoid bilateral tensions escalating into conflict with either China or Russia. In reality, though, these “guardrails” would act as a unilateral constraint on China and Russia’s part vis-à-vis the US’ interests. 

It’s a recipe for distrust and antagonism. Sourabh Gupta, senior fellow at the Institute for China-America Studies in Washington, aptly framed the paradigm as “a la carte transactionalism” that sidesteps genuine cooperation.

Clearly, neither China nor Russia will settle for such a messy, managed coexistence, since Taiwan and Ukraine are existential issues. They will call the US bluff at some point. The current tensions over Ukraine are emblematic of it. 

The US is adopting the salami tactic, which is incrementally provocative and puts Beijing and Moscow to stress tests. It relentlessly keeps poking their “red lines” to create new facts on the ground. 

A leading Russian pundit Professor Glenn Diesen wrote last week,

“Red lines are about deterrence. The purpose of drawing them in the first place is to communicate crucial security interests and the severe consequences that would ensue if they were undermined. In essence, Moscow’s ultimatums are intended to stop the West from making a dangerous miscalculation.” 

He explained:

“Deterrence rests on the three Cs: capability, credibility, and communication. Russia has the military capability to act if its red lines are crossed, it’s demonstrated credibility in terms of its preparedness to act on threats, and it knows the specifics must be communicated clearly to avoid the West making any mis-steps that would necessitate a forceful response. However, the weakness in its red lines is the current lack of detail as to what would happen if another nation took a step too far.” 

Prof. Diesen was writing in Kremlin-funded RT soon after President Vladimir Putin’s forceful remarks in Moscow on November 18, regarding the “red lines” in Ukraine. read more

What the US is doing in Taiwan is almost ditto the same as in Ukraine. In both Taiwan and Ukraine, the US has put “trip wires” in the form of deployment of special forces, obfuscating the “red line”. And in both cases, the US resorting to the slow creep of salami tactics — “conquest via the cutting off of thin slices. No one action is so outrageous it forms the pretext for war, but, one day, you turn around and realise how much ground you’ve lost,” as Prof. Diesen wrote. read more

Moscow’s patience is wearing thin. Quintessentially, Moscow cannot and will not accept anymore

  • the US’ support to Kiev’s abandonment of the Minsk Agreements;
  • the West’s encouragement of revanchist sentiments in Ukraine;
  • the West’s road map to transform Ukraine as an “anti-Russian” state; 
  • the intensification of military backing for Ukraine; 
  • deployment of US forces in Ukraine and the Black Sea; and 
  • NATO’s active engagement with Ukraine and presence in the Black Sea. 

Putin had hoped that Biden would sense Russia’s concerns, but there has been no course correction and the old approach is being vigorously advanced. From the Russian viewpoint, the US policy is making it impossible for Moscow to have normal ties with Kiev and is inexorably leading to creation of an anti-Russian state right on its western border. 

Interestingly, Putin had also brought into his remarks the centrality of Sino-Russian quasi-alliance. Putin said, “Some of our Western partners are openly trying to drive a wedge between Moscow and Beijing. We are well aware of this. Together with our Chinese friends, we will continue responding to such attempts by expanding our political, economic and other cooperation, and coordinating steps in the world arena.” The Chinese Foreign Ministry hailed Putin’s remarks.

On November 19, China and Russia conducted a joint strategic aerial patrol in the Sea of Japan and the East China Sea. Two nuclear-capable bombers each from the Russian and Chinese sides took part in the patrol that lasted over ten hours. Tass highlighted that Putin was kept informed of it.

The joint press release stated, inter alia, that the patrol aimed to “upgrade the level of strategic coordination and joint operational capabilities of the two sides, and jointly protect global strategic stability.” read more 

For China and Russia, Taiwan and Ukraine are existential issues. Beijing cannot afford Taiwan’s metastasis as component of a US-led cordon sanitaire. Moscow too cannot afford a similar eventuality along its western and southern border. (Last week, NATO secretary-general openly spoke about the deployment of nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe.) 

Suffice to say, Russia will not take the current trends stoically. What happens then? The Kremlin has warned of the gravity of the developing situation

Indeed, no one is talking here about any Sino-Russian “collusion”. Nor is it the case that for either Moscow or Beijing, the issue is simply a question of going to war or not. Both China and Russia could still take a proactive approach to further their aims.

Beijing would conceivably have measures to deal with provocations by the Taiwan independence forces. For Moscow too, there are options short of an invasion of Ukraine. Suffice to say, both countries have options in their toolbox that haven’t been used yet. 

However, it is an entirely new scenario if a simultaneity appears in the “action-reaction” syndrome in the Far East and Eastern Europe. There are variables in play but a scenario of simultaneity cannot have favourable outcome for the US geopolitically in the western Pacific and globally. In fact, the world may wear an altogether different look. 

If Beijing were to watch passively as Russia “loses” in Ukraine, the US will only get emboldened, and China’s capacity to push back at US hegemony gets weakened. Again, if the US emerges triumphant in the Far East, Washington will impose on Russia a reset of global strategic stability on its terms, no matter what it takes. 

Taiwan and Ukraine are indeed joined at the hips and the stakes couldn’t be any higher for Russia and China. 

*

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: US has whipped up war hysteria over satellite image of Russian military camp in Yelnya, over 500 kms from Ukraine border, to allege Moscow’s invasion plans and to justify NATO involvement (Source: Indian Punchline)

Appeal for an Anti-Globalist Alliance: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

November 23rd, 2021 by His Excellency Carlo Maria Viganò

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

For two years now we have been witnessing a global coup d’état, in which a financial and ideological elite has succeeded in seizing control of part of national governments, public and private institutions, the media, the judiciary, politicians and religious leaders.

All of these, without distinction, have become enslaved to these new masters who ensure power, money and social affirmation to their accomplices.

Fundamental rights, which up until yesterday were presented as inviolable, have been trampled underfoot in the name of an emergency: today a health emergency, tomorrow an ecological emergency, and after that an internet emergency.

This global coup d’état deprives citizens of any possibility of defence, since the legislative, executive, and judicial powers are complicit in the violation of law, justice, and the purpose for which they exist.

It is a global coup d’état because this criminal attack against citizens extends to the whole world, with very rare exceptions.

It is a world war, where the enemies are all of us, even those who unwittingly have not yet understood the significance of what is happening.

It is a war fought not with weapons but with illegitimate rules, wicked economic policies, and intolerable limitations of natural rights.

Supranational organisations, financed in large measure by the conspirators of this coup d’état, are interfering in the government of individual nations and in the lives, relationships, and health of billions of people.

They are doing it for money, certainly, but even more so in order to centralise power so as to establish a planetary dictatorship.

It is the Great Reset of the World Economic Forum, the Agenda 2030 of the United Nations.

It is the plan of the New World Order, in which a Universal Republic enslaves everyone and a Religion of Humanity cancels Faith in Christ.

In the face of this global coup d’état, it is necessary to form an international Anti-Globalist Alliance, which gathers all those who want to oppose the dictatorship, who have no intention of becoming slaves to a faceless power, who are not willing to cancel their own identity, their own individuality, their own religious faith.

If the attack is global, the defence must also be global.

I call upon rulers, political and religious leaders, intellectuals and all people of good will, inviting them to unite in an Alliance that launches an anti-globalist manifesto, refuting point-by-point the errors and deviations of the dystopia of the New World Order and proposing concrete alternatives for a political program inspired by the common good, the moral principles of Christianity, traditional values, the protection of life and the natural family, the protection of business and work, the promotion of education and research, and respect for Creation.

This Anti-Globalist Alliance will have to bring together the Nations that intend to escape the infernal yoke of tyranny and affirm their own sovereignty, forming agreements of mutual collaboration with Nations and peoples who share their principles and the common yearning for freedom, justice, and goodness.

It will have to denounce the crimes of the elite, identify those responsible, denounce them to international tribunals, and limit their excessive power and harmful influence.

It will have to prevent the action of the lobbies, above all by fighting against the corruption of state officials and those who work in the information industry, and by freezing the capital used to destabilise the social order.

In Nations where governments are subservient to the elite, they will be able to establish popular resistance movements and committees of national liberation, including representatives of all sectors of society who propose a radical reform of politics, inspired by the common good and firmly opposed to the neo-malthusian project of the globalist agenda.

I invite all those who want to defend traditional Christian society to meet together in an international forum, to be held as soon as possible, in which representatives of various nations come together to present a serious, concrete, and clear proposal.

My appeal is made to political leaders and to rulers who care about the good of their citizens, leaving aside the old systems of political parties and the logic imposed by a system enslaved to power and money.

I call the Christian nations together, from east to west, inviting Heads of State and the healthy forces of institutions, the economy, labour, universities, health care and information to join a common project, disrupting the old systems and putting aside the hostilities that are desired by the enemies of humanity in the name of divide et impera.

We do not accept our adversary’s rules, because they are made precisely to prevent us from reacting and organising an effective and incisive opposition.

I call upon Nations and their citizens to ally themselves under the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the only King and Saviour, the Prince of Peace. In hoc signo vinces.

Let us found this Anti-Globalist Alliance, let us give it a simple and clear program, and let us free humanity from a totalitarian regime that brings together in itself the horrors of the worst dictatorships of all time.

If we continue to delay, if we do not understand the threat that looms over us all, if we do not react by organising ourselves into a firm and courageous resistance, this infernal regime that is establishing itself everywhere will not be able to be stopped.

And may Almighty God assist us and protect us.

 Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop,

Former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America, 16 November 2021

*

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 Expose

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

In the second half of August 1941, the German strategic plan in their invasion of the USSR was drastically altered. Most of Army Group Center’s armor was dispatched southward to the Ukraine, with the Wehrmacht’s advance on Moscow postponed temporarily.

By now, the Nazi Security Service was reporting on a “certain unease” and a “decline in the hopeful mood” of the German population. The quick triumph in the east they were assured of by Joseph Goebbels‘ propaganda had not arrived. The anxiety afflicting the German public was increased by letters sent home from Wehrmacht troops, many of which confirmed that the attack on the Soviet Union was not progressing as planned. There were also rising numbers of death notices of German soldiers in the newspapers.

Well-known German author Victor Klemperer, who was Jewish, wrote from Dresden with far-sighted accuracy on 2 September 1941,

“The general question is whether things will be decided in Russia before the wet season in the autumn. It does not look like it… One is counting how many people in the shops say ‘Heil Hitler’ and how many ‘Good day’. ‘Good day’ is apparently increasing”.

Hitler himself “realized that his plans for a Blitzkrieg campaign in the east had failed” by early August 1941, German historian Volker Ullrich wrote in the second part of his biography on Hitler. Two weeks later on 18 August, Hitler said outright to Propaganda Minister Goebbels that he and the German generals had “completely underestimated the might and especially the equipment of the Soviet armies”.

Russian tank numbers, for example, were more than twice greater than Nazi intelligence had originally estimated, and the Red Army itself was much larger than predicted. Seven weeks into the invasion, on 11 August 1941 General Franz Halder, Chief-of-Staff of the German Army High Command (OKH), stated in his diary, “At the start of the war, we anticipated around 200 enemy divisions. But we have already counted 360”.

Yet, as September 1941 began, it seemed quite possible that Hitler was pulling off another telling victory to silence his commanders’ doubts. In dry weather with clear skies overhead Panzer Group 2, led by General Heinz Guderian, captured the northern Ukrainian city of Chernigov on 9 September 1941, just 80 miles north of the capital, Kiev. Guderian’s panzers drove east, thereafter, to take the long Desna Bridge at Novgorod Severskiy.

Colonel-General Ewald von Kleist’s four panzer divisions, belonging to Army Group South, rolled northwards to link up with Guderian’s armor. It was becoming obvious to Soviet military men that the Germans were implementing a gigantic pincers movement, which was aimed at cutting off all of the Russian armies within the Dnieper Bend and, in doing so, surrounding Kiev. The 58-year-old Marshal Semyon Budyonny, leading the Soviet Southwestern and Southern Fronts, could see this clearly. He pleaded in vain with Joseph Stalin to let him retreat to the Donets River.

From early on Stalin had refused to allow Kiev to be abandoned. His prominent commander Georgy Zhukov warned him, as early as 29 July 1941, that the exposed Ukrainian capital should be forsaken for strategic purposes. An angry Stalin replied to Zhukov “How could you hit upon the idea of surrendering Kiev to the enemy?” Zhukov said throughout August that he “continued to urge Stalin to advise such a withdrawal”. On 18 August, Stalin and the Soviet Supreme High Command (Stavka) issued a directive ordering that Kiev must not be surrendered. Stalin could not bear to give up the Soviet Union’s third largest city without a fight.

At the end of August 1941, the Wehrmacht had forced the Red Army back to a defensive line at the Dnieper River. Kiev lay vulnerable at the end of a long salient. Stalin then compounded his original strategic mistake, by reinforcing the area around Kiev with more Red Army divisions.

On 13 September 1941 Major-General Vasily Tupikov, in the Kiev sector, compiled a report outlining how “complete catastrophe was only a couple of days away”. Stalin responded, “Major-General Tupikov sent a panic-ridden dispatch… The situation, on the contrary, requires that commanders at all levels maintain an exceptionally clear head and restraint. No one must give way to panic”.

The following day, 14 September, von Kleist and Guderian’s panzers met at the Ukrainian city of Lokhvytsia, 120 miles east of Kiev. The trap was sealed. Budyonny’s troops fought frantically to extricate themselves but these efforts failed. As also did the Russian attacks coming from further east, which were attempts to rescue the doomed 50 Soviet divisions encircled in the Dnieper Bend.

Kiev fell to the Germans on 19 September 1941, and by the time the fighting died down on 26 September, 665,000 Soviet troops surrendered, the better part of five armies. This was the largest surrender of forces in the field in military history. The Soviets further lost 900 tanks and 3,500 guns. Total Red Army personnel losses in the Kiev area, including casualties, came to 750,000 men. Among the dead was Tupikov who, as mentioned, had tried to warn the Soviet General Staff about the calamity that was set to unfold.

English scholar Geoffrey Roberts wrote, “On 17 September Stavka finally authorized a withdrawal from Kiev, to the eastern bank of the Dnepr. It was too little, too late; the pincers of the German encirclement east of Kiev had already closed”.

After the loss of Kiev, Stalin was “in a trance” according to Zhukov and it understandably took him some days to recover. At this point three months into the Nazi-Soviet war the Red Army had, altogether, lost at least 2,050,000 men, while the Germans had suffered casualties of less than 10% of that number, 185,000 men, the British historian Evan Mawdsley noted. The 185,000 figure still amounted to a higher number of casualties inflicted on the German Army (156,000) in the Battle of France, and the fighting on the Eastern front was of course far from over.

On 23 September 1941 Goebbels visited Hitler at the latter’s military headquarters, the Wolf’s Lair, located near the East Prussian town of Rastenburg. With Kiev having just fallen, Goebbels observed that Hitler looked “healthy” while he was “in an excellent mood and sees the current situation extremely optimistically”.

Hitler took personal credit for taking Kiev, in which he had previously ignored the German commanders’ protests, as they were adamant the advance on Moscow should resume. Hitler told Goebbels that Army Group South would continue marching, in order to capture the USSR’s fourth largest metropolis, Kharkov, in eastern Ukraine, over 250 miles further east of Kiev; and after that they should move on to take Stalingrad, another 385 miles further east again. One of these two goals was reached, with Kharkov falling to the German 6th Army on 24 October 1941. Northwards, Hitler also wanted Leningrad to be utterly subdued, Soviet Russia’s second biggest city.

In his memoirs Marshal Zhukov wrote, “Before the war, Leningrad had a population of 3,103,000 and 3,385,000 counting the suburbs”.

On 8 September 1941 Army Group North had penetrated these suburbs, with the German panzers just 10 miles from the city. So officially began the terrible Siege of Leningrad. During 10 September, Hitler informed lunch guests of his intentions regarding Leningrad, “An example should be made here and the city will disappear from the face of the earth”.

Already on 8 September, the Germans captured the town of Shlisselburg on the south shore of Lake Ladoga. A week later Slutsk (Pavlovsk) fell in Leningrad’s outer suburbs, as too did Strelna, close by to the south-west of Leningrad. To the north, the Finnish Army advanced to within a few miles of Leningrad’s northernmost suburbs and the city was now surrounded.

The German Armed Forces High Command (OKW), with Hitler’s agreement, ordered that Leningrad was not to be taken by storm; but would be bombarded from the air by the Luftwaffe, while the city’s residents were to be starved to death through military blockade. On 12 September 1941 the largest food warehouse in Leningrad, the Badajevski General Store, was blown up by a Nazi bomber aircraft.

Moreover, heavy German weaponry and artillery was ominously lined up on the ground, across Leningrad’s outskirts. The German guns had sufficient range to strike every street and district of the city, meaning that virtually no house or apartment block in Leningrad was safe, a constant terror for its inhabitants.

Following Hitler’s Directive No. 35 of 6 September 1941, Colonel-General Erich Hoepner’s Panzer Group 4 was moved away from the Leningrad region on 15 September. It was transferred to the central front for the renewed march towards Moscow. The halting of the German advance on Leningrad, at a time when it appeared on the cusp of success, meant in the end that the city was not captured at all. The 41st Panzer Corps commander, Georg-Hans Reinhardt, had been confident that Leningrad would be taken. Reinhardt was sketching various routes on a map of Leningrad for the advance into the city, when he was ordered to cease his approach.

Nor was Leningrad fully encircled in wintertime when the water froze on Lake Ladoga, by far Europe’s largest lake. The Russians were soon able to traverse Lake Ladoga with vehicles carrying food and supplies, though they were regularly assaulted by the Luftwaffe. Fortunately, a large proportion of Leningrad’s inhabitants escaped from the city. Zhukov wrote, “As many as 1,743,129, including 414,148 children, were evacuated by decision of the Council of People’s Commissars between June 29, 1941 and March 31, 1943”.

The Germans were never able to regain the momentum in their initial march towards Leningrad. In November 1941 an offensive to join forces with the Finns east of Lake Ladoga failed. Through December the Germans were forced to retreat to the Volkhov River, about 75 miles south of Leningrad. All efforts to destroy the Soviet bridgehead at Oranienbaum, near to the west of Leningrad, were unsuccessful.

Leningrad was helped in its defense by the city’s geographical position, between the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga. In comparison to Kiev or Moscow, Leningrad was considerably easier for the Red Army to defend. Leningrad’s western approaches were guarded by the Gulf of Finland, its northern part by the narrow strip of land called the Karelian Isthmus, its south-eastern section by the upper Neva River; while much of the area bordering the city to the south comprised of marshy terrain, which the Germans could not wade through.

Stalin placed even more importance in Leningrad’s survival than Kiev. In a telegram of 29 August 1941 sent to his Foreign Affairs Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, an anxious Stalin wrote, “I fear that Leningrad will be lost by foolish madness and that Leningrad’s divisions risk being taken prisoner”. If the city was captured by Hitler’s forces, it would enable the enemy to make a flanking attack northward on Moscow. The loss of the city that bore Lenin’s name, the founder of Soviet Russia, could only constitute a serious blow to Russian morale and a great triumph for the Nazis. The Soviet Union would be deprived of an important center of arms production were Leningrad taken.

On 10 September 1941, Stalin ordered Stavka to appoint Zhukov as commander of the new Leningrad Front. Zhukov, who possessed great ability and energy, helped to stiffen the defenses around Leningrad, forbidding Soviet officers to sanction retreats without written orders from the military command. By late September 1941, the Leningrad front had stabilized.

More than a million Soviet troops would be killed in the Leningrad region, over the next two and a half years. During that time 640,000 of Leningrad’s inhabitants died of starvation, and another 400,000 lost their lives due to either illnesses, German shelling and air raids, added to those who perished in the course of evacuations, etc.

The Siege of Leningrad was endured mainly by its female residents. Most of Leningrad’s male populace were fighting in the Soviet Army or had joined the People’s Militia, divisions of irregular troops. Leningrad’s heroic resistance helped to tie down a third of the Wehrmacht’s forces in 1941, which assisted in Moscow being saved from German occupation.

*

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.

Sources

Marshal of Victory: The Autobiography of General Georgy Zhukov (Pen & Sword Military, 3 Feb. 2020)

Volker Ullrich, Hitler: Volume II: Downfall 1939-45 (Vintage, 1st edition, 4 Feb. 2021)

Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s General: The Life of Georgy Zhukov (Icon Books, 2 May 2013)

Clive N. Trueman, The Siege of Leningrad, The History Learning Site, 15 May 2015

Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953 (Yale University Press; 1st Edition, 14 Nov. 2006)

Evan Mawdsley, Thunder in the East: The Nazi-Soviet War, 1941-1945 (Hodder Arnold, 23 Feb. 2007)

Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 April 1985)

Weapons and Warfare, Heavy Artillery at Leningrad

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The carnage of deaths to unborn babies following COVID-19 shots into pregnant women just gets worse the more we investigate it.

While we reported on Saturday that the latest data dump into the government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) showed 2,620 fetal deaths, which are more fetal deaths than are reported following ALL vaccines for the past 30 years in VAERS, one “symptom” that is tracked in VAERS that I did not account for, is an ectopic pregnancy which also results in a fetal death.

WebMD defines “ectopic pregnancy”:

Ectopic pregnancy, also called extrauterine pregnancy, is when a fertilized egg grows outside a woman’s uterus, somewhere else in their belly. It can cause life-threatening bleeding and needs medical care right away.

In more than 90% of cases, the egg implants in a fallopian tube. This is called a tubal pregnancy.

Because a fertilized egg can’t survive outside a uterus, your doctor will need to take it out so you don’t have serious health problems. They’ll use one of two methods: medication or surgery. (Source.)

I performed a search in VAERS for ectopic pregnancies following COVID-19 shots for the past 11 months, and there have been 52 cases where a pregnant mother received a COVID-19 shot and then was found to have an ectopic pregnancy. (Source.)

Next, I performed the exact same search but excluded COVID-19 “vaccines” and it returned a result of 30 cases where a pregnant mother received an FDA-approved vaccine and then reported an ectopic pregnancy following ALL vaccines for the past 30+ years, which is about 1 per year. (Source.)

That means that following COVID-19 injections into pregnant women for the past 11 months has seen a 50 X increase in ectopic pregnancies compared to pregnant women receiving vaccines for the past 30+ years.

And if I and anyone else with Internet access can perform these searches in the government-owned data in VAERS, you can be certain that the FDA and CDC can too, and that they are aware of these risks.

This is criminal. This is nothing more than barbaric forced sterilization, which was once legal in the U.S., but was later outlawed as part of the eugenics movement that valued certain human beings over others, and is part of Nazism.

We are seeing many examples of these fetal deaths being reported, and we have published a lot of those, but here are some more as these reports continue to flood in.

Vancouver Hospital Has 13 Stillborn Deaths in 24 Hours

Recently two medical doctors and some protesters in Canada gathered at Lions Gate Hospital in North Vancouver, as they asked the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to press charges against health officials in British Columbia after it was reported that there were 13 stillborn deaths within 24 hours.

Breaking-news.ca has a video of this protest here.

November 11th, 1:00 – 3:00 Lions Gate Hospital Emergency Entrance, North Vancouver

Rally with Dr. Mel Bruchet and Dr. Daniel Nagase. They spoke to the RCMP and then headed over to the emergency entrance. The Doctor will appreciate our support in standing with him to raise the awareness of the dangers of this experimental injection.

On average they would see 1 stillborn death a month. 3 dulas have reported that there were 13 stillborn deaths in a 24 hour period of women who had taken the experimental injection. The media is not reporting this. Big pharma looks after the media and the media is silent. (Source.)

Last night, November 21, 2021 a woman posted on Social Media that her daughter who was 8.5 months pregnant and took a COVID-19 shot one month ago had her grandson stillborn at a Vancouver hospital.

Another woman on Social Media who had already received two COVID-19 shots, mocked “anti-vaxxers,” but then went and got her “booster shot” while pregnant, and soon after had a miscarriage.

Here is a post from Social Media from someone in Australia who creates “Angel Babies” for families who have stillborn babies, and the recent increase in their business.

Here is a Funeral Director whistleblower in the UK explaining the increase in dead newborn babies they are now seeing. This is on our Bitchute channel.

Here is a video report we made last month with some very unfortunate gruesome examples of what these shots are doing to unborn babies.

*

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 Health Impact News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on VAERS Data Reveals 50 X More Ectopic Pregnancies Following COVID Shots than Following All Vaccines for Past 30 Years
  • Tags: ,

Biden’s Numbers Tank…as US Rattles Sabers at Russia

November 23rd, 2021 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 @crg_globalresearch.

***

President Biden’s approval numbers are dropping like lead. According to a Quinnipiac University poll released last week, only 36 percent of Americans approve of Biden’s performance as president. From Covid, to the economy, to foreign policy, Biden’s numbers are in the tank. Three out of four Americans are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country today.

Inflation is sky high, gasoline prices are higher than they’ve been since Obama was president, and the store shelves are empty just in time for Christmas. And the president’s illegal and immoral vaccine mandate may result in millions leaving their jobs rather than accept the experimental covid shots. That should do wonders for the “supply chain” problems in the US.

Biden’s ability to drag the economy back from the brink is very limited and the Democrat brand is looking more and more like poison as the US moves into mid-term election season.

That can be dangerous.

When presidents make war they find that political opposition dries up and the media rolls over in gratitude. Is Biden eyeing foreign action to bolster his sagging support back home?

Traditionally, progressives have been wary of aggressive US foreign policy, but four years of phony “Russiagate” lies has left a good deal of the political Left enamored with the CIA, FBI, and warmongering “woke” military officers like Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley. Many of them will likely cheer a military conflict.

When it comes to foreign policy, the Biden White House continues some of the worst policies of the previous Administration. The US continues to sail warships through the South China Sea and when such saber rattling provokes Chinese concern the Chinese are condemned as the aggressors.

