All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
The activities of those who endanger life on our planet and have already destroyed it to a considerable extent are becoming more and more obvious. Worldwide wars, strangulating sanctions, embargoes and hunger blockades were and are part of the actions of the US power complex. The USA have cancelled important disarmament treaties such as ABM, INF and OpenSkies. The manoeuvres directed against Russia and China are becoming increasingly aggressive. The danger of nuclear war is growing threateningly.
But the world’s rulers are also waging wars on new, different fronts. S This mainly affects countries in the so-called “Third World”. In India alone, the lockdown has cost millions of lives, according to the “World Doctors Alliance”. An even greater danger emanates from the “vaccination” campaign – for billions of people. Behind this is the strategy of the “Great Reset” of the forum of the super-rich, which calls itself the “World Economic Forum”, aimed at raising capitalism to an even more perverse level via a targeted collapse and a “new start” – with further violation of civil rights, human rights and international law – i.e. with fewer rights and more surveillance for the vast majority of humanity.
They are the same forces that are behind the various forms of war. One example: one of the masterminds of Operation 9/11 and the subsequent “war on terror”, ex-US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, was chairman of the board and shareholder of the pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences, which made its profit from the fear of bird flu with Tamiflu in 2005. Another example: the Washington-based Carlyle Group is active in both, the arms and the pharmaceutical business. It is important to confront war in all its forms – military as well as economic, biological and psychological.
The signatories of this declaration therefore demand – especially from the German government – to turn away from a policy of wars. It is a matter of stopping the warmongers. All fellow citizens are called upon to support this appeal in order to bring about a policy through incessant and growing pressure of public opinion,
that will not allow the US empire, including Germany and the other NATO countries, to continue to overrun the world with wars,
that leads to peace and friendship with all countries respectively peoples of the world,
which banishes US and NATO troops – from Germany with 2 years’ notice by terminating the troop-stationing treaty,
which leads to leaving NATO – in all NATO countries with 1-year notice by denouncing the NATO treaty,
which refuses to endanger billions of lives under the guise of fighting a pandemic and subjecting the survivors to total control,
which follows the maxim: Not restricting, but safeguarding and expanding basic democratic rights is the order of the day.
We, who call for support of this appeal, come from all parts of society – especially from the peace movement and the movement to regain our fundamental and human rights. In this sense, we also call for overcoming the social division that has been systematically created in many countries over the past 18 months. We only have a chance if we confront the threats together.
This appeal is initiated by members of the campaign “NATO out – out of NATO”, inspired by the “Krefeld Appeal” of 16 November 1980.
*
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 NRhZ-Online.
Dr Rudolf Hänsel is a retired rector, educationalist and psychologist.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Chilling testimony of the torture and abuses committed against Majid Khan, held at the illegal Guantanamo Naval Base, after the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and at the Pentagon, was recently presented by the prisoner before a jury of eight U.S. military officers, members of the court trying him.
Khan, born in Saudi Arabia and raised in Pakistan, was sentenced, October 29, to 26 years in prison after pleading guilty to aiding the Islamic fundamentalist group Al Qaeda.
As part of the plea bargain reached with the court, he was allowed to testify about his experiences, in what was the first public description of abuse by a detainee following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S., according to The New York Times.
Sensory assault with intense light and sound, sleep deprivation, isolation, stress positioning, submersion in a tub of ice water, were among the “techniques” used by torturers to obtain information from the detainee.
After two days deprived of sleep and subjected to freezing temperatures, he lost his sense of reality and began hallucinating, seeing a cow, a gigantic lizard, Khan stated. In this situation, he “confessed” to his executioners whatever they wanted to hear in order to put an end to the torture.
Recently, Abu Zubaydah, a prisoner held on suspicion of being a “mastermind” of 9/11, submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court a document describing the torture he endured in a clandestine CIA prison in Poland two decades ago.
The prisoner recounts that he suffered 83 simulated drownings, the barbaric “specialists” pretended to bury him alive, keeping him locked in a narrow for coffin11 days.
Abu Zubaydah, Majid Khan and many other prisoners illegally held in secret CIA prisons were subjected to so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques,” as the CIA practices are known.
Nothing New Under the Sun
From its inception in 1947, the CIA devoted substantial resources to developing interrogation techniques to extract information.
In 1963, the agency translated the results of its studies into a secret counterinsurgency manual, entitled Kubark Counterintelligence Interrogation, which was distributed for use around the world, particularly in Asia and Latin America.
“The right pain, at the right time, in the right amount, for the right effect,” were the words used to describe the CIA’s torture by Dan Mitrione, an FBI agent who served as a U.S. security advisor in Latin America, under cover as a U.S. Agency for International Development official.
Considered one of the masters of torture, his experience in the “deterrence” of “adversaries” in Uruguay in 1969 was incorporated into the CIA manual.
In 1983 they wrote a new book entitled Human Resources Exploitation Training Manual, which was refined in 1996.
Several corrections were made to the manual based on Congressional investigations, arrangements of extraordinary cynicism, including a suggestion made by Donald Rumsfeld in a memo, referring to so-called “stress positioning,” which was to be inflicted up to four hours. He commented: “I stand eight to ten hours a day. Why limit it to four hours?”
As Alfred McCoy explains in his book, A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror, the techniques used at Abu Ghraib, Iraq and Guantánamo, denounced by Majid Khan and other victims, are the product of massive and secret CIA research on the coercion and malleability of human consciousness.
A May 2005 report by Physicians for Human Rights, entitled Break Them Down: Systematic Use of Psychological Torture by U.S. Forces, contains a wealth of information on the torture techniques used at Guantanamo and other imperialist detention centers.
What do these methods of detention, interrogation, imprisonment without trial, secret prisons where a person can disappear for years, say about respect for human rights, which the gentlemen in Washington boast rant about so much? Is there any evidence of due process or the most elementary norms of delivering justice in these cases in these cases, principles the U.S. government self-righteously claims to protect
The country that threatens Cuba, wielding the power of its weapons and its arrogance demanding that our besieged island allow its mercenaries to break the law and deny the rights of the majority, has no moral authority to demand anything from anyone. Do as I say and not as I do – a saying that seems fit the empire’s actions perfectly.
*
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.
In a surprising development, Republican governor Kevin Stitt has refused to implement the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate. This has placed the governor directly at odds with Pentagon brass and with the White House as it aggressively attempts to enforce its latest vaccine mandate for all military personnel. The Washington Post sums up the situation:
Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) last week removed the state’s adjutant general, who had directed troops to comply with the vaccine mandate, and replaced him with a new commanding general who promptly issued the order rejecting it. In his memo, Brig. Gen. Thomas Mancino, the state’s new National Guard commander, said personnel could sidestep the policy with no repercussions unless they are put on federal duty.
The legal situation is complicated. As originally imagined by early Americans, the state militias are supposed to be independent military units unless called into national service during wartime. Moreover, state governors have at times exercised a de facto veto over federal control of state troops.
Since the National Defense Act of 1933, however, National Guard units have been deemed members of both the state’s National Guard and the federal military. Moreover, over time, the federal government has gradually eroded the authority of state governors in controlling the deployment and use of state troops. By 1990, governors had lost virtually all of their independence.
National Guard troops in each state nominally remain under the command of the respective governors unless activated by the US president. Thus, it appears that Governor Stitt is attempting to take advantage of these few remaining powers in order to refuse mandating vaccines for state troops.
Not surprisingly, this has led to resistance from the Pentagon—and if past experience is any indicator—the Pentagon will not hold back in devising ways to punish Oklahoma and its National Guard chain of command unless it quickly falls into line.
Who’s In Charge of Oklahoma’s Troops?
Over the weekend, Oklahoma’s adjutant general issued a statement on the state’s guard vaccine policy:
Under Title 32, Congress established a dual framework for the National Guard. The states receive federal funding in return for being made available to the federal government when called to active duty by the President.
Under Title 32, the Oklahoma National Guard is a state-controlled and federally-funded entity and takes orders from the Governor and his designated chain of command. When mobilized by the President, under Title 10, the Oklahoma National Guard takes all orders from the President and his designated chain of command.
Failing to follow the Governor’s lawful orders while on Title 32 would be both illegal, unethical, and against our sworn oaths. Nothing in this order prevents anyone from taking the vaccine. Also, nothing in his order eliminates the Federal Requirement. The Governor is hoping for Federal Relief from Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and in the interim has granted state relief from this requirement.
Until a Guardsman is activated under Title 10, they follow the lawful commands of the Governor of the State of Oklahoma, who has not mandated the COVID-19 vaccine for Oklahoma Guard Members. Once activated to [T]itle 10 status, Guardsmen are subject to all Title 10 laws and mandates until returning to Title 32 status.
If you [Oklahoma guard members] are not mobilized on Title 10 orders, the only entity that can give you a “lawful” order—that is an order backed by the authority of law—is the Governor and his designated State chain of command. That “law” is Title 32 U.S. code. This is easily seen by the fact that the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice] does not apply to you in Title 32 status. Instead, you are governed by the Oklahoma Code of Military Justice (OCMJ).
It is notable that in response to this (accurate) legal interpretation from the governor, the Pentagon has done little other than just insist repeatedly that it has authority to force compliance. No specific legal authority is quoted or invoked.
Yet the Pentagon has plenty of tricks up its sleeve when it comes to getting compliance from state National Guard units. During the 1980s, for instance, Ohio governor Richard Celeste refused to send National Guard troops to Honduras to assist with the Pentagon’s various interventions in Central American regimes.
How the Pentagon Threatens “Disobedient” State Governors
The Pentagon immediately made plans to remove military resources from Ohio in an effort to embarrass the governor. The idea was that the Ohio economy would suffer as military spending in the state was withdrawn. The governor soon caved to the Pentagon’s orders. Thus, the Pentagon has grown accustomed to immediate and unquestioning obedience from state governors, although this is directly contrary to the very idea of state-controlled military units.
We saw a similar response from the Pentagon in 2019 when the legislature of West Virginia contemplated limiting Pentagon control of West Virginia’s troops. Specifically, some West Virginia lawmakers considered a bill limiting the state’s National Guard deployments to only military operations conducted during a period of congressionally declared war. The Pentagon immediately threatened to use the cudgel of federal spending in West Virginia if the bill was adopted.
It is likely the Pentagon will do the same in Oklahoma should the governor persist in refusing to enforce the vaccine mandate. On Wednesday, for example, the Pentagon reportedly claimed that if Oklahoma does not comply, it will no longer be “maintaining national recognition” and the guard will become just a state militia. This is likely a step on the way to removing all federal spending from the state’s guard in the manner used in the past as a means of turning the screws on state government.
BREAKING: Defense official reportedly says, if the Oklahoma National Guard doesn't comply with COVID vaccine requirements, they will no longer be "maintaining national recognition," thus, state will no longer have a Nat Guard, but rather a militia – VOA's Pentagon correspondent
Unfortunately, military spending is so centralized in the federal government that it will difficult for Oklahoma—or any other state—to refuse Pentagon orders in anything beyond the short term. Moreover, thanks to generations of militarist hysteria over communists and terrorists, the US military establishment has greatly centralized military command authority in Washington overall.
Yet this news is good news overall. Combined with the US military’s turn toward “woke” politics, this latest episode around vaccine mandates will further help to undermine support for military institutions among conservatives—the very group that has for so many decades offered untrammeled obedience and deference in favor of the Pentagon’s agenda.
*
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 Wireand Power and Market, but read article guidelines first.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
The Summit for Democracy that President Biden is spearheading in December, at which scores of countries will be in in attendance, is certainly timely and necessary. I do not expect revolutionary and immediate measures to be adopted at the summit to save democracies from their rapid erosion in so many countries. The fact, however, that such a summit is taking place at this particular juncture is extremely important. Democracies around the world are facing great challenges and are in retreat. Authoritarian leaders are exploiting the frustration and the deep polarization of their populace where democracy failed to deliver. Even America’s 240-year-old democracy was under ominous assault on January 6, which demonstrates how fragile democracy can be and how difficult is to sustain it, given the insatiable thirst for power by authoritarian-minded leaders.
Regardless of how many good ideas emerge from the democracy summit, there are three other issues the summit must address: first, organizations such as the EU and NATO, which are based on the principles of democracy, freedom, and human rights, should not allow member states such as Poland, Hungary, and Turkey to violate their charters with impunity. Second, the US must end the practice of forcing democracy down the throats of any country. Third, the US and the EU must lead by example and encourage other countries to emulate them and provide them with incentives to adopt democratic principles.
The EU has in fact been struggling with Poland and Hungary, whose leaders became notorious abusers of human rights and openly defy and undermine the EU’s legal structure which is based on human rights and the rule of law.
In Poland, the Constitutional Court ruled that Polish laws has primacy in some areas, which is a direct challenge to the EU as all its members must treat EU laws as supreme. Ursula von der Leyen, head of the European Commission, told the Parliament that “This ruling calls into question the foundations of the European Union. It is a direct challenge to the unity of the European legal order…[and] has serious consequences for the Polish people…without independent courts, people have less protection and consequently their rights are at stake.” Indeed, Poland continues to severely violate human rights, limiting the independence of the media and egregiously infringing on the rights of women, LGBTQ+, and immigrants.
Hungary’s President Viktor Orban, who is clearly charting his own new course toward illiberal Christian democracy, came out in support of Poland’s rejection of EU supremacy. He stated that the EU must “respect member states’ sovereignty,” as if domestic human right abuses have nothing to do with the EU’s charter, which views universal human rights as the crown jewel of the Union. Hungary, like Poland, does not fall short in its abuse of human rights, harassment of liberal organizations, rejection of migrants, and outright discrimination against minorities while centralizing power and control in the hands of the ruling conservative party.
At a time when the struggle between authoritarianism and democracy is so intense, if not fateful for the future of democracies, NATO and the EU must warn these countries that they are on the precipice of being kicked out if they do not change their governing practice. They must be required to restore the principles of democracy by upholding universal human rights and abiding the rule of law, or else they will forfeit their membership and suffer from the consequences of their crimes.
Turkey as a NATO member state under President Erdogan has crossed every red line in its treatment of its citizens and relations to NATO. Erdogan’s human rights abuses go beyond the pale of moral bankruptcy. Since the presumed failed coup in July 2016, Erdogan has gone on a rampage against his own people, incarcerating tens of thousands of innocent individuals, including women with their children, shutting down the free press, subjecting his critics to criminal indictment, waging a merciless war against his own Kurdish community, and making the parliament nothing but a rubber stamp. Indeed, nothing is left of Turkish democracy. All the while, he continues with his Islamization campaign, thinking of himself as God sent to restore the “glory” of the Ottoman Empire.
On foreign policy, it suffices to quote former Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis, who said “Erdogan has long lost the trust of Europeans. There is no shortage of subjects of tension between the EU and Turkey, such as the question of refugees, the future of Cyprus…the exploitation of hydrocarbons in the Eastern Mediterranean where Turkey is in competition with Greece, Syria and Israel.” In addition, Erdogan’s coziness to the West’s foremost adversary, Russia’s Putin, and his purchase of the S-400 air defense system which compromises NATO’s defenses and intelligence, raises major concerns among NATO member states.
The Summit for Democracy should also remind the US in particular that it is time to cease and desist any effort to export the US’ form of democracy to foreign countries through the use of force; Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya offer perfect examples of America’s failures. The US should show in words and in deeds why democracy is the best form of government that delivers for the people, protects human rights with zeal, and indiscriminately provides the opportunity for every individual to grow and prosper by working hard and adhering to the rule of law.
During deliberations at the summit, Biden should admit to the US’ past mistakes and send a clear message to the whole world that the US stands ready to aid any country whose people are yearning for freedom and democracy and offer to provide economic and technical assistance as long as their leaders fully adhere to universal human rights, the rule of law, and governing with the consent of the people. This applies to US allies as well. The US should not ignore the fact that many of them, especially in the Gulf, are autocratic. In these instances, the US should use its soft power to entice them to open their societies.
It is hard to exaggerate the importance of leading by example and demonstrating how democracy functions and why it requires constant nurturing. The January 6 insurrection demonstrated in no uncertain terms how democracy can be ominously undermined when the country’s elected leaders are authoritarian by their very nature. A narcissistic leader, such as Trump, whose hunger for power seems to know no limit, has happily sacrificed the good of the country on the altar of his twisted ego.
America’s democracy cannot be repaired unless he and those who helped him are held accountable and face the weight of the law. Yes, America still can lead by example, but the Biden administration must simultaneously and systematically attend to healing the country of the terrible wounds inflicted on America’s democracy so brazenly by the previous administration.
For the Summit for Democracy to succeed, the US must work closely with NATO and the EU to take concrete measures to stop the erosion of democracies first from within. Otherwise, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the US and the EU to help repairing ailing democracies outside their own orbits. Leading by example and demonstrating that democracy can deliver to the people should become the hallmark of the Summit for Democracy.
*
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. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies for over 20 years.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Australia’s government could be forced to spend tens of millions in payouts after receiving more than 10,000 compensation claims from people who suffered side effects and loss of income due to COVID-19 vaccines.
Under its no-fault indemnity scheme, eligible claimants can apply for compensation amounts between AU$5,000 (US$3,646) to AU$20,000 (US$14,585) to cover medical costs and lost wages as a result of being hospitalized after getting the shot. The scheme’s online portal is scheduled to be launched next month.
Official figures suggest, however, that over 10,000 people have already indicated their intention to make a claim since registration opened on the health department’s website in September. If each claim was approved, the government could face a bill of at least AU$50 million (US$36.46 million).
Harold Molle is one of those, developing a blood clot in his leg three days after his second dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine. After being admitted to hospital, Molle’s leg needed to be amputated.
“It was excruciating pain. It’s going to cost me now, I’ve got to get an artificial leg and a wheelchair.”
To be able to claim, a patient needs to have spent at least one night in hospital and be able to show medical evidence of the injury and its link to a COVID-19 vaccine. Claimants also need to show medical expenses and proof of lost income.
*
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: Harold Molle (Source: The COVID World)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Cignpost Diagnostics, which is approved by the UK government as a PCR provider and has provided more than 3 million tests since its founding in June, had announced its plans to sell sensitive medical data to third party researchers in order to ‘learn more about human health.’
A U.K. government-approved COVID-19 PCR testing firm is under investigation after their plans to sell customer DNA taken from their swabs came to light.
This past weekend The Sunday Times reported that one of the largest government-approved COVID-19 testing providers in the U.K., Cignpost Diagnostics, is under investigation by the government’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) data privacy watchdog, after the ICO became aware that the company stated they intend to analyze and/or sell client DNA samples obtained from their polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests.
The company, which is approved by the U.K. government as a PCR provider and has provided more than 3 million tests since its founding in June, had announced its plans to sell sensitive medical data to third party researchers in order to “learn more about human health.”
According to the Daily Mail, the company, which trades under the name ExpressTest, was not upfront with customers that swabs of their DNA could be sold to “collaborators” including universities and private companies, for medical research.
Instead, customers were asked to agree to a privacy policy which merely linked to another document outlining the firm’s so-called “research programme.”
Further, Cignpost states that besides sharing DNA samples, the firm also retains the “biological samples” and “genetic information” of people who took their tests, which were offered widely at Gatwick, Heathrow, Birmingham, and Edinburgh airports, at a lower cost than most competitors.
It is not yet clear if any swabs have already been sold by Cignpost Diagnostics.
In a statement issued to the Daily Mail, IOC Deputy Commissioner Steve Wood said,
“There is no personal data more sensitive than our DNA. People should be told about what’s happening to it in a clear, open and honest way so they can make informed decisions about whether they want to give it up.”
“Testing is a key tool to help people go back out and enjoy life as we emerge from the pandemic. For it to succeed, people must have trust and confidence in how their personal data is used,” Wood added. “That means testing schemes must be fair and transparent and we’ve worked with organisations throughout the pandemic to ensure people’s privacy is considered from the outset.”
According to the Daily Mail, Cignpost Dianostics was approved to be added to a coalition of COVID test providers by the Laboratory and Testing Industry Organization (LTIO), who had promised the public they were creating a “trustworthy” list of companies Britons could turn to for timely and affordable swabs.
The installation of the LTIO arose shortly after the U.K. government announced they were cracking down on the “Wild West” PCR test market, following ministers’ claims that the testing companies were “acting like cowboys” by employing misleading advertisements on government websites.
The LTIO promised the public they were creating a “gold standard accreditation process and kitemark to provide consumer certainty” and would only add companies recommended by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to the official “gov.uk list.”
Together, the CMA and the LTIO placed Cignpost on the founding list provided by the U.K. government.
In a statement given to the Sunday Times, Cignpost insisted they are “in full compliance with all laws related to data privacy” and they have “invested significantly in robust systems and processes to ensure we protect our customers.”
In addition to the privacy concerns, the use of PCR testing has been a cause for controversy in both the scientific and legal communities around the world.
As reported by LifeSiteNews in December 2020, the original scientific paper establishing PCR tests as the way to identify COVID-19 in individuals has been thoroughly debunked by scientists, who call the tests “useless” and “completely unsuitable” to find COVID-19.
A group of 22 scientists termed the International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences (ICSLS), examined the original Corman-Drosten paper, in which Real Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR/PCR) tests were proposed as a validated means to detect COVID-19, and reported “ten fatal problems” with the original conclusion.
The first “major” issue identified in the ICSLS review is that the CD paper and the trial PCR tests were written and conducted “without having virus material available,” in the words of the CD paper itself. Instead, the PCR test method was based on “silico sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China.” The CD paper’s aims of development and deployment of a test “are not achievable without having any actual virus material available,” according to the ICSLS.
Further, the ICSLS noted that the proposed PCR test contains “severe design errors,” and since the test is unable to distinguish between “the whole virus and viral fragments” it “cannot be used as a diagnostic for SARS-viruses.” A positive test, as mentioned in the CD paper, cannot determine if one is infected with the virus, but “merely indicates the presence of viral RNA molecules.”
On the legal front, despite widespread use in the nation, Canada actually has a law on the books that prohibits the use of genetic testing as a means of determining if someone has an illness or if they are likely to transmit an illness.
According to Canadian constitutional rights lawyer Rocco Galati, PCR testing is a violation of the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act which was enshrined into Canadian federal law in 2017.
The act prohibits requiring a person to undergo a genetic test, such as a PCR test, as a condition of providing goods or services to a person, or offering or continuing a contract with a person.
“It is a criminal offence punishable by fine, and a maximum of five years in jail, for anyone to conduct a DNA or RNA test to determine whether or not, that person is susceptible to transmitting a disease,” stated Galati.
“Well, isn’t that the PCR test? Isn’t it all the tests they’re conducting for COVID?”
*
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.
A very interesting interview with Chris Spear, president and CEO of the American Trucking Association.
During a House Transportation Committee hearing on supply chain issues, CEO Chris Spear shares an internal survey showing that 37% of truck drivers “not only said no, but said hell no” to the Biden vaccine mandates.
To give some perspective of the downstream consequence, the ATA President noted that “if just 3.7 percent, not 37 percent, just 3.7 percent” of the drivers left the industry, there would be over a quarter million vacancies resulting in a “catastrophic” collapse of the U.S. supply chain. Mr. Spear also shared his opinion the OSHA rule is completely unworkable and unlawful.
The consequences are grave if just 3.7% did not work. However, if ten times that many, 37 percent of truck drivers, stopped hauling products because of the Biden vaccine requirement, American civic society would collapse within days as panicked citizens took to the streets. Desperate Americans would be clamoring for scarce products, and the impact on society could not be measured.
As we have continued to point out, a federal vaccine mandate might sound like a good idea on a think tank, academic or white paper policy level of consideration; but on a practical level, wiping out a large percentage of your most productive workforce over a vaccine mandate is unworkable, and might even end the operation of the entire business.
It is important to note the recent NBC poll on this issue amid the outlook of the vaccine mandates. A majority of the country do not support the vaccine mandates, and worse still, the number of unvaccinated workers is essentially unwavering in the past six weeks {poll data}. Remember, the number of Americans who willingly quit their jobs increased to 4.3 million in August {link}, and then increased again to 4.4 million in September {link}. People are not f**king around now.
The number of cumulative hard “NO’s” has gone from 26 percent of the workforce in August, to 27 percent in October.
We are down to the hardened group, an educated and solid bunch of people who use common sense, and they are not going to take the forced vaccination. In quantifiable terms, the increased pressure to force the jab into the arms of the American workforce has now crossed into “the law of diminishing returns.” More government pressure ain’t going to yield the previous level of compliance. This threshold crossed is also quantifiable in the Americans who quit working: “A record-high 4.4 million people, or 3% of workers, quit their job in September according to the Labor Department’s latest Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey released Friday.”
There are 205 million legally eligible U.S. workers, between 15 and 74-years-old (census figures), with a workforce participation rate of 61% (BLS figures) which would equal 125 million legally eligible workers. However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics puts the number of working Americans at 161 million workers (BLS figures). The majority of the difference between the two figures are most likely illegal alien workers (yeah, lots of them).
Approximately 40 percent of the eligible population are not working. Some people are single family income (wives or husbands who don’t work), and some are just people who choose not to work, cannot work or have not yet started to work (college etc). With somewhere between 125 million and 161 million workers doing the jobs that keep the country functioning, there are also approximately 10 million unfilled job openings.
According to the most recent statement from Joe Biden on October 14th: “We’re down to 66 million — it’s still an unacceptably high number — of unvaccinated people from almost 100 million in July.” Approximately 60 million of those are within the current U.S. workforce.
If we split the difference (census -vs- BLS) and take the mid-point at 140 million workers, then 60 million workers refusing the vaccine mandate represents about 40 percent of the entire population of eligible workers. Put another way, in the best case scenario, if 60 million people quit working or were fired, the national unemployment rate would be at least 35%!
What we call the United States doesn’t function with 35% unemployment; systems of commerce start to collapse, then government, then civil society.
The U.S. economy is currently functioning with 5% unemployment and 10 million unfilled jobs.
Just imagine the economic impact of 35% unemployment and 70 million unfilled jobs.
Keep in mind, the vast majority of those 60 million jobs are the productive workforce that keep the entire machine of the U.S. functioning.
This is the workforce that keeps the goods moving, the lights on, garbage picked up, streets safe, shelves stocked, stuff fixed and facilitates everything that makes the entire system of society function.
It is the force of this crew or hard core, dirty fingernail, no-nonsense workers that is pushing those federal contractor companies to contact the administration and tell them this mandate is not going to work for them. If the companies have to choose between losing their ability to contract with the federal government, or losing the most critical part of their workforce, well, they ain’t going to stick with Biden’s mandate.
There ain’t no way in heck that government or private industry can function with tens of millions of Americans in the workforce getting forcibly removed for refusing the vaccine. I believe that is why you are now hearing from companies saying they will not fire the unvaccinated workers (ex Delta Airlines).
Pontificating leftists and academics, without a bit of sense for what actually happens in the Main Street economy, have no concept of what it looks like if ten million people quit or are fired from working next month…. let alone five times that many. Bottom line: THIS IS A NON-ENFORCEABLE MANDATE, even if they wanted to do it.
The power of the American workforce is in the scale of dependency each person brings to the system when they are united. It might seem like a few thousand here/there, because that’s the way the media are framing it. However, if you add up all those few thousands together, you end up with millions.
As we previously outlined, this is not about vaccines per se’, this is more about a slippery slope of having the government dictate how you can live your life and earn a living.
If they can force us to have a medical procedure, and then carry documentation of that procedure in order to work… why can’t they force us to get a small electronic implant of our identification, which would coincidentally include your medical authorizations for work?
It’s just a metal detector…. it’s just taking off your shoes… it’s just wearing a mask…. it’s just a vaccination….. it’s just a COVID passport… it’s always, “just”.
Factually, at the end of all this, I still do not believe a federal mandate for a vaccine is even possible or legal. It appears to me that all of Biden’s threats in this regard are simply that, threats.
The purpose of the threat is to push people to take the vaccine without actually attempting a legal federal mandate; and that approach so far has been successful. However, now they are going to encounter the more hard-core groups who will not concede liberty or freedom to a federal mandate.
It is obvious Anthony Fauci also knows a federal vaccine mandate on the private sector will lose in court when challenged. The fact that Fauci brings up state vaccination requirements for education as examples of historically forced vaccinations is both a strawman argument and structurally false. There has never been a FEDERAL mandate for any vaccination. All the vaccinations Fauci discusses (ex. his kids) were state mandates. Each state also has a different set of standards and laws for children and vaccines. There is nothing federal.
The federal government is attempting to set up a federal work authorization standard for private businesses. Non-compliance means you cannot work, or you lose your existing job if your employer goes along with the government demand. THAT alone should alarm everyone.
There is a particularly enraging irony in that Joe Biden’s federal DOJ and Dept of Labor do not enforce employment eligibility authorization for illegal aliens based on legal status, while at the same time the Biden Dept. of Labor is putting OSHA in charge of a federal policy that will enforce vaccination requirements. Go figure.
All of the federal exemptions essentially undermine the “national health emergency” argument, because if there really was such a public health emergency, there would be no exemptions at all. The application of the executive order undermines the actual cornerstone of the executive order itself. It cannot withstand scrutiny…. hence, Biden doesn’t actually put any rules or regulations into writing because that gives lawsuits something specific to file injunctions against.
In the interim, as the freedom coalition digs in to mount a patriotic challenge, the authoritarian attempt of the federal government, the rebellious alliance is hitting back in unique ways as noted by the Southwest Airline pilots and Air Traffic Controllers, both groups hold a significant military service record. As noted, recently American Airlines was forced to cancel 1,700 flights due to staffing issues:
NPR […] American Airlines cancelled more than 1,700 flights over Halloween weekend, including more than 800 on Sunday alone, due to weather and staff shortages, the company said. […] American Airlines says that 343 were cancelled on Friday, followed by another 548 cancellations on Saturday. Most of the cancelled flights were coming to and from the airline’s main hub in Dallas/Fort Worth, as well as in Charlotte, N.C.
[…] In a letter to staff sent out Saturday, the company’s chief operating officer, David Seymour, said the company “proactively” cancelled flights on Sunday because of severe winds in the Dallas/Fort Worth area and a shortage of crews. (read more)
Another group who are pushing back against the federal effort are local law enforcement and firefighters. Again, another private sector group that has a heavy percentage of former military service members amid the ranks.
The blue-collar effort to bolster the resistance by these groups does not have to be too massive to have an impact. Remember, almost all of these leftists and elite minded communists who now operate as Democrats have no capacity for self-sufficiency. If the working class stops picking up their trash; stops mowing their lawns, shopping for them, doing their cleaning and essentially facilitating their lives, this entire group of scholastic-minded knuckleheads cannot function.
From a commonsense and logistical perspective, regardless of the federal outlook, there’s no way they can pull it off. We are the quiet, and according to those who look down their noses – the “invisible” unwashed masses. However, when it comes to keeping the gears turning, we are the majority.
WASHINGTON DC – Objections among certain vendors over President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal contractors are reaching an inflection point. As the deadline for workforce vaccination approaches, some trucking companies are mulling whether to end their work with the federal government altogether, according to two industry insiders.
In an interview, the American Trucking Associations’ executive vice president for advocacy Bill Sullivan told POLITICO that some companies may simply decide that the cost of the mandate is not worth the government’s checks. Sullivan said he has raised concerns to the White House, Office of Management and Budget and other executive branch officials. He noted that if companies drop their contracts, it may be harder to get certain foods to troops, transport fuel for military vehicles, or even deploy the National Guard.
[…] interviews with more than a dozen industry advocates across the aerospace, distribution, defense and trucking sectors — some of whom have also been in discussions with administration officials — reveal they either have little confidence they will be able to meet the Dec. 8 deadline for their workers to receive their first vaccine shot or expressed concerns about difficulties the mandate would pose on their labor force.
The White House has repeatedly insisted — both in private meetings and publicly — that the federal contractors can avoid potential service disruptions during the holiday season. (read more)
We keep their shit working and just want to be left alone. The system will not function if tens-of-millions of American workers stand united against the vaccine mandate. It really is that simple.
*
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 images in this article are from The Last Refuge
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
In recent days 24 vaccinated soccer players have collapsed on the playing field due to heart attacks. See this. Also this.
Australia, once a free nation, has been turned into a vaccination-coercive Gestapo state, like Austria and much of Europe. Australian authorities, like Austrian ones and the Western media, are brainwashed and immune to scientific and medical evidence. As part of its coercive policy, Australia has banned the defending tennis champion Novak Djokovic from the Australian Open, because he says vaccination is a personal choice, not a qualification for playing tennis.
There is no known evidence that vaccination protects anyone, not even the vaccinated. Indeed, the scientific and medical evidence, attested to by thousands of experts, is that the vaccine is more deadly than Covid. The vaccine not only causes huge numbers of injuries and deaths (witness the soccer players) from adverse reactions, but also degrades the innate human immune system, leaving people exposed to a wide range of diseases. For example, there are reports that cancer cases are exploding.
If Djokovic is banned, no one should attend the Australian Open, and no one should watch on TV. Let the event proceed without attendees and viewers. This is the only effective way, other than dragging Australian authorities out in the streets and hanging the scum from the nearest lamp post, that people can protect their civil liberty. If people are brainwashed and overcome with an orchestrated fear, then the people are lost, and with them the Western achievement of liberty.
It is proven beyond all doubt that vaccination protects no one. But vaccination endangers the vaccinated from adverse reactions and from impaired immune systems, and via shedding endangers the unvaccinated. It has long been clear that it is the vaccinated who are a danger to the unvaccinated, not as the lying propaganda asserts, the unvaccinated who are a threat to the vaccinated.
Think about the official position for one second. Obviously, if the unvaccinated are a threat to the vaccinated, then the vaccine is pointless as it does not protect but does injure and kill. The adverse reporting databases of the US, UK, and EU prove that conclusively.
What is wrong with people that they cannot comprehend that when the medical establishment and its media whores say the unvaccinated are a threat to the vaccinated they are admitting that the vaccine does not protect.
If the vaccine protects, it protects, and the unvaccinated could only be a threat to themselves.
Please note that the media whores, bought off by advertisements, university professors, bought-and-paid-for-by-BigPharma-research grants, and the Big Pharma-influenced medical-establishemnt via grants to medical schools, all admit, everyone of the criminals, that the vaccine does not protect when they demonize the unvaccinated for “endangering the vaccinated.”
The fact that I have to point this out tells you how utterly stupid people are. How can people so stupid as to believe (1) the vaccine protects, and (2) the unvaccinated are a threat to the vaccinated going to survive.
Such people lack the intelligence to justify their existence. Maybe the depopulation agenda has a basis after all.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts 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.
Tensions on the rise in the Black Sea. London recently announced that it will be selling warships to Ukraine. The vessels would be allocated in the Black Sea region. The possible deal belies a previous announcement by the British government that it would not sell arms to Ukraine and increases regional frictions between Ukraine, NATO, and Russia. The presence of modern and equipped Western ships in that area will generate a new escalation of instability, unnecessarily undermining international peace.
In a statement this week, UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace gave a positive signal for heavy weapons sales to Ukraine. The equipment to be traded would be focused on modern warships with high destruction power. The aim is to significantly increase Ukrainian naval power amid a regional context of tensions in the Black Sea. To that end, the British secretary also said that Kiev could pay for the ships using the amount received from the loan taken by the Ukrainian government as part of a trade agreement signed between the two countries in early November. As there is a mutual geostrategic interest in this deal – given the UK’s ambitions to weaken Russian presence in Eastern Europe – there appears to be little concern on the part of the British over how the debt generated by this deal will be paid off.
According to the data released so far, the sale includes the negotiation of two mine countermeasure ships and the joint production of eight warships with missiles, as well as a new frigate. Possible aid from London to Kiev for the construction of a naval infrastructure platform, with the modernization of the weapons systems of current Ukrainian ships, is also being negotiated.
Both Ben Wallace and his Ukrainian counterpart Oleksii Reznikov, commenting on the case, emphasized the fact that the agreement is aimed against Russia, which makes the project a real open affront to the stability of Russia-Ukraine and Russia-West relations. However, in a joint statement, they both tried to be delicate in their words and said the aim was not to make the UK and Ukraine adversary to Russia, but that the move comes amid concerns about Russia’s presence in the border region: “Our governments have no desire to be adversarial, or seek in any way to strategically encircle or undermine the Russian Federation (…) We are concerned by Russia’s military build-up and activity around the borders of Ukraine”.
As we can see, once again, the West is trying to arm Ukraine and turn this state – which has an openly anti-Russian political and ideological orientation – into a regional power to face Moscow’s presence within its own strategic environment. The accusations made by Kiev and London – adopting the Washington-born speech – against Russia, pointing to it as a threat to international security due to its actions on the western border, are truly weak and unsubstantiated. Moscow has not only repeatedly denied all accusations, but it has also demonstrated through its actions in that region that it does not plan to start a war or heighten existing tensions. On the contrary, Russian military movements on the western border have been minimal in recent years – at least when compared to NATO maneuvers, which have now become constant and virtually uninterrupted.
The Russian government frequently denounces NATO’s dangerous maneuvers, with the international society remaining silent. Recently, for example, Russian President Vladimir Putin denounced that NATO planes are operating maneuvers just 20km away from the Russian border, which is a real provocative affront – and, as on previous occasions, no action has been taken within the UN in order to investigate the case or demand a more peaceful posture from NATO. Indeed, in the current international arena, it has become commonplace for NATO and Ukraine to conduct aggressive operations against Russia and justify them with defamatory speech about an alleged Russian intention to invade Europe. This has simply been passively accepted by the UN and peacekeeping organizations, with no action being taken.
Now, with this acquisition of new war equipment, the situation becomes even more complicated. The UK is providing heavy weapons to a state that is currently being denounced in international courts for maintaining ethnic persecution against the Russian population and that is openly considering the possibility of attacking Russia. Obviously, such a scenario would be disastrous for Ukraine, but geostrategy is a minor point in Kiev’s geopolitical orientation, which is motivated by a fanatical anti-Russian ideology. This should be reason enough for the international society to intervene in the case, condemning the negotiation and applying sanctions against the Ukraine and the UK.
Previously, several Western governments – including the UK itself – had pledged not to sell heavy weapons to Ukraine amid rising tensions at the border. But the move comes amid recent UK interest in increasing its naval expansionism. Several British military vessels have circled the Black Sea in recent months, with London openly trying to elevate its geopolitical status in a post-Brexit scenario. So, it is possible to say that, in addition to all the factors mentioned here, once again Ukraine is being used by Western powers to secure interests that do not concern it.
It remains to be seen, however, what will be the position of British public opinion. Unlike international society, citizens of Western countries are already tired of seeing their states investing billions in military operations abroad while the Western social rates decline, and state investments are absent. The UK is one of the countries with the greatest popular rejection of partnerships with Ukraine, due to allegations of corruption against the Ukrainian government. Considering this, how will the people react when they see their taxes being once again converted into arms supply for Kiev? Certainly, there will be a negative response.
*
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.
India’s Aadhaar database contains the digital identifications of more than 1 billion residents, making it the largest biometric digital ID system ever constructed. Similar systems are now being pushed toward implementation in the West, starting with digital vaccine passports
Aadhaar is a de facto social credit system. While sold to the public as the key access point to government services, it also tracks users’ geolocation, employment and purchasing habits. Glitches in the system have led to an untold number of deaths among the poorest, as they were denied food rations
The budding dictatorship of today relies heavily on weaponized medicine and the control of information. Vaccine passports are an entry into digital IDs, which allow those who control the system to control virtually all aspects of your life, while simultaneously making a profit from selling your biometric data
A leading figure in this medical dictatorship scheme is Bill Gates, who wields a dominating influence over Big Tech, global health policy, agriculture and food policy (including biopiracy and fake food), weather modification and other climate technologies, surveillance, education and media
The U.S. vaccine passport effort revolves around a public-private partnership called the Vaccine Credential Initiative (VCI). A military-intelligence think tank called MITRE, which specializes in covert surveillance and data collection on citizens, has a central role in this partnership
*
While the media continue to scoff at warnings that vaccine passports are part of a surveillance structure that is likely to become a permanent part of our lives if we allow their implementation, there’s nothing to suggest that this won’t be the case.
In “The Jimmy Dore Show” above, Dore highlights and interviews Max Blumenthal about his article, “Public Health or Private Wealth? How Digital Vaccine Passports Pave Way for Unprecedented Surveillance Capitalism,”1 co-written with investigative reporter Jeremy Loffredo.
The article reviews some of the tragic consequences that can be expected if a global rollout of digital vaccine passports were to succeed. Loffredo and Blumenthal point to India, where a digital ID system has already been implemented.
The database, called Aadhaar, contains the digital identifications of more than 1 billion residents, making it the largest biometric digital ID system ever constructed.
India’s System Illustrates the Dangers of Digital IDs
While not officially described as such, the system is a “de facto social credit system,” the authors say. It’s sold to the public as the key access point to government services, but it also tracks users’ geolocation, employment and purchasing habits.
Indians have no choice but to submit to this invasive surveillance in order to access government services and assistance programs, such as food rations. As you might expect from such a behemoth database, there are glitches, and in India, such glitches have proven deadly. Loffredo and Blumenthal explain:2
“The death by starvation of Etwariya Devi, a 67-year-old widow from the rural Indian state of Jharkhand, might have passed without notice had it not been part of a more widespread trend.
Like 1.3 billion of her fellow Indians, Devi had been pushed to enroll in a biometric digital ID system called Aadhaar in order to access public services, including her monthly allotment of 25kg of rice.
When her fingerprint failed to register with the shoddy system, Devi was denied her food ration. Throughout the course of the following three months in 2017, she was repeatedly refused food until she succumbed to hunger, alone in her home.
Premani Kumar, a 64-year-old woman also from Jharkhand, met the same demise as Devi, dying of hunger and exhaustion the same year after the Aadhaar system transferred her pension payments to another person without her permission, while cutting off her monthly food rations.
A similarly cruel fate was reserved for Santoshi Kumari, an 11-year-old girl, also from Jharkhand, who reportedly died begging for rice after her family’s ration card was canceled because it had not been linked to their Aadhaar digital ID.
These three heart-rending casualties were among a spate of deaths in rural India in 2017 which came as a direct result of the Aadhaar digital ID system.”
Rule Through Medicine
As noted by the authors, “titans of global capitalism” are now exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic to implement this kind of social-credit style digital ID systems across the Western world:
“For those yearning for an end to pandemic-related restrictions, credential programs certifying their vaccination against COVID-19 have been marketed as the key to reopening the economy and restoring their personal freedom. But the implementation of immunity passports is also accelerating the establishment of a global digital identity infrastructure.”
The plan is as diabolical as it is genius. While the rise of dictatorships has historically involved the use of armed forces to subdue an unruly public, the budding dictatorship of today relies heavily on weaponized medicine and the control of information.
If you’ve taken the time to familiarize yourself with the concept of technocracy, which has a distinct transhumanist component to it, you will see why this makes perfect sense and was, in fact, entirely predictable. By tying the issue of health care into the digital surveillance apparatus, you end up with a very robust platform for automated mass control.
The use of fear also works well in this scenario, since most are keen to stay alive and don’t want their loved ones to die. So, they fall for lies like “we have to shut down the world and sequester indoors for months on end or else we all die.”
Bill Gates Turns Public Health to Private Wealth
A leading figure in this medical dictatorship scheme is Bill Gates, who now wields a dominating influence over not just Big Tech but also global health policy, agriculture and food policy (including biopiracy and fake food), weather modification and other climate technologies,3 surveillance, education and media. As reported by Loffredo and Michele Greenstein in a July 8, 2020, GrayZone article:4
“Beyond the public relations bonanza about Gates lies a disturbing history that should raise concerns about whether his foundation’s plans for resolving the pandemic will benefit the global public as much as it expands and entrenches its power over international institutions.
The Gates Foundation has already effectively privatized the international body charged with creating health policy, transforming it into a vehicle for corporate dominance.
It has facilitated the dumping of toxic products onto the people of the Global South, and even used the world’s poor as guinea pigs for drug experiments. The Gates Foundation’s influence over public health policy is practically contingent on ensuring that safety regulations and other government functions are weak enough to be circumvented …
Strong evidence suggests that the Gates Foundation functions as a Trojan horse for Western corporations, which of course have no goal greater than an increased bottom line.”
Indeed, Gates donates billions to private companies, and is heavily invested in the very products and businesses he donates money to and otherwise promotes as solutions to the world’s problems, be they hunger, disease, pandemic viruses or climate change.
As suggested by The GrayZone, Gates’ global health empire is more about building an empire for himself and his technocrat cronies than promoting public health.5 Not surprisingly, Gates has called Aadhaar’s creator “a hero,” and many of Gates’ initiatives have sought to bring a similar system to the West.6
It’s About Control and Profit
As explained by Blumenthal in the video, these biometric ID systems are all about allowing private companies to profit from your personal data. They’ve been doing that for years already, of course, siphoning your personal data online and then selling it to anyone willing to pay, be they crooks and scammers or reputable companies.
But a biometric ID system will allow them to sell and profit from your fingerprints, iris and your face, along with all the data that is tied to you, from medical and employment data to social and financial services.
So, to summarize, the vaccine passport/digital ID system will allow those controlling the system to profit from your very identity while simultaneously enslaving you to the system. It’s a modernized slave system, pure and simple.
The Convenience Trap
For a taste of what vaccine passports will turn into, check out the video above by the military surveillance firm Thales, which has acknowledged that vaccine passports are in fact the precursor to digital ID wallets.7 As you can see, the digital ID is being sold as a phenomenal convenience, something that will protect you, your identity and your money.
Believe this PR stunt at your own risk. As noted by Dore, “If I [the digital wallet] falls into the wrong hands, [your] life is pretty much over.” The most disturbing part is that having it fall into the hands of hackers and thieves isn’t your biggest concern.
Considering the devastating power a totalitarian regime can have over your life through their control of this system — should they disapprove of what you say, what you view, what you buy, where you go, how you behave or who you hang out with — losing your digital wallet to a common crook would be a minor inconvenience in comparison.
As noted by Dore, the dictators in charge could declare you a terrorist for participating in a protest, and shut off your access to government services, health care services and bank accounts with a single push of a button. Nothing you want to do in life will be very convenient after that.
There’s also the possibility of glitches and system errors, of course, and as illustrated in the Indian stories above, that too can have lethal consequences. A fingerprint failed to register. Pension payments were transferred to the wrong person and food rations were inexplicably cut off.
How is it that errors cannot be fixed? Probably because all the authorities who rely on the system have no authority to make changes in it. It’s all automated, run by algorithms, and everyone is essentially a powerless slave to and within the system. Probably, everyone just shrugged, saying they couldn’t do anything about it, and the lack of human involvement led to the death of these people.
And problems are not rare. A random sampling of 18 villages in India that had implemented compulsory biometric authentication at rationing stations showed a shocking 37% of people were unable to get their food rations due to some problem in the system.8
How Many Times Are You Willing to Play Russian Roulette?
When it comes to vaccine passports, we’ve already seen that maintaining a valid passport will require you to get an undisclosed number of booster shots. It’s not like you can just get the initial one- or two-dose regimen and be set.
No, any time a booster is released, your passport will cease to be valid until or unless you get that booster, be it the third or the thirty-third. Considering how dangerous these COVID shots are turning out to be, you’ll essentially be gambling your life each and every time you get the injection. And for what?
You’ll do it to be “given” basic freedoms that you never even thought could be infringed upon a mere two years ago, such as the right to work, the right to go to school, the right to travel and move about in society as you please, to shop, enter a gym or restaurant or a bank.
Say NO to Biomedical Dictatorship
In Italy, where mandatory vaccine passports are now implanted for all workers, both public and private, reports of inhumane exclusion are already emerging. An old woman was turned away from a hospital because she didn’t have a passport.9
Lithuanians have some of the harshest COVID shot mandates in the world. There, the unvaccinated are banned from restaurants, all non-essential stores, shopping malls, beauty services, libraries, banks, insurance agencies, universities, inpatient medical care and train travel. In a series of Twitter posts, Gluboco Lietuva, an unvaccinated father and husband, said:10
“With no COVID Pass, my wife and I are banished from society. We have no income. Banned from most shopping. Can barely exist … We tried to buy art supplies for our kids from a craft store. No purchase allowed without a Pass. We tried to buy educational toys in a toy store. We were barred from entering. Can’t buy kitchen supplies. Banal, but frustrating …
This pressure to submit is everywhere. And it’s overwhelming. Our ability to survive has been destroyed. But no matter the suffering imposed and the hardships we must endure, we will never accept the descent into the authoritarianism which the COVID Pass represents.”
Indeed, while standing up to the tyranny that is the vaccine passport now might cause pain and struggle, it’s nothing to the pain we’ll experience down the line if we don’t say no now.
Just how much freedom are you willing to lose? Don’t think for a minute that it’ll all end once you get fully vaccinated against COVID-19. As noted by the financial consulting firm Aite-Novarica in September 2021,11 the COVID-19 digital vaccine passport rolled out in New York (the Excelsior Pass) is “a step toward comprehensive digital identification … beyond COVID-19 vaccination only,” and serves as a “neat pilot program opportunity” to that end.
Military-Intelligence Org at Center of US Vaccine Pass Push
In the interview, Blumenthal mentions he’ll soon publish another article detailing the military-intelligence organization MITRE’s role in the U.S. vaccine passport push. That article was published on The GrayZone October 26, 2021.12 If you’ve been a fence-sitter, this piece just might push you to make a decision as to where you stand on this issue.
While MITRE is listed as a nonprofit, its leadership consists of military intelligence professionals, and most of its business comes from contracts with the Department of Defense, FBI and national security sector.
“The effort ‘to expand QR code vaccine passports beyond states like California and New York’ now revolves around a public-private partnership known as the Vaccine Credential Initiative (VCI). And the VCI has reserved an instrumental role in its coalition for MITRE,”Blumenthal and Loffredo write.13
“Described by Forbes as a ‘cloak and dagger [research and development] shop’ that is ‘the most important organization you’ve never heard of,’ MITRE has developed some of the most invasive surveillance technology in use by U.S. spy agencies today.