Similarly, the US just sent warships into Russia’s backyard in the Black Sea to perform military maneuvers. Imagine Russian wargames off the Texas coast in the Gulf of Mexico! And then the US Administration attacked Russia for “massing troops”… inside Russia!

The US media is, as usual, complicit in propagandizing the US population. Thus, Russia is said to be “massing troops near Ukraine” without the explanation that “near Ukraine” is actually within Russia. So Russia is threatening war by holding military exercises within its own borders, but the US is entirely peaceful when it sends warships thousands of miles away up to the Russian border.

On Friday the Russian military intercepted US warplanes reportedly just 12.5 miles from the Russian border. The US and NATO continue to deliver lethal weapons to the government in Kiev, which only embolden Ukrainian President Zelensky to ratchet up the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

The US foreign policy and military establishment exist in an echo chamber. They believe their rhetoric that the rest of the world is eagerly awaiting its orders from Washington and that the US has the moral right – and the ability – to tell the rest of the world what to do. This sets the stage for a potentially catastrophic miscalculation in the US Administration. Already Russian President Putin complained last week that the US takes its “red lines” too lightly, no doubt referring to Ukraine.

Biden may be calculating that he needs a nice little war to boost back his numbers and rally Americans to his support. Like most everything else in this first year of the Biden Administration, it would be a terrible mistake.

*

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 Trending Politics

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg met President Draghi on November 17 in Rome to address “the current security challenges” arising from “Russia’s military build-up in and around Ukraine”. Stoltenberg thanked Italy because it “contributes to our presence in the Baltic Region with the air policing and troops”. The Italian Air Force – specifies the Ministry of Defense – has deployed at Ämari airport in Estonia F-35A fighters from the 32nd Wing of Amendola and Eurofighter Typhoon fighters from the 4th Wing of Grosseto, 36th Wing of Gioia del Colle, 37th Wing of Trapani and 51st Wing of Istrana (Treviso). When Russian planes fly into the international airspace over the Baltic, usually heading for the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, the Italian fighters receive an immediate take-off order from the NATO command on alert and within minutes they intercept them. Official purpose of this operation is “to preserve allied airspace”. The real purpose is to make Russia appear as a threatening power preparing to attack Europe.

This is fuelling a growing climate of tension: the F-35A and Eurofighter Typhoon fighters deployed within minutes of Russian territory are dual-capable fighters with conventional and nuclear capabilities. What would happen if similar Russian fighter jets were deployed on the border with the United States?

The “air policing” on Russia’s borders is part of the frenzied U.S.-NATO military escalation in Europe against an invented enemy, Russia, in an increasingly dangerous grand strategic game. It was initiated in 2014 with the US/NATO-directed coup in Ukraine, supported by the EU, in order to provoke a new cold war in Europe to isolate Russia and strengthen US influence and presence in Europe. Russia has been accused of forcibly annexing Crimea, ignoring that it was the Crimean Russians who decided in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia to avoid being attacked, like the Russians in Donbass, by Kiev neo-Nazi battalions. Those used in 2014 as a strike force in the Maidan Square putsch, triggered by Georgian snipers who fired on demonstrators and policemen, and in subsequent actions: villages put to fire and sword, activists burned alive in the Odessa Chamber of Labor, unarmed civilians massacred in Mariupol, bombed with white phosphorus in Donetsk and Lugansk.

Stoltenberg and Draghi also addressed the issue of the “crisis on the border of Belarus with Poland, Latvia and Lithuania”. NATO accuses Belarus of using, with Russia’s support, “vulnerable migrants as tools of hybrid tactics against other countries, putting their lives at risk.” Defending the migrants, expressing fear for their lives, are the same US and NATO leaders, including the Italian rulers, who in the last thirty years have led the first war against Iraq, the war against Yugoslavia, the war in Afghanistan, the second war against Iraq, the war against Libya, the war against Syria. Wars that have demolished entire states and broken up entire societies, causing millions of victims, forcing millions of people to forced emigration.

The day after the meeting with Draghi, Stoltenberg attended the 70th anniversary of the NATO Defense College, to which about 15,000 military and civilian personnel from 80 member and partner countries of the Alliance have graduated in Rome since 1951. After being educated in every aspect of “international security,” they went on to “hold the highest civilian and military positions,” that is, positions of responsibility in the governments and armed forces of NATO member and partner countries. In this university of war, where the most sophisticated strategies are taught, the most important sector is dedicated to Russia. It will now be joined by another. In his celebratory speech, the NATO Secretary General in fact stressed, “Russia and China are leading an authoritarian push-back against the rules-based international order.” Stoltenberg has however forgotten to specify that “the international order must be based on our rules”.

*

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.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on At Arms, the Enemy Is at the Gates! Frenzied US-NATO Militarization Escalation against Russia
  • Tags: ,

Convencido que o Brasil estava na “iminência de um retorno ao passado”, conforme afirma ao final de seu artigo intitulado “1937”, vejamos nesta última parte do ensaio como Caio Prado interpreta o processo do Estado Novo e as décadas posteriores à Segunda Guerra, período em que o capitalismo global passa por este processo que ele chama de “fascistização” – enquanto o Brasil vive a farsa do “milagre econômico”.

Segunda Guerra e a fascistização do capitalismo global

Em março de 1938, o marxista brasileiro, então já bastante crítico da estratégia pecebista, com seus esquemas “abstratos” –o etapismo e o consequente aliancismo, sempre aos moldes europeus–, aponta em seus Diários Políticos (manuscrito de março de 1938) que o PCB estava cindido em dois blocos: um, que se aproxima indiretamente do governo, contrário a “agitações que favoreceriam o integralismo e a fascistização completa do governo Getúlio”; outro, dissidente, “mais radical, que procura articular contra o governo atual uma frente única popular”. 

Dois meses depois, os integralistas, ludibriados por Getúlio, tentariam dar um golpe no golpe. Caio escreve o texto “Golpe integralista no Rio de Janeiro – ataque ao palácio Guanabara” (D.P., maio de 1938) – destacando que “há indícios de participação da Alemanha no golpe fracassado”. No ano seguinte, às vésperas da Segunda Guerra, Caio Prado regressa do exílio na Europa.

Em 1942, já em plena guerra, ele passa a ensaiar uma reflexão sobre os movimentos do Brasil no tabuleiro bélico interno e internacional: 

A fascistização do Brasil segue sua marcha. O Estado Novo é elevado às nuvens. […] Getúlio é senhor absoluto. […] O país está apático; as classes conservadoras temem o comunismo (temor explorado pela situação); o povo está sob o terror policial. […] A DIP [Departamento de Imprensa e Propaganda] exerce uma ditadura incontestável sobre o pensamento do país. (D.P., 1942)

Quanto às relações internacionais, diz Caio no mesmo apontamento: o “governo é contraditório” – o Ministério do Exterior força aproximação com os EUA, mas o Ministério da Guerra se inclina para o lado da “Alemanha e o fascismo”. E neste embate conservador, completa: “a esquerda está adormecida”. 

Como menciona muitas vezes em seus Diários Políticos, ele sente falta de um projeto comunista propriamente nacional, que não se guiasse dogmaticamente por moldes exteriores – de uma leitura marxista que apreendesse as especificidades socioeconômicas e culturais da nação.

No entanto, um ano depois, mais otimista, passa a ver na mobilização popular uma pitada de esperança. Diante do choque entre estudantes da USP e policiais em praça pública, em que “corre o primeiro sangue” pela democratização do país, Caio afirma: “O Brasil acorda de sua letargia” –e complementa– “a guerra europeia foi o primeiro sinal de novos tempos”. De início as “simpatias gerais da situação [getulismo] iam francamente para a Alemanha”; os “fascio-integralistas e simpatizantes de todos os matizes” arrastavam o país. Porém, em virtude dos “compromissos pan-americanos”, a agressão aos Estados Unidos obrigou o Brasil a romper com o Eixo. De todo modo, ele conclui que por aqui “a guerra está sendo levada burocraticamente, sem participação popular” – ao que propõe a seguinte (e tão atual) reflexão: 

A “democracia” é ainda no Brasil uma fachada para justificar-se perante seus aliados anglo-americanos. Aliás, há tendências fascistas nestes últimos, de forma que a posição dúbia da situação econômica brasileira se encaixa muito bem na ordem[…] do momento. O que fez pender a balança para o lado da democracia são as vitórias soviéticas.  (D.P., novembro de 1943)

Observe-se que em sua interpretação de que as “tendências fascistas” de então, no Brasil como nos Estados Unidos convergem e, assim, alinham-se, ele parece profetizar o devir da política estadunidense fascistizada no pós-guerra – bem como de seus aliados no capitalismo global. Graças a sua análise político-econômica acurada, em um notável momento de genialidade ele efetivamente prenuncia o movimento histórico que se conformaria na segunda metade do século, a saber: a fascistização acentuada dos EUA e potências vassalas (OTAN) – impulsionada pela ânsia de expansão dos mercados (primórdios da globalização liberal). 

Um recorte do jornal Hoje (16/07/1946), destacado em seus Diários Políticos quase 3 anos depois, chega à mesma conclusão: a ideia do fascismo “continua viva”, estimulada pelos capitais inglês e estadunidense que avançam e necessitam de mercados consumidores. 

Por outro lado, Caio Prado Jr. pondera que, dada as vitórias da União Soviética, o governo se viu obrigado a “permitir certa campanha pela democracia e contra o fascismo”: “Os resultados não se fizeram esperar” – os movimentos pela democracia começavam a se espalhar por todo o país  (D.P., novembro de 1943). 

Ainda nesta linha confiante, um ano depois – em correspondência a editor – escreve: 

O ano de 1944 tem a seu favor, no que diz respeito ao Brasil, um grande ativo: é a participação das nossas tropas em favor da grande causa dos dias que correm, o esmagamento do fascismo[…], [mas] infelizmente a situação doméstica não nos traz igual satisfação[…], [dada a] dificuldade em satisfazer as mais elementares necessidades e a situação aflitiva da maior parte da população. (D.P., “Carta a Octavio Thyrso”, diretor do “Sombra”, de 08/11/1944)

As causas deste problema, afirma ainda na carta, são “mais profundas, e vêm já de muitos anos anteriores à guerra, que não fez mais que pôr à mostra os vícios de um sistema”. Termina por demais esperançoso, dizendo acreditar que os brasileiros estão agora mais “esclarecidos”, e que no próximo ano (1945) deve vir o “fim da guerra” e o “colapso de todos os fascismos”: “O mundo de amanhã não será de ditadores, e a humanidade entrará numa nova fase”, na qual os brasileiros terão “sua parte” se souberem manter viva a “chama da liberdade e da democracia” – que ora encetaram nos campos de batalha. 

***

Fim da Guerra e do Estado Novo

Em fins de 1945, recém-terminada a guerra, acaba também o Estado Novo. No entanto, no PCB, a nova orientação em defesa da “união nacional” –linha da Comissão Nacional de Organização Provisória (CNOP), em apoio a Vargas– faz com que muitos militantes deixem o partido. Caio discorda desta corrente, mas comunista orgânico, acata a decisão. 

Em novembro deste ano, comenta (D.P., 1945) que o integralismo busca se rearticular –sob o nome de Partido de Representação Popular– e critica a postura de Prestes, quem ele considera verborrágico e sem forças para promover uma “renovação” do comunismo no Brasil. Entende que a “atitude e a política de Prestes dão margem para ataques que podem prejudicar grandemente o movimento revolucionário brasileiro”. 

Por este período, Caio e diversos intelectuais assinam um manifesto anti-integralista: “[esta] grave ameaça a todos os brasileiros” – fruto de “manobras dos inimigos da democracia e do progresso” (D.P., janeiro-fevereiro de 1946). 

Meses depois, na “Carta ao companheiro Evaldo da Silva Garcia” (D.P., 11/05/1946), afirma esperançoso que com a Segunda Guerra o Brasil deu um “grande passo”, pois que: “formou-se uma consciência popular como nunca tivemos no passado” – e “existem hoje as condições fundamentais para o início da grande transformação que nos levará, seja embora num futuro que não podemos ainda prever, para uma nova ordem bem diferente da atual”. 

Geopolítica do pós-Guerra e o falso milagre econômico

A “nova ordem”, que Caio Prado prevê para o Brasil – ideia defendida em muitas de suas obras –, deveria ser construída com a superação da orientação externa de nossa economia, criando-se um mercado interno forte. 

Não obstante, décadas mais tarde, ele constataria decepcionado que embora a Segunda Guerra tenha trazido grandes modificações na “marcha dos povos”, essencialmente ela não alterou o “sentido da evolução brasileira”. Houve um esforço por se reestruturar, com renovadas feições, o mesmo sistema em “crise” – mas sem se comprometer sua “essência colonial”. Como resultado, agravam-se as contradições no plano social e político. 

Por um lado, com a diminuição das importações –devido à conjuntura produtiva europeia fragilizada pela Guerra–, crescem e se diversificam as atividades econômicas nacionais, em especial as da indústria (substituição de importações); contudo, as características arcaicas da economia brasileira se mantêm, de modo que dada a demanda internacional assiste-se a um revigoramento do “tradicional sistema do passado” – a exportação de alimentos e de matéria-prima. Assim que, de outro lado, no plano social e político, acentuam-se os “desequilíbrios e desajustamentos” – escreve no artigo “A crise em marcha”, de 1962, capítulo acrescentado a edições posteriores de História Econômica do Brasil (as citações a seguir são deste texto).

Num primeiro momento, diz ele, este cenário fez decair as contradições crônicas de nosso sistema econômico, sanando provisoriamente a balança de pagamentos exteriores. Porém, é mister ressaltar que, se por estes tempos ocorre um “nítido progresso”, há também o encarecimento do custo de vida –pois que os preços são pressionados pela oferta interna insuficiente, efeito do aumento da demanda externa–, sem que haja em contrapartida aumento de salários (arrochados com autoritarismo). O resultado disto foi um forte “acréscimo da exploração da força de trabalho” – analisa Caio –, e um “sobrelucro” apreciável, que provoca “intensa acumulação capitalista”, enriquecendo consideravelmente setores das classes dominantes. 

Trata-se portanto de um período instável de “equilíbrio” e de “artificial prosperidade” – que começariam a declinar tão logo desaparecessem as “circunstâncias extraordinárias” que os causaram. 

Como se pode prever, em breve viria um novo período de crise. Em 1947, o valor dos produtos importados ultrapassa os exportados; nos anos seguintes, o balanço comercial melhora ligeiramente, deixando saldos positivos que, no entanto, são insuficientes para pagar compromissos financeiros (usura da dívida externa, etc) – sendo tais défices cobertos com mais empréstimos estrangeiros, num ciclo vicioso.

Em 1951, de volta ao poder, Getúlio Vargas, baseado em momentânea conjuntura internacional favorável (dada a alta do café), lança programa de fomento à indústria. Entretanto, tal política peca por ser imediatista e carece de planejamento conjunto –de visão da economia como todo–, de maneira que acaba por favorecer apenas interesses financeiros privados. Desta experiência, ficaria a lição –“infelizmente não bem assimilada”– de que o desenvolvimento industrial do país exige medidas mais profundas e muito mais amplas: mudanças estruturais.

***

Já no plano das relações internacionais, Caio Prado expõe que, no imediato pós-Guerra, a economia capitalista (em especial a estadunidense) conhece intenso crescimento, impulsionado pela “folgada situação financeira” dos EUA – resultante da restrição de consumo durante o conflito, do financiamento da guerra, e dos posteriores negócios de reconstrução da Europa (Plano Marshall). Tal impulso, e o consequente fortalecimento dos Estados Unidos, se prolongarão pela política de reorganização financeira mundial imposta por esta potência – baseada no acordo de “Bretton Woods”. Além deste país, outras potências capitalistas se beneficiariam fortemente dessa conjuntura de crescente monopolização do capital, especialmente a Alemanha e o Japão, que derrotados nas armas, vencem economicamente – fato que poderia parecer contraditório, não fora o nazifascismo uma solução (e forma) do próprio capitalismo (conforme “Post Scriptum”, de 1976, acrescentado à obra “História Econômica do Brasil” – as citações a seguir se referem a este texto).

O Brasil não ficaria à margem da ofensiva dos monopólios –este “rebento do capitalismo desenvolvido”–, que encontraria por aqui generosa acolhida, dada a orientação política exterior (voltada para fora), que sempre foi adotada por nossas classes dirigentes. 

Tal surto da economia nacional e internacional, alavancada pelo afluxo de capitais e tecnologia dos grandes centros às periferias do sistema, foi por aqui conhecido como o “milagre econômico brasileiro” – fenômeno fundado em precários fundamentos financeiros que por três decênios logrou disfarçar “artificialmente” (apenas com suaves recessões) a “tendência estrutural do sistema capitalista à estagnação”.

Contudo, essa ampla farsa político-econômica internacional forjada no pós-Guerra não poderia perdurar por muito mais tempo. A falha “estrutural” do capitalismo se revelaria com nitidez no início dos anos 1970, com o intenso e generalizado processo inflacionário e desemprego, acompanhado da ociosidade do aparato produtivo (notadamente nos países mais industrializados) – abalo que demonstrava os limites da expansão capitalista. Paralelo a isso, dá-se a súbita elevação dos preços do petróleo – o que afeta duramente as subpotências europeias e japonesa, não produtoras do ouro negro.

Em suma, conclui Caio Prado, o suposto “milagre brasileiro” não passou de um breve surto artificial, motivado pela excepcional e instável conjuntura internacional do período que sucedeu a Segunda Guerra. Não houve nenhum sinal significativo de mudança essencial das “arcaicas estruturas herdadas de nosso passado colonial”. Nossa indústria continuou débil, com pouca infraestrutura e dependente do mercado exterior. E o que é mais grave: sem sequer vislumbrar as necessidades básicas da população brasileira. Passado o surto, pondera o autor, a nação retornou então a sua “medíocre normalidade amarrada ao passado”. 

Considerações finais: fascismo como tática capitalista em tempos de crise

Como se pôde observar ao longo desta exposição, Caio Prado Jr., mediante análise fundada na concepção dialética da história, mostra que o fascismo, cujo ápice se dá na barbárie da Segunda Guerra Mundial, longe de poder ser comparado com qualquer tipo de autoritarismo das pioneiras tentativas de construção socialista (como tentam vender “intelectuais” do mercado), foi desde sempre uma força histórica de sentido contrário ao comunismo. Ou, de outro modo, o nazifascismo não passou de uma face renovada, de uma face brutal do capitalismo. 

Tal definição foi mais tarde aprofundada por Hobsbawm (Era dos extremos, 1994), que vê o fascismo como uma moderna extrema-direita, o modus operandi capitalista adaptado para tempos mais difíceis de serem controlados – e portanto a solução para seus cíclicos períodos de crise, ou como se diz, para os momentos em que é necessário “socializar-se o prejuízo”. 

Note-se que com o fascismo e a subsequente Segunda Guerra abriu-se límpido o caminho para a ascensão geopolítica estadunidense que, após a queda soviética (diante das pressões econômico-bélicas da superpotência e de seus aliados menores, os europeus ocidentais), culminaria com a inédita unipolaridade verificada nas relações internacionais contemporâneas dos anos 1990 (a década “neoliberal”, que para o Brasil foi a segunda década consecutivamente “perdida”). 

Doutro prisma, a mensagem de Caio Prado é a de que não devemos pautar nossas ações por regras dogmáticas e eurocêntricas que colocam a evolução histórica europeia como padrão para o mundo. Para o marxista brasileiro, urge que o Brasil, à revelia de modelos prontos, construa seu próprio projeto democrático-comunista nacional, segundo uma leitura marxista própria que apreenda a idiossincrasia histórica brasileira: suas peculiaridades socioeconômicas e culturais.

Entretanto, dado o refluxo do comunismo após a derrota da URSS na Guerra Fria e a dispersão das esquerdas no cenário atual, parece saudável ressaltar que Caio Prado, quando se posta contrário ao aliancismo, refere-se às alianças com a burguesia ou parcela dela que comprometam a autonomia do movimento socialista – como se deu outrora (com Vargas, etc), e mesmo em tempos presentes (caso de certos acordos temerários –e traídos– do período denominado lulismo). 

O pensador brasileiro contudo não hesita em se colocar favorável a possíveis acordos pontuais interclassistas em prol de projetos comuns, de reformas mínimas de urgência que possam reduzir a extrema miséria. 

Aliás este é também o pensamento de Lênin, Gramsci e Mariátegui, dentre tantos outros marxistas que, ao entenderem a luta pela conquista de direitos básicos como fundamento para a Revolução, corroboraram a ideia do próprio Marx – quem n’A ideologia alemã (1845-46) já escrevera: “o primeiro pressuposto de toda a existência humana e, portanto, de toda a história, é que os homens devem estar em condições de viver para poder ‘fazer a história’”; entretanto, “para viver, é preciso antes de tudo comer, beber, ter habitação, vestir-se”; “este é um ato histórico, uma condição fundamental de toda a história”. 

Deste modo, compreende-se com Caio Prado que defender reformas emergenciais, de cunho humanitário, que solucionem ainda que provisoriamente as necessidades vitais humanas, embora gesto político arriscado, não significa desviar-se do sentido revolucionário, mas pelo contrário, trata-se de ter a sensibilidade de perceber que sem isto –sem a mínima humanização das relações sociais– será ainda mais difícil fazer-se o caminho. 

Yuri Martins-Fontes

Um marxista da América para o mundo: Mariátegui vivo a 90 anos de sua morte (I)

 

Um marxista da América ao mundo: Mariátegui vivo a 90 anos de sua morte (II)

 

Caio Prado e o fascismo como estratégia do capitalismo em crise (Parte III)

 

Bibliografia de Referência

FAUSTO, Boris. História do Brasil. São Paulo: EDUSP, 1995.

HOBSBAWM, Eric. A era dos extremos. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2000 [1994].

MARTINS-FONTES, Yuri. Marx na América: a práxis de Caio Prado e Mariátegui. São Paulo: Alameda/ FAPESP, 2018.

__________. “Caio Prado: reforma agrária ampliada e luta armada”. Revista Mouro: Núcleo de Estudos d’O Capital, São Paulo, ano 6, n.9, jan. 2015.

MARX. Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. A Ideologia Alemã. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2007 [1845-1846].

NOVAIS, Fernando. “Caio Prado Jr. historiador”. Novos Estudos, n.2, São Paulo, jul. 1983.

PRADO JÚNIOR, Caio. Evolução política do Brasil. São Paulo: Brasiliense, 1980 [1933].

_________. URSS: um novo mundo. São Paulo: Cia. Editora Nacional, 1935 [1934].

_________. Formação do Brasil contemporâneo. São Paulo: Brasiliense, 2000 [1942].

_________. História econômica do Brasil. São Paulo: Brasiliense, 1965 [1945].

_________. “Cuadernos y Correspondencia [manuscritos inéditos]”. Em: MARTINS-FONTES, Yuri (org.). Caio Prado: Historia y Filosofía. Rosário (Argentina): Editorial Último Recurso/ Ed. Núcleo Práxis-USP, 2020.

_________. “Fundo Caio Prado Júnior”. Em: Arquivo do Instituto de Estudos Brasileiros da USP. 

SECCO, Lincoln. Caio Prado Júnior: o sentido da revolução. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2008.

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Caio Prado e o fascismo como estratégia do capitalismo em crise (Parte IV)

All’armi, il nemico è alle porte

November 23rd, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

Il segretario generale della Nato Stoltenberg ha incontrato il presidente Draghi, il 17 novembre a Roma, per affrontare «le attuali sfide alla sicurezza», provenienti dal «rafforzamento militare della Russia in Ucraina e attorno ad essa». Stoltenberg ha ringraziato l’Italia perché «contribuisce alla nostra presenza nella Regione Baltica con il pattugliamento aereo e sue truppe».

L’Aeronautica militare italiana – specifica il Ministero della Difesa – ha schierato nell’aeroporto di Ämari in Estonia caccia F-35A del 32° Stormo di Amendola e caccia Eurofighter Typhoon del 4° Stormo di Grosseto, 36° Stormo di Gioia del Colle, 37° Stormo di Trapani e 51° Stormo di Istrana (Treviso).

Quando aerei russi volano nello spazio aereo internazionale sul Baltico, in genere diretti all’exclave russa di Kaliningrad, i caccia italiani ricevono dal comando Nato l’ordine di decollo immediato su allarme e in pochi minuti li intercettano. Scopo ufficiale di tale operazione è «preservare lo spazio aereo alleato». Scopo reale è far apparire la Russia come una potenza minacciosa che si prepara ad attaccare l’Europa. Si alimenta così un crescente clima di tensione: gli F-35A e gli Eurofighter Typhoon, schierati a pochi minuti di volo dal territorio russo, sono caccia a duplice capacità convenzionale e nucleare.

Che cosa avverrebbe se analoghi caccia russi fossero schierati ai confini con gli Stati uniti?

Il «pattugliamento aereo» ai confini con la Russia rientra nella frenetica escalation militare Usa-Nato in Europa contro un nemico inventato, la Russia, in un grande gioco strategico sempre più pericoloso. Esso è stato avviato nel 2014 con il colpo di stato in Ucraina sotto regia Usa/Nato, sostenuto dalla Ue, al fine di provocare in Europa una nuova guerra fredda per isolare la Russia e rafforzare l’influenza e presenza degli Stati uniti in Europa.

La Russia è stata accusata di aver annesso con la forza la Crimea, ignorando che sono stati i russi di Crimea a decidere con un referendum di staccarsi dall’Ucraina e rientrare nella Russia per evitare di essere attaccati, come i russi del Donbass, dai battaglioni neonazisti di Kiev. Quelli usati nel 2014 quale forza d’assalto nel putsch di piazza Maidan, innescato da cecchini georgiani che sparavano sui dimostranti e sui poliziotti, e nelle azioni successive: villaggi messi a ferro e fuoco, attivisti bruciati vivi nella Camera del Lavoro di Odessa, inermi civili massacrati a Mariupol, bombardati col fosforo bianco a Donetsk e Lugansk.