Among its most novel products is a system built for the FBI which captures individuals’ fingerprints from images posted on social media sites. MITRE’s own COVID-19 umbrella coalition includes In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Palantir, a scandal-stained private spying firm.
Elizabeth Renieris, the founding director of Notre Dame and IBM’s technology ethics lab, has warned that ‘as dominant technology and surveillance companies’ like MITRE ‘pursue new revenue streams in healthcare and financial services … privately owned and operated ID systems with profit-maximizing business models threaten the privacy, security, and other fundamental rights of individuals and communities.’
Indeed, the involvement of the military-intelligence apparatus in the development of a digital vaccine passport system is yet another indication that behind the guise of public health concerns, the U.S. surveillance state could be due to enhance its control over an increasingly restive population.”
What Is MITRE?
So, what is MITRE, and why are they a key player in the VCI? The organization did not reply to “The GrayZone’s” questions for the article; “however, its documented history makes for unsettling reading,” Blumenthal and Loffredo note.
MITRE was founded in 1958 and is based in northern Virginia. The military-intelligence think tank receives about $2 billion a year from U.S. agencies. Initially, it was founded as a joint project of the U.S. Air Force and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), to develop command and control systems for nuclear and conventional warfare.
They’ve also been contracted to eradicate cannabis in Mexico using toxic herbicides, a strategy that ended up contaminating large swaths of food crops. More recently, MITRE has worked on surveillance tech for the FBI, collecting fingerprints from people’s social media photos where their palms and fingers are visible, and helped the agency establish the world’s largest biometric database.
MITRE also worked on the FBI’s Modernized Intelligence Database (MIDB) project, which according to the former FBI assistant director William Bayse allowed police to identify the political causes, associates and employers of activists, along with their biometric data, spending and tax information. As if that’s not hair raising enough, Blumenthal and Loffredo note:14
“Through hundreds of FOIA requests and interviews with current and former MITRE officials, Forbes learned that MITRE has designed ‘a prototype tool that can hack into smartwatches, fitness trackers and home thermometers for the purposes of homeland security… and a study to determine whether someone’s body odor can show they’re lying.’
MITRE is also home to the ATT&CK Program, an cybersecurity module which the corporation describes as ‘a globally-accessible knowledge base of adversary tactics and [intelligence] techniques based on real-world observations.’
Adam Pennington, the lead architect for MITRE’s ATT&CK, ‘has spent over a decade with MITRE studying and preaching the use of deception for intelligence gathering.’ ACLU staff attorney Nate Wessler has called MITRE’s surveillance projects ‘extraordinarily chilling,’ and warned that they ‘raise serious privacy concerns.’”
These are the same people who are now playing a key role in the U.S. vaccine passport program. Blumenthal and Loffredo go into further depth in their article,15 but I think you get the gist.
The vaccine passports clearly have nothing to do with keeping people healthy and safe from infection, and everything to do with turning our most personal data into a profit center that simultaneously allows them to exercise unprecedented control over everyone’s life.
Make no mistake, sooner or later — and time is rapidly running out — everyone will have to make a choice: freedom or slavery. There’s no middle ground anymore.
And if we say no to slavery, we must be ready to not capitulate, because we can already see that mass protests are doing little to dissuade the World Economic Forum and its partners from pushing for a global digital vaccine ID, along with a centralized digital currency. Together, those two things will give them complete control over our lives. Our children and grandchildren will never experience what it’s like to be free if we let that happen.
*
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.
Pfizer told the world 15 people who received the vaccine in its trial had died as of mid-March. Turns out the real number then was 21, compared to only 17 deaths in people who hadn’t been vaccinated.
We present here our research on the presence of graphene in covid vaccines. We have carried out a random screening of graphene-like nanoparticles visible at the optical microscopy in seven random samples of vials from four different trademarks, coupling images with their spectral signatures of RAMAN vibration.
The Kremlin has embraced all the same soul-raping “public health measures” currently terrorizing the Western world—and people are either in denial or making excuses.
Sifting through over 30,000 grants in the company’s database, MintPress can reveal that the Gates Foundation has bankrolled hundreds of media outlets and ventures, to the tune of at least $319 million.
Operation Coronavirus has shown how mass hypnosis can be inculcated into entire populations, around the world. We are now 20 months into “2 weeks to flatten the curve” and there are still many people hopelessly lost in the official narrative.
As if by magic, it appears that these gold collar elites no longer yearn for profit and power as they once had. As COP26 closes up its 12 day annual ceremonies, leading WEF-connected figures like Prince Charles, Jeff Bezos, Mario Draghi, Mark Carney and Klaus Schwab have announced a new system of economics that is based on virtue over profit!
On October 18th, Russia announced it would formally suspend its mission with the NATO alliance, including ending official communication. This is a significant event but not totally shocking to anyone who has been paying attention to post-Soviet Russian relations with NATO.
On the latest episode of The Hill’s “Rising,” journalist and political commentator Kim Iversen discussed strict lockdowns for the unvaccinated only in Austria, and the UK’s new policy requiring three shots as proof of being “fully vaccinated.”
Every sentient being across the EU knows that Nord Stream 2 is the easiest path to lower natural gas prices across Europe, and not the EU’s blind neoliberal bet of buying short term in the spot market.
The irony with COVID-19 vaccine injuries and deaths, is that even this very highly specialized and controlled government court will not try vaccine injury cases related to the COVID-19 experimental shots, mainly because they are still under Emergency Use Authorization and not fully approved by the FDA yet.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Sifting through over 30,000 grants in the company’s database, MintPress can reveal that the Gates Foundation has bankrolled hundreds of media outlets and ventures, to the tune of at least $319 million.
Up until his recent messy divorce, Bill Gates enjoyed something of a free pass in corporate media. Generally presented as a kindly nerd who wants to save the world, the Microsoft co-founder was even unironically christened “Saint Bill” by The Guardian.
While other billionaires’ media empires are relatively well known, the extent to which Gates’s cash underwrites the modern media landscape is not. After sorting through over 30,000 individual grants, MintPress can reveal that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) has made over $300 million worth of donations to fund media projects.
Recipients of this cash include many of America’s most important news outlets, including CNN, NBC, NPR, PBS and The Atlantic. Gates also sponsors a myriad of influential foreign organizations, including the BBC, The Guardian, The Financial Times and The Daily Telegraph in the United Kingdom; prominent European newspapers such as Le Monde (France), Der Spiegel (Germany) and El País (Spain); as well as big global broadcasters like Al-Jazeera.
The Gates Foundation money going towards media programs has been split up into a number of sections, presented in descending numerical order, and includes a link to the relevant grant on the organization’s website.
Together, these donations total $166,216,526. The money is generally directed towards issues close to the Gateses hearts. For example, the $3.6 million CNN grant went towards “report[ing] on gender equality with a particular focus on least developed countries, producing journalism on the everyday inequalities endured by women and girls across the world,” while the Texas Tribune received millions “to increase public awareness and engagement of education reform issues in Texas.” Given that Bill is one of the charter schools’ most fervent supporters, a cynic might interpret this as planting pro-corporate charter school propaganda into the media, disguised as objective news reporting.
The Gates Foundation has also given nearly $63 million to charities closely aligned with big media outlets, including nearly $53 million to BBC Media Action, over $9 million to MTV’s Staying Alive Foundation, and $1 million to The New York Times Neediest Causes Fund. While not specifically funding journalism, donations to the philanthropic arm of a media player should still be noted.
Gates continues to underwrite a wide network of investigative journalism centers as well, totaling just over $38 million, more than half of which has gone to the D.C.-based International Center for Journalists to expand and develop African media.
These centers include:
International Center for Journalists – $20,436,938
Premium Times Centre for Investigative Journalism (Nigeria) – $3,800,357
The Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting – $2,432,552
The Poynter Institute for Media Studies – $382,997
Wole Soyinka Centre for Investigative Journalism (Nigeria) – $360,211
Institute for Advanced Journalism Studies – $254,500
Global Forum for Media Development (Belgium) – $124,823
Mississippi Center for Investigative Reporting – $100,000
In addition to this, the Gates Foundation also plies press and journalism associations with cash, to the tune of at least $12 million. For example, the National Newspaper Publishers Association — a group representing more than 200 outlets — has received $3.2 million.
American Society of News Editors Foundation – $250,000
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press – $25,000
This brings our running total up to $216.4 million.
The foundation also puts up the money to directly train journalists all over the world, in the form of scholarships, courses and workshops. Today, it is possible for an individual to train as a reporter thanks to a Gates Foundation grant, find work at a Gates-funded outlet, and to belong to a press association funded by Gates. This is especially true of journalists working in the fields of health, education and global development, the ones Gates himself is most active in and where scrutiny of the billionaire’s actions and motives are most necessary.
Gates Foundation grants pertaining to the instruction of journalists include:
The BMGF also pays for a wide range of specific media campaigns around the world. For example, since 2014 it has donated $5.7 million to the Population Foundation of India in order to create dramas that promote sexual and reproductive health, with the intent to increase family planning methods in South Asia. Meanwhile, it alloted over $3.5 million to a Senegalese organization to develop radio shows and online content that would feature health information. Supporters consider this to be helping critically underfunded media, while opponents might consider it a case of a billionaire using his money to plant his ideas and opinions into the press.
Added together, these Gates-sponsored media projects come to a total of $319.4 million. However, there are clear shortcomings with this non-exhaustive list, meaning the true figure is undoubtedly far higher. First, it does not count sub-grants — money given by recipients to media around the world. And while the Gates Foundation fosters an air of openness about itself, there is actually precious little public information about what happens to the money from each grant, save for a short, one- or two-sentence description written by the foundation itself on its website. Only donations to press organizations themselves or projects that could be identified from the information on the Gates Foundation’s website as media campaigns were counted, meaning that thousands of grants having some media element do not appear in this list.
A case in point is the BMGF’s partnership with ViacomCBS, the company that controls CBSNews, MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, and BET. Media reports at the time noted that the Gates Foundation was paying the entertainment giant to insert information and PSAs into its programming and that Gates had intervened to change storylines in popular shows like ER and Law & Order: SVU.
However, when checking BMGF’s grants database, “Viacom” and “CBS” are nowhere to be found, the likely grant in question (totaling over $6 million) merely describing the project as a “public engagement campaign aimed at improving high school graduation rates and postsecondary completion rates specifically aimed at parents and students,” meaning that it was not counted in the official total. There are surely many more examples like this. “For a tax-privileged charity that so very often trumpets the importance of transparency, it’s remarkable how intensely secretive the Gates Foundation is about its financial flows,” Tim Schwab, one of the few investigative journalists who has scrutinized the tech billionaire, told MintPress.
Also not included are grants aimed at producing articles for academic journals. While these articles are not meant for mass consumption, they regularly form the basis for stories in the mainstream press and help shape narratives around key issues. The Gates Foundation has given far and wide to academic sources, with at least $13.6 million going toward creating content for the prestigious medical journal The Lancet.
And, of course, even money given to universities for purely research projects eventually ends up in academic journals, and ultimately, downstream into mass media. Academics are under heavy pressure to print their results in prestigious journals; “publish or perish” is the mantra in university departments. Therefore, even these sorts of grants have an effect on our media. Neither these nor grants funding the printing of books or establishment of websites counted in the total, although they too are forms of media.
Low profile, long tentacles
In comparison to other tech billionaires, Gates has kept his profile as a media controller relatively low. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’s purchase of The Washington Post for $250 million in 2013 was a very clear and obvious form of media influence, as was eBay founder Pierre Omidyar’s creation of First Look Media, the company that owns The Intercept.
Despite flying more under the radar, Gates and his companies have amassed considerable influence in media. We already rely on Microsoft-owned products for communication (e.g. Skype, Hotmail), social media (LinkedIn), and entertainment (Microsoft XBox). Furthermore, the hardware and software we use to communicate often comes courtesy of the 66-year-old Seattleite. How many people reading this are doing so on a Microsoft Surface or Windows phone and doing so via Windows OS? Not only that, Microsoft owns stakes in media giants such as Comcast and AT&T. And the “MS” in MSNBC stands for Microsoft.
Media Gates keepers
That the Gates Foundation is underwriting a significant chunk of our media ecosystem leads to serious problems with objectivity. “The foundation’s grants to media organizations…raise obvious conflict-of-interest questions: How can reporting be unbiased when a major player holds the purse strings?” wrote Gates’s local Seattle Times in 2011. This was before the newspaper accepted BMGF money to fund its “education lab” section.
Schwab’s research has found that this conflict of interests goes right to the very top: two New York Times columnists had been writing glowingly about the Gates Foundation for years without disclosing that they also work for a group — the Solutions Journalism Network — that, as shown above, has received over $7 million from the tech billionaire’s charity.
Earlier this year, Schwab also declined to co-report on a story about COVAX for The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, suspecting that the money Gates had been pumping into the outlet would make it impossible to accurately report on a subject so close to Gates’s heart. Sure enough, when the article was published last month, it repeated the assertion that Gates had little to do with COVAX’s failure, mirroring the BMGF’s stance and quoting them throughout. Only at the very end of the more than 5,000-word story did it reveal that the organization it was defending was paying the wages of its staff.
“I don’t believe Gates told The Bureau of Investigative Journalism what to write. I think the bureau implicitly, if subconsciously, knew they had to find a way to tell this story that didn’t target their funder. The biasing effects of financial conflicts are complex but very real and reliable,” Schwab said, describing it as “a case study in the perils of Gates-funded journalism.”
MintPress also contacted the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for comment, but it did not respond.
1/ Months ago, I was asked to be a co-reporter on this story. I declined b/c the #GatesFoundation was a funder, which I knew would make it impossible to rigorously examine Gates's role in Covax. This story is a case study in the perils of Gates-funded journalism. 🧵Read on & RT: https://t.co/hkFQOBEGff
Gates, who amassed his fortune by building a monopoly and zealously guarding his intellectual property, bears significant blame for the failure of the coronavirus vaccine rollout across the world. Quite aside from the COVAX fiasco, he pressured Oxford University not to make its publicly-funded vaccine open-source and available to all for free, but instead to partner with private corporation AstraZeneca, a decision that meant that those who could not pay were blocked from using it. That Gates has made over 100 donations to the university, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, likely played some role in the decision. To this day, fewer than 5% of people in low-income countries have received even one dose of COVID vaccine. The death toll from this is immense.
Unfortunately, many of these real criticisms of Gates and his network are obscured by wild and untrue conspiracy theories about such things as inserting microchips in vaccines to control the population. This has meant that genuine critiques of the Microsoft co-founder are often demonetized and algorithmically suppressed, meaning that outlets are strongly dissuaded from covering the topic, knowing they will likely lose money if they do so. The paucity of scrutiny of the world’s second-richest individual, in turn, feeds into outlandish suspicions.
Gates certainly deserves it. Quite apart from his deep and potentially decades-long ties to the infamous Jeffrey Epstein, his attempts to radically change African society, and his investment in controversial chemical giant Monsanto, he is perhaps the key driver behind the American charter school movement — an attempt to essentially privatize the U.S. education system. Charter schools are deeply unpopular with teachers’ unions, which see the movement as an attempt to lessen their autonomy and reduce public oversight into how and what children are taught.
All the way to the bank
In most coverage, Gates’s donations are broadly presented as altruistic gestures. Yet many have pointed to the inherent flaws with this model, noting that allowing billionaires to decide what they do with their money allows them to set the public agenda, giving them enormous power over society. “Philanthropy can and is being used deliberately to divert attention away from different forms of economic exploitation that underpin global inequality today,” saidLinsey McGoey, Professor of Sociology at the University of Essex, U.K., and author of No Such Thing as a Free Gift: The Gates Foundation and the Price of Philanthropy. She adds:
The new ‘philanthrocapitalism’ threatens democracy by increasing the power of the corporate sector at the expense of the public sector organizations, which increasingly face budget squeezes, in part by excessively remunerating for-profit organizations to deliver public services that could be delivered more cheaply without private sector involvement.”
Charity, as former British Prime Minister Clement Attlee noted, “is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim.”
None of this means that the organizations receiving Gates’ money — media or otherwise — are irredeemably corrupt, nor that the Gates Foundation does not do any good in the world. But it does introduce a glaring conflict of interest whereby the very institutions we rely on to hold accountable one of the richest and most powerful men in the planet’s history are quietly being funded by him. This conflict of interest is one that corporate media have largely tried to ignore, while the supposedly altruistic philanthropist Gates just keeps getting richer, laughing all the way to the bank.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Pfizer told the world 15 people who received the vaccine in its trial had died as of mid-March. Turns out the real number then was 21, compared to only 17 deaths in people who hadn’t been vaccinated.
On July 28, Pfizer and its partner BioNTech posted a six-month data update from their key Covid vaccine clinical trial, the one that led regulators worldwide to okay the shot.
At a time when questions about vaccine effectiveness were rising, the report received worldwide attention. Pfizer said the vaccine’s efficacy remained relatively strong, at 84 percent after six months.
It also reported 15 of the roughly 22,000 people who received the vaccine in the trial had died, compared to 14 of the 22,000 people who received placebo (a saline shot that didn’t contain the vaccine).
These were not just [alleged] Covid deaths. In fact, they were mostly not from Covid. Only three of the people in the trial died of Covid-related illnesses – one who received the vaccine, and two who received the saline shot. The other deaths were from other illnesses and diseases, mostly cardiovascular.
Researchers call this datapoint “all-cause mortality.” Pfizer barely mentioned it, stuffing the details of the deaths in an appendix to the report.
But all-cause mortality is arguably the MOST important measure for any drug or vaccine – especially one meant to be given prophylactically to large numbers of healthy people, as vaccines are.
(SOURCE: Appendix to “Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine,” available at https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.supplementary-material)
Although the researchers released their update in July, the data was already more than four months old. They had stopped collecting information about deaths as of March 13, the “data cut-off.”
But even at the time, their figures were somewhat troubling.
In their initial safety report to the FDA, which contained data through November 2020, the researchers had said four placebo recipients and two vaccine recipients died, one after the first dose and one after the second. The July update reversed that trend. Between November 2020 and March 2021, 13 vaccine recipients died, compared to only 10 placebo subjects.
Further, nine vaccine recipients had died from cardiovascular events such as heart attacks or strokes, compared to six placebo recipients who died of those causes. The imbalance was small but notable, considering that regulators worldwide had found that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines were linked to heart inflammation in young men.
(I reported accurately on this study on Twitter on July 29, and the next day Twitter suspended me for a week for doing so, the fourth of my five defamatory “strikes” for Covid “misinformation.”)
At best, the results suggested that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine – now pushed on nearly a billion people worldwide at a cost of tens of billions of dollars and ruinous and worsening civil liberties restrictions – did nothing to reduce overall deaths.
Worse, Pfizer and BioNTech had vaccinated almost all the placebo recipients in the trial shortly after the Food and Drug Administration okayed the vaccine for emergency use on Dec. 11, 2020.
As a result, they had destroyed our best chance to compare the long-term health of a large number of vaccine recipients with a scientifically balanced group of people who had not received the drug. The July 28 report appeared to be the last clean safety data update we would ever have.
*
But now the FDA has given us one more.
On November 8, the agency released its “Summary Basis for Regulatory Action,” a 30-page note explaining why on August 23 it granted full approval to Pfizer’s vaccine, replacing the emergency authorization from December 2020.
SOURCE: https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download
And buried on page 23 of the report is this stunning sentence:
From Dose 1 through the March 13, 2021 data cutoff date, there were a total of 38 deaths, 21 in the COMIRNATY [vaccine] group and 17 in the placebo group.
Pfizer said publicly in July it had found 15 deaths among vaccine recipients by mid-March. But it told the FDA there were 21 – at the same data cutoff end date, March 13.
21.
Not 15.
The placebo figure in the trial was also wrong. Pfizer had 17 deaths among placebo recipients, not 14. Nine extra deaths overall, six among vaccine recipients.
Could the discrepancy result from some odd data lag? Maybe, but the FDA briefing book also contains the number of Covid cases that Pfizer found in vaccine recipients in the trial. Those figures are EXACTLY the same as those Pfizer posted publicly in July.
Yet the death counts were different.
Pfizer somehow miscounted – or publicly misreported, or both – the number of deaths in one of the most important clinical trials in the history of medicine.
And the FDA’s figures paint a notably more worrisome picture of the vaccine than the public July numbers. Though the absolute numbers are small, overall deaths were 24 percent higher among vaccine recipients.
The update also shows that 19 vaccine recipients died between November and March, compared to 13 placebo recipients – a difference of almost 50 percent.
Were the extra deaths cardiac-related? It is impossible to know. The FDA did not report any additional details of the deaths, saying only that none “were considered related to vaccination.”
But with tens of thousands of post-vaccine deaths now reported in the United States and Europe – and overall non-Covid death rates now running well above normal in many countries – a fresh look at that vague reassurance cannot happen soon enough.
(Author’s Note: I initially accidentally swapped the vaccine and placebo Covid deaths – two people who received placebo died of Covid in the trial, and one who received the vaccine. This error does not affect the overall figures.)
*
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.
In einer lebhaften Kundgebung unter der vollen Herbstsonne sprach Robert F. Kennedy Jr. zu einer Menge von etwa 10 bis 20 Tausend Menschen in Bern. Er sprach über die Impf-Lügen in den USA und auf der ganzen Welt – er verschonte auch Europa nicht, wo Kinder bereits ab einem Alter von 5 Jahren geimpft werden können – genau wie in den USA, dem Grossen Bruder. Er wies darauf hin, dass die Sterblichkeitsrate bei Kindern durch das, was sie fälschlicherweise als Impfstoff bezeichnen, ein Vielfaches der Todesrate bei Kindern durch den covid-19 Virus beträgt.
Die Kundgebung in Bern wurde vom Schweizer Public Eye on Science organisiert. Public Eye on Science setzt sich für Transparenz ein, insbesondere dort, wo sich wissenschaftliche und finanzielle/wirtschaftliche Interessen oft vermischen und zu Interessenkonflikten führen.
Robert Kennedy Jr. kam aus einem bestimmten Grund nach Bern, und er sagte den Schweizern, dass die Schweiz die letzte Bastion der Demokratie in der Welt sei. Die bevorstehende Volksabstimmung am 28. November 2021, bei der die Schweizer die Möglichkeit haben, für oder gegen ein Covid-Gesetz – ein getarntes Kriegsrecht – zu stimmen, das im September 2020 in aller Stille vom Parlament ratifiziert worden war, aber auf Eis gelegt werden musste, weil sofort ein Referendum dagegen ergriffen wurde. Dieses Referendum sammelte in Rekordzeit eine in der Schweiz noch nie dagewesene Rekordzahl von Unterschriften.
Robert Kennedy Jr. wies auf die völlig undemokratische Diskriminierung hin, die bereits heute in den meisten Ländern Europas stattfindet, auch in der Schweiz, wo die “Unvaxxed”, diejenigen, die keinen “Vaxx-Pass” haben, von der Gesellschaft ausgeschlossen werden. Sie können kein Restaurant, kein Fitnessstudio, keinen Club, kein Kino, kein Theater, keine öffentliche Veranstaltung betreten. Sie werden ausgesperrt. Sie werden diskriminiert.
Will die Schweiz eine gespaltene Gesellschaft mit Privilegien für diejenigen, die sich aus Bequemlichkeit ein genveränderndes Gift spritzen lassen, während diejenigen, die sich dieser illegalen, verfassungswidrigen staatlichen Nötigung und Erpressung widersetzen, bestraft und diskriminiert werden? Diese Frage müssen sich alle Schweizerinnen und Schweizer – ob geimpft oder ungeimpft – stellen. Und das, obwohl wir die einmalige Gelegenheit eines Volksreferendums haben, bei dem wir entscheiden können, was wir für unsere Zukunft und die Zukunft unserer Kinder und deren Kinder wollen.
Ein Beispiel dafür ist Österreich. Ab Mitternacht des Sonntags, den 14. November, hat die österreichische Regierung die weltweit erste Ausgangssperre für Unvaxxierte verhängt – ein Novum. Jeder, der sich das mRNA-Gift nicht hat spritzen lassen (oder vom “PCR-Test-geprüften” Covid geheilt wurde), steht unter strenger Ausgangssperre.
Ganz zu schweigen von der Falschheit des PCR-Tests. Selbst die WHO hat Anfang dieses Jahres zugegeben, dass der PCR-Test kein zuverlässiges Mittel zum Nachweis des Covid-Virus ist.
Die führenden Politiker der Welt ignorieren die WHO und verwenden weiterhin den falschen PCR-Test zum Nachweis des Covid-Virus, ungeachtet dessen, wie ungültig er ist. Die hohe Zahl der falsch-positiven Ergebnisse (nahezu 100 %) trägt jedoch zur Manipulation der Statistiken bei. Im Rahmen dieser neuen österreichischen Sperre dürfen nicht-geimpfte Menschen nicht mehr zur Arbeit oder in Geschäfte gehen, ihre Wohnung nicht mehr verlassen, unter Androhung hoher Strafen, und die Arbeitgeber, die sie arbeiten lassen, erhalten astronomische Geldstrafen – siehe diesen RT-Bericht https://www.rt.com/news/540199-austria-lockdown-for-unvaxxed/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Email
Dies könnte auch in der Schweiz geschehen, wenn das Gesetz über die Kovidität angenommen wird. LIEBE SCHWEIZER MITBÜRGERINNEN UND MITBÜRGER – SEID WACHSAM UND PASST AUF! Stimmt NEIN, am 28. November 2021. Jeder, der die Freiheit für sich selbst, für die Gesellschaft und für die Welt liebt, muss massenhaft mit NEIN stimmen.
Wir, das Volk, müssen und können diese Tyrannei überwinden.
Unser Schlachtruf ist LIBERTÉ! – LIBERTÉ! – LIBERTÉ! Robert Kennedy und alle Redner leiteten die Kundgebung mit LIBERTÉ! – Es war ein wirklich kraftvolles Ereignis. Eine magische Energie strömte durch die Menge.
*
Was die meisten Schweizerinnen und Schweizer nicht wissen und von ihren Behörden und vor allem nicht von den hochbezahlten – ein besserer Ausdruck wäre “korrumpierten” – Mainstream-Medien nicht erfahren, ist, dass dieses “Gesundheits-Kriegsrecht” bis zum 31. Dezember 2031 gilt, also bis ein Jahr nach dem Ende der UNO-Agenda 2030, unter der dieses Verbrechen läuft (und es ist natürlich verlängerbar, wenn man es für nötig hält); dass die Regierung während dieses Zeitraums jede Entscheidung – und ich wiederhole: JEDE Entscheidung – treffen kann, ohne das Parlament, geschweige denn das Volk zu konsultieren; dass das Recht, Volksabstimmungen durchzuführen, eine einzigartige Form der direkten Demokratie, sofort ausgesetzt wird. Wenn wir, das Volk, am 28. November 2021 nicht massiv NEIN zu diesem kriminellen Gesetz sagen, könnte dies das letzte Referendum sein, über das wir je abgestimmt haben.
Wie in den meisten Fällen, in denen ein interner Staatsstreich angezettelt wird – und glauben Sie mir, ein Ja wäre gleichbedeutend mit einem internen Staatsstreich -, wird eine drastische Änderung der Verfassung in Kraft treten. Volksabstimmungen werden nicht Teil einer neuen Verfassung sein. Die meisten Menschen sind sich dessen nicht bewusst. Sie werden weder von ihrer Regierung noch von den Medien über die wahren Hintergründe aufgeklärt.
Glauben Sie mir, liebe Leserinnen und Leser, die Schweizer Regierung “subventioniert” – ein besseres Wort wäre “korrumpiert” – die Mainstream-Medien mit 1,7 Milliarden Schweizer Franken pro Jahr, was in etwa 2 Milliarden US-Dollar entspricht. Und das bei einer Schweizer Bevölkerung von 8,4 Millionen. Sie können sich selbst ausrechnen, wie hoch die Pro-Kopf-Kosten von Steuergeldern sind, um die Schweizer Bevölkerung Tag für Tag zu belügen und falsch zu informieren; genau die Menschen, die diesen Betrug unwissentlich mit ihren Steuergeldern finanzieren.
Würde das Covid-Gesetz mehrheitlich angenommen – GOTT bewahre! – wäre die Schweiz nicht länger ein Leuchtturm der Demokratie in der Welt, oder die letzte Bastion der Demokratie, wie Robert Kennedy Jr. es ausdrückte.
Stattdessen würde sich die Schweiz fast augenblicklich in ein “Leuchtfeuer” des total digitalisierten Bankwesens verwandeln. Jede Geldtransaktion würde von der Zentralbank kontrolliert werden. Ihr Bankkonto könnte nach Belieben geleert werden: Wenn Sie sich nicht benehmen, wird Geld abgehoben; oder wenn Sie Anweisungen nicht befolgen oder rebellieren, könnte man Sie daran hindern, Lebensmittel einzukaufen. Und das alles mit Hilfe von Algorithmen, künstlicher Intelligenz (KI) und Robotern. Vollständige Überwachung.
Das wird vielleicht niht über Nacht geschehen, qaber innerhalb von kurzer Zeit; von zu kurzer Zeit um sich alternativ zu organisieren.
Haben Sie sich jemals gefragt, wie es möglich war, dass die ganze Welt – alle 193 UN-Mitgliedsländer – am selben Tag im März 2020, um den 11. März herum, genau dieselben Maßnahmen zur Bekämpfung eines Virus eingeführt haben, das einem einfachen jährlichen Grippevirus sehr ähnlich – und keineswegs tödlicher – ist? Tatsächlich liegt die Sterblichkeitsrate des Virus bei etwa 0,07 %. In einem von Fachleuten geprüften Artikel im New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) mit dem Titel “Covid-19 – Navigating the Uncharted” (Covid-19 – Navigieren im Unbekannten) sagte Dr. Anthony Fauci, der Covid-Zar, dass das Corona-Virus mit einem Grippevirus vergleichbar sei.
Es müssen enorme Geldmächte dahinter stecken, die sofort die Kontrolle über die Welt übernehmen, und niemand ist in der Lage, sich dagegen zu wehren. – Silicon-Valley-Milliardäre und soziale Medien sind Teil des Spiels, ebenso wie der große Finanzsektor, wie Black Rock und Vanguard – und andere dunkle Kräfte. Blackrock alleine verwaltet etwa 22 Billionen US Dollar. Das entspricht etwa dem US Brutto Sozial Produkt. Black Rock und Vanguard sind miteinander verbunden, sind gegenseitig Aktionäre und erhöhen somit ihre gemeinsam Kapital- und Hebelkraft („leverage“) um ein Vielfaches.
Das gesamte UN-System wird gezwungen, diese diktatorischen Befehle zu befolgen, und die Tatsache, dass buchstäblich alle Regierungen mitspielen, muss darauf hindeuten, dass der Befehl mit einem sehr, aber sehr schweren – vielleicht tödlichen – Stock verbunden ist. Und vielleicht auch ein kleines Zuckerbrot für jene Politiker, die bei der Unterdrückung und Tyrannei ihres Volkes gehorchen. Sehen Sie sich diese Video-Rede von Ernst Wolff an, dem bekannten deutschen Finanzwissenschaftler. Er zeigt mit klaren Vergleichen, wo die Macht der Welt liegt; mehr als Macht, wie wir sie kennen – Macht über Leben und Tod; Macht darüber, ob unsere Zivilisation überleben wird – und wenn sie es zulassen – unter welchen Bedingungen.
Dann gibt es da noch Klaus Schwabs berüchtigtes Buch “Covid-19 – The Great Reset”, in dem er über die Umwandlung von Menschen in “Transhumane”, oder von “Transhumanismus” spricht, wobei “transhumane Wesen”, durch das, was er als implantierte Chips bezeichnet, wie Roboter manipulierbar sein werden – natürlich meint er das nicht im negativen Sinne. Alles zum Wohl der Menschheit. Am Ende “werdet ihr nichts besitzen, aber ihr werdet glücklich sein”. Das ist die Schlussfolgerung und der Ausblick des WEF-Vorsitzenden auf die Zukunft. Das entspricht der Schlussfolgerung der 4. industriellen Revolution – Robotisierung, Digitalisierung und Übertragung von Vermögenswerten von unten und der Mitte auf einige wenige Superreiche an der Spitze.
Das ist der Plan. Aber wir können ihn aufhalten.
*
Heute bewegt sich alles, was wir sehen, in diese ruchlose Richtung. Doch wir, das Volk, haben die Macht, es zu stoppen. Ohne Hass, auf einer höheren Frequenz schwingend – und ja, wir alle, Vaxxed und Non-Vaxxed zusammen, denn am Ende sitzen wir im selben Boot. Das, liebe Mitbürgerinnen und Mitbürger der Welt, müssen wir verstehen. Es nützt nichts, wenn wir in zehn Jahren, am Ende der UN-Agenda 2030, sagen: “Ja, tut mir leid, ihr hattet Recht”. Es ist völlig irrelevant, wer Recht hat. Der Punkt ist, dass wir es gemeinsam stoppen müssen, in Solidarität, vaxxed und unvaxxed zusammen. Keine Diskriminierung – LIBERTÉ!!! Für alle.
Die Giftinjektionen, die sie der Bevölkerung aufzwingen – auch den Kindern, stellen Sie sich vor!!! – verwandelt die Menschen in Transhumane, was bedeutet, dass unser Verstand durch 5G und bald 6G Ultra-Mikrowellen manipuliert werden kann. Deshalb brauchen Sie jedes Jahr eine “Auffrischungsimpfung”. Das hat nichts mit Ihrer Gesundheit zu tun. Keine der so genannten “Impfungen” hat etwas mit Ihrer Gesundheit zu tun. Es hat alles damit zu tun, unseren Körper darauf vorzubereiten, für die 5G- und schließlich 6G-Ultra-Mikrowellen empfänglich zu machen. Und der Schweizer Bundesrat und alle führenden Politiker der Welt, die diesem bösen Narrativ und Diktat folgen, wissen das.
Wenn man sich umschaut, sieht man bereits überall 5G-Antennen. In vielen Ländern, auch in der Schweiz ist 5G bereits punktuell in Betrieb, obwohl das Schweizer Volk dafür gestimmt und die Schweizer Behörden zugestimmt hatten, ein Moratorium für die Einführung von 5G zu verhängen, bis mehr Informationen über die Sicherheit und mögliche gesundheitliche Auswirkungen bekannt sind. Nicht einmal die WHO – die Mitverantwortlichen für dieses Covid-Verbrechen – haben es gewagt, sich zu den möglichen gesundheitlichen Auswirkungen dieser Ultrakurzwellen zu äußern.
Eine entscheidende Frage, die wir uns alle stellen müssen: Wird die Schweiz weiterhin die Bastion der Demokratie und der leuchtende Leuchtturm für die Welt bleiben, der möglicherweise die Menschen im Rest der Welt beeinflusst und sie auffordert, aufzuwachen und diesem biblischen Verbrechen – das offen gesagt die Menschheit auszulöschen droht – friedlich durch Nicht-Gehorsam Einhalt zu gebieten?
Das ist es, wofür Robert Kennedy Jr. und andere prominente Persönlichkeiten, die am letzten Freitag an der Kundgebung in Bern sprachen, plädierten – eine grosse NEIN-Stimme – ist ein JA für unsere Freiheit – LIBERTÉ! – LIBERTÉ! – LIBERTÉ! – lautete der Schlachtruf, an dieser ganz besonderen Berner Volksversammlung.
*
Zu den weiteren prominenten Rednern gehörte Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, der deutsche Rechtsanwalt, der mit einer Gruppe von mehr als 1.000 Medizinern und anderen Fachleuten Klagen gegen die Täter auf der ganzen Welt führt, die unsere bürgerlichen Freiheiten und die Bürgerrechte des Volkes verletzen. Er appelliert an die Schweizer, die geplante und bereits laufende Diskriminierung zwischen Vaxxierten und Nicht-Vaxxierten nicht zu tolerieren. Er ruft zur Solidarität der beiden Gruppen auf, nicht zur Spaltung, denn die Solidarität wird am Ende unsere Freiheit zurückgewinnen – und möglicherweise einen Einfluss auf die Völker anderer Nationen ausüben Er fordert auf dies zu tun – friedlich, aber mit entschlossenem kollektivem Ungehorsam.
Dieser Punkt der Solidarität zwischen den Vaxxed und den Unvaxxed, die Notwendigkeit, sich bei der bevorstehenden Volksabstimmung die Hände zu reichen, wurde auch von Christoph Pfluger, dem Gründer der Schweizerischen Freunde der Verfassungen, angesprochen. Er betonte einen wichtigen Punkt: Gemeinsam werden wir diese Abstimmung für die Freiheit und gegen die bürgerliche Tyrannei gewinnen. Zusammengehörigkeit ist Liebe füreinander und besiegt Diskriminierung. Zusammengehörigkeit und Solidarität brechen dem covidischen Narrativ das Genick.
Die Polizei und das Militär, die jetzt weitgehend unter Kontrolle und im Dienste der Regierungen und der Reichen und Mächtigen stehen; die Mächtigen, die in Ernst Wolffs Rede so gut beschrieben wurden – siehe oben – wenn diese Wächter der Sicherheit und der Sicherheit der Menschen anfangen zu begreifen, dass sie im selben Boot mit dem Volk sitzen, mit dem unterdrückten und immer mehr tyrannisierten Volk – dann mögen sie ihre Helme abnehmen und mit uns marschieren.
Ebenfalls per Video anwesend waren Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, ehemaliger Professor für Mikrobiologie und Hygiene an der Universität Mainz, Deutschland, und Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, ein deutscher Arzt und Politiker. Er war bis 2009 Mitglied des Europäischen Parlaments. Sie sind beide enge Mitarbeiter von Dr. Fuellmich.
Beide betonten, wie wichtig es ist, dass die Menschen, insbesondere junge Menschen, am 28. November zur Wahl gehen und mit NEIN gegen das Covid-Gesetz und gegen Diskriminierung stimmen. Es sind die kommenden Generationen, die die Hauptlast eines Covid-Staatsstreichs zu tragen haben werden, der sich in der Schweiz – und in allen westlichen Ländern – etablieren würde. Auch sie betonten, dass die Schweiz mit einem Nein weltweit etwas bewirken kann.
An der Kundgebung sprach auch Catherine Austin-Fitts, eine ehemalige US-Investmentbankerin, die sich nicht nur mit dem Bankwesen und dem, was daraus geworden ist, auskennt, sondern auch mit der immer wichtiger werdenden Rolle der Zentralbanken. Sie sagte, dass die Schweiz, insbesondere die Schweiz – das Epizentrum des Bankwesens und vor allem des Zentralbankwesens mit der Bank für Internationalen Zahlungsausgleich (BIZ) – der Zentralbank aller Zentralbanken – mit Sitz in Basel, das erste Land sein könnte, das vollständig digitalisiert und finanziell versklavt wird, wenn dieses Gesetz angenommen wird.
Sie sagt voraus, dass die Schweiz mit Warp-Geschwindigkeit digitalisiert werden würde – ein Punkt, der mir von anderen Schweizer Privatbankiers bestätigt wurde, die zwar nicht mit dem System einverstanden sind, aber durch einen Job, der ihre Familien ernährt und unterstützt, daran gebunden sind. Sie wiederholten, dass wir durch die Digitalisierung auf Schritt und Tritt kontrolliert werden; dass der Zugang zu unserem Geld, unserem Vermögen, von unserem Verhalten und unserem Gehorsam gegenüber dem System abhängen wird.
Weiter sprachen Dr. Thomas Binder, Schweizer Kardiologe und Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger, eine internationale Gesundheitswissenschaftlerin, früher bei der WHO. Beide erinnerten die Zuhörer an die “unsinnigen” und kriminellen Massnahmen und Diktate, die in der Schweiz und gleichzeitig in allen 193 UNO-Mitgliedsländern gegen die Menschenrechte angeordnet werden. Sie wiesen auf den Schaden hin, den diese Massnahmen der gesamten Weltbevölkerung zufügen werden, wenn sie nicht gestoppt werden. Und vor allem für unsere Kinder, denn sie sind die nächste Generation, die in die Zukunft führt.
Dr. Thomas Binder sprach einen weiteren wichtigen Punkt an. Er rief alle Mediziner und Wissenschaftler dazu auf, ihrem Beruf des Heilens nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen treu zu bleiben. Er verwies auf den Hippokratischen Eid, den alle Ärzte unterschreiben müssen. Er wurde von Hippokrates im 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. verfasst und wird von Ärzten immer noch als heilig angesehen: Kranke nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen zu behandeln, die Privatsphäre des Patienten zu wahren, die Geheimnisse der Medizin an die nächste Generation weiterzugeben und so weiter.
Dr. Binder appellierte an seine Ärzte-Kollegen in der Schweiz und auf der ganzen Welt, ihrem Eid treu zu bleiben und sich dem staatlichen Zwang zu entziehen und ihrem Gewissen zu folgen. Wenn dies von der medizinischen und wissenschaftlichen Gemeinschaft weltweit – und trotz der Drohungen – geschehen würde, würden das Covid-Narrativ und die Tyrannei zusammenbrechen.
Hinzu kommt eine weltweite wirtschaftliche Zerstörung, die auf eine Krankheit zurückzuführen ist, die in Wirklichkeit nie in pandemischer Form existiert hat. Laut Robert Kennedy Jr. hat die Lüge darüber weltweit 3,8 Billionen Dollar vernichtet, das meiste davon in den so genannten Entwicklungsländern, wobei Elend, Armut und Tod zurückblieben, während die Werte des Vermögens auf die wenigen Superreichen übertragen wurden. – Siehe auch dies – https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-covid-19-pandemic-does-not-exist/5760903 . Professor Chossudovsky, Autor dieses gründlich recherchierten Artikels und Direktor und Herausgeber von Global Research in Montreal, stellt alle Beweise zusammen und zeigt, dass SARS-CoV-2, alias Covid-19, nie identifiziert wurde, und demonstriert, wie die Fallzahlen und die Anzahl der Todesfälle auf der ganzen Welt manipuliert wurden, um Angst zu schüren – und um die gesamte Weltbevölkerung zu kontrollieren und zu unterdrücken.
Liebe Mitbürgerinnen und Mitbürger – stimmen wir am 28. November 2021 massiv NEIN, damit die Schweiz tatsächlich der Leuchtturm der Demokratie in der Welt bleiben kann – und stimmen wir für weltweite LIBERTÉ – LIBERTÉ – LIBERTÉ!
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Peter Koenig ist geopolitischer Analyst und ehemaliger Senior Economist bei der Weltbank und der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO), wo er über 30 Jahre lang zu den Themen Wasser und Umwelt auf der ganzen Welt gearbeitet hat. Er hält Vorlesungen an Universitäten in den USA, Europa und Südamerika. Er schreibt regelmäßig für Online-Zeitschriften und ist Autor von Implosion – Ein Wirtschaftsthriller über Krieg, Umweltzerstörung und Konzerngier sowie Mitautor von Cynthia McKinneys Buch “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)
Peter Koenig ist wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter des Centre for Research on Globalization.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
“Sputnik V is safe!”; “Putin is just ‘playing along’ with the COVID narrative until the petrodollar collapses!”; “Russia is the last bastion of freedom!”
Alternative media has created an alternative reality about Russia.
The Kremlin has embraced all the same soul-raping “public health measures” currently terrorizing the Western world—and people are either in denial or making excuses.
Internet Russia (left) is slightly different from Actual Russia (right)
“There Is No Compulsory Vaccination in Russia!”
All 85 federal subjects of the Russian Federation now have vaccine mandates, as well as rules requiring digital “health” certificates for entry to certain businesses, venues, and public institutions. Many regions are denying routine medical care to those without QR codes.
At the federal level, the Kremlin has voiced support for “any measures” that “encourage” Russians to get jabbed—while insisting vaccination remains completely voluntary.
A sample of regional flavors of “voluntary” vaccination in Russia:
In the Novgorod region, children whose parents have not been vaccinated are banned from afterschool clubs and other extracurricular activities.
Digital vaccine passports will be required to use public transport in Tatarstan. The new regulation applies to all residents over the age of 18 without a medical exemption.
In St. Petersburg, a negative PCR test cannot be used to obtain a QR code. This means theaters, museums and restaurants in Russia’s second-largest city are reserved exclusively for the vaccinated and those with proof of prior infection.
Muscovites over the age of 60 have been ordered to self-isolate until the end of February. Those who have been vaccinated or have proof of prior infection are exempt from the rule.
Probably you read somewhere that Vladimir Putin outlawed compulsory vaccination as part of his master plan to destroy the fractional reserve banking system and bring peace and harmony to the world. Someone lied to you. Sorry about that.
“…But Sputnik V Is Safe!”
Does the Kremlin have access to a time-bending wormhole? Because we keep reading boastful claims about the non-existent results of Sputnik V’s “long-term” (ha-ha) safety and efficacy trials—which are scheduled to end on December 31, 2022.
Like other COVID vaccines, Sputnik V has zoomed through clinical trials, with an “interim” report consisting of six months’ worth of data used as proof of its unassailable long-term safety and efficacy. It didn’t help that this already limited dataset was plagued by controversy (as well as an alarming lack of transparency).
Phase III vaccine trials typically require at least five years of careful observation. For example, the long-term safety study for J&J’s Ebola vaccine—which uses the same Ad26 viral vector platform as Sputnik V—began in 2016 and won’t end until 2023.
Sputnik V: zooming past all the unnecessary red tape
Alexander Redko, chairman of the St. Petersburg Professional Association of Medical Workers, noted in July that declaring Sputnik V “safe” without even waiting for ludicrous-speed clinical trials to end is about as scientific as reading tarot cards. Is he wrong? The Russian government clearly thinks so.
In December 2020, Russia’s health ministry announced it was prematurely ending enrollment for Sputnik V trials, arguing that it would be unethical to administer placebo shots when a proven, life-saving vaccine was already available to the public.
“Everything has now been proven, while the pandemic is ongoing,” Alexander Gintsburg, director of the Gamaleya Center—which developed Sputnik V—explained, just four months after Phase III trials had begun.
Science-deniers claim it’s irresponsible to coerce tens of millions of people to get injected with an untested drug, but what these conspiracy theorists don’t understand is that any long-term issues would have become apparent within four months.
Furthermore, Russia has a robust and transparent system in place for flagging side effects.
The Russian government does not have a VAERS-like database for reporting and monitoring suspected adverse reactions, and doctors who question the vaccine’s safety or efficacy are being threatened with exorbitant fines and prison time.
“The fact is that nothing is registered in Russia at all. Therefore, it is very difficult to understand how many serious complications there are. There are many cases, and we can say that they are related to the vaccine. There is a lot to say. Or you can stick your head in the sand and say that there is nothing at all,” Pavel Vorobyov, Chairman of the Moscow Scientific Society of Physicians, said in a recent interview, making him an anti-science hate speech criminal in the eyes of the Russian government.
Argentina’s health ministry is similarly guilty of High Crimes Against Sputnik V. In October, the South American state revealed that Russia’s flagship vaccine was the nation’s leader when it came to causing adverse reactions, beating Sinopharm and AstraZeneca by significant margins (the full report can be read here):
Why does Argentina hate science?
There are even thought crimes being carried out by Russia’s elected representatives. Duma Deputy Mikhail Delyagin argued in an August op-ed that the government’s own data suggested that mass compulsory vaccination had no clear neutralizing effect and was making things worse.
For months, the Russian government maintained it was basically impossible to be hospitalized with COVID if you were fully vaccinated. When it became obvious that this was a slight exaggeration, Gamaleya’s director claimed 80% of jabbed Russians falling ill with the virus had purchased fake certificates and were lying about their vaccination status.
Gintsburg’s tall tale inspired some colorful commentary in Russian media. As one outlet opined:
At first they said that it was enough to get vaccinated once every two years so as not to get sick at all, then once a year, then once every six months. Now it turns out that vaccination does not even really protect against getting into intensive care or death. And what is the solution? True, the Minister of Health, Mr. Murashko, still claims that there are no deaths among citizens who have received the vaccine. But people do not live on Mars, they, alas, face these deaths of the vaccinated in life…And then the PR naturally stops working.
It’s doubtful if the PR ever worked. Last month, Deputy Speaker of the State Duma Pyotr Tolstoy conceded that the government had completely failed to convince the public that Sputnik V was safe and effective.
“There are few answers to the questions why those who are vaccinated are ill, why those who are vaccinated die, why there are problems and complications after the vaccinations themselves,” the high-ranking lawmaker said.
The total lack of transparency has spurred the creation of informal databases and Telegram channels where adverse events can be tracked. Instead of stepping up efforts to address safety concerns, the Russian government has compared concerned citizens to terrorists.
The Kremlin and its credulous cheerleaders maintain that there’s no need to worry about long-term safety because Sputnik V is based on the Gamaleya Center’s proven, time-tested viral vector-based delivery platform. For example, Kirill Dmitriev, the Harvard-educated ex-Goldman Sachs banker who heads the Russian Direct Investment Fund (which provides financing for Sputnik V), claimed in an op-ed published by RT:
Russia has benefitted from modifying for COVID-19 an existing two-vector vaccine platform developed in 2015 for Ebola fever, which went through all phases of clinical trials and was used to help defeat the Ebola epidemic in Africa in 2017.
About 2,000 people in Guinea received injections of Ebola vaccine in 2017-18 as part of Phase 3 clinical trial.
Is Dmitriev really suggesting that a Phase III trial held in 2017-18 helped Guinea defeat Ebola?
That’s quite a brave claim, considering Guinea was declared Ebola-free in June 2016 following an outbreak two years earlier. By the time Gamaleya’s magic Ebola slurry arrived in Guinea (as part of a clinical trial), there was no Ebola left to fight. In February of this year, Guinea reported its first Ebola death since 2016.
By the way: why would Dmitriev (and Sputnik V’s own website) brag about injecting 2,000 Africans as part of a clinical trial held a year after Guinea was declared Ebola-free? Well, because that’s basically Gamaleya’s greatest triumph — before inventing Sputnik V in record-time.