Jens Stoltenberg e Mario Draghi, foto Palazzo Chigi

Stoltenberg e Draghi hanno affrontato anche il tema della «crisi al confine della Bielorussia con Polonia, Lettonia e Lituania». La Nato accusa la Bielorussia di usare, con il sostegno della Russia, «migranti vulnerabili come strumenti di tattica ibrida contro altri paesi, mettendo a rischio la loro vita». A difendere i migranti, a esprimere timore per la loro vita, sono gli stessi responsabili Usa e Nato, compresi i governanti italiani, che negli ultimi trent’anni hanno condotto la prima guerra contro l’Iraq, la guerra contro la Jugoslavia, la guerra in Afghanistan, la seconda guerra contro l’Iraq, la guerra contro la Libia, la guerra contro la Siria. Guerre che hanno demolito interi Stati e disgregato intere società, provocando milioni di vittime, costringendo milioni di persone all’emigrazione forzata.

Il giorno dopo l’incontro con Draghi, Stoltenberg ha presenziato al 70° anniversario del Nato Defense College, al quale si sono laureati a Roma dal 1951 circa 15.000 militari e civili di 80 paesi membri e partner dell’Alleanza. Dopo essere stati istruiti su ogni aspetto della «sicurezza internazionale», essi sono andati a «ricoprire le più alte cariche civili e militari», ossia posti di responsabilità nei governi e nelle forze armate dei paesi membri e partner della Nato.

In questa università della guerra, in cui si insegnano le strategie più sofisticate, il più importante settore è dedicato alla Russia. Ora sarà affiancato da un altro. Nel discorso celebrativo, il Segretario generale della Nato ha infatti sottolineato: «La Russia e la Cina stanno guidando una spinta autoritaria contro l’ordine internazionale basato sulle regole». Stoltenberg ha però dimenticato di precisare «sulle nostre regole».

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on All’armi, il nemico è alle porte

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

On October 13th, Venezuela’s representative to the UN Samuel Moncada denounced plotting by the United States and Colombia against Venezuela’s democratically elected government at the UN Security Council.

In an eight-page letter to Security Council President Martin Kimani, Moncada detailed “bellicose” statements by Colombian President Iván Duque and by U.S. Navy Admiral Craig S. Faller, who praised the U.S.’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Venezuela.

These latter comments suggested that U.S. policy has not changed from the Trump era, despite the arrival of a Democrat to the White House.

The Threat of a Good Example

Joe Emersberger and Justin Podur’s new book, Extraordinary Threat: The U.S. Empire, the Media, and Twenty Years of Coup Attempts in Venezuela (New York: Monthly Review, 2021) details over twenty years of U.S. subversion efforts directed against Venezuela.

According to the authors, U.S. hostility to Venezuela’s government stems from the threat of a good example.

While Venezuela possesses massive oil reserves, the Venezuelan government never denied the U.S. access to its country’s oil and, as late as 2017, Venezuela remained the U.S. economy’s third-largest foreign supplier of energy.

The true fear of U.S. officials is that a country with significant resources and poor communities (a.k.a. Ranchos) has tremendous potential to develop an independent path and succeed in raising the standard of living for all its citizens, not to mention help out other countries in the region.

A secret cable published by WikiLeaks revealed that, in 2007, U.S. officials were demanding more (and more flexible) resources and tools to counter [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chávez’s [1999-2013] effort to assume greater dominion over Latin America at the expense of U.S. leadership and interests.[1]

Bolivarian Revolution: Brief History and Successes

Throughout much of the 20th century, Venezuela was ruled by an oligarchy which monopolized the country’s oil wealth.

In February 1989, in what became known as the Caracazo, Venezuelan security forces killed hundreds and possibly thousands of poor people who had risen up in revolt against an International Monetary Fund (IMF)-imposed structural adjustment program that had resulted in a rise in fuel prices and bus fares.

The program was imposed by President Carlos Andrés Pérez (1974-1979; 1989-1993), who had campaigned saying that IMF programs were like a “neutron bomb that killed people but left buildings standing.”

During the 1980s, Hugo Chávez had been secretly building a leftist movement within the Venezuelan military, which gained recruits and intensity after the Caracazo.

When Chávez was elected president in 1998, after a failed coup attempt six years earlier, he had the support of poor people in Venezuela’s cities who organized into self-help organizations and popular militias.[2]

The goal of the revolution was to restore Venezuela’s economic sovereignty, empower the poor and Indigenous people, and revitalize the legacy of Latin America’s great liberator, Simón Bolívar.

Venezuela's late President Hugo Chavez unveils a photograph-like portrait of Venezuela's independence hero Simon Bolivar on the 229th anniversary of Bolivar's birth at Miraflores Presidential Palace in Caracas, Venezuela, Tuesday, July 24, 2012.

Venezuela’s late President Hugo Chávez unveils a photograph-like portrait of Venezuela’s independence hero Simón Bolívar on the 229th anniversary of Bolívar’s birth at Miraflores Presidential Palace in Caracas, Venezuela, on Tuesday, July 24, 2012. [Source: trtworld.com]

Once in power Chávez—unlike Pérez—followed through on his promises to change Venezuela’s political-economic system.

Despite efforts to destabilize the country, the Chavez and Maduro administrations have made advances including building affordable housing projects known as Gran Mision Vividendas. [Source: nodal.am]

By 2013, when Chávez died of cancer, poverty and inequality had been reduced substantially, literacy had increased, and Venezuela’s UN Human Development Index, a composite measure of national income (GDP), access to education, and child mortality—rose from seventh in the region to fourth.[3]

Child Malnutrition in Venezuela

Malnutrition in children under five was one of several social indicators that improved dramatically in Venezuela following the election of Hugo Chávez in 1999. [Source: fair.org]

Chávez’s successor Nicolás Maduro continued many of the same policies that had benefited Venezuela’s poor, though fell victim to a collapse in world oil prices and crushing U.S. sanctions that resulted in a major economic crisis.

Despite mistakes and some internal corruption typical to countries in both North and South America—including the legalized bribery that corrupts U.S. politics through the lobbying system, as the standard bearer of Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution, Maduro sustained popular support, winning the 2018 election with 6.2 million votes (67.7%) compared to challenger Henri Falcón’s 1.9 million (21%).[4]

First Two Coup Attempts and U.S. Support

On April 11, 2002, the George W. Bush administration supported a coup led by Pedro Carmona—the head of Venezuela’s largest business federation. The coup was put down after Venezuelans took to the streets at great personal risk to rally behind Chávez. The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (embedded video below) is well worth watching as it is an excellent documentary on the coup; the Irish film crew that produced the documentary just happened to be in Miraflores, the presidential palace, at the time of the coup.

A decree that Carmona issued dissolved the National Assembly, fired all Supreme Court judges, and disassociated Venezuela from the legacy of Simón Bolívar.

In July 2002, the U.S. State Department’s Office of the Inspector General published a report titled “A Review of U.S. Policy Toward Venezuela November 2001-April 2002” detailing how the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Pentagon and other U.S. assistance programs provided training, institution building, and other support to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved in the coup.

Journalists Jeremy Bigwood and Eva Golinger later uncovered how prominent coup plotters such as Leopoldo López and María Corina Machado had received U.S. funds.[5]

Scott Wilson reported in The Washington Post that the U.S. government hosted people involved in the coup before it happened.

Wilson wrote that “there was involvement of U.S.-sponsored NGOs in training people that were involved in the coup. And in the immediate aftermath of the coup, the United States government said that it was a resignation, not a coup, effectively recognizing the government that took office very briefly until President Chávez returned.”[6]

Six months after Carmona’s coup was put down, the opposition to Chávez led by Leopoldo López—the mayor of the Chacao Municipality of Caracas—organized a one-day national strike among oil workers with the aim of bringing down the government.

The coup failed but it contributed to a contraction of Venezuela’s GDP. Chávez later pardoned the coup plotters—belying claims of his supposedly authoritarian nature.

Emersberger and Podur write that “any foreign government linked to a political movement that inflicted [huge] economic damage on the United States would suffer horrific retaliation. U.S. politicians and media outlets that supported the sabotage would be declared treasonous and never be heard from again.”[7] Such was not the case for Venezuela.

More Subversion

In 2010, Wikileaks published a U.S. embassy cable from four years prior in which the American ambassador William Brownfield outlined a five-point cloak-and-dagger strategy for “penetrating Chavez’ political base,” “dividing Chavismo,” “protecting vital U.S. businesses,” and “isolating Chavez internationally.

USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), which provides fast flexible, short term assistance designed to foster political transition—ie. regime change—was central to these efforts, which continued after Chavez’ death.[8]

When Maduro won a snap election in April 2013, the defeated candidate Henrique Capriles—a participant in the 2002 coup and a mob siege of the Cuban Embassy—cried fraud and called his supporters into the streets, with backing from the Obama administration.

A year earlier, Jimmy Carter had called the technical aspects of Venezuela’s electoral system “the best in the world.”[9]

Sanctions of Mass Destruction

In March 2015, Obama followed his backing of Capriles’s bogus election fraud charges by imposing economic sanctions on Venezuela, which Obama ridiculously called “an extraordinary threat to the national security of the United States.”[10]

A picture containing diagram Description automatically generated

Source: presenza.com

The goal of the sanctions—which were indefensible under the UN Charter, OAS Charter, and U.S. law—was to starve the Venezuelan government of the hard currency it needed to import food, medicine, and the parts required to maintain basic infrastructure such as Venezuela’s electrical grid.[11]

The intensification of Obama’s sanctions by the Trump administration in August 2017 resulted in the loss of $6 billion in oil revenue over the next 12 months.

By 2018, Venezuela could only import $140 million worth of medicines, down from around $2 billion in 2013-2014. Food imports in the same period declined from $11.2 billion in 2013 to $2.46 billion in 2018.[12]

In 2019, the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) published a study by U.S. economists Mark Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs estimating that Trump’s sanctions may have killed about 40,000 Venezuelans in the 2017-2018 period alone.[13]

U.S. sanctions against Venezuela have already killed 40,000 people between 2017 and 2018, according to a report by Mark Weisbrot and Columbia University's Jeffrey Sachs. (Photo: Courtesy of the authors) – Massachusetts Peace Action

Venezuelan Embassy [Source: masspeaceaction.org]

Trump Presidency and Sixth Coup Attempt

Under Trump, U.S. officials began openly encouraging the Venezuelan military to oust Maduro. National Security Adviser John Bolton joked about having Maduro sent to Guantánamo Bay.[14]

When opposition leader Juan Guaidó—who aimed to privatize Venezuela’s the oil industry—declared himself interim president in January 2019, President Trump immediately recognized him.

However, Guaidó’s case for president was based on the lie that Maduro had been elected illegitimately in May 2018.

Emersberger and Podur present the entire Guaidó era as a sixth very long coup attempt. (See CAM’s coverage at the time: “Yet Another U.S. Coup Attempt to Eradicate the Bolivarian Revolution” and “Operation GIDEON: New Details Emerge Linking U.S. to Latest Coup Attempt in Venezuela.“)

Its defining feature has been crippling economic warfare, combined with false allegations against Maduro that were designed to give the Venezuelan military a humanitarian pretext for turning on him.

Useless Democratic Opposition

Democrats in Congress were useless as an opposition to Trump’s hardline policies. In his memoir, John Bolton cited Trump Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin as the most serious in trying to stifle him on Venezuela—not any Democrat.

Bernie Sanders (D-VT) characterized Maduro (and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega) as a dictator in January 2020 and repeated the lie that Maduro had refused humanitarian aid. Sanders further condemned Maduro for using violence against protesters—though the protesters were the ones sowing much greater violence.[15]

On March 8, 2020, Ro Khanna (D-CA) told The Real News that he opposed sanctions because they were giving “Maduro an excuse to blame the United States, as opposed to taking responsibility for his own failed economic policies [my emphasis] and his own cronyism.”[16]

Khanna subsequently characterized Maduro in The Washington Post as an “authoritarian leader who has presided over unfair elections”[17]—a claim contradicted by the Carter Center that fits the standard U.S. propaganda narrative.

Manufacturing Consent

Mainstream corporate media helped manufacture consent with U.S. subversion efforts in Venezuela through a relentless demonization campaign, which falsely claimed that Venezuela was a prosperous democracy until Chávez and Maduro came along and ruined everything.

Alan MacLeod found the media far more favorable toward Saudi King Abdullah after his death in 2015 than Chávez after his death in 2013, even though King Abdullah was “an absolute monarch boasting one of the worst human rights records in history.”[18]

London Guardian correspondent Rory Carroll meanwhile wrote a well-received book about Venezuela which a) provided an almost total whitewash of the U.S. role in efforts to overthrow Chávez; b) omitted discussion of the amnesty that Chávez granted to coup plotters Henrique Capriles and Leopoldo López; and c) never said a word about hundreds of Chavista peasants who were assassinated, most likely by wealthy landowners opposed to land reform.[19]

Carroll’s bias was in part related to his privileged lifestyle. According to a guest, he was put up by The Guardian in a “lavish apartment with the feel of a penthouse” in Altamira, an upper-class neighborhood and opposition stronghold in East Caracas.[20]

Human Rights Fraud

The U.S. empire’s human rights group, Human Rights Watch (HRW), predictably followed the media in aggressively attacking Chavismo.

Within hours of Chávez’s death, HRW put out a statement entitled “Chávez’s Authoritarian Legacy,” which said nothing positive about him and grouped him with supposedly rogue dictators in Libya, Iran, Cuba and Syria—all countries targeted for regime change by the U.S.

Conclusion

The United States’s unremitting hostility to Venezuela’s socialist government reflects the pathologies of the capitalist system, which cannot tolerate any rival competitor.

United States double standards are apparent in its alliance with oppressive governments in Colombia and Honduras that have committed egregious human rights violations and have been responsible for flooding the U.S. with cocaine.

And yet somehow Venezuela is the bad guy.

Despite the years of U.S.-backed subversion, Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution has endured, as the majority of the country’s people remain committed to its principles of anti-imperialism, economic sovereignty and social justice.

Though the Biden administration may be intent on sustaining a cruel economic war and fomenting regime change, the prospect of success is limited as the principles of the Bolivarian revolution remain strong.

*

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.

Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].

Notes

  1. Joe Emersberger and Justin Podur, Extraordinary Threat: The U.S. Empire, the Media, and Twenty Years of Coup Attempts in Venezuela (New York: Monthly Review, 2021), 22. 
  2. Emersberger and Podur, Extraordinary Threat, 65, 66. 
  3. Emersberger and Podur, Extraordinary Threat, 186. 
  4. Emersberger and Podur, Extraordinary Threat, 26. 
  5. Emersberger and Podur, Extraordinary Threat, 87.
  6. Emersberger and Podur, Extraordinary Threat, 87.
  7. Emersberger and Podur, Extraordinary Threat, 105. 
  8. In 2013, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) provided at least $300,000 to opposition candidates and supported efforts on social media to undermine Venezuela’s socialist government. 
  9. Emersberger and Podur, Extraordinary Threat, 112. 
  10. Emersberger and Podur, Extraordinary Threat, 10. 
  11. Emersberger and Podur, Extraordinary Threat, 10.
  12. Emersberger and Podur, Extraordinary Threat, 18.
  13. Emersberger and Podur, Extraordinary Threat, 18.
  14. Emersberger and Podur, Extraordinary Threat, 18, 42. 
  15. Emersberger and Podur, Extraordinary Threat, 46, 47. 
  16. Emersberger and Podur, Extraordinary Threat, 18, 42. 
  17. Khanna had similarly called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a war criminal while claiming to oppose regime-change designs in Syria, and said that U.S. concerns about Russian interference in U.S. elections was legitimate—when it was not. 
  18. Emersberger and Podur, Extraordinary Threat, 184, 185. 
  19. Emersberger and Podur, Extraordinary Threat, 199, 201. 
  20. Emersberger and Podur, Extraordinary Threat, 191. The Guardian was supposedly a left-wing newspaper. 

Featured image: Rally in rejection of the U.S. destabilizing plan against Venezuela, 2019. | Photo: Twitter/ @codepink

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Upon watching the news of the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict on CNN with my family in Amman, Jordan, where I am visiting, I cringed and felt a sense of shame, as the American among them, helpless to frame it for them in a way that would redeem (for both of us) the illusory promise of change in a deeply-flawed US system.

Just back from Madrid, Spain, where I participated in Masar Badil, the Alternative Palestinian Revolutionary Path conference, I could only think of an article written by Adam Littlestone-Luria a few days ago (Nov 15) in NewYorkUniversityLawReview titled The Illusion of Permanence: Post-Trump America, Rome, and the Challenges of Restoration, in which he says:

Well-functioning political systems depend not simply on a sense of legitimacy, rightness, or fairness, but also on a widespread illusion of permanence. People comply with the basic structure of institutions and norms in large part because they think that the system is not going anywhere. They translate dissatisfaction into reform, rather than revolution, because their imagination is restricted by the sense that the basic structure will inevitably endure. Long-lasting republics — from the U.S. to Ancient Rome — have relied on this constrained imagination. Rome’s example shows that, when the illusion of permanence breaks, democracy may be in danger.

It is clear to me that it takes radical action and ideology from either the left or the right to sway a “democratic” system one way or another. Just as there is no “reforming” Israel’s colonial existence as a Jewish state in Palestine without radical action, there is no reforming ingrained issues of supremacy and racism in the US without radical action.

Rittenhouse Acquittal: Hundreds March Through Brooklyn, Block Traffic On Brooklyn Bridge To Protest Verdict (Capture from CBS video clip)

Same goes for France, as the other piece of news that has people buzzing in Amman shows. It has to do with the permanence of France’s colonial arrogance, its reckoning with its colonial past. Even though Macron has “gone further than any of his predecessors in recognizing the scale of abuses by France in the North African country … [and] acknowledged that France had instigated a system that facilitated torture during the 1954–1962 Algerian war, which ended 132 years of French rule,” France is a country where the colonization of Algeria continues to be viewed as benign and the French electorate by and large is still opposed to the idea of repentance.

And that is why, as Al-Jazeera reported in October: “Macron hosted summit as part of efforts to reshape France’s ties with ex-colonies, but analysts believe French president’s focus is on symbolic [rather] than structural moves.“

By declaring in the 2017 French presidential elections that the colonization of Algeria was a crime against humanity, Macron caused a “sensation.”

Likewise, when it comes to US foreign policy towards Israel, the US electoral system has severe limitations. Democrats are finding ways to pay allegiance to Israel and its lobby while trying simultaneously “to soften criticism from a party base which is becoming ever more supportive of Palestinian rights,” as Ali Abunimah blogged in April 2021 (J Street brings together progressives, Israeli war criminals).

It takes strong language and action such as that in the recent statement by The Democratic Socialists of America BDS and Palestine Solidarity Group (DSA BDS) on “progressive” Congressman Jamaal Bowman’s meeting with Naftali Bennet, ”a war criminal and former head of the Yesha Council, the political organization representing illegal Israeli settlements,” in Jerusalem, during J Street’s Propaganda Trip recently.

Congressman Bowman is a DSA member!

The statement calls on the National Political Committee (NPC) to expel Bowman if he does not immediately agree to three demands.

The DSA BDS and Palestine Solidarity Working Group (BDS WG) condemns these actions [Bowman’s visit and photo op with Naftali] in the harshest terms and, in line with local chapters across the nation, demands that the National Political Committee (NPC) hold Bowman accountable to DSA’s principles, policies, and resolutions, including on Palestine and BDS. We also specifically denounce J Street alongside all other Zionist propaganda organizations.

In keeping with the radical spirit demonstrated by the DSA above and by Masar Badil, writer and activist Khaled Barakat asks in an op-ed in Al-Akhbar titled Palestine: Big People… Diminutive Leadership (my translation):

… How then can the Palestinian people accept a diminutive leadership such as the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah? The same question is also true of every people who accept their illegitimate political system. How do the great Egyptian people accept the Sisi regime? How do the Lebanese people accept the sectarian and quota system?

The above question is not directed at the people, and it reflects a great deal of cleverness and superficiality, as the Palestinian Authority is an integral part of the Zionist colonial project and a tool of liquidation and expungement. It is a question directed to the political forces that present themselves as the currents of resistance and liberation, and opposition movements that are different from the PA and its project. In the ideological programs [of these movements] they want to defeat the Zionist project and liberate Palestine from the river to the sea. Then [paradoxically], they respond to the first call — or summons — issued by the president of the corrupt Authority and run to the so-called “bilateral meetings” and the false “reconciliation rounds!”

My question to Bowman and his ilk and to the jury in the Kenosha case is the same as that posed by Khaled Barakat above: How can you?

*

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.

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank. 

She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Several hundred people march on Flatbush Ave. in Brooklyn on Friday to protest the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse by a Wisconsin jury. (Gardiner Anderson/for New York Daily News)

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Independent small and medium sized farms have been handed a death sentence by Klaus Schwab head of The World Economic Forum. Schwab, and fellow architects of top-down control, have officially let it be known that under the policy known as ‘Green Deal’ traditional family farms are no longer wanted and the foods they produce are to be replaced by laboratory and genetically engineered synthetic lookalikes. This policy is spelled-out in the pages of Klaus Schwab’s book ‘The Great Reset’ which is part of the envisaged ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’.

The British government and the European Commission are committed to adopting this insane agenda in which working farmers are to be replaced by digitalised precision robots, as part of a so called Global Warming mitigation crusade. When properly analysed, this is revealed as a totalitarian programme for complete corporate and banking control of the food chain. A programme that is designed to eliminate the independent farmer.

What Are We Going to Do About It?

There is a very straight forward answer to this question. We are going come together at the local level and launch a mutually supportive initiative which will guarantee both the farmer and the purchaser of the farmer’s food a fair and mutually beneficial exchange.

How does it work?

Very simple. The purchaser (consumer) approaches his or her local responsible farmer and asks to buy some fresh produce. The farmer considers this proposition. Some may decline, but this will be because it has not occurred to them that the future of their current  dependency on a corporate controlled marketing regime is completely untenable under the programme proposed by Mr Schwab.

Any good farmer will not turn down an opportunity to do business with near neighbours who are in search of positive and value-for-money farm-raised foods. Especially once the farming community realises that their future income will depend more and more upon establishing a market place amongst those in the immediate vicinity of his/her farm. Those who do not wish – or cannot any longer – purchase their staple food requirements from corporate owned super and hyper market food chains.

The Savvy Farmer

The savvy farmer can see the writing on the wall. Can see that slavery to a system of national and global manipulation – totally out of his/her hands – is a recipe for disaster. Such a farmer will be on the look-out for a secure local market; one where purchasers want to buy direct from the farm with no middle-man taking a cut. This must be the way forward if a secure future on the land is the desired outcome. Any intelligent farmer will recognise this and will take seriously a bona fide request to supply farm-raised produce to those eager to buy it.

The Savvy Consumer 

The savvy consumer will be looking for fresh, healthy, flavourful good quality foods upon which to raise their family, or simply to feed themselves. They will recognise that the chance to acquire such food ‘direct from the farm’ represents the best possible outcome. A bond built-up with a local farmer, via regular purchasing of their farm raised products provides a powerful ally for times ahead when the commercial food chain is subjected to the brutal intervention of the architects of global control and shortages become the norm. Such times are no longer speculative. They are on our doorstep.

The Savvy Farmer and the Savvy Consumer – getting together

Either the consumer or the farmer can can take the initiative of bringing both parties together.

How? 

By calling a ‘round table’ meeting in the local village/town hall or simply in your home. Invite one or two farmers to sit round that table with some individuals eager to obtain food direct from the farm. Some might even be ready to discuss contracting a farmer to grow the staple foods they require. Good quality food grown without recourse to chemical pesticides.

Farmers need a secure income and the buyers a secure local source of nutritious food. Fair prices for both parties and delivery or ‘pick-up from the farm’ can be negotiated in a friendly and informal manner. This is not purely ‘business’ in the old sense of the term; it is forming a common bond in a time when such bonds have been tragically neglected and supermarket convenience cultures have destroyed the links that hold communities together.

A new trading, bartering and sharing practice will be built around the adoption of this ‘proximity principle’. This is the one sure way of effectively resisting the Klaus Schwab farm killer and the New World Order plan for global domination of the food chain. 

Other ways of supporting local trading include: farm shops, farmers markets, box schemes, food cooperatives. Get onto the front foot and regenerate your community – from the ground up!

For further details of the Proximity Principle and community regeneration see ‘Creative Solutions to a World in Crisis’ by Julian Rose.

*

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. 

Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, writer, international activist, entrepreneur and holistic teacher. Julian is co-founder of HARE The Hardwick Alliance for Real Ecology see https://hardwickalliance.org/His acclaimed book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind – Why Humanity Must Come Through’ is particularly recommended reading for this time: see www.julianrose.info

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Dr Paul Marik, one of the world’s most published intensive care specialists, has filed a lawsuit against Sentara Norfolk Hospital to overturn its prohibition on him using FDA approved repurposed medicines in the ICU he oversees. The hospital recently issued a directive banning Dr. Marik from using the medicines in the MATH+ protocol which have reduced covid mortality rates in the ICU by over 50%. The result of the ban has been a sharp increase in mortality amongst patients suffering from Covid-19.

Epidemiologist Dr. Juan Chamie has commented on his Telegram channel:

“In my opinion, banning Dr. Marik from using effective treatments is all about money.  You could bet that the low average ICU days of Dr. Marik’s COVID patients is affecting the hospital  revenue’’.

The MATH+ protocol is made up of several repurposed medicines that are FDA approved, ultra safe and very cheap. The core elements of the protocol are ivermectin, heparin, methylprednisolone, thiamine and high-dose intravenous vitamin C. 

The ban on Dr Marik and other doctors using safe and effective repurposed medicines has to be put in context of developments over the last year. Over the twelve months public health bodies in the United States and across the world, which have shown themselves to be completely beholden to the interests of big Pharma, have waged war against cheap, ultrasafe, repurposed medicines for the treatment of Covid-19.