Sputnik V is the Gamaleya Center’s first “viral vector-based” vaccine to receive emergency use authorization outside of Russia. Gintsburg—who has been the director of Gamaleya since 1997—has yet to bring a fully approved vaccine to market, despite multiple attempts.
In fact, Gintsburg’s first vector adenovirus vaccine, AdeVac-Flu, resulted in a multimillion-dollar embezzlement scandal.
“[Gamaleya’s] scientists have ‘copy-pasted’ [Sputnik V] from their previous, not accepted by the scientific community, research. In their genetic memory—a criminal case, WHO skepticism and zero drugs introduced into the market,”
…read the teaser of an investigation published by fontanka.ru in July 2020.
A lot of Russians are also very impressed by the fact that Sputnik V’s #1 fan (and one of the drug’s original investors) is a friendly banker who is trying to introduce a QR code-based payment system in Russia, and is also developing a digital currency in partnership with JP Morgan.
When your favorite WordPress geopolitical analyst exclaims “Sputnik V is safe!” the appropriate response is: how could you possibly know, and why does the Russian government not want to know?
“…But the Russian Government Would Never Deceive Its Own People!”
In June, the emergence of a highly deadly “Moscow strain”—later deemed a “hypothetical phenomenon” — forced authorities to introduce Russia’s first vaccine mandate in the capital. Other regions followed suit.
Yes, the people grumbled — but COVID “cases” immediately began to plummet! COVID “deaths” plateaued! It was a true miracle.
Duma election was a super-spreader event or something?
Then something really strange happened: the amazingly effective (but highly unpopular) coercive COVID policies suddenly stopped working immediately after Duma elections in late September.
What a weird coincidence. Obviously, the ruling United Russia party—which had just secured parliament for another five years after an unexpectedly decisive electoral victory—was forced to impose even more coercive COVID policies. If Russians don’t like it, they can express their dissatisfaction at the polls, in 2026.
Russia’s descent into compulsory vaccination is a case study in industrial-scale lying and government duplicity. It’s a very interesting story.
“…But… But… Putin!”
In January, Russia’s president presented a keynote address at the World Economic Forum—his first speech before the esteemed international body since 2009.
Beginning his address with a very friendly and intimate “dear Klaus,” Putin recalled how he first met Mr. Schwab in 1992 and since then had regularly attended events organized by the Fourth Industrial Revolution visionary.
Putin used this very important speech to call for “expanding the scale of testing and vaccinations” around the world, describing COVID as an existential threat that required close international cooperation. The entire global economy will need to be rebuilt from the ground up by central banks, because the virus is just so deadly and destructive:
[T]he key question today is how to build a program of actions in order to not only quickly restore the global and national economies affected by the pandemic, but to ensure that this recovery is sustainable in the long run, relies on a high-quality structure and helps overcome the burden of social imbalances. Clearly, with the above restrictions and macroeconomic policy in mind, economic growth will largely rely on fiscal incentives with state budgets and central banks playing the key role.
Is that how you say “Build Back Better” in Russian?
We’re all trapped in the same oligarch-controlled panpoopticon. Maybe it’s time to accept that, instead of pretending that some jailers are more “based” than others?
Crazy times. Good luck to all.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Riley Waggaman is your humble Moscow correspondent. He worked for RT, Press TV, Russia Insider, yadda yadda. In his youth, he attended a White House lawn party where he asked Barack Obama if imprisoned whistleblower Bradley Manning (Chelsea was still a boy back then) “had a good Easter.” Good times good times. You can subscribe to his Substack here, or follow him on twitter.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
In that, we outlined German newspaper Berliner Zeitung reported an “unusually large number of professional and amateur soccer players have collapsed recently.” Though it’s not death, we find the sudden collapse of the sports players appears to be very strange and possibly health-related.
It’s too early to speculate if people are suddenly dying or collapsing due to COVID-19 vaccine-related issues such as heart muscle inflammation (myocarditis). This is a trend that should be closely monitored.
*
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: Covid-19 mortality. Photo credit: Isaac Quesada
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
On October 18th, Russia announced it would formally suspend its mission with the NATO alliance, including ending official communication. This is a significant event but not totally shocking to anyone who has been paying attention to post-Soviet Russian relations with NATO.
It’s important to look at what led up to Russia deciding it had enough and that it was no longer worth having an official relationship with the western military alliance as there is a lengthy historical context to the breakdown.
NATO had just expelled eight Russian diplomats for espionage activities but provided no public evidence or details on these serious allegations. But this was just the immediate event that provided the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.
Post-Cold War Triumphalism
The problem started with the triumphalist attitude that eventually prevailed in Washington after the end of the Cold War. President Ronald Reagan intentionally took the approach during negotiations with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that ended the Cold War that doing so would be in the interests of both countries. It was characterized at the time as a negotiated settlement that benefited all parties involved and not a defeat. Reagan’s successor George H.W. Bush adopted the same attitude until it was time to campaign for his reelection, during which he bragged that the U.S. had won the Cold War.
In the 1990’s, the Clinton administration, encouraged by foreign policy hawks, greedy defense contractors and domestic reelection politics, expanded NATO to former Warsaw Pact countries Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. This was a violation of verbal assurances given by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, along with other western government officials, during 1991 negotiations with Gorbachev that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” This assurance was made in order to get Gorbachev to accept a unified Germany in NATO given the deep historical memory of the Germans having invaded Russia twice in the 20thcentury, the second time resulting in 27 million deaths and destruction of a third of the Soviet Union. But NATO didn’t stop there and expanded by seven more countries, right up to Russia’s border, by 2004.
It’s also worth mentioning that the NATO-Russia relationship as it was formulated in 2002 in the form of the NATO-Russia Council was never intended to be a vehicle that would allow Russia to be treated as a respected peer. Instead it was largely a pretense as admitted by those who came up with the idea, which included then British Prime Minister Tony Blair. As one of Blair’s aides later stated, “even if they [Russia] weren’t really a superpower anymore, you had to pretend they were.” Russia had a permanent ambassador to NATO and could theoretically participate in NATO discussions, but Moscow complained for years that they were often excluded from informal discussions prior to official meetings and would consequently face a coordinated bloc.
That same year, under George W. Bush, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty – a move Russia viewed as a threat to strategic nuclear stability and a desire by the U.S. to pursue a first strike advantage. Likewise, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2018, a decision made by president Donald Trump whom we were supposed to believe was a Russian puppet. Problems with the INF Treaty had, however, been building for some time and it wasn’t just accusations of Moscow violating the treaty with a certain type of cruise missile. Starting in 2009, the Obama administration approved the installation of a missile defense system in Romania and then Poland that was a violation of the INF Treaty and was a serious concern to Russia.
In 2014, Washington played a key role in the Ukraine coup when then-Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland was caught on a phone call with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine discussing how to facilitate the removal of the corrupt but democratically elected government of Viktor Yanukovich and install their favored candidate as Prime Minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk. It’s very interesting that their desired turn of events actually came to pass. This was clearly either a provocation or represented profound ignorance of the region by the U.S. State Department. The latter is a very generous interpretation given the fact that Nuland – a Neoconservative ideologue – was taking the lead on Ukraine.
Washington and NATO Double Down
In the aftermath of Russia’s severing of ties, the U.S. and NATO have doubled down on provocative activities rather than used the rupture as an opportunity for self-examination or an attempt to come up with fresh ideas to slow the spiraling relationship between major nuclear powers. Within the same week, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told audiences on his whirlwind trip to Georgia, Ukraine and Romania that the Black Sea was a U.S./NATO military interest. The U.S. subsequently sent two warships into the Black Sea early this month and members of Congress are now urging the Biden administration to ramp up military support to the area. Austin also stated that Russia should have nothing to say about whether Ukraine joins NATO or not. Within days of Austin’s trip, a conference of NATO defense ministers in Brussels revealed a new “master plan to contain Russia.”
As I have argued before, it would not be in Russia’s interests to attack the Baltic countries and it would not pass any remotely rational cost-benefit analysis. Moreover, military action by Russia in the post-Soviet era has been reactive in nature rather than aggressive. Its action in Georgia in 2008 was a response to a military attack by Tbilisi on Russian troops in South Ossetia according to the 2009 EU Fact Finding Mission report, and the annexation of Crimea was a unique situation that resulted from Moscow’s genuine perception of a serious national security threat. NATO officials even admit that they do not think any attack is planned by Moscow on its neighbors. As Reuters has reported: “Officials stress that they do not believe any Russian attack is imminent.”
But this didn’t stop the German defense minister from pouring fuel on the fire by stating in an interview around the same time that NATO should make clear that it is willing to use military force, including nuclear weapons, to deter Russia from attacking not just members of the alliance but partners. Needless to say, this was viewed as very disturbing by Moscow.
It would appear that from Russia’s perspective there has been little to no benefit from the arrangement it had been working under with NATO for the past two decades. The U.S., which effectively controls NATO, still seems to be suffering from its bout of post- Cold War triumphalism and continues to think that it can treat Russia as a bugaboo to justify bloated military budgets and as a whipping boy diversion from its domestic political problems. At the same time, U.S./NATO not only expects Russia to act as though it has no national security interests of its own to protect but is also obligated to provide diplomatic cooperation with the west when convenient, such as with Afghanistan and negotiations on the Iran nuclear deal. It’s no surprise that Russia finally felt it was time to put its foot down.
*
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.
Natylie Baldwin is the author of The View from Moscow: Understanding Russia and U.S.-Russia Relations, available at Amazon.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Baku has recently celebrated its victory in the Nagorno-Karabakh war, and escalations are beginning to pop up along the Azerbaijan-Armenia border.
November 17th was marked with a new ceasefire agreement between Armenian and Azerbaijani at their border, after Russia urged them to step back from confrontation following the deadliest clash since 2020.
On November 15th and 16th, the two sides accused each other of initiating fighting along their disputed border.
The Armenian defense ministry said its troops had come under fire from Azerbaijan and that 12 of its soldiers were captured, while two combat positions near the border with Azerbaijan were lost. At least one soldier died in the clashes on the Armenian side.
Baku claims the opposite – Azerbaijani forces had responded to large-scale “provocations” after Armenian forces shelled Azeri army positions, and that its own operation had been successful. Azerbaijan’s defense ministry claimed that “Armenian troops attacked Azerbaijani positions in the districts of Kelbajar and Lachin”.
According to the statement of Azerbaijani MoD, seven soldiers and officers were killed; ten others were wounded in the clashes. In response, anti-tank installations, military equipment and mortar belonging to the Armenian side were destroyed. Significant damage was also done to Armenian military personnel. The number of killed and wounded from the Armenian side is not reported
Baku’s Defense Ministry claimed that it had full control of the situation along the border areas and that was thanks to Azerbaijan’s operational and tactical superiority.
In a November 16th conversation with the President of the European Council Charles Michel, Azerbaijan’s president Ilham Aliyev said that Armenia had ‘repeatedly resorted to military provocations in the direction of Shusha, Lachin and Kalbajar’ and that ‘the latest large-scale Armenian attack took place today’.
Despite that, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan continues leading the country through Facebook and denounced Azerbaijan as the aggressor, claiming that discussions about ‘border disputes’ are ‘nonsense’.
The new round of violence in the Nagorno-Karabakh region began just days earlier. An Armenian civilian worker was unreasonably killed near a peacekeeper’s checkpoint in Shusha, according to Armenian sources. The incident took place on November 8th, the Day of Victory in Azerbaijan. The murder caused a response attack with an IED that targeted Azerbaijani military post in the same area on November 13th.
As a result, the only road connecting Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh — the Lachin Corridor — was briefly closed.
Still, the aftermath of the war for Nagorno-Karabakh is still felt daily by the local populance. In addition to these sporadic clashes, the territory is still so heavily laced with mines and unexploded weaponry that it could take more than 10 years to be fully cleared.
A survey by Halo Trust found that 68% of inhabited settlements either had cluster munitions or evidence of their use.
As part of last year’s peace deal, Armenia handed over a number of mine locator maps. However, they are incomplete and are only about 25% accurate.
Armenia and Azerbaijan, two former Soviet republics, fought for six weeks from September last year over Nagorno-Karabakh in a conflict that killed more than 6,500 people, mostly soldiers. Ultimately, Armenia’s prime minister signed a ceasefire agreement that’s been widely regarded as a surrender.
*
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.
November 18th, 2021 by Prof. Dr. Pablo Campra Madrid
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
We present here our research on the presence of graphene in covid vaccines. We have carried out a random screening of graphene-like nanoparticles visible at the optical microscopy in seven random samples of vials from four different trademarks, coupling images with their spectral signatures of RAMAN vibration.
By this technique, called micro-RAMAN, we have been able to determine the presence of graphene in some of these samples, after screening more than 110 objects selected for their graphene-like appearance under optical microscopy. Out of them, a group of 28 objects have been selected, due to the compatibility of both images and spectra with the presence of graphene derivatives, based on the correspondence of these signals with those obtained from standards and scientific literature. The identification of graphene oxide structures can be regarded as conclusive in 8 of them, due to the high spectral correlation with the standard. In the remaining 20 objects, images coupled with Raman signals show a very high level of compatibility with undetermined graphene structures, however different than the standard used here.
This research remains open and is made available to the scientific community for discussion. We make a call for independent researchers, with no conflict of interest or coaction from any institution to make wider counter-analysis of these products to achieve a more detailed knowledge of the composition and potential health risk of these experimental drugs, reminding that graphene materials have a potential toxicity on human beings and its presence has not been declared in any emergency use authorization. We leave a link to download this report at the end of this video.
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Prof. Dr. Pablo Campra Madrid is an Associate Professor with PhD in Chemical Sciences and a degree in Biological Sciences.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration said Tuesday it suspended the mandates to comply with a Nov. 12 ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals barring the agency from enforcing them pending judicial review. A federal judicial panel on Tuesday assigned the case to an appeals court in Cincinnati.
In a major blow to the Biden administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on Tuesday suspended implementation and enforcement of its Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) on mandatory COVID vaccination and testing in the workplace.
However, a Nov. 12 ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals barred OSHA from enforcing the ETS “pending adequate judicial review” of a motion for permanent injunction.
OSHA’s latest action does not affect a separate directive from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requiring employees of medical facilities to be vaccinated by Dec. 6.
“The court ordered that OSHA take no steps to implement or enforce the ETS until further court order. While OSHA remains confident in its authority to protect workers in emergencies, OSHA has suspended activities related to the implementation and enforcement of the ETS pending future developments in the litigation.”
In its Nov. 12 22-page ruling, the court called the Biden administration’s mandate “fatally flawed” and said OSHA should “take no steps to implement or enforce the mandate until further court order.”
The court said the mandate fails to consider that the ongoing threat of COVID is more dangerous to some employees than others.
According to the ruling:
“The mandate is a one-size-fits-all sledgehammer that makes hardly any attempt to account for differences in workplaces (and workers) that have more than a little bearing on workers’ varying degrees of susceptibility to the supposedly ‘grave danger’ the mandate purports to address.”
“This court order must be obeyed, and OSHA has apparently indicated it will,” said Ray Flores, Children’s Health Defense legal counsel. “However, I have not seen this news trickle down to employers, who to my knowledge have not issued widespread pauses on company mandates.”
No mainstream media outlets were reporting OSHA’s news about the suspension at the time this article was published.
The case against the Biden administration was brought by a variety of entities, ranging from state attorneys general (including Texas, Mississippi and Utah), American Family Association and multiple businesses and individuals.
As The Defender reported Tuesday, there are dozens of lawsuits making their way through the courts challenging the mandates on behalf of teachers, healthcare workers, police, firefighters and more.
Great piece on the many federal, state and local legal challenges to vaccine mandateshttps://t.co/4fFdi9gYpK
A federal judicial panel on Tuesday assigned at least 34 of those lawsuits — including the one in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that resulted in OSHA suspending its ETS — to an appeals court in Cincinnati, The New York Times reported.
According to the Times:
“A court clerk for the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation randomly selected the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit by drawing from a drum containing entries for the twelve regional courts of appeal, each of which has at least one related case pending. The procedure can be used to consolidate cases that are all raising the same issue.
“While simplifying the legal dispute, the step also had the effect of removing the matter from the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans. This month, a three-judge panel there had blocked the government from moving forward with the rule — declaring that it “grossly exceeds” the authority of the occupational safety agency that issued it.”
According to Reuters, OSHA has issued 10 emergency standards in its 50-year history. Of the six challenged in court, only one survived intact.
*
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.
A few weeks ago, an extraordinary Vietnamese war hero and a great friend of mine passed away at the age of 102. I used to play tennis with him until he was about 90 years old. Unsurprisingly, as a former tennis champion of Vietnam of the late eighties, the much older Đặng Văn Việt often beat me.
Long before I was born he became the youngest colonel in the Việt Minh (now People’s Army of Vietnam) and served under the legendary general Võ Nguyên Giáp whom I also was honored to meet.
As a young man, Giáp had worked in his peasant family’s rice fields to make enough money for his education; this helped him earn a bachelor’s degree in law. In 1941 Hồ Chí Minh and his close comrades, including Giáp, an early member of the Communist Party, set up the Vietnamese Independence Movement (“Việt Minh”) in Vietnam which was then a French colony.
Image on the right: Felix Abt and Đặng Văn Việt [Source: Felix Abt]
Three years later Giáp gathered together a tiny group of 31 men and 3 women armed with flintlock rifles as the armed wing of the Việt Minh, which he turned within a few years into a formidable guerilla force and then into a successful unconventional conventional army.
Under his command the Vietnamese military defeated both the French and the invading U.S. armies. Giáp, who was remembered by his fellow university students as a highly intelligent individual, had thoroughly studied countless writings on warfare, from Sun Tze to Napoleon including the teachings from brilliant Vietnamese military leaders of the past.
This self-educated martialist became himself a brilliant strategist and tactician and made himself a reputation as a self-taught guerilla leader of the early 1940s, an outstanding strategist of the 1950s and onwards, and as one of the world’s greatest military leaders whose books and teachings are being studied in military academies around the world.
Giáp was also the military mentor and coach of my friend Đặng Văn Việt who stemmed from a prestigious family of mandarins. His ancestors were generals from the Trần dynasty which defeated the Mongolians in the 13th century.
Family members were scholars and ministers during different dynasties. His father was appointed minister by President Hồ Chí Minh in his first government. As a fierce patriot, Đặng Văn Việt gave up his studies at the faculty of medicine in Hanoi to join the Việt Minh in 1943 at the age of 23 in order to fight the foreign intruders and he quickly became the Việt Minh’s youngest colonel.
Vo Nguyen Giap and Ho Chi Minh. [Source: flickr.com]
General Võ Nguyên Giáp entrusted him with some of the most difficult military tasks. Colonel Việt was put in charge of the regiment that inflicted the first great defeat in 1950 on the French colonial army (according to Yves Gras’s “Histoire de la guerre d’Indochine”, Denoël 1992) along the colonial number four highway at the Chinese border.
During this border campaign, more than 5.500 French soldiers were wiped out in seven days. The defeat was a huge shock to France and a game changer: The Việt Minh had just shown that it evolved within a rather short span of time from a small ragtag band to skilled guerilla fighters to an army that could also successfully engage in conventional warfare.
Đặng Văn Việt offered me his book on this historical battle, which constituted the prelude to France’s final defeat at Điện Biên Phủ just four years later and the end of its colonial rule.
Vietminh plant their flag after the defeat of the French at Dienbienphu in 1954. [Source: wikipedia.org]
Though his commander General Giáp and President Hồ Chí Minh acknowledged his patriotism and extraordinary service to the country, he wasn’t promoted to General. Officers from the workers’ and peasants’ classes had to be given priority in the People’s Army of Vietnam, which means he wasn’t eligible with his feudal class background.
Đặng Văn Việt told me that he fully embraced this principle, and went on to study construction engineering and to make a career in the construction industry.
Through all the years, he maintained a very close relationship with General Giáp, whom he held in high esteem, until his former mentor passed away in 2013.
Rest in peace, my unforgettable friend!
*
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.
Felix Abt is the author of A Capitalist in North Korea: My Seven Years in the Hermit Kingdom. He can be reached at: [email protected]
Featured image: Đặng Văn Việt [Source: vietbf.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.
UN Security Council members alone may legally impose sanctions on nations, entities or individuals.
When this action is taken by one or more nations against others, it’s a flagrant international law breach — what I call war by other means.
Time and again, hegemon USA breaches international and its own constitutional law in pursuing its diabolical aims — including by waging sanctions war against invented enemies.
No real ones exist!
On Monday, interventionist Blinken falsely called Nicaragua’s democratically open, free and fair election process a “sham” — a bald-faced Big Lie he and likeminded US extremists are infamous for.
He announced illegal Biden regime sanctions on 9 Nicaraguan officials and a government ministry.
He lied accusing them of “repression (sic), including its human rights abuses (sic), or manage institutions that finance the undemocratic (sic) Ortega-Murillo (government) or otherwise sustain it at the expense of the Nicaraguan people (sic).”
Colonized Britain and Canada allied with the Biden regime’s sanctions war on Nicaragua’s model social democracy.
On Friday, US-controlled OAS countries adopted a resolution by a 25 – 7 majority — falsely claiming that Nicaraguan elections “lack(ed) democratic legitimacy (sic).”
According to an unnamed State Department official, the Biden regime intends to “ramp up (greater war on Nicaragua) over time” — perhaps by turning cold war hot.
Blinken defied reality by falsely claiming that hegemon USA supports democracy.
He ignored its abhorrence of the real thing at home and abroad — including war on what it won’t tolerate wherever it exists.
Separately on Monday, Biden regime hardliners and likeminded EU partners vowed to impose more illegal sanctions on nonbelligerent, nonthreatening Belarus over an invented migrant crisis along its border with Poland.
EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said they’ll be announced in the “coming days” against Belarusian officials and entities.
He lied accusing Minsk of “exploiting vulnerable migrants” — falsely blaming President Lukashenko for what the US, EU and colonized Poland bear responsibility for.
A Biden regime statement said it’s preparing new (illegal) sanctions” — for invented reasons because no legitimate ones exist.
On Tuesday, Lukashenko said the following:
“Today we will discuss the situation at the state border of Belarus.”
“It is clear that keeping the border secure is a priority in the face of the increasing refugee flows to Belarus.”
“We are witnessing a military buildup there – up to 20,000 personnel with aircraft and armored vehicles are accumulating over there.”
“All this is done under the guise of protecting the European Union from the invasion of refugees who are coming from the countries that were bombed and plundered by the Western coalition led by the US.”
Why does the US-dominated West need warplanes, helicopters and tanks to deal with the migrant situation along the Belarusian border with Poland, Lukashenko asked?
“Instead of searching for solutions together with Belarus, the EU is curtailing cross-border cooperation projects.”
“They threaten us with new sanctions and the construction of a five-meter wall.”
“They are thinking about shutting down the borders with Belarus completely.”
“The main thing for us now is to protect our country and our people, to prevent clashes.”
“I know that there have already been attempts to deliver weapons to the makeshift migrant camp.”
“There have been provocations that can lead to a violent conflict.”
“We should not allow this to happen in any case.”
“We should make everything possible to make sure this problem does not turn into a hot confrontation.”
On Tuesday, Putin and Lukashenko discussed the diabolical US, Western, Polish war on Belarus by other means along with heightened tensions along Russia’s border with US-colonized Ukraine and in Black Sea waters.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said the following:
The Biden regime won’t “listen to (or) hear us…on Ukraine and all that is currently going on in the Black Sea region.”
“A negative energy is being accumulated there. The risks are growing, including potential clashes, with the possibility of escalation.”
Similar risks apply to made-in-the USA/Western provocations over Belarus.
“(T)his negative bravado of the US and its allies…becomes increasingly unhinged,” said Ryabkov.
“Any rational kernels are being observed there less and less.”
“It is permeated both with the provocative rhetoric with regards to us and the material content.”
Hegemon USA and its subservient partners pose a major threat to central Europe and everywhere else worldwide.
Do they have global hot war in mind?
*
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.
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
The last time we discussed the California city of Oroville, we were reporting on the potential for its dam to catastrophically break.
In part, the dam experienced maintenance problems because infrastructure projects that actually involve infrastructure don’t get funded as they should.
Now the city is back in the news, taking on Sacramento and trying to counter its questionable policies.
A city council in California overwhelmingly voted to declare the city a “Constitutional Republic City” to protect its citizens’ rights in light of federal and state mandates.
“What we are doing is protecting our citizens’ rights as much as we can on the local level,” Oroville Vice Mayor Scott Thomson told Fox News Digital.
“In a way, we are acting as a sanctuary city for our citizens and their rights and freedoms protected by the U.S. and state constitutions,” he added. “Gavin Newsom modeled this type of declaration for us when he declared San Francisco a sanctuary city for what he believed to be overreach by the federal government against his citizens.”
Turnabout is fair play: Oroville is using the progressive approach to “Sanctuary City” for illegal immigrants and turning it around to serve Californians.
“It’s just basically drawing the line,” Thompson said, according to the report. “It’s not necessarily against one specific mandate, we’re not talking about one mandate that’s been pushing on us recently it’s a barrage of mandates.”
“I think it’s time for us to draw a line in the sand,” he added, according to CBS 13. “Enough is enough.”