The result of the ban on the medicines in the MATH+ protocol has been a sharp increase in mortality amongst patients suffering from Covid-19. This as prompted Dr Marik to file a lawsuit against Sentara Norfolk hospital to overturn this ban. The lawsuit notes that the hospital is   “preventing terminally ill COVID patients from exercising their right to choose and to receive safe, potentially life-saving treatment determined to be appropriate for them by their attending physician.”

Dr Marik’s lawsuit cites numerous legal cases that under Virginia law establish the right of patients to receive treatment deemed appropriate by the doctor attending them and which they have given voluntary consent to. 

The lawsuit states that the hospitals ban on the safe and effective medicines that Dr Marik has been using is motivated by several competing priorities which include profitability and the desire to conform to “safe harbour’’ standards of care espoused by Government agencies that are not sensitive to the needs of the individual patient. 

The opposition papers filed by Sentara Norfolk hospital do not even mention the issue of patient welfare. They claim that Dr Marik lacks standing to challenge a hospital prohibition hat denies patients, under his care, the opportunity to receive life-saving medicines which have a long track record of proving to be ultrasafe and efficacious for the treatment of Covid-19. 

Professor Joseph Varon, has declared that the MATH+ protocol has led to a 50% reduction in deaths of Covid patients in the two hospitals where is Chief of Staff. 

Dr Pierre Kory who is president of the Frontline Coivd-19 Critical Care Alliance of which Dr Marik is a co-founder, has declared that:

“The Sentara Healthcare System’s prohibition of the MATH+ protocol is a threat to every doctor and every patient in the U.S.  We know the protocol is effective. Patients who could have been saved by MATH+ are dying because of the hospital’s baseless restriction. We will continue to see more deaths that could have been prevented until the court takes action and orders the hospital to reverse course.” 

Last Thursday Dr Marik testified in court where he is applying for an injunction to overturn the hospitals ban on medicines which he has been using for over a year to save the lives of Covid-19 patients. During his testimony Dr. Marik called the hospital’s ban on the MATH+ protocol as “unprecedented’’ and said “This is not normal. It’s cruel and unusual punishment.’’

The judge presiding over the case said will issue his decision in due course. 

Meanwhile, ordinary people who believe hospitalized patients have every right to determine their course of treatment with their attending doctor and that patients should have access to the full array of safe and proven treatments for COVID-19, including those that are part of the MATH+ protocol can take various actions to support Dr. Marik. 

The ban on Dr. Marik’s use of cheap, ultra safe repurposed drugs is part of the wider attempt by public health authorities in the US to promote the agenda of big pharma. Nothing is to be allowed to get in the way of the mass vaccination campaigns or the licensing of new expensive anti virals developed by Merck and Pfizer which are not as effective as repurposed medicines such as ivermectin. My advice to anyone wanting to understand the war on doctors using repurposed drugs to save lives is simple: follow the money. 

The big pharma approach to medicine versus repurposed drugs such as ivermectin

Over the course of the pandemic governments and public health agencies have shown no interest in taking action to promote the immune health of ordinary people. Such actions could include promoting a healthy diet, exercise, plenty of sleep and rest as well as vitally important supplements such as vitamins D and C.

Another possible course of action for governments could be the mass distribution of cheap, ultra safe repurposed drugs such as ivermectin. In the Indian state of Utter Pradesh, population 241 million, the mass distribution of Ivermectin has virtually eliminated covid cases.

Source

Instead we have complete reliance on draconian lock downs, punitive actions against the unvaccinated, mass vaccination campaigns and reliance upon expensive toxic drugs that don’t actually work such as Remdesivir.

Source

Meanwhile, governments across the world are warning of lock downs this winter to contain the spread of a disease that is eminently treatable and preventable.

In some countries, such as Austria, they are pursuing the tyrannical measure of locking down the unvaccinated. This is completely unscientific as it now a well known that the vaccinated can both catch the virus and transmit it just as much as the unvaccinated. Of course, governments across the world are using the pandemic as an excuse to pit ordinary people against each other at a time of a global economic crisis and increase their powers over the entire population.

It would appear that governments and public health bodies are at best negligent, at worst they are consciously failing to do all they could to promote public health. Could it be their actions are working in the interest of corporations that are making tens of billions of profit from vaccines and other novel medications? God forbid we use repurposed drugs such as Ivermectin that costs cents to make and is incredibly efficacious (64 medical trials and counting) both as a prophylactic and treatment for Covid-19.

Dr. Marik is making a stand for putting patients first

Dr. Marik is standing up to the big pharma approach to medicine which is killing people in his hospital. If his lawsuit is victorious it will encourage doctors everywhere to put patients first and follow the science instead of the profits of rapacious drug companies whose only objective is to maximise profit at the expense of human life.

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  Inga – stock.adobe.com

Pushing for Regime Change in Ethiopia

November 23rd, 2021 by Andrew Korybko

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The author warned at the start of the month to “Expect An Intensification Of Information Warfare Against Ethiopia”, which is exactly what ended up happening. After that country’s democratically elected and internationally recognized government refused to capitulate to the US’ demand to treat the terrorist-designated Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) as its political equal,

Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa Jeffrey Feltman spent a full hour implying a list of threats against Ethiopia. This was then followed by the US calling upon its citizens to evacuate from the country, which was actually nothing more than a pro-TPLF plot to provoke panic.

The latest developments in this fearmongering campaign are even more sinister. State Department spokesman Ned Price provocatively compared the conflict in that country to the recent one in Afghanistan, explicitly telling Americans during a press conference not to expect a similar military evacuation from Ethiopia in the worst-case scenario. He was immediately challenged by Associated Press reporter Matt Lee who confronted him about this provocative comparison, to which Price played dumb and claimed that he only wanted to prevent a “misperception” among the Americans who are still there. In reality, he was just trying to stoke the information warfare flames.

Everything got even more ominous when the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) advisory fearmongered that the TPLF – which it claimed “likely possess a variety of anti-aircraft capable weapons, including rocket-propelled grenades, anti-tank weapons, low-calibre anti-aircraft artillery, and man-portable air-defence systems” – could pose a threat to aircraft near the capital. This was meant to reinforce the factually debunked narrative earlier this month that those terrorists had supposedly already surrounded Addis Ababa and were imminently about to enter despite being 300km away. Taken together, these latest information warfare developments reveal a lot about the US’ strategic intentions.

Most Americans in Addis Ababa as well as the absolute vast majority of their fellow foreign peers haven’t evacuated from the capital despite the US’ fearmongering, nor have foreign businesses closed down shop either. This has proven hugely embarrassing for Washington, which arrogantly overestimated its information warfare capabilities. The US’ perception managers assumed that their earlier fearmongering would result in a large-scale exodus that would provoke panic in that city, facilitate fifth column TPLF terrorist attacks, and generate immense anti-government sentiment. None of that happened, though, at all. The US’ plans have thus far totally failed.

Instead of scaling back its information warfare operations and hoping that everyone forgets about its earlier fearmongering after being distracted by everything else that’s going on across the world right now during these unprecedentedly uncertain times, the US doubled down on its campaign through Price’s and the FAA’s statements. The former counterfactually implied a comparison with Afghanistan despite not being prompted by anyone in the media during that press conference while the latter wanted foreigners to think that they risked being shot down if they evacuated from Addis Ababa too late. There are both facts and falsehoods in these narratives that will now be explained.

Starting with Price’s provocative comparison, the US has indeed abandoned its Ethiopian ally to the TPLF exactly as it abandoned Afghanistan to the Taliban, but that doesn’t mean that the Horn of Africa country’s fate will in any way resemble the Central-South Asian country’s. As for the FAA, it might very well be the case that the TPLF somehow or another obtained “anti-aircraft capable weapons”, but they thus far pose no threat to the capital. Pairing these examples together, a very disturbing conclusion becomes apparent: the US government politically supports the same terrorist group that its own authorities just warned might pose a threat to civilian aircraft in the worst-case scenario.

In other words, the American Hybrid War on Ethiopia has surreally gotten to the point where Washington is now warning its compatriots there that the same terrorists who the US supports might soon shoot down their aircraft if they don’t escape that country right now. These are the intentions of its latest fearmongering campaign that the world must pay attention to. The US government knows that its political allies might kill American citizens but doesn’t care. In fact, it’s implying that they’d be blamed for their own murders if that happens for not evacuating from the country earlier. It goes without saying that the US would also blame the Ethiopian government if such a terrorist attack ended up happening.

There is no way that any objective observer can interpret the US’ latest information warfare provocations in any other way. They’re dishonestly being presented as a form of pressure upon Addis Ababa even though they actually expose how immoral the American Hybrid War on Ethiopia has become. To be clear, there’s no credible chance as of now that this fearmongering scenario will unfold, but it’s enough to point out that the US is basically telling its own people that their government’s local terrorist allies might shoot them out of the sky if they don’t evacuate right away to realize how out of control this regime change campaign is getting. The US must be condemned for its terrorizing intentions.

*

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 OneWorld.

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Fascism has made its way back into Europe as Austria has become one of the first countries in the world to declare war on the unvaccinated as they recently announced that a lockdown will be in place for those who refuse the experimental injections, but they also decided to do the same for the vaccinated resulting in another lockdown of the country. What is concerning is the fact that the Austrian government first targeted the unvaccinated which brings us back to the days of the Nazi Germany targeting specific people who did not fit the criteria of being a German citizen.  The Associated Press published ‘Austria orders lockdown for unvaccinated people as COVID cases soar’ reported that “the Austrian government has ordered a nationwide lockdown for unvaccinated people starting at midnight Sunday to combat rising coronavirus infections and deaths.”  

What would a lockdown mean for the Austrian people who remain unvaccinated?

“The move prohibits unvaccinated people 12 and older from leaving their homes except for basic activities such as working, grocery shopping, going for a walk – or getting vaccinated.”

In other words, Austria is in a 1984 Orwellian scenario that’s close to the breaking point of total tyranny. 

Austrian authorities are “concerned about rising infections and deaths and that soon hospital staff will no longer be able to handle the growing influx of COVID-19 patients” continued “It’s our job as the government of Austria to protect the people,” Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg told reporters in Vienna on Sunday. “Therefore we decided that starting Monday … there will be a lockdown for the unvaccinated.” 

At this point, it should not surprise anyone. We saw this coming.  Now there are protests taking place not only in Austria but in other countries as well including the Netherlands, Croatia and Italy against government lockdowns and vaccine passports.  The point is that the unvaccinated are being targeted.  There are even celebrities who are calling the unvaccinated “the enemy” such as former KISS icon Gene Simmons, who in my opinion has no talent. According to TMZ.com Simmons was recently interviewed on Talkshoplive’s Rock ‘N’ Roll Channel said that “the far left and the far right, they are both evil. They both spread all kinds of nonsense. Politics are the enemy” and that “if you’re willing to walk among us unvaccinated, you are an enemy.” 

This is just the beginning, but it’s not just about lockdowns or celebrities calling those unvaccinated the enemy, doctors who sold out to Big Pharma and obey government orders are also declaring war on the unvaccinated by denying people healthcare services. RT.com published an article written by Dr. R.M. Huffman titled ‘As a doctor, here’s my message to anyone who thinks it’s OK to deny medical treatment to those unvaccinated against Covid’ said that “some doctors are openly discussing refusal to treat patients who decline, for whatever reason, to get the jab. This would set a dangerous precedent and shatter fundamental tenets of medical practice” and that “An insidious sentiment has begun metastasizing throughout the United States and Britain, expressed by politicians, pundits, and – most disturbingly – by physicians themselves: that the unvaccinated who contract Covid-19 should be denied medical care.”  This is clearly a declaration of war on the unvaccinated where doctors themselves are allowing patients to get sick or even die if they are not vaccinated. Huffman sounded the alarm on this disturbing trend in the healthcare industry:

It gets worse. A former US senator from Missouri, Claire McCaskill, also wants the unvaccinated to have their insurance rates raised.  Piers Morgan, the British TV personality, demands to his nearly 8 million Twitter followers that the NHS must refuse them hosital beds.  An emergency medical physician in Arizona responds to a video clip of people unmasked in a grocery store with a message, “Let ‘em die”. A liver surgeon at Massachusetts General suggests that declining a Covid vaccine should be treated by doctors as a functional Do Not Intubate/Do Not Resuscitate order. These are neither private thoughts nor quiet conversations with overworked colleagues: these are calls to action, shared on social media, intended for public consumption. This should terrify you

They are already denying people medical care because they did not get vaccinated. According to news channel wkyc.com who published ‘Organ transplant surgery canceled due to new Cleveland Clinic policy requiring COVID-19 vaccination’ reported that a man named Mike Ganim was about to receive a life-saving kidney transplant surgery, but his wife Debi said she was notified that the surgery was canceled due to the donor not being vaccinated:

Debi Ganim said they were informed on October 8 that Cleveland Clinic implemented a new safety policy that required both living donors and organ recipients to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Mike is fully vaccinated, but the donor is not

Yet, those who are vaccinated are witnessing breakthrough cases all around the world. Back on July 18th , 2021, the Scottish-based news website The Expose posted an article ‘5,522 people have died within 28 days of having a Covid-19 Vaccine in Scotland according to Public Health Scotland’ showing what Public Health Scotland (PHS) released under the freedom of information request called the Covid-19 Statistical Report admitted the following:

Between 8 December 2020 and 11 June 2021, a total of 5,522 people died within 28 days of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in Scotland (number of days between vaccine and death is 0-27, where 0 is the day of vaccination, all age groups). A breakdown of these deaths by day and vaccine type is available in the spreadsheet provided along with this report

On August 16th, 2021, science.org published an article on the breakthrough cases coming out of Israel ‘A grim warning from Israel: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta: with early vaccination and outstanding data, country is the world’s real-life COVID-19 lab’ stated what the reality is for the Israelis who received “the shot”:

What is clear is that “breakthrough” cases are not the rare events the term implies. As of 15 August, 514 Israelis were hospitalized with severe or critical COVID-19, a 31% increase from just 4 days earlier. Of the 514, 59% were fully vaccinated. Of the vaccinated, 87% were 60 or older.

“There are so many breakthrough infections that they dominate and most of the hospitalized patients are actually vaccinated,” says Uri Shalit, a bioinformatician at the Israel Institute of Technology (Technion) who has consulted on COVID-19 for the government. “One of the big stories from Israel [is]: ‘Vaccines work, but not well enough

On November 12th, Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted on The New York Times‘ podcast The Daily on the current data coming in from Israel on the steady rise of “breakthrough infections”:

They are seeing a waning of immunity not only against infection but against hospitalization and to some extent death, which is starting to now involve all age groups. It isn’t just the elderly,” Fauci said. “It’s waning to the point that you’re seeing more and more people getting breakthrough infections, and more and more of those people who are getting breakthrough infections are winding up in the hospital

For those in the United States who are vaccinated also have some bad news heading their way as the Associated Press (AP) has admitted that the vaccinated are the real problem in an article titled ’COVID-19 hot spots offer sign of what could be ahead for US’ reported on the increase of Covid-19 infection rates among the vaccinated:

New Mexico is running out of intensive care beds despite the state’s above-average vaccination rate. Waning immunity may be playing a role. People who were vaccinated early and have not yet received booster shots may be driving up infection numbers, even if they still have some protection from the most dire consequences of the virus

With a 100% vaccination rate, Gibraltar is considered one of the most vaccinated countries on earth has also witnessed an increase of “47 cases per day in the last seven days” as reported by express.co.uk inarticle titled Gibraltar cancels Christmas celebrations amid Covid spikestated the following:

While the government has called upon the public to “exercise their own judgement”, they have “strongly” advised against any social events for at least the next four weeks, discouraging people from holding private Christmas events. Gibraltar has seen a steady increase in active cases of COVID-19 throughout October and November, which has gained pace over the past few days

Now the medical establishment is pushing for never-ending booster shots to give you supposedly added protections. Big Pharma, the World Health Organization (WHO) and various governments who mandated vaccine requirements for federal, state, and local government employees and private businesses are pushing their agenda through the mainstream media with the narrative suggesting that the unvaccinated is becoming a problem. But that is a lie, it’s clearly the vaccinated who are getting sick, many are even dying. In the US today, terrorists are now gun owners, anti-war activists, real journalist organizations such as Wikileaks and other anti-establishment organizations and individuals, soon it will be the unvaccinated.  A new enemy has been added to the list and they are called the anti-Vaxxers. It is certain that governments and Big Pharma will launch a fascistic crusade against the unvaccinated. Public television channel C-Span.org published a video by the Atlantic Council who interviewed Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla who claimed that his corporation is “getting briefings from the CIA and FBI” on the “spread of misinformation” by what he called “criminals” because “they literally cost millions of lives.” The war on the unvaccinated by fascistic governments and multinational corporations such as Big Pharma has already begun.

How far would they go to get people to roll up their sleeves and take the shot? They are already denying people healthcare and are locking down the unvaccinated in Europe, so what’s next? Will governments start banning people who are unvaccinated from buying food? As they say, you give them the finger then they take your arm. The good news is that there is a resistance against this medical tyranny with people from all walks of life and it will keep growing because many see it as the only way to stop a broader agenda by those who want total control over the world’s healthcare system with Big Pharma moving up on the pyramid of global power.  I am optimistic that we will win this battle, I can say with confidence, it’s inevitable.

*

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.

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Daily Sceptic

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A provocative map of the Turkic-speaking world was given to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan last week by his coalition partner and leader of the Far-Right Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), Devlet Bahçeli. The map presented by Bahçeli and enthusiastically accepted by Erdoğan includes not only Turkey, but also large areas of southern Russia and eastern Siberia, parts of Greece and other areas of the Balkans, Central Asia, China’s Xinjiang province, Mongolia and Iran – a depiction of a so-called “Greater Turan”.

It is noted that the map was given to Erdoğan only a few days after the eighth summit of the Cooperation Council of Turkic Speaking States, more commonly known as the Turkic Council, was held. The Istanbul-held summit was attended by the presidents of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey and Uzbekistan. Turkmenistan’s president and Hungary’s prime minister attended as observers. At the summit, Erdoğan strongly advocated for pan-Turkic unity by calling on other member states to officially recognize the illegal but de facto “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” and apply pressure for a transportation corridor to cut through Armenian territory to connect Turkey with Azerbaijan and Central Asia.

Turkic Turan (Source: InfoBrics)

In this particular summit, with the Turkish lira crashing to new lows against the US dollar every few days and inflation now out of control, pan-Turkist and Turkic nationalist rhetoric was utilized in an attempt to distract Turkish citizens with grandeur illusions of territorial expansionism based on the false mythology of common Turkic heritage and culture.

The uncomfortable truth is that even claims of common heritage and ancestry among the pan-Turkic World is false. Take for example Mustapha Kemal Atatürk, the founding father of the Republic of Turkey. He himself was an Islamified Albanian Jew that strongly adopted a Turkish identity after being expelled from his homeland of Macedonia following the First Balkan War (1912-13) and created a “Turkey for the Turks” after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

A “Turkey for the Turks” meant the forced Turkification and Islamification of all citizens regardless if they were Kurdish, Greek, Armenian or any other ethnicity. The by-product of this forced Turkification is felt today. Consider Bahçeli, the Far-Right Turkish ultranationalist that denies the Armenian Genocide despite himself being a Turkified Armenian. In another example, Erdoğan has ancestry from one of the few remaining villages in rural Turkey where Greek is still the mother tongue despite the 1913-1923 genocide and all residents today identifying as Turkish Muslims. Erdoğan still calls his ancestral village by its former Greek name of Potamya (River Village) instead of the Turkish name Güneysu. Erdoğan even lamented in an interview how his father questioned his Turkishness to his grandfather, with his grandfather responding “when we die and go to heaven, they will ask us what God you believe, who your prophet is and what your religion is. They will not ask us of our ethnic origins.”

Atatürk feared that Anatolia would be carved up by Greece, Armenia, the Kurds and the Western Powers, but consolidated unity amongst the millions of Muslims in the region by instilling a common Turkish identity and either exterminating Christians or forcing Turkification and Islamification on survivors, usually women and children. The Turkic warlords that invaded Anatolia during the Medieval period and later became the Ottomans, were a male warrior elite that numbered only in their tens of thousands but ruled over millions of subjects, many who through force or by their own choice adopted Islam and eventually the Turkish language. None-the-less, the modern Republic of Turkey was built on the foundations of ultra-nationalist fever, something that continues 98 years later and is becoming increasingly hyper as Turkey’s economy plummets, along with Erdoğan’s popularity.

The heartland of the Turkic-world in Central Asia and Siberia is not as consumed by ultra-nationalist tendencies because of the secularizing and moderating effect of Russian and Soviet rule. However, Ankara is working extremely hard to shape its regional order by attempting to coerce Central Asian states into hyper-nationalism by claiming a supposed shared culture and ancestry, rather than just a simple linguistic connection that is the result of colonialism that is no different to why several African and Latin American countries have Spanish, French, English and Portuguese as official languages today.

A Turkish bureaucrat familiar with the Turkic Council told Al-Monitor that the bloc “emerged on the basis of common culture and the prospect of a common future. By institutionalizing the Turkic Council, the Turkic states could attain the potential to realize common interests,” which he says, among other things, includes “political cohesion.” It is clear that Ankara has ambitions for a kind of Turkey stretching from the Great Wall of China to the Adriatic Sea.

Turkey believed that after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 it could easily dominate Central Asia culturally, economically and politically. Turkey finds it difficult though to break Russian and even Chinese influence in the region. For this reason, Ankara played a major role in the conflicts between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, and even once had hostile relations with China over alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang, the home of the Turkic Uighur people. Turkey believes that by engaging in this ultra-nationalistic way, it can break Russian and Chinese influence in Central Asia and allow it to emerge as the preeminent power of the region.

It remains to be seen whether Central Asian states will go down the path of Ankara-sponsored ultra-nationalism or just view the Turkic Council as a linguistic bloc that has economic and cultural benefits.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turkey Propagates “Greater Turan” Map Stretching from Balkans to China
  • Tags: ,

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The extraordinary measures we are witnessing in Austria and Europe and the news report that Australia is moving Covid patients and contacts into quarantine camps comprise proof that the Covid measures are unrelated to public health.

Both HCQ and Ivermectin are known Covid cures and preventatives. The evidence is overwhelming. In India’s largest province, Uttar Pradesh, with a dense population three times larger than the combined population of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, Covid was contained by the use of Ivermectin. See this.

In no country has Covid vaccination had success, much less success like Ivermectin in India.

Fake “fact check” sites funded by Big Pharma have tried to bury the news of India’s success with Ivermectin by covering it up with disinformation in order to protect Big Pharma profits.

In Uttar Pradesh, Ivermectin was used as a preventative as well as a cure. A pill a week keeps the virus away. Moreover, it is thoroughly established that Covid’s mortality is essentially limited to people with serious illnesses who are not treated with HCQ or Ivermectin when they catch Covid, but are left to get well on their own and when they don’t are killed in hospitals with ventilators or remdesivir, two proven highly unsuccessful “treatments.”

The Austrian lockdown makes no sense for a variety of reasons. The most obvious is that Austria’s lockdown does not apply to people who go to work. So a large percentage of Austrians will be free to move about. What is the point of allowing people to go to work but not to a restaurant? It is too silly for words and must have some other purpose.

In Law, Legislation, and Liberty, Friedrich A. Hayek wrote that emergencies are the pretexts that governments use to erode civil liberties and that the erosions remain after the emergency passes or the pretend emergency is exposed. In the past 20 years we have seen the demise of civil liberty because of the “war on terror” and now again on the basis of a faked “Covid pandemic.” President George W. Bush used 9/11, an obvious false flag attack, to set aside the Constitutional protection of habeas corpus and detain people indefinitely without presentation of evidence to a court. President Obama used the fake war on terror to execute citizens on suspicion alone without due process of law. Now people are losing their jobs, businesses, and freedom based on an occasionally lethal virus, the prevention and cure of which is blocked by Big Pharma and Big Medicine’s Covid protocol.

When the Soviet Union collapsed and China abandoned communism, people expected a reign of freedom to result. Instead, the Western World has seen an assault on civil liberty. In America today and throughout the so-called “free West” people are punished for exercising First Amendment rights. The Constitution and human rights laws do not protect them. Journalist Julian Assange has been held in violation of Anglo-American habeas corpus for a decade, and no court has done anything about it. There are no protests from law schools, bar associations, or journalists. An obvious conclusion is that the members of institutions designed to support civil liberty no longer believe in civil liberty.

As the belief in freedom has weakened in the West, unless we join together and revive it by refusing to accept lockdowns and “vaccine” mandates, we won’t much longer be free.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

 

“Man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe.” – President Kennedy, 1961 Inaugural Address

Where China and Russia are currently leading a new paradigm of cooperation and development, it is too easily forgotten that America itself had once embodied this anti-colonial spirit under the foreign policy vision of John F. Kennedy. Even though the young leader died in office before the full effect of his grand vision could take hold, it is worth revisiting his fight and stated intention for a post-colonial world governed by win-win cooperation.

FDR’s Death and the Emergence of the New Rome

America didn’t become an imperial “dumb giant” after WWII without a major fight.

With FDR’s death, the USA began acting more and more like an empire abroad and a racist police state under McCarthyism within its own borders. During this time, those allies of FDR who were committed to Roosevelt’s anti colonial post war vision, rallied around former Vice President Henry Wallace’s 1948 Presidential bid with the Progressive Party of America. When this effort failed, an outright police state took over and those same fascists who had sponsored WWII took control of the reins of power.

These “economic royalists” enjoyed full control as puppet President Harry S. Truman giggled as he dropped bombs on a defeated Japan and happily and supported America’s new role as the re-conquistador of nations who sought independence after WWII. While it can’t be argued that the politically naïve President Eisenhower had some redeeming qualities, for the most part, his eight year administration was run by the Dulles brothers and Wall Street, and it was only on January 17, 1961 that he made any serious effort to speak openly about the military industrial complex that had grown like a cancer under his watch.