Thompson previously told ABC 7 in an email:
“this has to do with the large amount of mandates that are affecting every aspect of our lives and our kids’ lives. The American culture and way of life is being challenged at its very core and perverted by radicalized politicians who have forgotten that, as a republic, the power belongs to the people.”
According to the CBS 13 report, the resolution aims to allow the city to opt-out of enforcing “any executive orders issued by the state of California or by the United States federal government that are overreaching or clearly violate our constitutionally protected rights.”
Councilmember Janet Goodson mentioned the possible impact on finances, saying Oroville has received about 4.8 million in COVID funding over the past two years. But her concerns were addressed by the city attorney.
The resolution is not a policy, nor does it change the city’s ordinance. It can be modified or amended at any time, therefore city attorney Scott Huber says, “As a result, there is no risk of loss of funding with it.”
An example he used was when cities passed resolutions declaring themselves ‘sanctuary cities’ violating federal law.
The courts ruled specific actions would need to be taken to lose funding.
“I am quite certain that this would not result in any loss of funding for the city. In the event that it could in the future you could revise this and do what you will but this is not going to put it jeopardy any state or federal funding.”
I sure hope that Oroville’s dam against senseless mandates is strong and effective.
*
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.
For the time being, the world’s developing sector is generally not going to accept being sacrificed on the altar of a new Gaia cult managed by a priesthood of Davos billionaires.
A miracle appears to be happening, as the multibillionaires of the World Economic Forum (WEF) appear to have grown consciences.
As if by magic, it appears that these gold collar elites no longer yearn for profit and power as they once had. As COP26 closes up its 12 day annual ceremonies, leading WEF-connected figures like Prince Charles, Jeff Bezos, Mario Draghi, Mark Carney and Klaus Schwab have announced a new system of economics that is based on virtue over profit!
According to the COP26 website,
“95 high profile companies from a range of sectors commit to being ‘Nature Positive,’ agreeing to work towards halting and reversing the decline of nature by 2030.”
Prince Charles has boasted that he has coordinated 300 companies representing over $60 trillion to get on board with a global green transition, and after meeting with the Prince on November 2, Jeff Bezos announced his new $2 billion Earth Fund to protect nature’s ecosystems with a focus on Africa.
Even Prime Minister Mario Draghi has joined Mark Carney on this new green path, as both men have moved beyond their old Goldman Sachs money worshipping days and embraced a better destiny. At the Nov 1 G20 Summit, Draghi embraced Prince Charles’ Green Markets Initiative and threw Italy’s full support behind the de-carbonization initiative.
The Prince himself (who also happens to be the nominal creator of the Great Reset Agenda launched in 2020), spoke as an enlightened statesman saying to the world’s leaders
“as the enormity of the climate challenge dominates peoples’ conversations, from news rooms to living rooms, and as the future of humanity and Nature herself are at stake, it is surely time to set aside our differences and grasp this unique opportunity to launch a substantial green recovery by putting the global economy on a confident, sustainable trajectory and, thus, save our planet.”
Among the new array of financial mechanisms which we see being brought online in this war against humanity involve Bezos’ new Earth Fund, and Sir Robert Watson’s Living Planet Index (unveiled in 2018 at the World Economic Forum) and the new Rockefeller Foundation-sponsored Intrinsic Exchange Group (IEG) which seeks to turn global ecosystems worth an estimated $4 quadrillion into financial equity controllable by new private corporations (dubbed “natural asset companies”).
“In partnership with the New York Stock Exchange, IEG is providing a word-class platform to list these companies for trading, enabling the conversion of natural assets into financial capital. The NAC’s equity captures the intrinsic and productive value of nature and provides a store of value based on the vital assets that underpin our entire economy and make life on earth possible… In 2021, we began seeking regulatory approval to bring the first natural asset transactions to the capital markets. Our vision is to bring to market hundreds of Natural Asset Companies representing several trillion dollars’ worth of natural assets.”
These new companies will become the stewards of new protected zones across the globe which the UN demands encapsulate 30% of the earth’s surface by 2030 and much more by 2050.
Is this time to rejoice, or is something darker at play?
To answer this question it is worth asking: Does this new virtue-driven order have anything to do with lifting people out of poverty or ending economic injustice?
Sadly, it is designed to do very much the opposite.
As we are coming to see, and as statesmen around the world are beginning to point out, this new order has more in common with oligarchical obsessions with controlling human cattle, and less to do with actually preserving the environment. The thousands of tons of CO2 emitted by private jets at Davos and COP26 represents on small aspect of this disingenuity.
Obrador Calls out the Game
On October 30, Mexico’s President Lopez Obrador called out this new virulent form of colonialism while presiding over a ceremony in celebration of the ongoing construction of the $6.7 billion high-speed Maya Train now being built in the southern regions of Mexico.
The project which would dramatically uplift living standards in Mexico by driving the growth of industrial and infrastructure production has fallen far behind schedule due in large part to vast legal battles led by indigenous groups who have been used as proxies by foreign interests to defend Mexico’s ecosystems. In many of the legal cases opposing the project, the argument has made that since several species of insect, fauna and even some leopards will be affected by the new railways, then the project must be ground to a halt and buried.
In his remarks to a journalist inquiring into the rail project, Obrador said:
“One of the things which they [the neoliberals] promoted in the world, in order to loot at ease, was the creation or promotion of the so-called new rights. So, feminism, ecologism, the defense of human rights, the protection of animals was much promoted, including by them. All these causes are very noble, but the intent was to create or boost all these new causes so that we don’t remedy—so that we don’t turn around and see that they were looting the world, so the subject of economic and social inequality would be kept out of the center of debate….The international agencies which supported the neoliberal model, which is a model of pillage where corporations grab national property, the property of the people—these same corporations financed, and continue to finance, environmentalist groups, defenders of ‘liberty.’ ”
Many people have been confused over these remarks since they cannot conceptualize how neoliberal monetarists that have parasitically driven the new age of pillage under globalization would also support such ‘new rights’ groups outlined by Obrador.
For nations of the global south who feel resentment that their rights to support their people by having their lands and resources kept off limits, they are told not to worry, since streams of money will be showered upon them from on high. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of monopoly money will be sprayed onto the developing sector as rewards for remaining undeveloped. If that isn’t sufficient, then carbon exchange markets will be set up so that poor nations can sell their un-used carbon quotas to private polluting companies (perhaps the same companies controlling the African cobalt mines which seek a monopoly in controlling the renewable energy sector). That is another way they can make money which at least can keep them warm at night as kindling since the world’s poor will not have to worry about having nature-killing hydro electric dams mucking up their pristine environments.
Even in the west where Biden’s 30×30 executive order has been signed into action, farmers will be offered money to stop grazing on soon-to-be protected lands, while a supposedly grassroots-based WWF-connected American Prairie Reserve (with a $160 million endowment) can be seen pushing a program designed to take 5000 square miles of grazing land in Montana out of use and converted into a pure ecosystem.
As President Obrador has alluded to, today’s billionaire-funded conservation movement simply seeks to take earth’s ecosystems out of bounds of any human economic activity under a new global feudal system of controls.
Even the indigenous populations which such billionaires profess to admire as role models for global “good behavior” are being monetized by these new green indices, with monetary values being placed not only on keeping land and water untouched, but also the very cultural ecosystems of indigenous groups around the world receiving dollar values which wealthy green financiers will somehow be able to invest into. To the degree that such immutably fixed patterns of indigenous lifestyles remain unchanged by the toxic pollution of modern technology or infrastructure, the more these eco-assets will be worth for whomever professes to invest in them. This may not be scientific but it is sick.
The term ‘feudal’ is in no way used for hyperbolic purposes, as we can see a stark parallel to the 12th century Europe, except that today’s aspiring feudal lords manage such companies as Blackrock, Vanguard, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and State Street and seek to punish all serfs from infringing on properties which only the nobility may control. Blackrock alone manages over $9 trillion in assets and $21.6 trillion in technology platforms and along with Vanguard is fast becoming one of the largest real estate owners in the USA with Bill Gates having recently become the largest owner of American farmland.
The Deeper Imperial Roots of Conservationism
With this vast imperial landgrab in mind, one should not be surprised to discover that the modern conservation movement actually finds its origins not in Greenpeace activists fighting poachers as mythmakers have cooked up, but rather in the bowels of the British Empire. It was this empire that innovated “nature conservation” regions in India during the late 19th century specifically to keep the poor of India under control after having destroyed India’s once powerful textile sector. The practice was applied across India during the greatest density of famines struck southern India in 1876 killing tens of millions. It was amidst this darkness that British Imperial overlords took the opportunity to create “The Imperial Forestry Department’ in 1876 putting two fifths of India’s lands under “protection” and off limits to humans. This ensured no starving subject could use the protected zones which they had relied upon for survival for decades for food, or water.
The Nazi embrace of both Anglo-American funded science of eugenics on the one side and the Reich’s embrace of nature conservationism were also not unconnected. Herman Goring, who served as Minister for German Forests believed in a poisonous worldview that held that: 1) nature is pure and thus good due to its pure unchanging natural order while 2) humanity is impure and thus un-natural due to our aspirations for progress. This dangerous equation resulted in seemingly innocent programs launched by the Fuhrer and Goring to cleans the German ecosystems of all foreign and thus un-natural fauna and flora in order to return the forests of Germany to their supposedly pure pre-industrial states. The worship of nature was an integral part of the new master race and the weeding out of impurities extended itself to human genetics following racial theories advanced by British eugenicists and anthropologists.
Julian Huxley’s New Eugenics Revolution
Upon Hitler’s defeat, the repackaging of eugenics took the form of British Eugenics Society Vice President Julian Huxley’s outline in the founding Manifesto for UNESCO where he said:
“At the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilization is dysgenic instead of eugenic, and in any case it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability and disease proneness, which already exist in the human species will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus 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 is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
Putting this new eugenics into practical action took on many heads of a hydra in the post WWII years. The particular hydra head most relevant to the thrust of this article took the form of another project Julian created in 1948 called the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) followed soon thereafter by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 1961 which he co-founded alongside two misanthropic princes named Philip Mountbatten and Bernhardt of the Netherlands.
Between 1959 and 1962 Julian had risen to become president of the British Eugenics Society and had put the finishing gloss on a new field of scientific misanthropic theology which he dubbed ‘Transhumanism’ alongside a Jesuit collaborator named Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
If you haven’t guessed, Transhumanism was merely another form of re-packaged eugenics serving the spiritual needs of a new priesthood of elitist social engineers that would be expected to manage the gears of a new technocratic feudal machine. This neo-paganism is not intrinsically different from the cultish beliefs of the Nazi Thule society of the past which gave spiritual direction to the members of Hitler’s government.
The neo-Malthusian revival that these eugenicists would spearhead through the end of the 1960s took the form of a new array of international organizations which incorporated systems analysis, and cybernetics, which aimed to control nation states and ecosystems alike. This took the form of the World Economic Forum’s early embrace of the Club of Rome’s computer models outlined by Aurelio Peccei (and incorporated into Schwab’s second official Davos meeting in 1973). These new models aimed to impose fixed immutable limits to humanity’s growth potential beyond which no technology or scientific discovery could ever penetrate. The fact that these same multibillionaires managing the overhaul of the world economy as it transitioned into a neo-liberal looting operation were simultaneously funding the growth of this new array of “new rights” groups led by a growing armada of non-governmental organizations, ecology protection and human rights groups is not a coincidence.
Today’s involvement of both Julian Huxley’s WWF and IUCN (no renamed Conservation International) as partners with the Intrinsic Exchange Group should not make any honest lover of nature in any way comfortable.
Much more obviously remains to be said both about the history of conservationism, and how it is being used once again to conduct a new age of population control, or how it has been used to disrupt large scale infrastructure projects across the world for over 120 years, or how nature reserves across the global south have supported narco terrorist groups.
However, for the time being, it is sufficient to note that the world’s developing sector is generally not going to accept being sacrificed on the altar of a new Gaia cult managed by a priesthood of Davos billionaires. Based on the momentum we see being driven by the Greater Eurasian Partnership, the Belt and Road Initiative and ambitions from Latin American and African leaders to finally break free of centuries of imperial manipulation, it is becoming increasingly obvious that COP26’s utopic computer models are increasingly breaking down when confronted with the reality of humanity’s creative power to leap outside of the fixed rules of imperial games when a true crisis moves us into action.
*
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.
On the latest episode of The Hill’s “Rising,” journalist and political commentator Kim Iversen discussed strict lockdowns for the unvaccinated only in Austria, and the UK’s new policy requiring three shots as proof of being “fully vaccinated.”
On the latest episode of The Hill’s “Rising,” journalist and political commentator Kim Iversen broke down Austria’s COVID lockdown mandate for the unvaccinated.
She also discussed other recent developments in the world of lockdowns and booster policies, which she claimed “are not about science” but instead about “punishing people.”
In an attempt to stop the spread, Austria placed 2 million unvaccinated residents on lockdown, Iversen reported.
“As of Monday, any unvaccinated person over the age of 12 is now unable to do pretty much anything except the essentials, which is grocery shop, seek medical treatment and travel to and from school or work,” Iversen said.
The unvaccinated make up about 30% of the Austrian population, “so this is no small thing,” said Iversen.
“If Austrian’s want to go anywhere except those listed essentials they have to show proof of vaccination, and the government announced police would be roaming the streets and checking papers to ensure compliance.”
Videos of Austrian police roaming shopping centers and searching for unvaccinated residents have been widely shared on social media.
Austrian police hunt for The Unvaccinated, who have been confined to their homes and face fines of $1660 for being in public (except when working).
And the human rights industry, the EU, US and much of the int’l left are silent, if not quietly approving. pic.twitter.com/Wc26Eh09EC
Iversen said Austria had already implemented a vaccine passport system similar to those in Los Angeles and New York City, so if people want to be admitted to anywhere except the essentials they need to show proof of vaccination.
To highlight the class element of this newly imposed medical segregation, Iversen referenced recent reporting by Freddie Sayers, an investigative journalist who traveled to Austria to interview supporters and opponents of the policy to lockdown the unvaccinated.
Sayers said they began their interviews “on one of the fancier shopping streets in the old town, full of Rolex and Karl Lagerfeld stores in which well-heeled locals lined up to express their support for the lockdown.”
In this part of town, Sayers said, “there is very little sympathy for a truculent minority that is seen as stupid and having brought it on themselves.”
On the same street, “if you approach the people wearing fluorescent vests, guarding the stores and making deliveries, you tend to get a different response. They are more reluctant to speak to us, but decidedly less supportive [of the restrictions]. ‘It is bullsh*t,’ was one man’s pithy response.”
Sayers said questions about the practical efficacy of such a measure don’t seem to be of much interest. “When I ask people if they know that vaccinated people can also contract and transmit COVID, they tend to brush it aside as a minor detail.”
“[Supporters of these measures] don’t understand people who are not taking the vaccine, they don’t like them, and they are slightly afraid of them — so the simplest thing is to remove them from society altogether,” Sayers reported.
Iversen reacted with this comment:
“And I think that’s really the crux of it and what many people like myself have been fighting against. This isn’t about science, this is about punishing people you don’t understand and you don’t like.”
Iversen pointed to a New York Times article which reported the Austrian Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg ignored recommendations by his own Health Minister to implement more general restrictions that apply to both vaccinated and unvaccinated Austrians, like closing bars and restaurants. Instead, the chancellor implemented a strict lockdown on the unvaccinated only.
Iversen turned next to the UK.
“In the UK, Boris Johnson announced that unless you’ve had your booster dose, you’re no longer considered fully vaccinated. He also announced the UK might go into a lockdown after Christmas unless people get their booster doses,” she said. “And Israel has done something similar.”
“You cannot enter the country unless you can show proof of a booster dose,” Iversen said. “They also do not consider a person fully vaccinated on their COVID passports unless they’ve had three doses.”
Iversen said the UK and Israel are pushing for booster doses because they have seen even with high vaccination rates COVID still spreads.
“They don’t have the unvaccinated to blame, so now they blame the under-vaccinated, and what’s more is they don’t have any data to support the fact that a booster dose stops the spread of the virus.”
“None of this makes scientific sense to me,” she said.
Watch the segment here:
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Jeremy Loffredo is a freelance reporter for The Defender. His investigative reporting has been featured in The Grayzone and Unlimited Hangout. Jeremy formerly produced news programs at RT America.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Operation Coronavirus has shown how mass hypnosis can be inculcated into entire populations, around the world. We are now 20 months into “2 weeks to flatten the curve” and there are still many people hopelessly lost in the official narrative.
The NWO (New World Order) controllers know that narrative is everything. To control the information and to control the way people interpret that information is the absolute power to control perception. Why do you think Bond villain and WEF head Klaus Schwab just held another WEF (World Economic Forum) event on introducing The Great Narrative? A really effective narrative has a hypnotizing effect. This article will take a deeper look at how the official COVID narrative has been able to induce people into a state of fear, disempowerment, compliance, obedience and mass hypnosis – and how it continues to do so – in a manner identical to the brainwashing propaganda of a cult.
Still Buying the Official Narrative …
Look around you. Do you see many people, including family, friends and colleagues, who are still buying into the official narrative – even at this stage in the game when there has been so much information to destroy it?
Even when Big Pharma have admitted the vaccine was never designed to stop transmission?
Even when recent statistics from VAERS (as of November 12th 2021) show 875,653 adverse events following COVID vaccines and 18,461 COVID vaccine deaths?
We need to recall that the 2010 Harvard Pilgrim Health Care study concluded that under 1% of vaccine adverse events or side effects are ever reported; going by that, that would mean 87 million COVID vaccine injuries and 1.8 million COVID vaccine deaths in the USA – a nation of 330 million (over 1/4 of the country injured). Mass murder is certainly no exaggeration.
Clinical Psychology Professor Explains Mass Formation
In this interview on The Pandemic Podcast, Mattias Desmet, a professor of clinical psychology at the Belgian University of Ghent, explains the psychological reason why so many still buy into the narrative.
He outlines 4 conditions that need to be present that allow people to fall for an absurd official narrative, become hypnotized and fall into what he calls mass formation. Mass formation (also known as mass psychology, mob psychology or crowd psychology) studies how human behavior is influenced by large groups of people.
This brief description gives an overview of it. Gustave Le Bon, Sigmund Freud, Leon Festinger and Philip Zimbardo have all contributed to the understanding of this concept. Essentially, when people become part of a crowd, they deindividuate. There is a tendency for people to give away their personal identity, self-responsibility, self-awareness, guilt, empathy and other individual morality-related attitudes and behaviors. A mob mentality can take over.
Desmet cites the following 4 conditions as necessary precursors to mass hypnosis:
1. Lack of social bond/connectedness
2. Lack of meaning/sense making
3. Free-floating anxiety and psychological discontent
4. Free-floating frustration and aggression
When you have a society where there is already a lot of general anxiety, and where people are uprooted psychologically and spiritually because they are disconnected from their essence and their purpose (and from other humans too), they are ripe for exploitation. The NWO controllers melded together this free-floating anxiety with the fear of the virus (fear of disease/death).
I encourage all readers to familiarize themselves with the NWO blueprint which was revealed in 1969 by Dr. Richard Day. It talks about how the world would be socially engineered so that everything would be chaotic and in a constant state of flux, and people would be encouraged to move away from their hometowns and families, so that people would be more disconnected from each other and feel less grounded.
Desmet describes how such people with these 4 conditions develop a very small field of attention, both mentally and emotionally, and seem unable to expand it even when faced with the facts. He gives examples from historical totalitarian regimes, saying that usually only around 30% of the population becomes hypnotized. Another 40% is not hypnotized but is cowardly, too afraid to speak up. This is why people must continue to speak out now during the COVID scamdemic. Historically, once the opposition is silenced or destroyed, the dictator becomes even more monstrous, metaphorically devouring his own children (killing his own people/supporters) as Hitler and Stalin both did.
Mass Hypnosis Leads to Mass Psychosis
Mass hypnosis isn’t even the final destination. It can go even further into mass psychosis, where an entire population becomes infected with madness and loses its ability to think clearly and rationally. Sound familiar? This After Skool/Academy of Ideas video does a great job of explaining mass psychosis – an epidemic of madness that occurs when a large portion of society loses touch with reality and descends into delusions. With anxiety already present in large amounts in the population, the foundations were already there to generate a pandemic of compliance – for that is what Operation Coronavirus really is, a pandemic of compliance. With decades or even centuries of relentless propaganda, the general population was a fertile ground for seeds of collectivism and authoritarianism to be sown and grown.
The Corona-Initiation Ritual and the COVID Cult
Beyond mass hypnosis and mass psychosis, we can even take this analysis one step further – into the subconscious realms and into the occult. The mass psychosis video touches briefly on how people can more effectively be brought under the heel of totalitarianism by isolation. This is something I highlighted in a July 2020 article entitled Exposing the Occult Corona-Initiation Ritual where I outlined how the lockdowns, quarantines, masks, social distancing and other COVID restrictions mimicked the exact elements of a ritual. In a later article entitled The COVID Cult and the 10 Stages of Genocide, I suggested that we are actually dealing with the phenomenon of a cult – the COVID Cult.
Take a look at this list of cult characteristics below found at this website and ask yourself – how many of these apply to the COVID Cult?
Think about all the unaccountable adoration that has been heaped on Gates, Fauci and the vaccine.
Think about all the excessively zealotry and commitment that has gone into establishing the (utterly false) dogma that SARS-CoV-2 and COVID are respectively the most dangerous virus and disease – ever.
Think about all the censorship that has occurred in a vain attempt to obliterate dissent. Think about all the effort that has gone into fostering the division, separation and the us vs. them mentality.
Think about the way the ends justifies the means (COVID vaccine injuries and deaths don’t matter because we must stop the virus at any cost).
Think about all the shame and guilt hurled at those standing for bodily autonomy (dirty, selfish anti-vaxxers who will kill Grandma).
The group displays an excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader, and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, or debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (e.g., members must get permission to date, change jobs, or marry—or leaders prescribe what to wear, where to live, whether to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and its members (e.g., the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
The group has a polarized, us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders, or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (e.g., lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and control members. Often this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
The group is preoccupied with making money.
Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave—or even consider leaving—the group.
Another site has 6 key cult characteristics. Again, consider just well these fit the current COVID Cult:
Authoritarian Leadership
Exclusivism
Isolationism
Opposition to Independent Thinking
Fear of Being “Disfellowshiped”
Threats of Satanic Attack
Then, after the acute phase of the crisis has passed, the hypnosis remains. People (who lacked meaning before the formation of the cult) find a new meaning by bonding together over the (false) details of the narrative, e.g. “we’re all in this together” so we can “build back better.”
Final Thoughts: Implications of the Mass Hypnosis/Psychosis for Those Outside the Cult
The entire COVID scamdemic has been a giant occult ritual. This is because the forces that run the world are steeped in black magic, seeking to shape the world after themselves. People participate in rituals to show they belong to the group. The more absurd the ritual is, the better it functions as a ritual – it becomes unique to that group. Anyone under the ritualistic spell may accurately be said to be a member of the COVID Cult. This explains the astonishing ease with which people forgot their self-respect, their common sense, their innate immune systems and their unalienable, sovereign, inherent, god-given human rights … and threw them all in the gutter over a supposed “emergency.” What else could explain it?
So what are the implications of all this for those who outside the cult who maintained their sanity? Well, we have to treat those in the COVID cult as under a spell of delusion, trauma and mind control. We have to figure out the best ways to deprogram them. Meanwhile, we must remain grounded in our own sanity and inherent rights as the NWO controllers try to turn the pressure up on those around the world who are outside the cult.
*
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.
After killing dozens of Syrian civilians in a 2019 bombing, the US military exonerated itself and concealed evidence. It’s the latest scandal for a shadowy US war in Syria that has evaded oversight.
The New York Times has exposed one of the US military’s worst massacres and cover-up scandals since My Lai in Vietnam.
On March 18, 2019, amid a battle with Islamic State fighters, the US Air Force bombed a crowd of civilians taking shelter near the town of Baghuz, Syria, killing a reported 70 people. The attacks occurred within a 5-minute span: an initial strike, and then another with heavier bombs as survivors fled. The Times’ Dave Philipps and Eric Schmitt report:
Without warning, an American F-15E attack jet… dropped a 500-pound bomb on the crowd, swallowing it in a shuddering blast. As the smoke cleared, a few people stumbled away in search of cover. Then a jet tracking them dropped one 2,000-pound bomb, then another, killing most of the survivors.
US military personnel in Qatar watched the attack in real time via a surveillance drone at the scene. The high-definition footage showed that only two or three armed men were near the crowd, and were not engaging in any kind of combat activity that would have justified a defensive military strike.
“Who dropped that?” a confused analyst typed on a secure chat system being used by those monitoring the drone, two people who reviewed the chat log recalled. Another responded, “We just dropped on 50 women and children.” An initial battle damage assessment quickly found that the number of dead was actually about 70.
Instead of accountability, “at nearly every step, the military made moves that concealed the catastrophic strike,” Philipps and Schmitt write. The site of the bombing was bulldozed; the unit that conducted the strike vindicated itself; key evidence was buried; military logs were altered; and investigations were stalled and subverted. Although the Pentagon’s independent inspector general managed to launch a probe, “the report containing its findings was stalled and stripped of any mention of the strike.”