A New Hope Emerges in 1961

It was no secret who the outgoing President was warning. Three days after his address, a young John F. Kennedy was inaugurated 35th president of the United States to the great hope of many anti-fascists in America and abroad.

It is too often overlooked today, but Kennedy’s anti-colonial position was not a secret during his decade as a Senator and Congressman. Even though his family pedigree was stained with mafia and JP Morgan ties to his father “Papa Joe”, John Kennedy was made of sturdier stuff.

Touring Asia and the Middle East in the 1950s, a young Senator Kennedy expressed his sensitivity to the plight of the Arab world and problem of US imperialism when he said:

“Our intervention in behalf of England’s oil investments in Iran, directed more at the preservation of interests outside Iran than at Iran’s own development…. Our failure to deal effectively after three years with the terrible human tragedy of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees [Palestinians], these are things that have failed to sit well with Arab desires and make empty the promises of the Voice of America….”

Later, speaking in a 1960 speech regarding ending colonialism in Africa, JFK expressed his understanding of Africa’s demand for genuine independence saying:

“Call it nationalism, call it anti-colonialism, Africa is going through a revolution…. Africans want a higher standard of living. Seventy-five percent of the population now lives by subsistence agriculture. They want an opportunity to manage and benefit directly from the resources in, on, and under their land…. The African peoples believe that the science, technology, and education available in the modern world can overcome their struggle for existence, that their poverty, squalor, ignorance, and disease can be conquered…. [The] balance of power is shifting … into the hands of the two-thirds of the world’s people who want to share what the one-third has already taken for granted….”

JFK Battles the Deep State

Wall Street’s Dulles Brothers who together ran the CIA and the State Department had made several major efforts to sabotage Kennedy’s “new frontiers” initiative that gripped the imaginations of young and old alike. Kennedy’s program was driven by large scale infrastructure at home and advanced scientific and technological progress in the Developing sector abroad. Attempting to break that trajectory, Allen Dulles had prepared the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba months before Kennedy entered the scene which was a near disaster for the world. Just days before Kennedy’s inauguration, Allan Dulles ensured that a pro-Kennedy ally who had just recently gained power in the Congo named Patrice Lumumba was assassinated in cold blood knowing that JFK would be blamed, and every effort was made to back up the French fascists trying to stop the Algerian independence movement behind JFK’s back. Both the Cuban invasion and the assassination of Lumumba have been blamed on Kennedy to this day.

In response to this treachery, JFK made the bold move of firing CIA director Allan Dulles, and two Wall Street-connected CIA directors on November 29, 1961 saying that he would soon “splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”

Recognizing the insanity of the zero sum Cold Warriors who could only look at the world through the perversity of a Hobbesian lens of “each against all”, JFK not only stood alone against the entire array of war-hungry Joint Chiefs calling for war with Russia during the infamous “13 day showdown”, but also took the advice of Generals MacArthur, and Charles de Gaulle who warned him to avoid all entrapments of a “land war in Vietnam”. On this point, Kennedy introduced NSAM 263 in October 1963 to begin a full withdrawal from Southeast Asia.

JFK’s June 10, 1963 speech What Kind of Peace Do We Seek? Showcased his resistance to the imperialists in America.

What was especially intolerable was that JFK began challenging closed rules of the Zero-Sum Cold War game itself when he announced a new mission outside of the closed parameters of geopolitics when he announced the mission to put a man on the moon “within the decade”. This would have been tolerable if the effort was kept within a geopolitical ideology of “competition against the evil commies”. But Kennedy knew better and called for a US-Russia partnership to jointly develop advanced technologies together making the space program a project for human peace. Chapter 21 will take up this story more fully.

Kennedy’s efforts to build bridges with Russia were of vital importance as his efforts resulted in the passage of the test ban treaty on August 5, 1963, and hopes were awoken for an early end to the Cold War though the mutual development of the poorest parts of the world. This was “International New Deal” strategy which patriots like Henry Wallace and Paul Robeson had fought for from 1946-1959.

Across Africa, Asia and other former colonies, JFK had worked hard to build relationships with Pan African leaders Kwame Nkrumah, Patrice Lumumba, as well as Egypt’s Gamal Nasser, India’s Jawaharlal Nehru and South Vietnamese President Diem to provide American assistance for the construction of great infrastructure projects like the Akosombo Dam in Ghana, nuclear power in Egypt and Vietnam and steel industries in India. Today the Akosombo Dam stands with a plaque dedicated to the “martyred John F. Kennedy”. As historian Anton Chaitkin proves in his incredible 2013 opus “JFK vs the Empire”[1], this didn’t happen without a major fight with the JP Morgan controlled steel barons who artificially raised the price of steel in order to make these projects financially impossible.

Charles DeGaulle as a Factor in the Great Game

JFK was not alone in this struggle at this time and worked closely with the great anti-fascist general Charles de Gaulle.

Charles de Gaulle was among a network of leaders who fought valiantly against the cancerous deep state that was re-asserting control across the trans-Atlantic nations after WWII.

While Franklin Roosevelt had to do battle with such pro-fascist organizations such as the Liberty League and Council on Foreign Relations from 1933-1945, President De Gaulle had to contend with the pro-Nazi Petain government whose agents immediately took over controls of France in the wake of WWII, and didn’t go away upon the General’s ascension to the Presidency during the near collapse of the 5th republic in 1959.

De Gaulle strategically fought tooth and nail against the pro-NATO fascists led by General Challe who attempted two coup attempts against De Gaulle in 1960 and 1961[2] and later worked with MI6 and the CIA using private contractors like Permindex to arrange over 30 assassination attempts from 1960-1969[3].

JFK and de Gaulle at the Champs Elysee in 1961 [Source: John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library, Boston]

De Gaulle was not only successful at taking France out of the NATO cage in 1966[4], but he had organized to ensure Algeria’s independence against the will of the entire deep state of France who often worked with Dulles’ State Department to preserve France’s colonial possessions. De Gaulle also recognized the importance of breaking the bipolar rules of the Cold War by reaching out to Russia calling for a renewed Europe “from the Atlantic to the Urals”. He also sought an alliance with China with the intent of resolving the fires lit by western arsonists in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam whose independence he was committed to guaranteeing. De Gaulle wrote of his plan in his Memoires:

“My aim, then, was to disengage France, not from the Atlantic Alliance, which I intended to maintain by way of ultimate precaution, but from the integration carried out by NATO under American command; to establish relations with each of the states of the East bloc, first and foremost Russia, with the object of bringing about a détente, followed by understanding and cooperation; to do likewise, when the time was ripe, with China”

After arranging a treaty with China’s Prime Minister Zhou Enlai, India’s Prime Minster Nehru and the leadership of Cambodia in 1963 to create a China-led block to resolve the crisis in Southeast Asia with France’s help, De Gaulle became the first western head of state to recognize China and establish diplomatic relations with the Mainland on January 31, 1964. He saw that China’s growth would become a driving force of world development and believed that friendship based on scientific and technological progress to be a source of France’s renewal.

Attacking the false dichotomy of “Free liberal capitalism” vs “totalitarian communism”, De Gaulle expressed the Colbertist traditions of “dirigisme” which have historically driven France’s progress since the 17th century when he said:

 “We are not going to commit ourselves to the empire of liberal capitalism, and nobody can believe that we are ever going to submit to the crushing totalitarianism of communism.”

The De Gaulle-Kennedy Alliance

De Gaulle had great hopes to find like-minded anti-colonialist leaders and collaborators who were fighting against the deep state in other countries. In America he was inspired by the fresh leadership of the young John F. Kennedy whom he first met in Paris in May 1961. Of Kennedy he wrote

“The new President was determined to devote himself to the cause of freedom, justice, and progress. It is true that, persuaded that it was the duty of the United States and himself to redress wrongs, he would be drawn into ill-advised interventions. But the experience of the statesman would no doubt have gradually restrained the impulsiveness of the idealist. John Kennedy had the ability, and had it not been for the crime which killed him, might have had the time to leave his mark on our age.”

De Gaulle’s advice to Kennedy was instrumental in the young President’s decision to stay out of a land war in Vietnam and led to Kennedy’s National Security Action Memorandum 263 to begin a phase out of American military from Vietnam on October 2, 1963. Kenney and De Gaulle both shared the view (alongside Italian industrialist Enrico Mattei with whom both collaborated) that Africa, Asia and South America needed advanced scientific and technological progress, energy sovereignty and sanitation in order to be fully liberated by the colonial structures of Europe. All three fought openly for this vision and all three fell in the line of battle (one to a plane crash in 1961, another to several shooters in Dallas in 1963 and the last to a staged “colour revolution” in 1969.)

If De Gaulle, Kennedy and Mattei were alive today, it is guaranteed they would recognize in the Belt and Road Initiative and broader Eurasian alliance, the only viable pathway to a future worth living in and the only means to save the souls of their own nations.

The Plot to Kill Kennedy

New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison famously played by Kevin Costner in Oliver Stone’s 1992 film, did more than many people today realize in exposing the networks that ran Kennedy’s murder and subsequent cover-up.

Without going into detail of the multiple bullets that killed Kennedy from several directions (especially the lethal head shot which obviously struck him FROM THE FRONT as showcased in the Zapruder film), let us look at some lesser-known evidence discovered by Garrison.

In his 1991 book On the Trail of the Assassins[5], Garrison wrote of an international assassination bureau named Permindex and the World Trade Organization on whose boards sat CIA asset Clay Shaw. Garrison wrote:

“The CIA- which apparently had been conducting its own foreign policy for some time- had begun a project in Italy as far back as the early 1950s. The organization, named the Centro Mondiale Commerciale had initially been formed in Montreal, then moved to Rome in 1961. Among the members of its board of directors, we learned, was one Clay Shaw from New Orleans”.

Garrison cited French researcher Paris Flammonde when he described it as “a shell of superficiality… composed of channels through which money flowed back and forth without anyone knowing the sources or the destination of these liquid assets.”

Garrison pointed out that Permindex had been kicked out of Italy, Switzerland and France for good reasons:

“As for Permindex… it had, among other things, secretly financed the opposition of the French Secret Army Organization (OAS) to President de Gaulle’s support for independence for Algeria, including its reputed assassination attempts on de Gaulle.”

After naming the other pro-fascist members- many of whom were connected to European royal families and banks, Garrison then pointed to the World Trade Center owner “One of the major stockholders of the Centro was a Major Louis M. Bloomfield, a Montreal resident… and former agent with the Office of Strategic Services, out of which the United States had formed the CIA.”

Bloomfield as Minion of the Oligarchy

Since both the World Trade Center and Permindex were owned by Bloomfield, his role in this story cannot be overlooked and takes us straight to the heart of the agenda to kill Kennedy.

Not only did Bloomfield play a key role working alongside Rhodes Scholars in Canada such as Justice Minister Davie Fulton in order to stop continental water projects advocated by JFK[6] and Canadian pro-development leaders like John Diefenbaker, Premier Daniel Johnson and BC Premier WAC Bennett, but he also played a leading role as a founding member of the 1001 Trust alongside other upper level managers of the oligarchy like Maurice Strong, Peter Munk (of Barrick Gold), and media Mogul Conrad Black[7].

For those who may not be aware, the 1001 Trust was a special organization set up under Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and Prince Philip Mountbatten to finance the new ecology movement then blossoming under their guiding hand. Rather than preserving nature, this new movement was driven by a perverse new form of global imperialism today being pushed under the framework of COP 26 and a ‘Great Reset’.

Philp and Bernhard were not only co-founders of the World Wildlife Fund in 1961, but were supporters of the anti-technological growth Morges Manifesto which the WWF credits as the start of the modern green movement[8]. Louis Mortimer Bloomfield served as Vice President of the World Wildlife Fund while Prince Philip was President, and later gave the baton over to Maurice Strong.

The Morges Manifesto was the first attempt to place the blame for humanity’s ills on the yearning for scientific and technological progress itself rather than the imperial traditions of inbred oligarchs.

A co-author of the Morges Manifesto and co-founder of the WWF was Sir Julian Huxley. Huxley was a leading eugenicist who laid out the intention for the new imperial movement that JFK rebelled valiantly against in his 1946 UNESCO founding manifesto[9] when he said “even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” 

The fact that dark skinned people are the most ruthlessly affected by de-carbonization schemes and “appropriate technologies” like expensively inefficient windmills and solar panels today is not a coincidence.

Open vs. Closed System Paradigms

So WHY would those founders of the ecology movement, which is today pushing a global green one world government, have wished to see President Kennedy murdered?

If I said it was because they want depopulation or world government, it would be too simple.

It were better said that Kennedy was self-consciously unleashing the innate powers of creative reason as a governing principle of political economy. He believed in an anti-oligarchical view of humanity as made in the living image of God and said as much repeatedly. He believed that the human mind could conquer all challenges that both nature, vice and ignorance can throw at us. Kennedy didn’t see the world through a zero sum lens, nor did he believe in the Malthusian “limits to growth” paradigm which his killers promulgated after his death. In fact JFK argued against Malthusianism by name[10].

Today, those Green New Dealing technocratic zombies pervasive across the western deep state are horrified to witness the reawakening of JFK’s spirit in the leadership of powerful leaders like China’s Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin who have created a new paradigm of cooperation, war avoidance, and infrastructure projects under the growing New Silk Road as well as ambitious space projects which are quickly bringing the Moon, Mars and other celestial bodies into the sphere of our economic activity.

Kennedy’s revenge can best be achieved if the American people do everything possible to support the fight against this Malthusian cancer and push for America’s participation in that new paradigm before an economic meltdown throws America into a new Dark Age.

*

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.

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1] John F. Kennedy vs. the Empire by Anton Chaitkin, EIR, Aug. 20, 2013

[2] THE GENERALS’ PUTSCH: 21 APRIL 1961- When the Stay-Behind wanted to replace de Gaulle by Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 27 August 2001

[3] How Charles de Gaulle Survived Over Thirty Assassination Attempts, by Alex Ledsom, published in Culture Trip, June 26 2018

[4] When France Pulled the Plug on a Crucial Part of NATO by Erin Blakemore, History Channel, 2018

[5] On the Trail of the Assassins, by Jim Garrison, New York Warner Books, 1991

[6] The battle to halt the development of continental water management projects throughout the 1950s-1960s is outlined in volume 3 of the Untold History of Canada: Canada’s Forgotten Struggle for Progress, by this author, 2019.

[7] The 1001 Club: Bankers and Raw Materials Executives Striving for a Sustainable Future by Joel van der Reijden, Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics, August 14, 2004

[8] https://wwf.panda.org/discover/knowledge_hub/history/?

[9] UNESCO: Its Purpose and Philosophy, by Julian Huxley, UNESCO, 1946

[10] Speaking to the National Academy of Science on October 22, 1963, JFK said: “Malthus argued a century and a half ago that man, by using up all his available resources, would forever press on the limits of subsistence, thus condemning humanity to an indefinite future of misery and poverty. We can now begin to hope and, I believe, know that Malthus was expressing not a law of nature, but merely the limitation then of scientific and social wisdom.”

Blinken’s Africa Visit Failed to Turn Countries Against China

November 23rd, 2021 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 @crg_globalresearch.

***

Nigerian Foreign Minister Geoffrey Onyeama said during a joint press conference with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken last week that there is no problem with his country depending on loans from China, especially as his country’s debt is quite “sustainable.” Onyeama added that cooperation with China offers Nigeria excellent infrastructure development opportunities.

Blinken admitted during the press conference held in the Nigerian capital of Abuja that Chinese investments in Africa and African trade with China is huge. However, he also made the predictable Western argument about China’s debt trap against African countries. The US Secretary of State insisted that African countries should not be left with a huge debt that cannot be paid off.

For his part, Onyeama responded to criticism of the Nigerian government regarding its supposed dependence on money and loans from China. The minister said Nigeria is trying to be very cautious on the debt issue. In fact, he claimed that the debt-to-GDP ratio is very good. Onyeama also stressed that this is a stable debt that the government closely monitors. He emphasized that Nigeria needs infrastructure for industrialization and that cooperation with China offers great opportunities to fill the country’s huge deficit.

At the press conference, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal questioned Chinese-Nigerian economic relations. However, the attempt to stir up hype around Nigeria’s alleged dependence on Chinese loans was unsuccessful.

It is because of China that Africa is gradually overcoming poverty, building necessary transportation infrastructure and achieving industrialization. China takes long-term programs, industry and agricultural development seriously and exploits natural resources for the benefit of not only its own country, but also local economies. Under these conditions, the US begrudgingly acknowledges that they are no longer the preeminent power of the world and must accept the importance of China in relation to Africa.

As for the debt trap theory, Blinken was forced to speak out, especially as the US has adopted a policy of confronting China at any opportunity given. It is especially hypocritical though as the US portrays Chinese projects as debt traps, but the US economy itself is also only growing because of its huge accumulation of debt. Nigeria’s debt to China gives the country an opportunity to solve its social problems, develop its infrastructure like roads, railways and energy pipelines. At the same time, according to the Nigerian Public Debt Authority, the country’s debt to China is $3.121 billion, or 3.94% of the total public debt as of March 2020.

The US artificially exaggerates the scale of China’s so-called debt trap to Africa. Blinken’s first visit to Africa as Secretary of State was clearly intended to mark the US’ presence in Africa after the previous Trump administration ignored the continent.

Another purpose of Blinken’s trip to Africa is compete with China for influence, a task that is seemingly impossible. It is quite symbolic that upon arrival in Abuja, Blinken’s motorcade drove by the China Chamber of Commerce in Nigeria – an immensely grand building. Then on his trip to Kenya after Nigeria, his convoy passed a Chinese-funded highway that is under construction and where Chinese characters can be seen on tractors and other heavy equipment. The US Secretary of State also held his press conference in a hotel where the Kenya-China Chamber of Commerce office is located. Blinken’s trip to Africa was filled with such reminders of Beijing’s growing influence on the continent and Washington’s waning clout.

It would also be on Blinken’s mind that this reality in Africa was by Washington’s own choice. With the emergence of the unipolar world system following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Washington prioritized shaping its global vision through military means, especially when considering its wars against Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan. This had not only disillusioned many countries from the US-led world order, but also meant that Africa was ignored and only seen as a place of aid dependency.

“Too many times, the countries of Africa have been treated as junior partners — or worse — rather than equal ones,” Blinken said in Abuja. The US “firmly believes that it’s time to stop treating Africa as a subject of geopolitics — and start treating it as the major geopolitical player it has become.”

Blinken however omitted that Africa has only become a “major geopolitical player” off the back of Chinese investments and attention. As Africa continues its path towards development it is unlikely that it will downgrade its relations with China for the sake of the US that has traditionally seen the continent as a place with little chance of development but cheap natural resources.

Although Blinken has to acknowledge China’s significant role in Africa, he still attempts to turn African countries towards the US on the back of promises that have already been heard for many decades. When considering the traditional role played by Washington and Beijing in Africa, it is easy to see why African countries are unwilling to turn away investments and opportunities from China for the sake of pleasing the US. In this way, it is impossible for the US to replace China as Africa’s main source of investment and development.

*

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 umaizi.com

Global Organization Attempts to End Free Speech Worldwide

November 23rd, 2021 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 @crg_globalresearch.

***

The International Grand Committee on Disinformation (IGCD) consists of “an international array of legislators, policy advisers, and other experts” who work together “to forge international alliances that bring shared, effective strategies into the battle against online disinformation”

The founders of the IGCD are four members of the British and Canadian Parliaments, including British MP Damian Collins, who is also on the board of the Centers for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). The CCDH fabricates reports that are then used to strip people of their freedom of speech rights

Logistics for the IGCD are provided by the Reset Initiative (a not-so-subtle reminder that censorship is a requirement for The Great Reset), which is part of The Omidyar Group of philanthropies

Omidyar funds Whistleblower Aid, the legal counsel for the fake Facebook “whistleblower” Frances Haugen, who has testified before U.S., French, British and European Union lawmakers, calling for more censorship

CCDH chairman Simon Clark also has ties to Arabella Advisors, the most powerful dark money lobbying group in the U.S.

*

If you suspected censorship was being coordinated on a global scale, you’d be right. The International Grand Committee on Disinformation1 (IGCD) consists of “an international array of legislators, policy advisers, and other experts” who work together “to forge international alliances that bring shared, effective strategies into the battle against online disinformation.” What could possibly go wrong?

The idea behind the IGCD came from four members of the British and Canadian Parliaments: Damian Collins and Ian Lucas from the U.K., and Bob Zimmer and Nathaniel Erskine-Smith from Canada. The first session of the IGCD took place at the end of November 2018, so they’ve been quietly working in the background for some time already.

Since then, they’ve held meetings in Canada and the U.K. and hosted seminars in the U.S., attended by spiritual leaders, journalists, technology executives, “subject matter experts” and parliamentary leaders from 21 countries (Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Mexico, Morocco, Singapore, St. Lucia, Sweden, the U.K. and the U.S.)

According to the IGCD, the organization functions as a “forum for information sharing, collaboration and harmonization of policies to … achieve common goals among democratic states. Never mind the fact that democracy cannot exist without freedom of speech.”

Logistics for the group are provided by an initiative called “Reset,”2 which feels like a not-so-subtle reminder that censorship is a requirement for The Great Reset. They know people would never go along with the Great Reset plan if allowed to freely discuss the ramifications.

‘Online Safety Bill’ Seeks to Shut Down Counternarratives

The IGCD helps shed light on the technocracy front group known as the Centers for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH),3 seeing how one of the CCDH’s board members, Damian Collins MP, is also one of the founders of the IGCD. Both groups were formed in 2018 and clearly have the same goals and agenda.

One of those goals is to eliminate free speech online, which is what the U.K.’s proposed “Online Safety Bill” would achieve. Not surprisingly, Collins is part of the Online Safety Bill Committee, charged with examining the Bill “line by line to make sure it is fit for purpose.”4

In an August 11, 2021, blog post, Collins asked for the public’s help to track down counternarratives, taking screenshots of the offending material and emailing it to him. “Unless harmful content is reported, whether it is terrible images of self-harm, violent or extremist content or anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, it can otherwise be unknowable to regulators and governments,” he said.

It’s impossible to miss the fact that Collins is lumping “anti-vaccine” content in with violent and extremist content that must be censored and, in reality, that’s probably one of the top categories of information this bill seeks to control.

As reported by iNews,5 “The Prime Minister [Boris Johnson] has repeatedly insisted the powers contained within the legislation would help crack down on … anti-vaccine disinformation.”

Online Safety Bill Is ‘Catastrophic for Free Speech’

While some might think it’s a good idea to spoon feed people “correct” information about vaccines, it’s important to realize that while vaccines are the issue of today, tomorrow another topic that is near and dear to your heart could be deemed out of bounds for public discussion. So, supporting censorship of any kind is a slippery slope that is bound to come back to bite you when you least expect it.

As reported by BBC News,6 the “Legal to Say. Legal to Type” campaign warns that if the Online Safety Bill becomes law, Big Tech firms will be in a position of extraordinary power:

“While the group supports the bill’s aim of ensuring online platforms remove images of child sexual abuse, terrorist material and content which incites racial hatred and violence, it fears other provisions will adversely affect free speech …

Under the bill, Ofcom [the British Office of Communications] will be given the power to block access to sites and fine companies which do not protect users from harmful content up to £18m, or 10% of annual global turnover, whichever is the greater.

Campaigners claim this gives tech firms an incentive to ‘over-censor,’ and ‘effectively outsources internet policing from the police, courts and Parliament to Silicon Valley’ …

Mr. [MP David] Davis described the bill as a ‘censor’s charter.’ He added: ‘Lobby groups will be able to push social networks to take down content they view as not politically correct, even though the content is legal’ …

Campaigners are also concerned that technology companies may use artificial intelligence to identify harmful content. That, they say, may introduce racial biases and will wrongly censor language, ‘especially when it comes to irony-loving Brits.’”

US Democrats Attack Free Speech

Meanwhile, in the U.S., the Health Misinformation Act, introduced by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Sen. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., would suspend Communications Decency Act Section 230 protections in instances where social media networks are found to boost “anti-vaccine conspiracies,” and hold them liable for such content. In a July 22, 2021, article, Tech Crunch reported:7

“The bill would specifically alter Section 230’s language to revoke liability protections in the case of ‘health misinformation that is created or developed through the interactive computer service’ if that misinformation is amplified through an algorithm.

The proposed exception would only kick in during a declared national public health crisis, like the advent of COVID-19, and wouldn’t apply in normal times. The bill would task the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with defining health misinformation.”

As with the British Online Safety Bill, the Health Misinformation Act is an open portal for abuses. Ironically, the Act actually relies on misinformation to make its case. It specifically mentions the CCDH’s “Disinformation Dozen” report,8 which falsely claims a dozen individuals, myself included, are responsible for a majority of the “anti-vax misinformation” being shared on social media platforms.

‘Disinformation Dozen’ Have Negligible Reach

Meanwhile, in an August 18, 2021, statement,9,10 Facebook’s vice president of content policy, Monika Bickert, stated there’s no evidence to support the CCDH’s claims, and that the people named by the CCDH as being responsible for the vast majority of vaccine misinformation on social media were in fact only responsible for a tiny fraction — 0.05% — of all vaccine content on Facebook. Here’s an excerpt from Bickert’s statement:11

“In recent weeks, there has been a debate about whether the global problem of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation can be solved simply by removing 12 people from social media platforms. People who have advanced this narrative contend that these 12 people are responsible for 73% of online vaccine misinformation on Facebook. There isn’t any evidence to support this claim …

In fact, these 12 people are responsible for about just 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook. This includes all vaccine-related posts they’ve shared, whether true or false, as well as URLs associated with these people.

The report12 upon which the faulty narrative is based analyzed only a narrow set of 483 pieces of content over six weeks from only 30 groups, some of which are as small as 2,500 users. They are in no way representative of the hundreds of millions of posts that people have shared about COVID-19 vaccines in the past months on Facebook.

Further, there is no explanation for how the organization behind the report identified the content they describe as ‘anti-vax’ or how they chose the 30 groups they included in their analysis. There is no justification for their claim that their data constitute a ‘representative sample’ of the content shared across our apps.”

It’s quite clear that the CCDH exists to fabricate “evidence” that is then used to destroy the opposition in order to control the information. As such, it’s really nothing more than a front group for the much larger, global IGCD, which aims to shut down free speech across the world.

The ‘Whistleblower’ That Isn’t

One of the dirty tricks used to shut down free speech is to employ fake whistleblowers. Frances Haugen, the former Facebook employee turned “whistleblower” who testified before Congress October 5, 2021, accusing her former employer of aiding evildoers, is not an actual whistleblower.

She is being legally represented by a firm called Whistleblower Aid, founded by a national security lawyer, Mark Zaid, who is known for betraying his clients and siding with prosecutors.13

Whistleblower Aid is funded by tech billionaire and eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, and the Reset Initiative, which provides logistics for the IGCD, is part of The Omidyar Group of philanthropies.14That tells you everything you need to know about the intended purpose behind Haugen’s testimony. As reported by The Gray Zone:15

“Haugen emphasized in her testimony that she ‘doesn’t want to break up’ Facebook; she was merely looking for increased ‘content moderation’ to root out ‘extremism’ and ‘(mis/dis)information’ … Haugen appears to be little more than a tool in a far-reaching plan to increase the U.S. national security state’s control over one of the world’s most popular social media platforms.”

In short order, Haugen managed what has been impossible for other whistleblowers. She secured audiences with lawmakers in France, the U.K. and the European Union to discuss the need for more censorship.

Dark Money

Over the past year, the CCDH’s fabricated “Disinformation Dozen” report has been repeatedly used as the foundation for calls to strip American citizens of their First Amendment free speech rights. It’s been used by attorneys general and elected politicians, and it’s been cited in all the Big Tech hearings.16

Aside from being directly tied to the global IGCD (remember, Collins is on the board of both the IGCD and the CCDH), the CCDH is also connected to Arabella Advisors — the most powerful dark money lobbying group in the U.S.17 — by way of CCDH chairman Simon Clark.18 (“Dark money” is a term that means the identities of those funding the organization are kept secret.)

Clark is a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress,19 where he specializes in “right-wing domestic terrorism” (are we to believe there’s no such thing as left-wing terrorism?), which is funded by a liberal Swiss billionaire named Hansjörg Wyss.20,21

Wyss also funds Arabella Advisors, which runs a large number of temporary front groups that pop in and out of existence as needed for any given campaign.22 Reporter Hayden Ludwig has described the inner workings of Arabella Advisors and the influence of the “dark money” flowing through it:23

“Arabella’s nonprofits act as the left’s premier pass-through funders for professional activists. Big foundations — including the Gates, Buffett, and Ford Foundations — have laundered billions of dollars through this network, washing their identities from the dollars that go to push radical policies on America.

But the real juice from these nonprofits comes from the vast array of ‘pop-up groups’ they run — called so because they consist almost solely of slick websites that may pop into existence one day and pop out the next, usually once the campaign is through.

We’ve counted over 350 such front groups pushing everything from federal funding of abortion to overhauling Obamacare to packing the Supreme Court. Arabella is as dark as ‘dark money’ gets. It’s also the prime example of liberal hypocrisy over anonymous political spending, operating in nearly total obscurity …

As more of this massive web of groups — responsible for churning out nearly $2.5 billion since its creation — has come into focus, one thing’s become clear: When a special interest donor goes to Arabella, they’re expecting a political payoff.”

You can learn more about Arabella Advisors and its hidden influence over U.S. politics through pop-up front groups in the Capital Research Center series, “Arabella’s Long War Against Trump’s Department of the Interior.”24

An Open War on the Public

We’re now in a situation where asking valid questions about public health measures are equated to acts of domestic terrorism. It’s unbelievable, yet here we are.

Over the past two years, the rhetoric used against those who question the sanity of using unscientific pandemic countermeasures, such as face masks and lockdowns, or share data showing that COVID-19 gene therapies are really bad public health policy, has become increasingly violent.

Dr. Peter Hotez has publicly called for cyberwarfare assaults on American citizens who disagree with official COVID narratives, and this vile rhetoric was published in the prestigious science journal Nature, of all places.25 His article should have set off alarm bells at the CCDH, were the CCDH actually about protecting us from online hate.

But the CCDH is not about protecting the public from hate. In classic Orwellian Doublespeak, it actually exists to foster and create it. Incidentally, the journal Nature also published an article by CCDH founder Imran Ahmed, in which he discusses the need to destroy the “anti-vaxx industry.” How he, who has no medical credentials, managed to meet publication requirements is a mystery, and just goes to show we cannot even trust some of our most esteemed medical journals.

In his article, Ahmed flat out lied, saying he “attended and recorded a private, three-day meeting of the world’s most prominent anti-vaxxers.” Far from being “private,” the meeting in question was actually a public online conference, open to anyone and everyone around the world, with access to the recorded lectures part of the sign-up fee.

The fact that Ahmed lied about such an easily verifiable point tells you everything you need to know about the CCDH — and by extension the IGCD, which it clearly is working with. In the end, lies cannot stand up to the truth, which is precisely why the CCDH and IGCD are working overtime to “harmonize” laws across the democratic world to censor any and all counternarratives.

Like I said before, right now, it’s primarily about silencing questions and inconvenient truths about the COVID shots, but in the future, these laws will allow them to silence discussion on any topic that threatens undemocratic rule by globalists.

To avoid such a fate, we must be relentless in our pursuit and sharing of the truth, and we must relentlessly demand our elected representatives stand up for freedom of speech and other Constitutional rights.

*

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, 2, 14 IGCD.org

3 Counterhate.com

4 Damiancollins.com August 11, 2021

5 iNews August 15, 2021

6 BBC June 23, 2021

7 Tech Crunch July 22, 2021

8, 12 CCDH, The Disinformation Dozen

9, 11 Facebook August 18, 2021

10 New York Post August 18, 2021

13, 15 The Gray Zone October 21, 2021

16 PR Newswire April 27, 2021

17 The Atlantic, Democrats Have Made Their Peace With Dark Money (Archived)

18 Simon Clark Bio

19 Center for American Progress Simon Clark

20 New York Times May 3, 2021 (Archived)

21 Capital Research May 3, 2021

22, 23 The American Conservative May 12, 2021

24 Capital Research Arabella’s Long War Against Trump’s Department of the Interior Series

25 Nature April 27, 2021

Featured image is from Mercola

The High Stakes of the US-Russia Confrontation over Ukraine

November 23rd, 2021 by Medea Benjamin

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

 

A report in Covert Action Magazine from the self-declared Donetsk People’s Republic in Eastern Ukraine describes grave fears of a new offensive by Ukrainian government forces, after increased shelling, a drone strike by a Turkish-built drone and an attack on Staromaryevka, a village inside the buffer zone established by the 2014-15 Minsk Accords.

The People’s Republics of  Donetsk (DPR) and Luhansk (LPR), which declared independence in response to the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014, have once again become flashpoints in the intensifying Cold War between the United States and Russia. The U.S. and NATO appear to be fully supporting a new government offensive against these Russian-backed enclaves, which could quickly escalate into a full-blown international military conflict.

The last time this area became an international tinderbox was in April, when the anti-Russian government of Ukraine threatened an offensive against Donetsk and Luhansk, and Russia assembled thousands of troops along Ukraine’s eastern border.

On that occasion, Ukraine and NATO blinked and called off the offensive. This time around, Russia has again assembled an estimated 90,000 troops near its border with Ukraine. Will Russia once more deter an escalation of the war, or are Ukraine, the United States and NATO seriously preparing to press ahead at the risk of war with Russia?

Since April, the U.S. and its allies have been stepping up their military support for Ukraine. After a March announcement of $125 million in military aid, including armed coastal patrol boats and radar equipment, the U.S. then gave Ukraine another $150 million package in June. This included radar, communications and electronic warfare equipment for the Ukrainian Air Force, bringing total military aid to Ukraine since the U.S.-backed coup in 2014 to $2.5 billion. This latest package appears to include deploying U.S. training personnel to Ukrainian air bases.

Turkey is supplying Ukraine with the same drones it provided to Azerbaijan for its war with Armenia over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020. That war killed at least 6,000 people and has recently flared up again, one year after a Russian-brokered ceasefire. Turkish drones wreaked havoc on Armenian troops and civilians alike in Nagorno-Karabakh, and their use in Ukraine would be a horrific escalation of violence against the people of Donetsk and Luhansk.

The ratcheting up of U.S. and NATO support for government forces in Ukraine’s civil war is having ever-worsening diplomatic consequences. At the beginning of October, NATO expelled eight Russian liaison officers from NATO Headquarters in Brussels, accusing them of spying. Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland, the manager of the 2014 coup in Ukraine, was dispatched to Moscow in October, ostensibly to calm tensions. Nuland failed so spectacularly that, only a week later, Russia ended 30 years of engagement with NATO, and ordered NATO’s office in Moscow closed.

Nuland reportedly tried to reassure Moscow that the United States and NATO were still committed to the 2014 and 2015 Minsk Accords on Ukraine, which include a ban on offensive military operations and a promise of greater autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk within Ukraine. But her assurances were belied by Defense Secretary Austin when he met with Ukraine’s President Zelensky in Kiev on October 18, reiterating U.S. support for Ukraine’s future membership in NATO, promising further military support and blaming Russia for “perpetuating the war in Eastern Ukraine.”

More extraordinary, but hopefully more successful, was CIA Director William Burns’s visit to Moscow on November 2nd and 3rd, during which he met with senior Russian military and intelligence officials and spoke by phone with President Putin.

A mission like this is not usually part of the CIA Director’s duties. But after Biden promised a new era of American diplomacy, his foreign policy team is now widely acknowledged to have instead brought U.S. relations with Russia and China to all-time lows.

Judging from the March meeting of Secretary of State Blinken and National Security Advisor Sullivan with Chinese officials in Alaska, Biden’s meeting with Putin in Vienna in June, and Undersecretary Nuland’s recent visit to Moscow, U.S. officials have reduced their encounters with Russian and Chinese officials to mutual recriminations designed for domestic consumption instead of seriously trying to resolve policy differences. In Nuland’s case, she also misled the Russians about the U.S. commitment, or lack of it, to the Minsk Accords. So who could Biden send to Moscow for a serious diplomatic dialogue with the Russians about Ukraine?

In 2002, as Undersecretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, William Burns wrote a prescient but unheeded 10-page memo to Secretary of State Powell, warning him of the many ways that a U.S. invasion of Iraq could “unravel” and create a “perfect storm” for American interests. Burns is a career diplomat and a former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, and may be the only member of this administration with the diplomatic skills and experience to actually listen to the Russians and engage seriously with them.

The Russians presumably told Burns what they have said in public: that U.S. policy is in danger of crossing “red lines” that would trigger decisive and irrevocable Russian responses. Russia has long warned that one red line would be NATO membership for Ukraine and/or Georgia.

The border between post-coup Ukraine and the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, based on the Minsk Agreements. Map credit: Wikipedia

But there are clearly other red lines in the creeping U.S. and NATO military presence in and around Ukraine and in the increasing U.S. military support for the Ukrainian government forces assaulting Donetsk and Luhansk. Putin has warned against the build-up of NATO’s military infrastructure in Ukraine and has accused both Ukraine and NATO of destabilizing actions, including in the Black Sea.

With Russian troops amassed at Ukraine’s border for a second time this year, a new Ukrainian offensive that threatens the existence of the DPR and LPR would surely cross another red line, while increasing U.S. and NATO military support for Ukraine may be dangerously close to crossing yet another one.

So did Burns come back from Moscow with a clearer picture of exactly what Russia’s red lines are? We had better hope so. Even U.S. military websites acknowledge that U.S. policy in Ukraine is “backfiring.” 

Russia expert Andrew Weiss, who worked under William Burns at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, acknowledged to Michael Crowley of The New York Times that Russia has “escalation dominance” in Ukraine and that, if push comes to shove, Ukraine is simply more important to Russia than to the United States. It therefore makes no sense for the United States to risk triggering World War III over Ukraine, unless it actually wants to trigger World War III.

During the Cold War, both sides developed clear understandings of each other’s “red lines.” Along with a large helping of dumb luck, we can thank those understandings for our continued existence. What makes today’s world even more dangerous than the world of the 1950s or the 1980s is that recent U.S. leaders have cavalierly jettisoned the bilateral nuclear treaties and vital diplomatic relationships that their grandparents forged to stop the Cold War from turning into a hot one.

Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, with the help of Under Secretary of State Averell Harriman and others, conducted negotiations that spanned two administrations, between 1958 and 1963, to achieve a partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that was the first of a series of bilateral arms control treaties. By contrast, the only continuity between Trump, Biden and Under Secretary Victoria Nuland seems to be a startling lack of imagination that blinds them to any possible future beyond a zero-sum, non-negotiable, and yet still unattainable “U.S. Uber Alles” global hegemony.

But Americans should beware of romanticizing the “old” Cold War as a time of peace, simply because we somehow managed to dodge a world-ending nuclear holocaust. U.S. Korean and Vietnam War veterans know better, as do the people in countries across the global South that became bloody battlefields in the ideological struggle between the United States and the U.S.S.R.

Three decades after declaring victory in the Cold War, and after the self-inflicted chaos of the U.S. “Global War on Terror,” U.S. military planners have settled on a new Cold War as the most persuasive pretext to perpetuate their trillion dollar war machine and their unattainable ambition to dominate the entire planet. Instead of asking the U.S. military to adapt to more new challenges it is clearly not up for, U.S. leaders decided to revert to their old conflict with Russia and China to justify the existence and ridiculous expense of their ineffective but profitable war machine.

But the very nature of a Cold War is that it involves the threat and use of force, overt and covert, to contest the political allegiances and economic structures of countries across the world. In our relief at the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, which both Trump and Biden have used to symbolize the “end of endless war,” we should have no illusions that either of them is offering us a new age of peace.

Quite the contrary. What we are watching in Ukraine, Syria, Taiwan and the South China Sea are the opening salvos of an age of more ideological wars that may well be just as futile, deadly and self-defeating as the “war on terror,” and much more dangerous to the United States.

A war with Russia or China would risk escalating into World War III. As Andrew Weiss told the Times on Ukraine, Russia and China would have conventional “escalation dominance,” as well as simply more at stake in wars on their own borders than the United States does.

So what would the United States do if it were losing a major war with Russia or China? U.S. nuclear weapons policy has always kept a “first strike” option open in case of precisely this scenario.

The current U.S. $1.7 trillion plan for a whole range of new nuclear weapons therefore seems to be a response to the reality that the United States cannot expect to defeat Russia and China in conventional wars on their own borders.

But the paradox of nuclear weapons is that the most powerful weapons ever created have no practical value as actual weapons of war, since there can be no winner in a war that kills everybody. Any use of nuclear weapons would quickly trigger a massive use of them by one side or the other, and the war would soon be over for all of us. The only winners would be a few species of radiation-resistant insects and other very small creatures.

Neither Obama, Trump nor Biden has dared to present their reasons for risking World War III over Ukraine or Taiwan to the American public, because there is no good reason. Risking a nuclear holocaust to appease the military-industrial complex is as insane as destroying the climate and the natural world to appease the fossil fuel industry.

So we had better hope that CIA DIrector Burns not only came back from Moscow with a clear picture of Russia’s “red lines,” but that President Biden and his colleagues understand what Burns told them and what is at stake in Ukraine. They must step back from the brink of a U.S.-Russia war, and then from the larger Cold War with China and Russia that they have so blindly and foolishly stumbled into.

*

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.

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

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has become known around the world as a moderate leftist leader who, internally, pushed social changes in favor of the poor population and, in foreign policy, strengthened Brazil’s position as a non-aligned country, close to the BRICS and emerging powers. However, it appears that many of these positions will be reviewed by Lula, who plans to run in presidential elections next year. On a recent visit to Europe, the former Brazilian president met with several European leaders and promised a position of subservience on the part of Brazil, including on extremely sensitive and strategic topics, such as the conservation of the Amazon Forest. It is possible that to return to power Lula is willing to do anything, including maintaining a foreign policy of automatic alignment with the EU – which will bring great social harm to the Brazilian people.

On November 11, Lula started a tour of the European continent, visiting Germany, Belgium, France, and Spain. In these countries, the former Brazilian president met with several politicians and entrepreneurs, fulfilling an extensive diplomatic agenda by establishing strategic dialogues with possible supporters for his candidacy in the 2022 Brazilian presidential elections. The topics debated during the meetings were extremely important and demonstrated a great similarity of opinion between Lula and his European interlocutors.

In Germany, Lula met with Olaf Scholz and extensively discussed strategic issues of great importance, such as the conservation of the Amazon Forest. In a very problematic posture, Lula literally invited Scholz to “protect” the Amazon, which is something quite complicated to understand. Apparently, the former Brazilian president wants the German government to actively participate in a Brazilian environmental policy to protect the Amazon. It remains to be seen what the limits for German action in this possible environmental administration scheme would be. Indeed, this possible environmental policy seems more like an advance to the project of internationalization of the Amazon.

Previously, during the G20 meeting, Jair Bolsonaro had treated Scholz with extreme rudeness. The German politician approached the Brazilian president, but apparently Bolsonaro did not know who Scholz was and did not greet him. The episode did not go unnoticed by the press, which released the news pointing to an even more deteriorated state for Brazil-Germany bilateral relations. In fact, such relations have been getting more complicated since 2019, precisely due to the dismantling of the Brazilian environmental policy, which was strongly condemned by the Merkel Administration. By acting rudely, Bolsonaro further intensified the crisis, while Lula, in turn, acted with political expertise by choosing Scholz as his first partner on the European tour – and by mentioning the Amazon issue during the conversation.

In Belgium, Lula was invited to speak during a conference of the European Parliament. In his communication, the former president pointed out conditions for the long-awaited EU-Mercosur trade agreement and promised to advance in all the agendas defended by the European bloc, focusing on issues such as the environment, social inclusion, job creation and the reconstruction of the post-COVID-19 world. Lula was enthusiastically applauded by politicians present at the conference and his speech was widely publicized in the European media as a form of “hope” for Brazil.

In Paris, Lula met with Macron, by whom he was received with honors of head of state – which is a symbolic and very significant act, since, considering that this ceremony is applied only in meetings with heads of state, Macron practically claimed to recognize Lula as the true president of Brazil. The same issues discussed at the other meetings were talked and both leaders outlined joint strategies to improve bilateral relations. On the occasion, Lula also met with several other French politicians, including the mayor of Paris.

Lula ended the trip after arriving in Spain. The former Brazilian president met with the prime minister of Spain, Pedro Sánchez, at the Moncloa Palace, in Madrid. Both strengthened bonds of cordiality by presenting common points of view on the discussed issues, especially on topics such as the environment, strengthening of democracy and social progress. Sánchez openly declared support for Lula’s candidacy.

In all the countries he visited, Lula not only met with politicians, but he also spoke with businessmen, journalists, union leaders, activists, and supporters. In all cases, the former president managed to gain support for his candidacy, establish contracts for investments in Brazil and outline conditions for future bilateral partnerships. In fact, Lula’s political intelligence is notorious. The choice of Europe as a campaign route, precisely at a time of decline in relations between Europe and Brazil, was of great strategic value. Certainly, his candidacy will have the financial support of European politicians and businessmen, while Bolsonaro is increasingly losing allies in Brazil and abroad.

However, some points need to be criticized. The position that Lula placed Brazil in his negotiations with Europe were extremely subservient. Basically, the former president took a trip to tell the Europeans that, if he wins the elections, Brasília will be willing to accept all the conditions imposed by the EU for economic partnerships to be established. Lula acted against Brazilian interests by inviting the future German chancellor to participate in the administration of the Amazon – which seems absurd, as it seriously violates Brazilian sovereignty. In other words, Lula is doing to Europeans what Bolsonaro did to Washington during the 2018 elections: promising a policy of automatic alignment, in exchange for political and economic support.

Lula, during his previous terms, stood out for a reasonably consistent foreign policy, prioritizing Brazilian strategic interests. He has strengthened ties with the BRICS, negotiated agreements with Iran, met with leaders of non-aligned emerging nations, and mediated the dialogue between north and south of global geopolitics. This could be the same posture at the current time, for example. Lula could try to improve Brazil’s relations with China and Russia, which were also harmed by Bolsonaro’s alignment with Washington, but instead he chose to substitute the US for Europe, which, unlike Moscow and Beijing, demands abusive conditions to establish partnerships.

In fact, Lula is currently occupying an important role as a “de facto chancellor”, establishing dialogues and partnerships in an unofficial way, while the government remains silent, inert, and increasingly isolated on the international arena. But this parallel diplomacy is also acting against Brazilian interests. The most likely scenario is that, if elected, Lula will import all European agendas, including health passport, mandatory vaccines (with a boycott against non-Western vaccines), carbon market, among others, and advance even further in the project to establish a transnational administration of the Amazon. In exchange, Brazil will have “European investments”, which will not be able to solve the social problems that affect the country.

*

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

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

“All we are saying is give peace a chance.”—John Lennon

How do you give thanks for freedoms that are constantly being eroded?

How do you express gratitude for one’s safety when the perils posed by the American police state grow more treacherous by the day?

How do you come together as a nation in thanksgiving when the powers-that-be continue to polarize and divide us into warring factions?

Every year finds us struggling to reconcile our hope for a better, freer, more just world with the soul-sucking reality of a world in which greed, meanness and war continue to triumph.

Fifty years ago, John Lennon released “Imagine” and exhorted us to “Imagine all the people livin’ life in peace.” That same year, Lennon released “Happy Xmas (War Is Over)” as part of a major anti-war campaign. Lennon—a musical genius, anti-war activist, and a high-profile example of the lengths to which the Deep State will go to persecute those who dare to challenge its authority—made clear that the only way to achieve an end to hunger, violence, war, and tyranny is to want it badly enough and work towards it.

Fifty years later, we clearly don’t want those things badly enough.

Peace remains out of reach. Activists and whistleblowers continue to be prosecuted for challenging the government’s authority. Militarism is on the rise, all the while the governmental war machine continues to wreak havoc on innocent lives.

For those of us who joined with John Lennon to imagine a world of peace, it’s getting harder to reconcile that dream with the reality of the American police state. And those who do dare to speak up about government corruption (such as Julian Assange) are labeled dissidents, troublemakers, terrorists, lunatics, or mentally ill and tagged for surveillance, censorship or, worse, involuntary detention.

All the while, people still keep looking to the government to “fix” what’s wrong with this country. You’d think we’d have learned—after 20 years of heavy-handed government authoritarianism that started with the 9/11 attacks and has continued through to the present-day COVID-19 tyranny—that the only thing the government can be trusted to do is make things worse.

Now we find ourselves approaching that time of year when, as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln proclaimed, we’re supposed to give thanks as a nation and as individuals for our safety and our freedoms.

It’s not an easy undertaking.

Thinking good thoughts, being grateful, counting your blessings and adopting a glass-half-full mindset are fine and good, but that’s not enough. This world requires doers, men and women (and children) who will put those good thoughts into action.

Remember, evil prevails when good men and women do nothing.

Here’s what I suggest: this year, do yourselves a favor and turn off the talking heads, shut down the screen devices, tune out the politicians, take a deep breath, then do something to pay your blessings forward.

Refuse to remain silent. Take a stand. Speak up. Speak out. Recognize injustice. Don’t turn away from suffering.

Find something to be thankful for about the things and people in your community for which you might have the least tolerance or appreciation. Instead of just rattling off a list of things you’re thankful for that sound good, dig a little deeper and acknowledge the good in those you may have underappreciated or feared.

When it comes time to giving thanks for your good fortune, put your gratitude into action: pay your blessings forward with deeds that spread a little kindness, lighten someone’s burden, and brighten some dark corner.

Engage in acts of kindness. Smile more. Fight less. Build bridges. Refuse to let toxic politics define your relationships. Focus on the things that unite instead of that which divides.

Do your part to push back against the meanness of our culture with conscious compassion and humanity. Moods are contagious, the good and the bad. They can be passed from person to person. So can the actions associated with those moods, the good and the bad.

Be a hero, whether or not anyone ever notices.

Acts of benevolence, no matter how inconsequential they might seem, can spark a movement.

All it takes is one person to start a chain reaction.

For instance, a few years ago in Florida, a family of six—four adults and two young boys—were swept out to sea by a powerful rip current in Panama City Beach. There was no lifeguard on duty. The police were standing by, waiting for a rescue boat. And the few people who had tried to help ended up stranded, as well.

Those on shore grouped together and formed a human chain. What started with five volunteers grew to 15, then 80 people, some of whom couldn’t swim.

One by one, they linked hands and stretched as far as their chain would go. The strongest of the volunteers swam out beyond the chain and began passing the stranded victims of the rip current down the chain.

One by one, they rescued those in trouble and pulled each other in.

There’s a moral here for what needs to happen in this country if we only can band together and prevail against the riptides that threaten to overwhelm us.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, there may not be much we can do to avoid the dismal reality of the police state in the long term—not so long as the powers-that-be continue to call the shots and allow profit margins to take precedence over the needs of people—but in the short term, there are things we can all do right now to make this world (or at least our small corners of it) a little bit kinder, a lot less hostile and more just.

It’s never too late to start making things right in the world.

John Lennon tried to imagine a world in which we all lived in peace. He was a beautiful dreamer whose life ended with an assassin’s bullet on December 8, 1980.

Still, that doesn’t mean the dream has to die, too.

There’s something to be said for working to make that dream a reality. As Lennon reminded his listeners, “War is over, if you want it.”

The choice is ours, if we want it.

*

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

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.

Featured image is from Rise Up Times

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Don’t Give Up on the Blessings of Freedom. “Give Peace a Chance” John Lennon
  • Tags: ,

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Attempts are on-going to stir the pot in Eastern Ukraine, once again.