The bombing was called in by a classified special operations unit, Task Force 9, which led US ground operations in Syria. Two months after the March 2019 massacre, the task force completed a civilian casualty report on the strike that claimed that only four civilians were killed. It also determined that the strike was lawfully conducted in self-defense.
The Baghuz killings likely only came to light because of whistleblowers who challenged the cover-up from within. Lt. Col. Dean W. Korsak, an Air Force lawyer present at the Qatar air base when the massacre was observed, immediately ordered officials to preserve evidence, including video, and urged superiors to open a war crimes investigation. When they refused, Korsak alerted the Pentagon’s independent inspector general.
Earlier this year, after two years of inaction, Korsak shared details about the cover-up with the Senate Armed Services Committee.
“I’m putting myself at great risk of military retaliation for sending this,” he wrote. “Senior ranking U.S. military officials intentionally and systematically circumvented the deliberate strike process.”
…[Korsak] wrote that a unit had intentionally entered false strike log entries, “clearly seeking to cover up the incidents.” Calling the classified death toll “shockingly high,” he said the military did not follow its own requirements to report and investigate the strike. There was a good chance, he wrote, that “the highest levels of government remained unaware of what was happening on the ground.”
When Korsak alerted the Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations, an Air Force major replied that the office would likely only probe the massacre if there was a “potential for high media attention, concern with outcry from local community/government, concern sensitive images may get out.”
The Senate Armed Committee reached out to Korsack after being approached by another whistleblower, Gene Tate, an investigator at the Pentagon’s Inspector General office. Tate told the Times that he witnessed similar stonewalling and censorship.
“Leadership just seemed so set on burying this. No one wanted anything to do with it,” Tate said. “It makes you lose faith in the system when people are trying to do what’s right but no one in positions of leadership wants to hear it.”
After raising concerns at multiple levels, Tate says that in October 2020 “he was forced out of his position and escorted from the building by security.”
In response to the New York Times, Central Command acknowledged the Baghuz massacre for the first time. But it continues to deny the civilian toll, insisting that just four civilians were killed. According to the Times, a US military statement claimed that 60 of the dead may have not have been civilians, “in part because women and children in the Islamic State sometimes took up arms.”
The Times uncovered additional evidence that the cover-up is part of a broader pattern of US forces ignoring safeguards against attacking civilians in Syria, and hiding the death toll.
According to the Times, some officials believed that Task Force 9, the unit behind the strike, “was systematically circumventing the safeguards created to limit civilian deaths… by late 2018, about 80 percent of all airstrikes it was calling in claimed self-defense.”
Previous mass casualty causing military operations in Syria have also evaded scrutiny. As a New Yorker report observed in 2020, US bombings in Syria have “reduced parts of the country to wasteland.” In Raqqa, US adopted “a strategy of physical annihilation applied against a city that still harbored a significant civilian population”, causing an “utter decimation” that “might be unique in this century.”
According to the Times’ exposé on Baghuz, US officials assessing civilian deaths in places like Raqqa “did not investigate on the ground and often based their findings on how many dead civilians they could definitively identify from aerial footage of the rubble.”
Baghuz Cliff, Syria. (J. Steffen @ WikiMapia)
Parallels to My Lai massacre in Vietnam
News of the Baghuz massacre comes just days after the US military exonerated itself for the killing of 10 civilians, including seven children, in its August drone strike in Kabul.
The US military’s cover-up of the Baghuz massacre also parallels the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. A reported 504 Vietnamese civilians, including 182 women and 173 children, were slaughtered by US forces in My Lai and neighboring My Khe 4 on March 16, 1968. Just like in Baghuz, the US military unit involved in the My Lai massacre – the 11th Infantry Brigade — carried out an investigation and exonerated itself.
The atrocity was revealed in November 1969 by journalist Seymour Hersh, who interviewed two of the key perpetrators. Hersh’s report, published by the small anti-war outlet the Dispatch News Service, helped turn US public opinion against the Vietnam war.
The Baghuz massacre was kept hidden from the public for a year longer than My Lai was. Hersh’s story came out 18 months after the My Lai massacre; the Baghuz slaughter occurred on March 18, 2019, and was revealed by the New York Times on November 13, 2021 — more than two years later. Coincidentally, the Times’ story was published one day after the 52nd anniversary of Hersh’s report on My Lai: November 12, 1969.
US massacre in Baghuz follows decade-long dirty war in Syria with little oversight
The lack of accountability for US bombings that kill civilians is only one element of a years-long US warfare campaign in Syria given a blank check by Congress and kept largely from public view.
Against the will of the Syrian government — and with no authorization from the United Nations Security Council or the US Congress — the US military continues to occupy a large swath of northeast Syria with hundreds of troops. As I reported in September, the Biden administration has deceived the public about both the nature of the US mission in Syria and its motives.
Although the US claims that its “sole purpose” in Syria is fighting ISIS, the US military has in fact barely done any fighting over the last two years. In 2019, now-senior Biden official Dana Stroul admitted that the US military occupation in Syria in “not only about completing the anti-ISIS fight.” In reality, Stroul explained, occupying the “resource-rich”, “economic powerhouse” region in Syria’s northeast — which contains the country’s “hydrocarbons” and is its “agricultural powerhouse” — gives the U.S. government “broader leverage” to influence “a political outcome in Syria” in line with US dictates.
At a US gov-funded think tank, this official who oversaw Congress' Syria Study Group outlines the continued regime-change strategy.
She says the US military "owned" 1/3rd of Syrian territory, including its oil/wheat-rich region. And the US is trying to block reconstruction funds pic.twitter.com/NIEJ9elxhs
Underscoring the bipartisan mission, Stroul’s rationale was expressed more crudely by President Trump in January 2020, when he told Fox News that he had backed off a withdrawal from Syria in order to “to take the oil. I took the oil.”
The US Congress is so committed to deploying US troops to steal Syrian resources that it refuses to even debate it. In September, a proposed amendment from Rep. Jamal Bowman (D-NY) that would require Congressional authorization for the U.S. military force in Syria was defeated 141-286.
Although the U.S. military launched operations in Syria in 2014, this vote marked the first time that either chamber of Congress has taken a recorded floor vote on whether to authorize the deployment of hundreds of troops there.
The Congressional endorsement of continued military occupation in Syria pleased the Biden administration, which “doesn’t want a cap on military operations in Syria,”Politico reported. “The United States is in Syria for the sole purpose of enabling the campaign against ISIS, which is not yet over,” a National Security Council spokesperson claimed, omitting the hegemonic motives previously admitted by Stroul and Trump.
The Congressional abrogation of its oversight and war authority powers in Syria follows its decade-long rubber stamp on arguably the most catastrophic and deadly US operation of them all: Timber Sycamore, the multi-billion dollar CIA program that armed and trained insurgents seeking to overthrow Syria’s government.
Just like the cover-up over the Baghuz massacre, US officials concealed the costs and consequences of the massive covert CIA operation.
Timber Sycamore proved to be “one of the costliest covert action programs in the history of the C.I.A”, the New York Times reported in 2017, after Trump ordered its cancellation. With “a budget approaching $1 billion a year,” or “about $1 of every $15 in the CIA’s overall budget,” the CIA armed and trained nearly 10,000 insurgents, spending “roughly $100,000 per year for every anti-Assad rebel who has gone through the program,” the Washington Post revealed in 2015. Citing a “knowledgeable US official,” the Post’s David Ignatius reported in 2017, the “many dozens of militia groups” given “many hundreds of millions of dollars” by the CIA “may have killed or wounded 100,000 Syrian soldiers and their allies over the past four years.”
As David McCloskey, a former CIA analyst who worked on Syria during the program’s early years, told me in a recent interview for The Grayzone, the US continued this program despite the internal understanding that “al-Qaeda affiliated groups and Salafi jihadist groups were the primary engine of the insurgency.” The US government’s tacit alliance with Al Qaeda, McCloskey said, was “a tremendously problematic aspect of the conflict.”
4/ Ex-CIA analyst David McCloskey: "I think there’s an understanding that al-Qaeda affiliated groups and Salafi jihadist groups were the primary engine of the insurgency." pic.twitter.com/RWGNDaWpFv
US support for an Al Qaeda-dominated insurgency was privately acknowledged at the highest levels in the Syrian war’s early years. In February 2012, Jake Sullivan — now Biden’s National Security Advisor — wrote to Hillary Clinton: “AQ [Al Qaeda] is on our side in Syria.”
Although Sullivan made that admission in secret, the most publicly blunt acknowledgement of the US “side” in Syria came two years later from his current boss. In Syria, there was “no moderate middle,” then-Vice President Joe Biden told a Harvard audience in 2014. Instead, Biden said, US “allies” in Syria “poured hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad. Except that the people who were being supplied were Al-Nusra, and Al-Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world.”
Biden on Syria, 2014: US allies "poured hundreds of millions of dollars & tens…thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad. Except that the people who were being supplied were… Al-Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis."pic.twitter.com/0mAaThVf2x
The CIA and its allies’ arming of a jihadi-dominated insurgency prolonged the Syrian war and led to untold atrocities. In the coastal Latakia region, a Human Rights Watch investigation found that US-armed insurgents were responsible for “the systematic killing of entire families.” The US-backed insurgents there were bent on “sectarian mass murder”, Robert F. Worth of the New York Times found:
In Latakia, some people told me that their city might have been destroyed if not for the Russians. The city has long been one of Syria’s safe zones, well defended by the army and its militias; there are tent cities full of people who have fled other parts of the country, including thousands from Aleppo. But in the summer of 2015, the rebels were closing in on the Latakia city limits, and mortars were falling downtown. If the rebels had captured the area — where Alawites are the majority — a result would almost certainly have been sectarian mass murder. Many people in the region would have blamed the United States, which armed some of the rebels operating in the area.
Congress is mandated to oversee CIA programs like the covert dirty war in Syria. But instead, “there is no evidence that the intelligence committees ever used their powers to prevent, seriously modify, or terminate this fatally flawed operation,” former Congressional staffer Stephen Weissman wrote in Foreign Affairs last year. Even when the House Intelligence Committee voted in 2015 to cut the CIA program’s $1 billion budget by 20 percent, Weissman observes, “the actions of the committee’s Senate counterpart were never made public, so it’s possible that even that modest reduction never went into effect.”
Congress has also rejected oversight when it comes to the impact of its crippling sanctions on Syria. The Caesar Act, approved by voice vote in December 2019, aggressively seeks to prevent Syria’s reconstruction and has, in the unapologetic wordsof former Trump envoy James Jeffrey, “crushed the country’s economy.” In 2020, then-Rep. Tulsi Gabbard advanced a measure that would require regular reports on how sanctions impact civilians of targeted states like Syria. But the proposal was ultimately stripped by the Senate.
Last Congress, @TulsiGabbard passed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to require detailed reporting on the impact of sanctions on innocent people.
— Erik Sperling 🌍 #BidenEndTheBlockade 🇾🇪 (@ErikSperling) January 22, 2021
The prevailing rejection of accountability for US warfare in Syria is so extreme that not even high-level whistleblowers and explosive evidence can ensure public scrutiny. Whereas two brave US military officials managed to expose the massacre in Baghuz, the US media — including the New York Times — continues to ignore the OPCW scientists who challenged a US-backed cover-up at the world’s top chemical weapons watchdog.
The US, Britain and France bombed Syria in April 2018 after accusing it of committing a chemical weapons attack in Douma that same month. Leaked OPCW documents later revealed that the inspectors who investigated the scene in Douma found no evidence of chemical weapons use. Their findings instead suggest that the incident was staged by insurgents to frame the Syrian government. But the team’s original report was doctored, censored, and ultimately kept from the public. A US delegation was also brought in to meet with the inspectors and try to influence the probe in its favor. Although a series of explosive OPCW leaks have been released since May 2019, primarily at WikiLeaks and The Grayzone, Congress and US media outlets have refused to even acknowledge the scandal.
By revealing that the military murdered dozens of civilians and then concealed the crime, the New York Times’ Dave Philipps and Eric Schmitt have pierced the media and Congressional blockade surrounding US operations in Syria. After a decade of covert dirty warfare; devastating military strikes; and crippling sanctions on Syria, there are many more scandals to come to light.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) at Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar. US military officials watched the Baghuz massacre here via drone footage in real time. (US Air Force)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
A “perfect storm of Russian aggression during the coming winter months” is all but inevitable. Watch it on your screens while you properly freeze.
As much as with “brain dead” NATO (copyright Emmanuel Macron) no one ever lost precious assets betting on the incompetence, narrow-mindedness and cowardice of political “leaders” across the Atlanticist EU.
There are two main reasons for the latest German legalese gambit of suspending the certification of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
Retaliation, directly against Belarus and Russia, “guilty” of the disgraceful refugee drama at the Poland-Belarus border.
Politicking by the German Greens.
A high-ranking European energy executive told me,
“this a game where Germany does not hold a winning hand. Gazprom is very professional. But imagine if Gazprom decided to deliberately slow down their deliveries of natural gas. It could go up tenfold, collapsing the entire EU. Russia has China. But Germany does not have a workable contingency plan.”
This ties up with a proposal that is sitting at a crucial desk in Moscow for approval for two years now, as I reported at the time: an offer by a reputable Western energy firm of $700 billion for Russia to divert their oil and gas exports to China and other Asian customers, away from the EU.
This proposal was actually the key reason for Berlin to resolutely counteract the U.S. drive to stop Nord Stream 2. Yet the torture never stops. Russia now faces an additional hurdle: a carbon tax on exports to the EU which include steel, cement and electricity. That may well be extended to oil and natural gas.
Every sentient being across the EU knows that Nord Stream 2 is the easiest path to lower natural gas prices across Europe, and not the EU’s blind neoliberal bet of buying short term in the spot market.
“They are going to freeze”
Seems like the Bundesnetzagentur, the German energy regulator, woke up from a deep slumber just to find out that the Swiss-based company Nord Stream 2 AG did not meet the conditions to be an “independent transmissions operator” and could be certified only if it was “organized in a legal form under German law.”
The fact that neither the Germans nor the Swiss company were aware of it during the long, previous, always turbulent stages is very hard to believe. So now it looks like Nord Stream 2 AG will have to establish a subsidiary under German law only for the German section of the gas pipeline.
As it stands, the company is not “in a position” to comment on details and especially “the timing of the start of the pipeline operations.”
Nord Stream 2 AG will have to transfer capital and personnel to this new subsidiary, which will then have to present a full set of documentation for certification all over again.
Translation: gas from Nord Stream 2 will be absent during the coming winter in Europe and the pipeline, at best, might start running only by mid-2022.
And that certainly ties in with the politicking angle, as the German regulators are de facto waiting for the new German ruling coalition to emerge, including the neoliberal Greens who are viscerally anti-Nord Stream and anti-Russia.
The European energy executive did not mince his words on a quite possible scenario:
“If Germany does not obtain their oil and natural gas by land now they cannot fashion a fall back position, as there is not sufficient LNG capacity or oil for that matter to supply the EU this winter. They are going to freeze. Much of their economy will be forced to shut down. Unemployment will soar. It would take four years to build up LNG capacity for natural gas but who will build it for them?”
Germany has zero margin of maneuver to dictate conditions to Gazprom and Russia. The gas that Gazprom won’t sell to northern Europe will be sold to eastern and southern Europe via Turk Stream, and most of all to Asian clients, which do not engage in blackmail and pay much better than the Europeans.
What is also clear is that if by a misguided political decision Nord Stream 2 gas is eventually blocked, the fines to be collected by Gazprom from the European consortium that begged for the construction of the pipeline may exceed 200 billion euros. The consortium is made up of Engie, Shell, Uniper, Wintershall Dea and OMV.
It’s against this background that the offer on the table in Moscow becomes even more than a game-changer. The bold recommendation to the Kremlin – with financing already in place – is that Russia’s natural resources including oil and natural gas should be redirected to China, as part of the Russia-China strategic partnership.
The proposal argues that Russia needs no trade with the EU, as China is way ahead of them in most advanced technologies. That certainly provides Moscow with the upper hand in any negotiations with any German government. As I mentioned it to the European energy executive, his terse comment was, “I doubt they will desire to commit suicide.”
It’s all Putin’s fault
It would be too much to expect from German and EU politicians the clear-sightedness of the government of Serbia, which is considering importing 3 billion cubic meters of Russian natural gas annually for 10 years. Gazprom has been on the record for years demonstrating the practical, reliable and cost-conscious aspects of long-term contracts.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, commenting on the migrant crisis at the Poland-Belarus border, noted how “Poland behaves outrageously, while the leadership in Brussels applies double standards that are so apparent and naked that they can’t fail to understand that they are embarrassing themselves.”
The case of Nord Stream 2 adds extra layers to EU self- embarrassment as it concerns the wellbeing of populations already living inside Fortress Europe. Let them freeze, indeed – or pay virtual fortunes for natural gas that should be readily available.
As we all know, Germany, Nord Stream 2, Ukraine, Belarus, it’s all interlinked. And according to a Ukrainian lunatic profiting from an Atlanticist platform, it’s all Putin’s fault – guilty of conducting hybrid war against the EU.
It will be up to the “resolve of Poland and Lithuania” to “counter the Kremlin threat”. The ideal framework in this case should be the Lublin Triangle – which unites Poland and Lithuania with Ukraine. These are the lineaments of the new Iron Curtain, erected by the Atlanticists, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, to “isolate” Russia. Predictably, German Atlanticists are a crucial part of the package.
Of course, to be successful, these actors should “also seek greater U.S. and UK engagement”, with every movement complementing “the role of NATO as the ultimate guarantor of peace in the region”.
So behold, EU mortals: a “perfect storm of Russian aggression during the coming winter months” is all but inevitable. Watch it on your screens while you properly freeze.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Pepe Escobar,born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights group, which dared to brand as “apartheid” Israel’s regime for governing occupied Palestinians, has now exposed Israel’s use of settler aggression to grab Palestinian land. In its report, “State Business: Israel’s misappropriation of land in the West Bank through settler violence, B’Tselem says. “Israel has taken over some ..using official means: using military orders, declaring [an] area ‘state land,’ a ‘firing zone’ or a ‘nature reserve,’ and expropriating land. Other areas have been effectively taken over by settlers through daily acts of violence, including attacks on Palestinians and their property.”
Although B’Tselem argues the “two tracks appear unrelated,” in fact, they constitute a single track. Settler violence is an “informal tool in the hands of the state to take over more and more West Bank land. The state supports and assists these acts of violence and its agents sometimes participate in them directly. As such, settler violence in a form of government policy, aided and abetted by official state authorities with their active participation.”
According to the report, Israeli settlers have taken over 11 square miles of farm and pasture land in the occupied West Bank during the past five years.
Settler violence includes stoning, threatening, burning fields, destroying trees and crops, damaging homes and vehicles, stealing crops, and, B’Tselem says, “in rare cases, homicide”. Settlers most prone to violence are those dwelling on some of the 150 wildcat settlements, dubbed “farms”, which are not officially recognised by the state but are provided with electricity, water, roads and protection by the state. The Israeli military does not respond to settler attacks on Palestinian persons or property.
B’Tselem states,
“The military avoids confronting violent settlers as a matter of policy, although soldiers have the authority and duty to detain and arrest them. As a rule, the military prefers to remove Palestinians from their own farmland or pastureland rather than confront settlers, using various tactics such as issuing closed military zone orders that apply to Palestinians only, or firing tear gas, stun grenades, rubber-coated metal bullets and even live rounds at Palestinians not settlers.”
The olive harvest is an especially temse time for Palestinian farmers as settlers mount attacks on families picking the fruit, steal olives, uproot trees and threaten farmers trying to reach their trees.
According to B’Tselem,
“Complaints are difficult to file, and in the very few cases in which investigations are in fact opened, the system quickly whitewashes them. Indictments are hardly ever filed against settlers who harm Palestinians and when they do, usually cite minor offences, with token penalties to match in the rare instance of a conviction.”
B’Tselem argues that settler violence is “part and parcel of Israel’s apartheid regime, which aims to create a Jewish-only space between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The regime treats land as a resource designed to serve the Jewish public, and accordingly uses it almost exclusively to develop and expand existing Jewish residential communities and to build new ones. At the same time, the regime fragments Palestinian space, dispossesses Palestinians of their land and relegates them to living in small, over-populated enclaves”.
B’Tselem’s January 2021 report on Israel’s practice of apartheid, has, in particular, encouraged international human rights groups and commentators to use this term, blackened by the South African white regime’s discrimination against repression of the native population. This development amounted to a major, even revolutionary, liberating change in how some view Israel and are prepared to speak about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. This month’s report on settler violence as a tool of the apartheid regime is bound to have repercussions in the war of words between Israel and its critics and detractors. Palestinians began to use this term in the early 2000s when Israel began to build its “apartheid wall” across the West Bank, seizing wide tracts of Palestinian land and cutting Palestinian farmers off from their farms.
While B’Tselem contends that settler violence has become “part and parcel of life under the occupation in the West Bank,” Israeli colonising violence long predated 1967 and was practiced by early Israeli settlers with the encouragement and support of the British mandatory authority. A British officer who made his name in the World War II campaign against Japan, Orde Wingate launched his career in 1936 during the Palestinian revolt against Britain by training Jewish fighters to fight Palestinian irregulars defending their lands. Captain Wingate, a committed Christian Zionist, formed the Special Night Squads of British soldiers and Jewish militiamen to mount offensive operations against Palestinians rather than rely on simply defending Jewish colonies. This approach has been used by the Israeli state and military since then. Consequently, Wingate is seen by Israelis as the father of the Israeli Defence Force,” which, thanks to Wingate, has always been the “Israeli Offence Force”.
*
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: Separation wall between Israel and the West Bank near Jerusalem. Photo by Mazur Travel/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.
A new clause added by the UK government to a proposed new nationality and borders bill would give the government the power to strip people of their British citizenship without giving them notice.
The clause, titled the “Notice of decision to deprive a person of citizenship”, exempts the government from having to give notice if it is not “reasonably practicable” to do so, or if stripping citizenship is in the interests of national security and diplomatic relations.
The proposed change to the current law is sponsored by Home Secretary Priti Patel. The bill is currently proceeding through the House of Commons but has yet to be considered by the upper house of the UK parliament, the House of Lords, which can propose amendments to legislation.
“British citizenship is a privilege, not a right. Deprivation of citizenship on conducive grounds is rightly reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct involves very high harm,” a Home Office spokesperson told Middle East Eye.
“The Bill doesn’t extend our power to remove citizenship. The requirement to give notice of a decision to deprive citizenship will be disapplied where it is not practicable to do so.”
In 2002, the UK introduced measures that allowed British-born nationals and naturalised citizens to lose their nationality rights. Successive governments gradually broadened the scope of those powers.
The government’s use of the powers then rose in response to the perceived threat posed by British nationals returning from Syria.
Out of 172 people deprived of citizenship between 2010 and 2018, 104 of those cases occurred in 2017, according to Home Office figures.
Critics and civil liberties groups say removing citizenship is already a contentious power and scrapping the notice requirement would make the government’s capacities even more draconian.
“Citizenship is the right to have rights, and stripping a person of citizenship can have life-changing and sometimes deadly consequences,” said Emily Ramsden, a senior officer on migration and citizenship at Rights and Security International (RSI).
“Allowing the government to strip people of citizenship without even telling them would deepen the already Kafkaesque struggle of people deprived of citizenship – most of whom are likely from migrant communities – to protect their rights against abuses of power that are allowed to go unchecked by independent judges.”
‘Morally abhorrent policy’
The proposed change to the law comes after the High Court ruled against the government in a case brought by a woman, known as D4, detained in the al-Roj camp in northern Syria for the families of suspected Islamic State (IS) group fighters.
The court ruled that the UK government’s decision to revoke her citizenship in December 2019 was “null and void” because she had not been notified of the decision until her lawyers asked the government to repatriate her in October 2020. She subsequently appealed the decision.
The new clause would remove the need to notify individuals that their citizenship has been revoked in a number of circumstances.
Other proposed rule changes in the bill have also attracted criticism. The current version of the bill would criminalise anyone arriving in the UK by an illegal route, and also criminalises anyone who seeks to save their lives.
On the other hand, it would give immunity to Border Force staff if people die in the English Channel during operations to push migrant boats out of British waters.
“The US government has condemned citizenship-stripping as a dangerous denial of responsibility for your own nationals. Ministers should listen to our closest security ally rather than doubling down on this deeply misguided and morally abhorrent policy,” Maya Foa, the director of Reprieve, told the Guardian newspaper.
A Home Office spokesperson told MEE that the decision to deprive a person of citizenship “must be reasonable and proportionate”, and that it would work “in accordance with international law”.
It is illegal to revoke someone’s citizenship if the measure would leave them stateless, meaning that those targeted must be dual nationals or legally entitled to claim citizenship of another country.
In 2019, the UK revoked the citizenship of Shamima Begum, the British woman who at 15 travelled to Syria to join IS.
Earlier this year, Middle East Eye reported on the case of a British man who was able to return to the UK after four years stranded abroad, after the government was found to have wrongly assessed that he was entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship.