The US intelligence community is reportedly setting the stage, warning its European allies that Russia is planning an incursion into Ukraine, and the chance of that happening is increased with the coming of colder weather.

NATO’s mouthpiece, the Atlantic Council, warned that Russian President Vladimir Putin is “quietly moving ahead with the slow-motion annexation of east Ukraine.”

This relates to a presidential decree that removes barriers in trade between Russian and the self-proclaimed republics in East Ukraine.

The US and its Western allies deem this “just as much of a threat to Ukraine’s future territorial integrity” as the alleged purposeful presence of Russian “elite tank troops” along the border.

However, the reality of the matter seems a bit different. Around mid-November, domestic political pressure on the President of Ukraine intensified. Local oligarchs launched an information campaign accusing Zelensky of ineffective government management.

It is not far-fetched to consider that this is highly likely a scenario orchestrated by Washington, in an attempt to force the Kiev government into an escalation in order to create a diversion from its internal issues.

This rings even more true when it is considered that on November 21 and the early hours of November 22, Gorlovka and the surrounding areas were shelled by artillery.

A similar situation is in the area of the settlement Yasinovataya. In the LPR, Ukrainian forces fired from large-caliber artillery at the village of Kalinovo-Borshchevatoe.

President Volodymyr Zelensky congratulated Ukrainians on the “day of dignity and Freedom”, which is celebrated in the country on November 21, and shelling the homes of those living in the DPR and LPR is likely part of the festivities.

The Ukrainian president called for a change in the thinking of the Ukrainian people – to get rid of the psychology of the victim and become smart and brave. One way of doing that is evidently focusing outward, towards Donetsk and Lugansk and attempting to start a war.

Notably, the Armed Forces of Ukraine for the first time used the American Javelin anti-tank missile system during the fighting in Eastern Ukraine. The head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine Kirill Budanov announced that the Javelin had been used with pride.

If this course continues further hostilities are unavoidable in Eastern Ukraine, and it is likely that Kiev may find itself biting more than it can chew under Washington’s guidance.

*

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

Five Reasons the Left Won in Venezuela

November 23rd, 2021 by Leonardo Flores

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

For the first time in four years, every major opposition party in Venezuela participated in elections. For the fifth time in four years, the left won in a landslide. Voters elected 23 governors, 335 mayors, 253 state legislators and 2,471 municipal councilors. The governing United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) won at least 19 of 23 governorships (one race remains too close to call) and the Caracas mayoralty in the November 21 “mega-elections.” Of the 335 mayoral races, the vote count has been completed in 322 of them, with PSUV and its coalition taking 205, opposition coalitions 96 and other parties 21. Over 70,000 candidates ran for these 3,082 offices, and 90% of the vote was counted and verified within hours of polls closing. Turnout was 42.2%, eleven points higher than last year’s parliamentary elections. 

Here’s why chavismo, the movement behind the Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution, won:

1. Good governance in health, housing and food. Venezuela’s health policies in response to Covid-19 have been exemplary. The expectation in the U.S. was that the coronavirus would overwhelm Venezuela’s healthcare system, which has been devastated by years of sanctions. And yet, per million population, Venezuela registered 15,000 cases and 180 deaths. For the sake of comparison, the figures in the U.S. are 146,000 cases/million and 2,378 deaths/million, Brazil’s are 103,000 and 2854, and Colombia’s are 98,000 and 2,481. Unlike images we saw in Ecuador or Bolivia, there were no bodies of victims left on the streets, nor were there overflowing morgues like in New York.

In terms of housing, the Venezuelan government has built 3.7 million homes for working class families over the past ten years, the majority of which were built and delivered by the Maduro administration while under sanctions.

As deadly as the sanctions have been, things would be significantly worse were it not for Venezuela’s most important social program in the past five years: the CLAPs. These consist of boxes of food and other necessities, some of which are produced locally, which are packaged and distributed by communities themselves. Seven million Venezuelans families receive CLAP boxes every month, out of a country of 30 million people. Not only has this program been instrumental in keeping people fed, it has invigorated the base of chavismo and reconnected the government with grassroots after the PSUV’s defeat in the 2015 legislative elections.

2. The economic situation is improving. According to an August 2021 survey by opposition pollster Datanálisis, 50% of Venezuelans consider that their lives have improved compared to the previous year or two. Despite sanctions that have caused a 99% drop in government income, the Venezuelan economy is stabilizing. Inflation is down to single digits for the first time in four years. Credit Suisse projected 5.5% growth in 2021 and 4.5% growth in 2022. Oil production hit an 18-month high in October, helped by a trade deal with Iran.

3. The left is united (mostly). The PSUV didn’t win the elections alone, they were united with 8 other left parties in a coalition known as the GPP (Great Patriotic Pole). The PSUV itself held internal primaries in August, the only party to do so. Over half the GPP candidates were women, 52%, while another 43% were youth. Overall, 90% of the candidates hadn’t held office before, suggesting a renewal of the party from the grassroots. However, this marked the second election in a row in which the left wasn’t completely united. A coalition that included Venezuela’s Communist Party ran its own ticket. These parties got less than 3% of the vote in the 2020 parliamentary elections and their decision to run separately appears to have had no impact on the gubernatorial races.

4. The opposition is divided. Never known for their unity, the Venezuelan opposition suffered a major split as a result of some parties opting for boycotting elections and attempting to overthrow the government, while others preferred a democratic path. Despite all the major parties participating in these elections, the opposition was split into two main coalitions, the MUD (Democratic Unity Roundtable) and the Democratic Alliance. The vast majority of the 70,000 candidates are in the opposition and they were running candidates against each other in almost every race. Of the 23 gubernatorial races, six were won by PSUV candidates with less than 50% of the vote and by less than six points – more unity between the MUD and Democratic Alliance could have made the difference.

A count of the votes in the gubernatorial and Caracas mayoral races show the PSUV coalition taking 46% of the total vote, with the rest split between the various oppositions. A united opposition could win in Venezuela, but “united opposition” is an oxymoron.

5. The opposition is deeply unpopular. While much is made about the alleged lack of support for President Maduro (the millions of votes his party got will never be acknowledged by the U.S.), it’s less known that the opposition is deeply unpopular. Here are the disapproval ratings for some of the opposition’s key figures: Juan Guaidó, 83% disapproval; Julio Borges (Guaidó’s “Foreign Minister), 81%; Leopoldo López (Guaidó’s mentor and mastermind of coup attempts), 80%; Henry Ramos Allup (longtime opposition leader), 79%; Henrique Capriles (2012 & 2013 presidential election loser), 77%; and Henri Falcón (2018 presidential election loser), 66%. All of these but Falcón are part of the MUD.

The MUD coalition spent years claiming they represented a majority, a claim which couldn’t be verified by their strategy of electoral boycotts. However, their return to the electoral process only marked a ten point increase in voter turnout compared to 2020. Moreover, the MUD placed below other opposition parties in 9 of 23 states and in Caracas. The MUD only won one of the three governorships taken by the opposition. This might be due in part to widespread rejection of U.S. sanctions. The MUD has repeatedly endorsed deadly sanctions despite the fact that 76% of Venezuelans reject them.

The MUD enjoys the political, financial and logistical support of the United States and the EU, while members of other opposition parties have been denounced and sanctioned by the U.S. for negotiating with the Maduro administration. These elections should put the Biden administration on notice that continuing to support the MUD, and in particular, the fiction of Guaidó as “interim president”, is a failed policy.

*

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

Leonardo Flores is Latin American policy expert and campaigner with CODEPINK.

Featured image is from Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Selected Articles: The Imposition of Tyranny, Austria Sets the Stage

November 23rd, 2021 by Global Research News

Fake Science, Invalid Data: There is No Such Thing as a “Confirmed Covid-19 Case”. There is No Pandemic

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 23, 2021

National governments have announced a Fifth Wave, focussing on the deadly variants of SARS-CoV-2, including the Delta variant. The variant is a scam. How do they identify the “variants”. The PCR test neither detects the virus nor the variants of the virus.

mRNA COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: A Warning

By Steven R Gundry, November 22, 2021

We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.

The Imposition of Tyranny, Austria Sets the Stage: First Western Country to “Legally” Impose “Vaccination” on Her Population.

By Peter Koenig, November 22, 2021

These repeated senseless testing even on small children, with a predominantly false positive test method, obviously increases the “case” numbers. But they are totally meaningless, because nobody is sick.

The Higher the Vaccination Rate, the Higher the Excess Mortality

By Prof. Dr. Rolf Steyer and Dr. Gregor Kappler, November 22, 2021

The correlation between the excess mortality in the federal states and their vaccination rate when weighted with the relative number of inhabitants of the federal state is 0.31. This number is surprisingly high and would be negative if vaccination were to reduce mortality.

String of Pearls: Yemen Could be the Arab Hub of the Maritime Silk Road

By Pepe Escobar, November 22, 2021

The usual suspects tried everything against Yemen. First, coercing it into ‘structural reform.’ When that didn’t work, they instrumentalized takfiri mercenaries. They infiltrated and manipulated the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), ISIS. They used US drones and occasional marines.

NIH Director Calls for COVID Conspiracists to be “Brought to Justice”

By Paul Joseph Watson, November 22, 2021

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Francis Collins has angrily called for anyone who spreads “misinformation” about COVID-19 online to be “brought to justice.” “Conspiracies are winning here. Truth is losing. That’s a really serious indictment of the way in which our society seems to be traveling,” Collins told the Washington Post.

Reap What You Sow? Doctors Dropping in Deaths Described as “Died Unexpectedly” and “Died Suddenly” Since Mid-October

By TheCOVIDBlog.com, November 22, 2021

The American Medical Association reported that 96% of U.S. doctors were vaccinated in June. Even with a 20-point error margin, accounting for saline/placebo shots and exemptions, a vast majority of doctors have received the shots. It’s only fair since doctors peddle the injections to their unwitting, credulous fanatics who worship the white coats.

President John F. Kennedy: His Life and Public Assassination

By Edward Curtin, November 22, 2021

From the day he was sworn in as President on January 20, 1961, John F. Kennedy was relentlessly pressured by the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency, and by many of his own advisers to wage war – clandestine, conventional, and nuclear. To understand why and by whom he was assassinated on November 22, 1963, one needs to apprehend this pressure and the reasons why President Kennedy consistently resisted it, as well as the consequences of that resistance.

“We’ll Never Give Up” – Protests Erupt Across World over Government COVID Tyranny

By Zero Hedge, November 22, 2021

Demonstrations against new virus restrictions were observed in Austria, Croatia, Italy, Northern Ireland, the UK, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Outside of Europe, protesters were seen in several cities across Canada, Australia, Japan, and even the US. Some marked Saturday as part of a “Worldwide Freedom” rally to protest COVID-19 restrictions and vaccine mandates.

Canadian Doctors Say Government Data Point to Spike in COVID Cases after Jab, Suppressed Immune System

By Anthony Murdoch, November 22, 2021

Physicians from the Canadian province of Alberta claim their government’s data show COVID jabs cause short-term jumps in cases counts, deaths, and hospitalizations possibly because the “vaccine is causing immunosuppression.”

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Imposition of Tyranny, Austria Sets the Stage

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

Excerpt

“We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.”

***

Abstract

Our group has been using the PLUS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences, Inc, Irvine, CA) a clinically validated measurement of multiple protein biomarkers which generates a score predicting the 5 yr risk (percentage chance) of a new Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). The score is based on changes from the norm of multiple protein biomarkers including IL-16, a proinflammatory cytokine, soluble Fas, an inducer of apoptosis, and Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF)which serves as a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue, among other markers. Elevation above the norm increases the PULS score, while decreases below the norm lowers the PULS score.

The score has been measured every 3-6 months in our patient population for 8 years.

Recently, with the advent of the mRNA COVID 19 vaccines (vac) by Moderna and Pfizer, dramatic changes in the PULS score became apparent in most patients.

This report summarizes those results. A total of 566 pts, aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen in a preventive cardiology practice had a new PULS test drawn from 2 to 10 weeks following the 2nd COVID shot and was compared to the previous PULS score drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre- shot. Baseline IL-16 increased from 35=/-20 above the norm to 82 =/- 75 above the norm post-vac; sFas increased from 22+/- 15 above the norm to 46=/-24 above the norm post-vac; HGF increased from 42+/-12 above the norm to 86+/-31 above the norm post-vac. These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac.

We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on mRNA COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: A Warning
  • Tags: ,

The Higher the Vaccination Rate, the Higher the Excess Mortality

November 22nd, 2021 by Prof. Dr. Rolf Steyer

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

Important study conducted by German Scientists

***

 Summary 

The correlation between the excess mortality in the federal states and their vaccination rate when weighted with the relative number of inhabitants of the federal state is 0.31. This number is surprisingly high and would be negative if vaccination were to reduce mortality. For the period under consideration (week 36 to week 40, 2021), the following applies: The higher the vaccination rate, the higher the excess mortality. In view of the forthcoming policy measures aimed at reducing the virus, this figure is worrying and needs to be explained if further policy measures are to be taken with the aim of increasing the vaccination rate. 

To get started 

1. The overall overview of the current excess mortality in Germany as a whole can be found here. 

2. And also here, whereby the deviation from the median of the years 2016 -2020 can be read directly here. 

These two graphics are interactive, i.e. the numbers are displayed directly as soon as you move the mouse pointer over them. Looking at weeks 36 to 43, the comparison between 2021 and the median 2016 to 2020 shows the excess mortality in these COGs directly in absolute figures. In some of these weeks, there are actually about 2000 deaths more than the median from 2016 to 2020. 

Mortality rates and vaccination rates are recorded particularly reliably. Whether someone is vaccinated twice is as indisputable as the question of whether someone has died. If you look at more complex variables such as the cause of death, this is not the case: the determination of causes of death such as “died of Covid-19 infection” depends relatively strongly on interpretations. A positive test is by no means proof of this cause of death. Death rates and vaccination rates, on the other hand, are based only to a small extent on interpretations. 

Our data sources 

The data we use are taken from 

1. STatist Federal Office (see this) 

2. Robert Koch Institute (see this) 

(The link in question, where you can download the relevant numbers as an Excel file, is given in parentheses.) 

What did we do? 

1. Calculation of excess mortality 

For each of the 16 federal states, we have added up the number of deaths in the KWn 36 to 40 for each year 2016 to 2021. (Newer ones are not yet available for the individual federal states to date, Nov. 16, 2021.) This results in the number of deaths for each federal state and year in the period from week 36 to week 40. For a comparative value of the number of deaths in weeks 36 to week 40 in 2021, we have averaged the death rates in week 36 to week 40 for the years 2016 to 2020. For each federal state, these average values of recent years are the basis for comparisons with 2021. For the comparison, we formed the ratio of the number of deaths in 2021 in the period from week 36 to week 40 by the averaging values just mentioned and then multiplied it by 100. The ratio 100 therefore means that there is neither excess nor under-mortality, the ratio 110 states that in the period under consideration 2021 exactly 10% more people died than in the average of the previous 5 years. The actual figures vary among the 16 states between 102.2 (Saxony) and 115.7 (Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania). The greater the deviation (from 100) upwards, the greater the excess mortality in the respective federal state. 

2. Vaccination rate 

We were able to find the vaccination rate directly from the table mentioned under Data Sources (point 2). The quota of twice vaccinated people has been chosen. 

3. Calculation of the correlation between vaccination rate and excess mortality 

The 16 countries have very different populations. The Hanseatic city of Bremen has only about 0.68 million inhabitants, the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, on the other hand, about 17.92 million. (These figures can also be found at the Federal Statistical Office.) When calculating the correlation between vaccination rate and excess mortality, we used relative population size as weights (as well as means and variances). In this way, distortions in favour of the situation in the small countries are avoided. 

The following figure shows a scatter plot of the 16 data points (of the federal states). The vaccination rate is on the horizontal axis and the ratio is removed on the vertical axis, where the size of the area of the points represents the relative population. 

According to this figure, Saxony (SN) and Thuringia (TH) perform best in terms of current excess mortality. They also have the lowest vaccination rates. 

4. Interpretation of the result 

The correlation is + 0.31, is amazingly high and especially in an unexpected direction. Actually, it should be negative, so that one could say: The higher the vaccination rate, the lower the excess mortality. However, the opposite is the case and this urgently needs to be clarified. Excess mortality can be observed in all 16 countries. The number of Covid deaths reported by the RKI in the period under consideration consistently represents only a relatively small part of mortality and, above all, cannot explain the critical facts: 

The higher the vaccination rate, the higher the excess mortality. 

The most direct explanation is: 

1. Complete vaccination increases the likelihood of death. 

Of course, more indirect explanations are possible: 

2. The higher the proportion of the elderly, the higher the vaccination rate and excess mortality. Therefore, vaccination rates and excess mortality also correlate. (However, this explanation is not veryplausible, as the proportion of old people would then have changed significantly between 2016-2020 on the one hand and 2021 on the other.) 

3. Higher vaccination rates are achieved by increased stress and anxiety in the country concerned and the latter lead to increased numbers of deaths. 

Further explanations are by no means excluded. Some of these may also be supported by figures and should be further investigated. We are very grateful for suggestions of this kind. 

*

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 UsforThem

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The US, Bahrain, the UAE and Israel launched a joint drill in the Red Sea November 11. The Jewish state has conducted drills with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) before, but it is the first time the Israel’s navy takes part in any kind of public military cooperation with Bahrain. Emirati authorities in Abu Dhabi had been advancing a covert anti-Iranian military alliance with Tel Aviv for decades, but such has only come to surface after the Abraham Accords. Earlier last month, UAE authorities attended air exercises in Israel – the US, Germany and France also took part.

This joint naval drill took place just over a year after UAE and Bahrain normalized ties with Israel, in the context of the aforementioned agreements. Morocco and Sudan both recognized Israel the same year, too, in exchange for political favors: the former got ex-president Donald Trump’s support for its claim over Western Sahara, while the latter was removed from the US list of States Sponsors of Terror. Trump in fact gave the Abraham Accords agreement a central place in its foreign policy, something which Joe Biden has inherited.

Since February, Israel and Iran have been engaging in what some analysts describe as a kind of “shadow war”, with vessels being under attack. This drill is thus meant to send a message to Tehran. There is a new oil diplomacy and there are new oil wars today. The Iran-backed Houthi rebels from Yemen, for example, have also been targeting oil shipments. At this time tensions in general are on the rise in the Red Sea and also in North Africa in general.

The Red Sea is of course a conduit for a large part of the world’s oil trade, and both the UAE and Bahrain take part in the conflict against the Houthi rebels. So, the location choice for the joint naval exercise in early November is quite significant in itself.

Vice Adm. Brad Cooper, commander of the US 5th Fleet – which led the drill – stated that “Maritime collaboration helps safeguard freedom of navigation and the free flow of trade, which are essential to regional security and stability”. He also stated: “We have an interest in Bab el-Mandab, which affects the freedom of movement of the State of Israel, and we need to push back Iran’s presence, and there are other countries that are also partners to this threat”, referring to the strait that connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden.

From an Israeli perspective, however, there are also other issues besides Iran. At the beginning of the month, a deal was signed between Israel’s state-owned Europe-Asia Pipeline Company – EAPC – (formerly the Eilat Ashkelon Pipeline Company – EAPC)  and MED-RED Land Bridge, a company with Israeli and Emirati owners. The agreement would allow huge amounts of Gulf oil to be shipped through a pipeline running from the southern Israeli port city of Eilat, located on the Red Sea, to Ashkelon, on the Israeli Mediterranean coast.

However, the Environmental Protection Ministry of Israel notified the EAPC that it would not grant permits for the plan over concerns about increasing the amount of oil being transported in the aging pipeline – which was already responsible for a great oil spill in 2011 (into the Evrona reserve, in the Arava Desert), a disaster whose damage is still felt today.

If environmental concerns are overcome, such Eilat-Ashkelon development would allow Israel to become a kind of a “vessel” for Arab oil, thereby diminishing the Turkish role in this regard, according to an anonymous source in the Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as published in a September 2020 piece by the Asia Times. Such a plan would provide an overland route to ship Gulf oil to Europe, and could even provide an alternative route to Egypt’s Suez Canal, Israeli authorities hope, even though its capacity is no match for the former.

Open negotiations started October 2020, after the normalization agreement in August. A month earlier, Chevron had become the first major energy enterprise to enter Israel’s market, after years of Israeli isolation pertaining to the international gas and oil markets. The Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline was built by Tel Aviv and Tehran in the 1960s, but after the 1979 Iranian Revolution, when the two nations became enemies, it was nationalized by Israel.

Israel in fact aspires to become a petroleum transportation and storage superpower, even though environmental, geopolitical and even infra-structure issues pose challenges – the condition of the EAPC pipeline, for instance, has been described by environmental groups as “old and corroding”. In January 2020, then Israeli Prime-Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signed an agreement with his Cypriot and Greek counterparts for an EastMed pipeline to ship gas from the three countries to Europe via the Greek island of Crete. This deal goes to counter some regional Turkish interests and plans in the context of an increasingly aggressive Ankara – in the same way the very Israeli-Emirati normalization deal was a blow to Turkey’s aspirations, too.

Another Tel Avivi’s ambitious project involves constructing, together with Abu Dhabi,  a land pipeline connecting Israel itself with Saudi Arabia to transport oil and distillates onto Europe using the Eilat Ashkelon Pipeline structure, thus bypassing the Suez Canal. There were high level meetings on this regard in September 2020 but the issue seems to have not advanced ever since. It remains to be seen how the possible Saudi Arabian-Iran rapprochement could impact Israeli-Saudi bilateral relations, including such plans.

To sum it up, Israel has major geostrategic oil and gas interests pertaining to connecting the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, as part of its regional competition with Turkey – and they depend on some level of stability on the Red Sea. The recent joint naval exercise on the region must be seen under this light, too. This is a topic that concerns both Tehran and Ankara, and certainly hampers Qatar’s recent efforts to mediate between Gulf countries and, on the other side, Iran as well as Turkey.

*

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

Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

Featured image: Navy & Air Force Co-op in Red Sea (Source: Israel Defense Forces/IDF Spokesperson’s Unit/Flickr)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Israel’s November Joint Naval Drill with the UAE and Bahrain Is Clear Message to Iran

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The brown line represents weekly deaths from all causes of vaccinated people aged 10-59, per 100,000 people.

The blue line represents weekly deaths from all causes of unvaccinated people per 100,000 in the same age range.

I have checked the underlying dataset myself and this graph is correct. Vaccinated people under 60 are twice as likely to die as unvaccinated people. And overall deaths in Britain are running well above normal.

I don’t know how to explain this other than vaccine-caused mortality.

The basic data is available here, download the Excel file and see table 4.

*

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

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The usual suspects tried everything against Yemen.

First, coercing it into ‘structural reform.’ When that didn’t work, they instrumentalized takfiri mercenaries. They infiltrated and manipulated the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), ISIS. They used US drones and occasional marines.

And then, in 2015, they went Total Warfare: a UN-backed rogue coalition started bombing and starving Yemenis into submission – with barely a peep from the denizens of the ‘rules-based international order.’

The coalition – House of Saud, Qatar, UAE, US, UK – for all practical purposes, embarked on a final solution for Yemen.

Sovereignty and unity were never part of the deal. Yet soon the project stalled. Saudis and Emiratis were fighting each other for primacy in southern and eastern Yemen using mercenaries. In April 2017, Qatar clashed with both Saudis and Emiratis. The coalition started to unravel.

Now we reach a crucial inflexion point. Yemeni Armed Forces and allied fighters from Popular Committees, backed by a coalition of tribes, including the very powerful Murad, are on the verge of liberating strategic, oil and natural gas-rich Marib – the last stronghold of the House of Saud-backed mercenary army.

Tribal leaders are in the capital Sanaa talking to the quite popular Ansarallah movement to organize a peaceful takeover of Marib. So this process is in effect the result of a wide-ranging national interest deal between the Houthis and the Murad tribe.

The House of Saud, for its part, is allied with the collapsing forces behind former president Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, as well as political parties such as Al-Islah, Yemen’s Muslim Brotherhood. They have been incapable of resisting Ansarallah.

A repeat scenario is now playing in the western coastal port of Hodeidah, where takfiri mercenaries have vanished from the province’s southern and eastern districts.

Yemen’s Defense Minister Mohammad al-Atefi, talking to Lebanon’s al-Akhbar newspaper, stressed that, “according to strategic and military implications…we declare to the whole world that the international aggression against Yemen has already been defeated.”

It’s not a done deal yet – but we’re getting there.

Hezbollah, via its Executive Council Chairman Hashim Safieddine, adds to the context, stressing how the current diplomatic crisis between Lebanon and Saudi Arabia is directly linked to Mohammad bin Salman’s (MbS) fear and impotence when confronted with the liberation of strategic Marib and Hezbollah’s unwavering support for Yemen throughout the war.

A fabricated ‘civil war’

So how did we get here?

Venturing beyond the excellent analysis by Karim Shami here on The Cradle, some geoeconomic background is essential to understanding what’s really going on in Yemen.

For at least half a millennium before the Europeans started to show up, the ruling classes in southern Arabia built the area into a prime hub of intellectual and commercial exchange. Yemen became the prized destination of Prophet Muhammad’s descendants; by the 11th century they had woven solid spiritual and intellectual links with the wider world.

By the end of the 19th century, as noted in Isa Blumi’s outstanding Destroying Yemen (University of California Press, 2018), a “remarkable infrastructure that harnessed seasonal rains to produce a seemingly endless amount of wealth attracted no longer just disciples and descendants of prophets, but aggressive agents of capital seeking profits.”

Soon we had Dutch traders venturing on terraced hills covered in coffee beans clashing with Ottoman Janissaries from Crimea, claiming them for the Sultan in Istanbul.

By the post-modern era, those “aggressive agents of capital seeking profits” had reduced Yemen to one of the advanced battlegrounds of the toxic mix between neoliberalism and Wahhabism.

The Anglo-American axis, since the Afghan jihad in the 1980s, promoted, financed and instrumentalized an essentialist, ahistorical version of ‘Islam’ that was simplistically reduced to Wahhabism: a deeply reactionary social engineering movement led by an antisocial front based in Arabia.

That operation shaped a shallow version of Islam sold to western public opinion as antithetical to universal – as in ‘rules-based international order’ – values. Hence, essentially anti-progressive. Yemen was at the frontline of this cultural and historical perversion.

Yet the promoters of the war unleashed in 2015 – a gloomy celebration of humanitarian imperialism, complete with carpet bombing, embargoes, and widespread forced starvation – did not factor in the role of the Yemeni Resistance. Much as it happened with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The war was a perverse manipulation by US, UK, French, Israeli and minions Saudi, Emirati and Qatari intel agencies. It was never a ‘civil war’ – as the hegemonic narrative goes – but an engineered project to reverse the gains of Yemen’s own ‘Arab Spring.’

The target was to return Yemen back to a mere satellite in Saudi Arabia’s backyard. And to ensure that Yemenis never dare to even dream of regaining their historic role as the economic, spiritual, cultural and political reference for a great deal of the Indian Ocean universe.

Add to the narrative the simplistic trope of blaming Shia Iran for supporting the Houthis. When it was clear that coalition mercenaries would fail to stop the Yemeni Resistance, a new narrative was birthed: the war was important to provide ‘security’ for the Saudi hacienda facing an ‘Iran-backed’ enemy.

That’s how Ansarallah became cast as Shia Houthis fighting Saudis and local ‘Sunni’ proxies. Context was thrown to the dogs, as in the vast, complex differences between Muslims in Yemen – Sufis of various orders, Zaydis (Houthis, the backbone of the Ansarallah movement, are Zaydis), Ismailis, and Shafii Sunnis – and the wider Islamic world.

Yemen goes BRI

So the whole Yemen story, once again, is essentially a tragic chapter of Empire attempting to plunder Third World/Global South wealth.

The House of Saud played the role of vassals seeking rewards. They do need it, as the House of Saud is in desperate financial straits that include subsidizing the US economy via mega-contracts and purchasing US debt.

The bottom line: the House of Saud won’t survive unless it dominates Yemen. The future of MBS is totally leveraged on winning his war, not least to pay his bills for western weapons and technical assistance already used. There are no definitive figures, but according to a western intel source close to the House of Saud, that bill amounted to at least $500 billion by 2017.

The stark reality made plain by the alliance between Ansarallah and major tribes is that Yemen refuses to surrender its national wealth to subsidize the Empire’s desperate need of liquidity, collateral for new infusions of cash, and thirst for commodities. Stark reality has absolutely nothing to do with the imperial narrative of Yemen as ‘pre-modern tribal traditions’ averse to change, thus susceptible to violence and mired in endless ‘civil war.’

And that brings us to the enticing ‘another world is possible’ angle when the Yemeni Resistance finally extricates the nation from the grip of the hawkish, crumbling neoliberal/Wahhabi coalition.

As the Chinese very well know, Yemen is rich not only in the so far unexplored oil and gas reserves, but also in gold, silver, zinc, copper and nickel.

Beijing also knows all there is to know about the ultra-strategic Bab al Mandab between Yemen’s southwestern coast and the Horn of Africa. Moreover, Yemen boasts a series of strategically located Indian Ocean ports and Red Sea ports on the way to the Mediterranean, such as Hodeidah.

Photo Credit: The Cradle

These waterways practically scream Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and especially the Maritime Silk Road – with Yemeni ports complementing China’s only overseas naval base in Djibouti, where roads and railways connect to Ethiopia.

The Ansarallah–tribal alliance may even, in the medium to long term, exercise full control for access to the Suez Canal.

One very possible scenario is Yemen joining the ‘string of pearls’ – ports linked by the BRI across the Indian Ocean. There will, of course, be major pushback by proponents of the ‘Indo-Pacific’ agenda. That’s where the Iranian connection enters the picture.

BRI in the near future will feature the progressive interconnection between the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) – with a special role for the port of Gwadar – and the emerging China–Iran corridor that will traverse Afghanistan. The port of Chabahar in Iran, only 80 km away from Gwadar, will also bloom, whether by definitive commitments by India or a possible future takeover by China.

Warm links between Iran and Yemen will translate into renewed Indian Ocean trade, without Sanaa depending on Tehran, as it is essentially self-sufficient in energy and already manufactures its own weapons. Unlike the Saudi vassals of Empire, Iran will certainly invest in the Yemeni economy.

The Empire will not take any of this lightly. There are plenty of similarities with the Afghan scenario. Afghanistan is now set to be integrated into the New Silk Roads – a commitment shared by the SCO. Now it’s not so far-fetched to picture Yemen as a SCO observer, integrated to BRI and profiting from Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) packages. Stranger things have happened in the ongoing Eurasia saga.

*

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 Cradle.

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 frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: If Ansarallah and the Yemeni army win this war, Yemen could emerge as the region’s main Arab maritime hub Photo Credit: The Cradle

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on String of Pearls: Yemen Could be the Arab Hub of the Maritime Silk Road
  • Tags: ,

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that the West isn’t taking his country’s “red lines” seriously and the US and its allies could be about to sleepwalk into a dangerous conflict with the world’s largest nuclear power.

Red lines are about deterrence. The purpose of drawing them in the first place is to communicate crucial security interests and the severe consequences that would ensue if they were undermined. In essence, Moscow’s ultimatums are intended to stop the West from making a dangerous miscalculation.

Deterrence rests on the three Cs: capability, credibility, and communication. Russia has the military capability to act if its red lines are crossed, it’s demonstrated credibility in terms of its preparedness to act on threats, and it knows the specifics must be communicated clearly to avoid the West making any mis-steps that would necessitate a forceful response. However, the weakness in its red lines is the current lack of detail as to what would happen if another nation took a step too far.

Fighting NATO’s ‘salami tactics’

Red lines must be specific, as they are a countermove against the slow creep of Western foreign policy, which deploys ‘salami tactics.’ These, as the name suggests, entail conquest via the cutting off of thin slices. No one action is so outrageous it forms the pretext for war, but, one day, you turn around and realize how much ground you’ve lost.

Salami tactics are an appealing option for expansionist actors like NATO, which pursues limited and repetitive expansions to gradually create new realities on the ground. Such tactics avoid rapid escalation and mute opposition from adversaries and allies alike, as complaints can be ridiculed and the response from opponents denounced as disproportionate.

NATO is a master of salami tactics. Initially, the bloc promised it would not expand one inch to the east. Thereafter, its Partnership for Peace was established and sold to the Russians as an alternative to expansion, although it ultimately became a stepping stone to expansion by aligning the armed forces in Central and Eastern European states with NATO standards.

The bloc expanded in 1999 as Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joined, although it was suggested that this alone would not drastically change the balance of power. Furthermore, the West attempted to mitigate Russia’s apprehensions by establishing the NATO-Russia Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation, and Security, which guaranteed there would be no “permanent stationing of substantial combat forces” in the new member states. Fast-forward a few years and 11 more countries had joined the bloc, there were no pretenses about honoring the Founding Act because military bases and missiles were being developed in Poland and Romania, and NATO had its eyes set on Ukraine.

NATO’s illegal invasion of Yugoslavia also followed the usual salami tactics. After the invasion, it gained some legal cover and implicit Russian consent by obtaining a UN mandate in June 1999 for the occupation of Kosovo under the specific condition of upholding Yugoslavia’s territorial integrity. The occupation was instead used to change realities on the ground, and, in 2008, the majority of member states recognized the independence of Kosovo in violation of international law.

NATO’s missile defense system was, similarly, a prime example of salami tactics. In 2007, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice mocked Russian concerns about the basing of 10 interceptive missiles in Eastern Europe as “purely ludicrous, and everybody knows it.” However, within a few years, the number of planned interceptive missiles had risen to several hundred. NATO proposals for cooperating with Russia to alleviate Moscow’s concerns were aimed at scaling back opposition while cutting another slice. Former US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates confirmed in his memoirs that the US was “just kicking the can down the road on missile defense, playing for time. The Russians recognized that they were being presented with a fait accompli.”

Red lines counter salami tactics by clearly communicating that even a minor step past a point will trigger a major response. Yet red lines often struggle to garner credibility precisely because they appear disproportionate – for example, would either NATO or Russia really risk nuclear war over Eastern Ukraine? However, as Putin stated in his Crimean re-unification speech in March 2014: “Russia found itself in a position it could not retreat from. If you compress the spring all the way to its limit, it will snap back hard. You must always remember this.”

Red lines in Ukraine

NATO and Russia certainly now appear to be heading towards war in Ukraine. Every meeting, phone call, and summit result in a commitment to the statement that there is “no alternative to the Minsk Agreement.” The Minsk Agreement identifies two conflicting parties, Kiev and Donbass, and the first action to be taken was identified as immediately establishing a dialogue between them to work out the constitutional changes that would grant autonomy to Donbass. Yet Kiev has stated in no uncertain terms that it will not talk to Donbass and thus not implement the agreement, and the NATO powers have demonstrated that they do not intend to push it into abiding by it. If the agreement is rejected and no alternative is established, then war becomes the only possible outcome.

With no real intention of implementing the agreement, NATO instead pushed to change realities on the ground. Over the past seven years, Western nations have imposed sanctions on Russia and provided aid and weapons to Ukraine. In March and April, Ukraine began to mobilize its troops on one side of Donbass in preparation for a military solution, which was deterred by a Russian military build-up on the other side of Donbass. War was avoided because Biden contacted Putin and called for a de-escalation, proclaiming Washington’s usual empty commitment to the agreement.

As always, the incremental expansion continues. NATO countries are not asking Kiev to establish dialogue with Donbass in accordance with the Minsk Agreement, but instead insist now that this is merely a conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Meanwhile, the US has announced that the door is open for Ukraine’s NATO membership. Member states are either ignoring or supporting Kiev’s drone strikes and other attacks on Donbass. Western warships and warplanes are patrolling ever closer along Russia’s Black Sea borders, and Western soldiers are sent to Ukraine on training missions that could be used as ‘trip wires’ that could drag the entire bloc into a war if Russia intervenes. At the center of all of this is Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who is becoming increasingly emboldened to attack Donbass with the expectation of NATO support.

Russia has laid down red lines against further NATO salami tactics. However, as these red lines continue not to be respected, it would appear that war is becoming increasingly unavoidable.

*

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.

Glenn Diesen, Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway and an editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal. Follow him on Twitter @glenn_diesen.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sleepwalking into a “Dangerous Conflict”: Russia-NATO War over Ukraine Is Becoming Increasingly Unavoidable
  • Tags: , ,

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Using more sensitive and predictive biomarkers of heart function, cardiologists have produced startling data which suggests all Covid-19 vaccination should come to a halt.

Steven Gundry MD, renowned cardiac surgeon, known more by the public for his dietary advice to avoid toxic lectins in foods and his book entitled THE PLANT PARADOX, has issued a precautionary red flag for Covid-19-vaccinated patients and those still considering vaccination, given that a sophisticated prognostic test used by his medical group indicates Covid-19 RNA vaccines increase the 5-year risk of the most feared type of acute heart attack from 11% to 25%!  The report is published in a recent edition of CIRCULATION, a publication of the American Heart Association.

The data

Dr. Gundry reports his medical group has conducted the highly predictive PULS biomarker test on 566 patients.  The PULS test generates a score predicting the 5-year risk (percentage of chance) of a new Acute Coronary Syndrome, defined as a range of conditions that are associated with sudden, reduced blood flow to the heart most often caused by a plaque rupture or clot formation in the heart’s arteries.

The PULS cardiac test assesses parameters such as inflammation (interleukin-16 or IL-16), cell death (Fas cell apoptosis), HGF (Hepatocyte Growth Factor or HGF that gauges the movement of T-cells—a type of white blood cells generated by the thymus gland). This score is usually assessed every 3-6 months among at-risk patients.  This data may explain the observed heart problems following Covid-19 vaccination.

PULS TEST: Increase in cardiac risks with RNA Covid—19 Vaccination

  • Inflammation (IL-16): rose from 35 to 82
  • Cell death (apoptosis Fas): rose from 22 to 46
  • HGF (T-cell movement): rose from 42 to 86

The overall PULS score rose from 11% five-year risk to 25% five-year risk!

Dr. Gundry indicates an ominous change in these PULS scores was first noted with the advent of RNA Covid-19 vaccines.  These changes were seen in most vaccinated subjects, his report notes.

The biomarkers

The PULS test (Global Discovery Biosciences, Irvine, CA) is widely used by cardiologists.

The PULS test actually measures nine different parameters, in particular the immune response which is activated in response to coronary artery injury.

Unstable cardiac lesions are reported to cause 75% of all heart attacks.  A rupture is the most common cause of acute heart attacks.  These unstable lesions in a coronary artery may also lead to heart failure and blood clotting (thrombosis) and may account for these very same problems noted among vaccinated individuals.

Denials by public health authorities

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) concedes inflammation (myocarditis) of the heart muscle and inflammation of the lining that surrounds the heart (pericarditis) occur after Covid-19 vaccination.  According to the CDC these adverse events occur more often after the 2nd dose and within a week of vaccination.  Chest pain, shortness of breath and feeling the heart is beating overly fast are symptoms.  The CDC maintains the known risks of Covid-19 illness “far outweigh” the potential risk of having a “rare adverse reaction” like myocarditis/pericarditis.

According to a review of 2.5 million mRNA vaccinated subjects age 16 and older in Israel, 54 cases of myocarditis (2.13 cases per 100,000 vaccinated persons) were reported.  Reviewers claim most cases of carditis are mild and rare, and “benefits of Covid-19 vaccine greatly outweigh the risks.”  The Myocarditis Foundation also brushes off cases of myocarditis following vaccination, classifying them as “rare.”

These denials were issued prior to publication of Dr. Gundry’s report.

Contrary data; why vaccinate at all?

Contrary data reveals 99% of Covid-19 infected individuals developed antibodies on their own without the need for vaccination.  According to a report published at MedPageToday.com, health authorities continue to ignore natural Covid-19 immunity as 90-99% of people who recover from Covid-19 infection “astonishingly have a low frequency or repeat infection, disease or death.”

Covid-19 is not the mutated virus that public health authorities said humans have no immunity towards.  School-age children (over age 5) have received so many immunizations that they have developed what is called trained immunity and exhibit no or few symptoms upon infection with Covid-19.

Vaccine mandates are threatened and Americans coerced by employers to vaccinate when an authoritative study published in Science magazine concludes: “the majority of people infected with the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 will produce robust protective antibodies, which will likely protect from reinfection.”

The CDC does not collect data on natural immunity.

The director of the National Institute of Infectious Disease concedes, upon direct questioning, that the Covid-19 RNA vaccine do not reliably protect their recipients from serious Covid or death (“seeing a waning of immunity not only against infection but against hospitalization and some extent death which is starting to now involve all age groups.”)

Even vaccinated doctors are reported to be dying, not just having relapses.

What to do

Given that millions of Americans have been vaccinated for Covid-19 who are not likely to go to a cardiologist for the PULS test, or have no access to the test in their geographical area, and many vaccinated individuals may not even have a cardiologist; and considering 200 million vaccinated Americans may over-run the offices of the nation’s 33,000 cardiologists, which would amount to ~6000 patients per cardiologist which would backlog their office appointment books by over a year, other preventive measures may need to be taken.

Given that vaccinated patients may not desire or may not be able to undergo the PULS test, this journalist calls attention to the work of Dr. Linus Pauling and Dr. Matthias Rath, who showed vitamin C is required to heal coronary arteries that feed the heart with oxygenated blood, and that a deficiency of vitamin C allows a blood protein known as lipoprotein(a) to serve as a sticky bandage for damaged coronary arteries.  However, lipoprotein(a) may then induce blood clots due to its stickiness and may close off oxygenated blood altogether (the so-called widow-maker heart attack).

Elevated lipoprotein(a) blood levels are found among patients with acute coronary syndrome, which the PULS test assesses.

Dr. Matthias Rath went a step further and showed animals that produce vitamin C internally do not develop these rupture-type heart attacks.  Dr. Rath authored a book WHY ANIMALS DON’T GET HEART ATTACKS BUT PEOPLE DO.

Despite a new drug to lower lipoprotein(a) now being available, it is futile to attempt to lower lipoprotein(a) levels.  Maintaining vitamin C blood levels is the most efficacious way to prevent lipoprotein(a) induced heart attacks.

Dr. Steve Hickey of Manchester England and author of the book THE VITAMIN CURE FOR HEART DISEASE, suggests 500 milligrams of vitamin C taken 5 times throughout the day, given that vitamin C is rapidly excreted in urine.

Another novel way to maintain vitamin C levels is to restore internal synthesis in the liver which the human species lost many centuries ago.  A gene mutation blocks production of an enzyme that converts blood sugar to vitamin C.  A novel dietary supplement has been demonstrated to correct this problem and doubles 24-hour vitamin C levels without vitamin C itself.

A second-level preventive would be to inhibit blood clots from forming.  Both fibrin and platelet clots are formed following vaccination.  A blood test called D-dimer indicates whether fresh blood clots are forming following vaccination.  Covid-19 vaccinated patients may want to ask their doctor about this test.

Until a cardiologist can assess risk, natural blood thinners may be employed, such as the long-acting enzyme nattokinase, available at health shops.  More information is also available.

The red wine molecule resveratrol is a natural blood thinner and lower D-dimer levels.

A third tier of protection is to utilize resveratrol to produce what is called cardiac preconditioning.  Resveratrol has been demonstrated to avert heart muscle damage following a heart attack (blockage of oxygenated blood to the heart) by pre-activating internal enzymatic antioxidants.  The result is the heart can withstand periods of low or no oxygenation without sustaining damage.  Even one brand of resveratrol in a matrix of other natural molecules has demonstrated this pre-heart attack protection in an animal study, protecting the heart in a superior manner to resveratrol alone.  The proper dosage is critical to produce the protective effect.

Resveratrol naturally lowers lipoprotein(a) levelsResveratrol also blocks all manner of Covid-19 pathology.

*

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.

Bill Sardi, writing from La Verne, California.

Featured image is from LewRockwell.com

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Francis Collins has angrily called for anyone who spreads “misinformation” about COVID-19 online to be “brought to justice.”

“Conspiracies are winning here. Truth is losing. That’s a really serious indictment of the way in which our society seems to be traveling,” Collins told the Washington Post.

Citing an onslaught of angry messages directed at Dr. Anthony Fauci, who Collins appears to believe is above criticism, the bureaucrat demanded that those responsible for such behavior should be identified and “brought to justice.”

The article cited one such example of “misinformation” being Fauci’s involvement in barbaric experiments conducted on dogs by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), despite the fact that such cruelty factually occurred under Fauci’s leadership.

While Collins didn’t specify precisely what he meant by “brought to justice,” Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla previously asserted that individuals who spread false information about COVID vaccines are “criminals” who “have literally cost millions of lives.”

That’s an interesting benchmark given that it was once considered false to claim that COVID vaccines didn’t stop the vaccinated spreading COVID, which is now an all too obvious fact.

Quite what constitutes “misinformation” about COVID-19 is anyone’s guess given that several things that turned out to be plausible or true, such as the origin of the virus behind the Wuhan lab, were once deemed to be “misinformation.”

It seems likely that whatever the National Institutes of Health, Anthony Fauci or Pfizer deem to be “misinformation” will become the standard.

As we previously highlighted, efforts to brand those who question the safety and efficacy of products manufactured by pharmaceutical corporations that have been plagued by a myriad of historical scandals are also underway in the UK.

The Online Safety Bill, described as “the flagship legislation to combat abuse and hatred on the internet,” will apparently include a provision that jails “antivaxers spreading false information that they know to be untrue” for a period of two years.

*

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 Public Domain

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The American Medical Association reported that 96% of U.S. doctors were vaccinated in June. Even with a 20-point error margin, accounting for saline/placebo shots and exemptions, a vast majority of doctors have received the shots. It’s only fair since doctors peddle the injections to their unwitting, credulous fanatics who worship the white coats.

Vaccines are the leading cause of coincidences. We all know that. But you can literally search keywords like “died suddenly” and “died unexpectedly” in Yahoo, Bing, DuckDuckGo, etc. and find endless stories like the following. Booster shots commenced on September 22. That could also be a coincidence. But all of the following doctors died on October 13 or later.

We could literally include 100 doctors in this story if time permitted. All of these happened in the last four weeks. The youngest is 32. The oldest is 59.

Dr. Kevin Walsh – Roanoke, Virginia

WDBJ 7 in Roanoke reported that Dr. William Kevin Walsh passed away “suddenly” and “unexpectedly”on October 29 at the age of 51. He was an OB-GYN with a private practice. Dr. Walsh was also affiliated with LewisGale Medical Center.  He is survived by his wife and five children.

Dr. Walsh advocated for “vaccines” and equated COVID-19 to polio on Facebook just six weeks before his death.

Dr. Justin Nasser – Benowa, Queensland (Australia)

It’s not just happening in the United States. Dr. Justin Nasser “died unexpectedly of a heart attack” on November 14, according to the Gold Coast Bulletin. He was 52 years old. The Bulletin also described his death as “sudden.” Dr. Nasser was an OB-GYN at Gold Coast University Hospital and medical director of Swell Women’s Ultrasound. He is survived by his wife and three children.

Queensland, and all other Australian states, require mRNA or viral vector DNA injections for all healthcare workers. Only 4% of Gold Coast University Hospital staff failed to comply as of November 2, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).

Dr. Stephanie Bosch – Waldport, Oregon

Dr. Stephanie Allison Bosch died “suddenly and unexpectedly” of a pulmonary embolism on October 13, according to Yachats News. She was just 32 years old. Dr. Bosch finished her residency just three years ago. She was a general practitioner at Samaritan Waldport Clinic since 2018. Dr. Bosch is survived by both parents and several siblings.

Pulmonary embolisms are known and common adverse effects from the mRNA and viral vector DNA injections. All Oregon healthcare workers were required to be “fully vaccinated” by October 18. Oregon is also the only state that we know of with an outdoor mask mandate.

Dr. Craig Shannon – Poughkeepsie, New York

Dr. Craig Michael Shannon passed away at his home on October 29. He was 42. Dr. Shannon was a neurosurgeon at Vassar Brothers Medical Center in Poughkeepsie. He was apparently well-liked by his patients, as you cannot find one negative thing about him online.

The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the New York vaccine mandate for healthcare workers on November 4. The Court denied the Petitioner’s motion for preliminary injunction. The two original cases are remanded back to their respective lower courts to litigate the cases’ merits. All New York healthcare workers were required to be “fully vaccinated” by October 7.

Two different obituaries imply that Dr. Shannon died from non-Hodgkin lymphoma. But he died in his home. If he had advanced, aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma, he would have died in a hospital or in hospice, not at home. Dr. Shannon is survived by his wife and both parents.

Dr. Elliott Gagnon – Wasilla, Alaska

Dr. Elliott Gagnon “passed away unexpectedly at his home” on October 14, according to the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman. He was 48. Dr. Gagnon was a plastic surgeon with his own private practice. He was also affiliated with Mat-Su Regional Medical Center.

A Facebook post on his private practice page says Dr. Gagnon “passed away suddenly.”

Alaska is one of several states involved in lawsuits to halt the Joe Biden so-called vaccine mandate. Alaska healthcare workers are not required to receive the injections at this time. Gagnon Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery required masks to enter the establishment. There was no vaccine mandate for entry. But the practice appeared to promote injections for kids.

Dr. Gagnon is survived by his wife, Janel, and two kids. Janel, who was also the office manager at the private practice, is in the process of closing it down. She received one of her injections in May.

Dr. Daniel McBride – West Hatfield, Massachusetts

Dr. Daniel Gene McBride died of a heart attack after a 16-mile bike ride on October 20, according to his obituary. He was a general orthopedic surgeon at Cooley Dickinson Hospital. Dr. McBride, 59, is survived by his wife and son.

His obituary says he was an “avid bicyclist” who participated in competitive events. Dr. McBride was also a runner and skier. He was healthy. We’ve covered several stories of people dying after exercising in this COVID vaccine era. Mass General Brigham, the parent company of Cooley Dickinson, requires all healthcare workers to receive the injections. The company reported 97% compliance on October 15.

Dr. Janak Patel – Marietta, Ohio

Dr. Janak R. Patel “suffered sudden death” on October 28, according to WTAP News. He was 55. Dr. Patel was doing his normal routine as an emergency room doctor at Memorial Marietta Hospital when he was “found down and unable to be resuscitated.” He is survived by his wife and three children.

All Memorial Marietta healthcare workers are required to have at least one dose of the injections by December 5, according to Becker’s Hospital Review. Protesters gathered in front of the hospital last Friday, expressing their displeasure with the mandates.

Future of healthcare

The powers-that-be know that vaccine mandates for healthcare workers lead to mass shortages of qualified personnel due to injuries and deaths. Many healthcare workers are quitting to avoid the injections, leading to even more shortages. There’s also the influx of vaxx-injured patients. Even NPR admitted that hospitals are overrun with seriously ill people who do not have COVID-19. It’s shaping up to be a situation with millions of sick people and nobody to help them (not that doctors are helping vaxx-injured people now anyway).

Healthcare will mostly be digitized by 2030. Transhumans and “GMO humans” will be the majority in Western countries. Birthrates will grind to a halt due to mass infertility, a common trait for GMO-humans. Medicine will be impersonal and mechanical. Direct human interaction will be minimal or nonexistent.’

Military personnel and equipment will inevitably start filling healthcare positions in civilian settings, likely sooner rather than later. Critical thinkers should have already been preparing for this. Avoid doctors at all costs. Keep your weight down and Vitamin D and C levels up. Exercise your heart, get adequate sleep and even meditate 2-3 times a week. Avoiding doctors is a matter of life and death in 2021. Death by doctor is disgraceful. It’s best to die with dignity when the time comes.

Stay vigilant and protect your friends and loved ones.

*

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