*
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.
November 18th, 2021 by Center For Biological Diversity
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
The Interior Department is scheduled to auction off more than 80 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico on Wednesday for oil and gas leasing, the largest U.S. lease sale ever. The sale comes just days after President Biden pledged at COP26 to reduce carbon emissions.
“The Biden administration is lighting the fuse on a massive carbon bomb in the Gulf of Mexico. It’s hard to imagine a more dangerous, hypocritical action in the aftermath of the climate summit,” said Kristen Monsell, oceans legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This will inevitably lead to more catastrophic oil spills, more toxic climate pollution, and more suffering for communities and wildlife along the Gulf Coast. Biden has the authority to stop this, but instead he’s casting his lot in with the fossil fuel industry and worsening the climate emergency.”
On Aug. 31, the day the lease sale was announced, the Center and other environmental and Gulf groups sued the administration over its decision to hold the sale.
The lawsuit says Interior is relying on an outdated environmental analysis that fails to consider new information regarding the numerous harms inherent in offshore drilling. It also asserts that Interior is ignoring a December federal appeals court ruling by relying on the same modeling rejected in that case for failing to properly consider harm to the climate from more oil drilling. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s greenhouse gas analysis for the Gulf lease sale repeats these errors, concluding that not having the lease sale will result in more greenhouse gases.
Interior’s own estimates show the Gulf sale will lead to the production of up to 1.12 billion barrels of oil and 4.42 trillion cubic feet of gas over the next 50 years. That’s equivalent to annual emissions from 130 coal-fired power plants.
“It’s deeply troubling that the people charged with protecting our public lands and oceans are ignoring court rulings and their own data showing this lease sale is illegal and reckless,” Monsell said. “President Biden can’t claim to be addressing the climate emergency or caring about environmental justice if he continues to treat the Gulf of Mexico and coastal communities as sacrifice zones.”
Biden could use his executive authority to halt fossil fuel extraction on public lands and waters. Instead he has abandoned campaign promises to end new federal oil and gas leasing and extraction. His administration has approved 3,091 new drilling permits on public lands at a rate of 332 per month, outpacing the Trump administration’s 300 permits per month. The Gulf leasing poses a disproportionate threat to Black, Indigenous and other people of color and to low-income communities.
Since Interior completed its environmental analysis in 2017, significant new information has emerged showing the worsening climate emergency and the potential for increased harm to endangered species, including Rice’s whales, found only in the Gulf of Mexico and among the most endangered whales on the planet.
In August the United Nations affirmed that the climate crisis is “unequivocally” the result of human influence and that this influence now has a strong hand in climate and weather extremes. That month the Gulf region was lashed by Hurricane Ida, one of the strongest and most rapidly intensifying hurricanes ever to make landfall. The storm caused thousands of oil and chemical spills and other accidents in the region.
*
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.
Attorney Aaron Siri is a Vaccine Injury attorney, one of just a handful of such attorneys in the U.S.
Since the passage of the 1986 National Vaccine Injury Compensation law, one cannot sue pharmaceutical companies for vaccine injuries and deaths.
A special U.S. Vaccine Court handles all cases with select judges chosen by the U.S. Government, and there only about 100 lawyers in the United States that are even trained to litigate in this special “court.”
The irony with COVID-19 vaccine injuries and deaths, is that even this very highly specialized and controlled government court will not try vaccine injury cases related to the COVID-19 experimental shots, mainly because they are still under Emergency Use Authorization and not fully approved by the FDA yet.
So Aaron Siri’s firm is suing the FDA, since there is no avenue in place within the U.S. Judicial system to sue the drug companies, or anyone else for that matter, for damages caused by the experimental COVID-19 “vaccines.”
Today, Attorney Siri published an update on his case against the FDA, where he wrote:
The FDA has asked a federal judge to make the public wait until the year 2076 to disclose all of the data and information it relied upon to license Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. That is not a typo. It wants 55 years to produce this information to the public.
So, let’s get this straight. The federal government shields Pfizer from liability. Gives it billions of dollars. Makes Americans take its product. But won’t let you see the data supporting its product’s safety and efficacy. Who does the government work for?
The 1986 National Vaccine Injury Compensation law that Congress enacted, and President Ronald Reagan signed into law, is only one example of how Congress protects Corporate America by shielding them from having to defend their criminal activities in the American judicial system that the rest of the population has to work through in proving innocence or guilt.
When it comes to sycophants, Wall Street has no shortage of them willing to shill for its egregious private justice system called mandatory arbitration – a system which systematically guts the guarantee of a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Think about that carefully, the industry that is serially charged with rigging markets and other felonious acts, is allowed by Congress to run its own privatized justice system. This is something one would expect to find in a banana republic, not in a country that lectures the rest of the world on democratic principles.
Wall Street’s private justice system effectively locks the nation’s courthouse doors to both its workers and customers, sending the claims before conflicted arbitrators who do not have to follow legal precedent, case law or write legally-reasoned decisions.
Wall Street is the only industry in America that has for decades contractually banned both its customers and its employees from utilizing the nation’s courts for claims against the Wall Street firm as a condition of opening an account or getting a job there.
Instead of being able to go to court with a claim of fraud if you’re a customer, or a claim for labor law violations, like failure to pay overtime or sexual harassment if you’re an employee, Wall Street makes its customers and employees sign an agreement to take all such claims into an industry-run or privately-run arbitration system.
The above graphic from the study by the American Association for Justice shows how claimants faired in mandatory arbitration forums run by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and JAMS. The findings cover a broad range of industries, not just Wall Street.
These private justice systems are certainly not fair, and on Wall Street, they are far from cheap. Fees to claimants can run into tens of thousands of dollars as opposed to a few hundred dollars to file in court.
Study after study has found that arbitrators most often rule in favor of the corporate interest over the consumer because the arbitrators are financially dependent on repeat business from these corporations.
What Wall Street and its army of lawyers like most about this private justice system is its darkness. Unlike a public courtroom, the press and the public are not allowed to attend the hearings.
There are no publicly available transcripts of the hearings as there would be in court. It is next to impossible to bring a court appeal of an arbitration ruling because Wall Street’s biggest law firms have spent decades convincing the courts that these arbitration decisions must be permanently binding.
Another fatal flaw for claimants in these private justice systems is that there is no jury selection from a large public pool of random citizens but rather a repeat-player pool of highly compensated arbitrators.
As I have written previously many times, the American judicial system is owned by the Globalists, and we should not expect justice there.
These legal actions do have some value, and that value is mainly in the public realm where the evil deeds of these corporations and federal health agencies that are also owned and controlled by Global Corporate Criminals, can be exposed to the public.
Just don’t expect the judicial system to protect your rights. They protect Corporate profits and control.
If you want to live as a free person, start acting like one, but don’t expect the corrupt system to protect your freedoms.
Resist medical tyranny. Protect your children.
Yes, the costs are high, and you may need to even give up your life by choosing to live as a free person.
But for me personally, I would rather die free than live as a slave to this evil, corrupt world system.
We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true.
And we are in him who is true–even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. (1 John 5:19-20)
*
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.
Comments Off on Vaccine Injury Attorney Suing the FDA: FDA Asks Federal Judge to Grant it Until the Year 2076 to Fully Release Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine Data
In the spring of 2021, before the emergence of the Delta variant, Israel had been the first country in the world to believe it had achieved herd immunity with the Pfizer injection. But its very high rate of injection did not allow it to avoid a new wave with the establishment of a new absolute record of daily contaminations (11000/D or the equivalent for France of 70000 cases/D).
There was a hidden gem in a blog post by Aaron Siri that nobody picked up. It was evidence that vaccinated people are 9X more likely to be admitted to the hospital than unvaccinated. It is hard to get good, honest data out of hospitals nowadays for some reason. I have no clue as to why that is. You’d think things would be more transparent.
The global energy shortages which have driven prices for coal, oil and natural gas to explosive highs in the last months are a predictable consequence of the mad pursuit of “Zero Carbon” economic policies that have seen foolish governments subsidize a growing share of electricity from unreliable solar and wind generation.
The heavy-handed collusion between the Techno-Corporate State and the U.S. government over vaccine mandates is merely the latest manifestation of the extent to which fascist forces are working to overthrow our constitutional republic and nullify the rights of the individual.
CDC once was a federal agency that nearly everyone respected. That no longer is the case. Now there are many reasons why CDC should be widely disrespected. Its latest debacle is how it changed the definition of vaccine.
The cult of personality, once believed dead and buried, has been resurrected. No, we are not on the verge of a new cultural revolution but we are in a time of cultural resolution. To confirm this, the Chinese Communist Party endorsed a “historical resolution” this month, putting Xi behind Mao but ahead of Deng Xiaoping the man who “made modern China”. It says that Xi is core leader and his beliefs are bedrock doctrine.
Let me tell you about Bert Sacks. Perhaps you’ve heard of him. His experiences with the U.S. government regarding terrorism tell an illuminating story of conscience and hope. It is a story of how one person can awaken others to recognize and admit the truth that the U.S. is guilty of crimes against humanity, even when one is unable to stop the carnage. It is a tale of witness, and how such witness is contagious.
At least 42% of American children already have acquired robust natural immunity which is far superior compared to vaccine immunity and that those with naturally-acquired immunity receive no benefit from the vaccines – only risks, some of which may be lethal.
A third Australian journalist has developed pericarditis (heart inflammation) after her first Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. Eleni Roussos, an ABC News journalist and anchor in the Darwin ABC newsroom, was hospitalized on November 5th and diagnosed with pericarditis according to her sister Koulla Roussos.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
The role of the parliamentarian, historically, is one of service. The desire to hold two jobs, or more, suggests that such service is severely qualified. In the quotient of democracy and representation, the MP who is ready to tend to the affairs of others is unlikely to focus on the voter. I represent you, but I also represent my client who so happens to be parking his cash in offshore tax havens. I represent you, but I am moonlighting as an advisor for an armaments company.
This condition has become rather acute in the British political scene. While a backbencher earns £81,932 annually plus expenses, they may pursue consultancies in the private sector as long as they do not engage in lobbying – a ridiculous fine line. Astonishingly, there is no limit on the number of hours they may spend on these additional jobs. Accordingly, members of parliament have shown marked confusion on how to separate their various jobs. Every so often, business has tended to find its way into the member’s office.
A stunning feature of the British system is that there is no revolving door to speak of. Politicians can seamlessly undertake contracts and perform services, irrespective of their parliamentary position. The conditions and rules have a Gilbert and Sullivan absurdity to them.
One such figure exemplifies this. Between October 2016 and February 2020, Conservative MP Owen Paterson received remuneration for lobbying efforts on behalf of two companies: the medical diagnostics company Randox, and meat processing entity Lynn’s Country Foods. The report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Kathryn Stone, conveyed to the Parliamentary Committee on Standards, was a thorough and scathing effort on Paterson’s exploits.
In his dealings with Randox, the Commissioner found that Paterson “sought to promote Randox products, including their ‘superior technology’ and thereby sought to confer benefits on Randox.” He “sought assistance with accreditation for Randox’s technology” and sought to promote “other, unrelated, Randox technologies”. Then came the seedy connection: efforts to promote Randox testing by government agencies.
The smelly nature of Paterson’s advocacy for Lynn’s arose because of efforts made by the MP to approach the Food Standards Agency, at the request of the company, because of concerns dealing with the mislabelling of the food producer’s ham product and a product used by Lynn’s to cure bacon. The Commissioner also noted Paterson’s initiated contact with the Minister of State (DfID) on the subject of laboratory calibration in developing countries. All were held to be “in breach of the rules on paid advocacy.”
Paterson, for his part, has claimed that the investigation was uncalled for, unjust and pernicious, having allegedly caused his wife’s suicide in June 2020. The Standards Committee did take this into account as a mitigating factor on the penalty, and noted Paterson’s “passion for and expertise in food and farming matters”. For all that, the members found that the MP’s conduct had been “an egregious case of paid advocacy.” He had “repeatedly failed to perceive his conflict of interest and used his privileged position as a Member of Parliament to secure benefits for two companies for whom he was a paid consultant”. Bringing the House into disrepute, a penalty of suspension of 30 sitting days was warranted.
The response from the governing Tories was one abundant in viciousness. In trying to save Paterson from the 30-day suspension, Conservative MPs put forth an amendment in an effort to dismantle the very watchdog that had found Paterson out. A review of the investigation’s findings on Paterson’s conduct was also proposed. As committee chair Chris Bryantrued, “The definition of injustice is you change the rules in the midst of the process.”
It logically fell upon the investigator to face the chop. Stone was duly rounded on. Her office was deluged with abusive messages. The business secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, revealed after the vote that Stone had been called upon to consider her position. It was, claimed Kwarteng on breakfast radio, “difficult to see what the future of the commissioner was”. Within hours, she found out that her position would probably be safe, with Johnson’s government having executed yet another one of its famous U-turns of spectacular confusion.
The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, had a rather novel interpretation of the proceedings in approving an amendment that would essentially abolish the standards system – if one could even call it that. “The issue in this case, which involved a serious family tragedy, is whether the member of this House had a fair opportunity to make representations in this case and whether, as a matter of national justice, our procedures in this House allow for proper appeal.”
Despite Johnson’s efforts to save Paterson, the MP quit on November 4. And just to make matters worse, a raging fire had been lit, enveloping other members of the government. Former Attorney General, Sir Geoffrey Cox, was the next figure to find himself burning brightly. Cox had received some £6 million in addition to his MP salary for a retainer with the law firm Withers. This included an annual fee of £400,000, and an additional £156,916.08 for 140 hours of work undertaken between April and May 31, 2021.
To show the high regard he held for the voters of his electorate, Cox had also been in the British Virgin Islands (BVI) for a number of weeks, meaning that he was absent from his constituency while being an advisor on a corruption inquiry.
To the likes of Paterson and Cox can be added scores of Tory MPs, among them Johnson himself, who is estimated to have received £4 million from second job income over the course of 14 years.
With typical, and in this case cringing understatement, International Trade Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyanhas suggested that it would be “wise” to review the rules around second jobs. But she did not favour a total ban, suggesting that Parliament would somehow miss out if MPs could not perform such services as that of a doctor or nurse.
Such a view is also held by Commons leader Jacob Rees-Mogg, who claimed it was vital that MPs “maintain connections to the world beyond so that we may draw the insight and expertise that this experience offers”.
In an effort to make some modification to the rules, Johnson has now proposed a measure that any outside role undertaken by parliamentarians, paid or otherwise, can be undertaken “within reasonable limits”. Trevelyan has suggested that “reasonable”, in this context, is 15 hours. Labour’s defeated proposal had been to place all second jobs, bar a select few, on the banned list.
The central question to this unfolding farce remains: If you are doing other jobs that are not directly connected to your function as a parliamentarian, are you really representing your constituency? The likes of Cox, more brazen than ever, square the circle in thinking you do.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
The covid criminals are still not satisfied, even though their forced injection campaigns have killed more people than decades of all real vaccines combined. They know that this record death toll is just the beginning, because there are many more adverse events to unfold over the months and years after the victims are injected. For a comprehensive investigation into many of the ways these injections harm and kill, and what to expect in short, medium and long term, click here.
Now they want the kids.
The children have been muzzled, denied, mentally abused, imprisoned and terrorized by the covid agenda. They have statistical zero risk of serious disease from covid, and none of this abuse has been scientific or justified. Children can only be micro-biologically safe, if they are unmasked, freed, fed natural food, allowed to live, play and develop healthy natural immune systems.
The administrators of the Covid agenda, are violent criminals who must not be trusted.
Veteran pediatrician and grandmother Dr Ros Jones, is no “anti-vaxer”. She has always supported actual “vaccines” for both her family and patients. However, she is vehemently against these injections which are being forced upon mankind, and which are now aimed at our children. Dr Jones makes her case very briefly here in 2 minutes 18 seconds. Thanks for reading, watching and sharing.
*
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.
Americans and the people of Great Britain, Europe, Canada, and Australia have heard for decades that they live in “The Free World.”
This world contrasted to the Soviet world where civil liberty was replaced with internal passports, with punishments for criticizing authorities and disagreeing with the narrative, and with mandates issued by a dictator instead of laws from elected representatives.
It is ironic that today it is the Western World that has the characteristics that were assigned to life under Soviet Rule–internal Covid passports, censorship for speaking the truth, and now, today (Nov 14, 2021), the Chancellor of Austria, a “free country,” ordered one-third of Austrian citizens under home arrest. They are lock-downed beginning tomorrow (Monday).
The home arrests of millions of Austrian citizens will be enforced by the Austrian Gestapo.
The Austrian interior minister Karl Nehammer boasted: “As of tomorrow, every citizen, every person who lives in Austria must be aware that they can be checked by the police.”
Shades of Stalinist Russia! And it is not only Austria.
Australia’s government has used the “Covid pandemic” to establish a dictatorial government that looks more Nazi with each passing day. Canada seems only a step or two behind. Germany’s chancellor-in-waiting Olaf Scholz has given warning that extraordinary measures are forthcoming to restrain Covid this winter. What he means is that extraordinary controls will be put on the German people.
Even in the US the White House Puppet, Joe Biden, is attempting to force all employers to require their workforces to be vaccinated or fired. He is meeting resistance from some federal courts and some Republican governors. Americans, being the only armed Western people, are capable, if led, in standing up against the executive branch overthrow of the US Constitution, under which Biden’s orders are grounds for his impeachment and removal from office.
Looking at the behavior of the Western governments in general, it is legitimate to ask, “where is the free world?”
What does it mean to be free when citizens are punished for refusing to submit to a medical intervention that is a violation of the Nuremberg Laws and the US Constitution? How can people who are coerced be free?
The fact of the matter is that the entire “free world,” US included, would be much freer if we were ruled by Russia. In Russia President Putin has made it clear that vaccination is a personal choice and there can be no coercion of the individual as under rule in the West.
Not only does the “free world” no longer respect freedom, it no longer respects science and facts. It has been firmly established by scientists and medical experts that vaccination does not protect against the virus and does not prevent the vaccinated person from spreading the virus. At the present time it is the vaccinated, not the unvaccinated, who are dying from a multiple of causes in hospitals.
The “vaccine” not only has serious and deadly side effects, as the US, EU, and UK adverse reaction reporting systems reveal, but also the evidence is now conclusive that the “vaccine” destroys natural immunity. The consequence is that the vaccinated are dying not only from side effects of the vaccine but also from the entire range of diseases that the damaged human immune system can no longer combat.
It is a known fact that hardly any children are affected in a harmful way by Covid. But we know that children are devastated by the “vaccine.” So why did the corrupt FDA approve vaccination for children who do not need it but are damaged and killed by it?
Are we experiencing merely the incompetent professionals of a decaying West, or are we witnessing a genocide made possible by the insouciance of Western peoples and fear orchestrated by their unaccountable rulers?
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
The NASA image below shows the October 2021 temperature anomaly. The Arctic is heating up enormously, with anomalies showing up of up to 9.1°C.
The image below shows that the global temperature over the past century, i.e. from 1920 to 2020, has risen by 1.3°C. The image shows anomalies from 1900-1920. When adjusting data to reflect a pre-industrial base, ocean air (2m) temperatures and higher polar anomalies, temperatures may have crossed 2°C long ago.
The image below shows two trends, based on NASA 1880-October 2021 data, adjusted to reflect a pre-industrial base, ocean air (2m) temperatures and higher polar anomalies. The linear trend (green) misses the point that the temperature rise is accelerating. The polynomial trend (black) shows the potential for 3°C to be crossed by 2026.
Acceleration of the temperature rise may speed up further soon, for a number of reasons:
Aerosols: As cleaner alternatives become more economic, and as calls for cleaner air become stronger, this could result in a strong temperature rise soon, as sulfate cooling falls away and more black carbon may result from more wood burning and forest fires, as discussed at the aerosols page.
Sunspots: Within a few years time, sunspots will be reaching the peak of their cycle, and they are looking stronger than forecast, as illustrated by the image on the right showing sunspots up to October 2021.
ENSO: An upcoming El Niño could raise surface temperatures significantly. The image on the rightshows that the current La Niña is forecast to end in 2022 and move toward a new El Niño. As the temperature keeps rising, ever more frequent strong El Niño events are likely to occur, as confirmed by a recent study. Authors also confirm concerns that the IPCC downplays the threat that a super El Nino event could occur soon.
The image below indicates that the difference between the top of El Niño and the bottom of La Niña could be more than half a degree Celsius.
As illustrated by the bar on the right, there are many further elements that could dramatically push up the temperature soon. Altogether, the rise from pre-industrial could increase to more than 18°C by 2026.
As the image at the top shows, the Arctic is heating up enormously, with anomalies showing up of up to 9.1°C.
Decline of Arctic snow and ice can result in huge albedo losses, loss of latent heat buffer, jet stream changes, more and more extreme weather events, and more. Slowing down of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) and increasing ocean stratification can result in less heat getting transferred from the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean, as also described at this page.
One of the largest threats is seafloor methane and despite repeated warning from some of the best experts in the field, the IPCC simply waves away this threat. This and other elements in the bar have been discussed in detail in many earlier posts such as this one and on the extinction page.
The image below shows three trends, i.e. the same black polynomial and green linear trends, based on NASA 1880-October 2021 data, and a blue polynomial trend based on 2015-October 2021 data. Data are again adjusted to reflect a pre-industrial base, ocean air (2m) temperatures and higher polar anomalies.
The blue polynomial trend better reflects short-term climate forcing such as aerosols, sunspots and an upcoming El Niño, as discussed above. The blue trend also shows the potential for 3°C to be crossed by the end of 2022.
Given that humans may go extinct with a 3°C rise, and a 5°C rise will likely end most life on Earth, the COP26 summit in Glasgow could have acted more decidedly. The situation is dire and calls for the most comprehensive and effective action, as described at the Climate Plan.
*
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 images in this article are from Arctic News unless otherwise stated
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Then get the Vaccinate Me Elmo Doll and terrify your kid to a safer tomorrow.
*
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.
Granted, memories in the era of instant media are short. But are they so short that US and European public opinion is being invited to accept, without challenge, a new round of scaremongering about Russia that comes only six months after the last?
It was, after all, as recently as April that most of Europe was on tenterhooks over reports that 100,000 Russian troops were massing on Ukraine’s eastern border, preparing for… well, it was never quite spelled out what they were preparing for.
It could have been an invasion and takeover of the whole of Ukraine, the installation of a puppet government in the Donbass, or the annexation – or ‘integration’, as Russia might have preferred to say – of that territory by the Russian Federation, on the model of Crimea in 2014. Or just a new ‘offensive’ against Ukrainian government forces in the region.
Then, not only did nothing happen, but also two rather large clarifications emerged. The first was that there were not, and never had been, 100,000 Russian troops massing on Ukraine’s border. The vast majority were at their bases many kilometres away.
And second, the much smaller number who were moving around were likely to be doing so in response to reports of Ukrainian troops mustering for a spring offensive, new weapons deliveries from the UK and the US, and some rather extensive NATO exercises being conducted in the Black Sea and to the west of Ukraine.
As is so often the case, what was presented as an aggressive stance on the part of Russia was only half the story. The other half was what the US, the UK and NATO were doing not a hundred kilometres from Russia’s borders. Once you factor this in, you might just conclude that Russia was doing no more than taking prudent precautions and that any troop movements were primarily defensive.
Part of what we are seeing and hearing today is an almost exact reprise of this, even to the troop numbers supposedly on the move. But there are some differences. This time, it is not just Ukraine’s borders that are supposedly under threat. The Western fear-mongering also seems more orchestrated, with the first warnings briefed by the secretaries of state and defence in the US. These were picked up by the UK’s outgoing defence chief, General Sir Nick Carter, before Boris Johnson then promised to ‘support’ Ukraine (against the big bad Russians) in his Lord Mayor’s Banquet speech.
It might also be noted that the US seems to have made special efforts to get Ukraine’s president on board. Volodymyr Zelensky has in the past tended to play down others’ excitement about imminent Russian attacks. But last week he too warned of ominous Russian troop movements – citing US intelligence reports.
The other big difference is the migrant crisis currently playing out on the Belarus-Poland border. Despite zero evidence that this confused and distressing situation has anything whatsoever to do with Russia, many of those peddling the warnings about massed Russian troops poised to invade Ukraine detect the not-so-hidden hand of Russia here, too.
Their argument goes that Belarus and its illegitimate president, Alexander Lukashenko, can do nothing without Russia’s backing (which is wrong); that Putin is a big friend of Lukashenko (which is even more wrong); and that the whole sorry mess is part of a longer-term Russian plan to bring a Russia-Belarus union into effect and to destabilise the EU and the West in general (which, if true at all, is rebounding badly).
All the signs, such as they are, point to the migrant crisis as an exclusively Belarusian project – dreamt up by Lukashenko in the hope of embarrassing the EU, engineering the removal of sanctions and forcing Brussels to deal with him as president. All that Russia has so far done is to have offered some sort of mediation – so far rejected – before dissociating itself very publicly from Lukashenko when he threatened to block Russia’s EU-bound gas supplies. Neither of these moves suggests the Kremlin’s malign hand at work.
Of course, for those who see Russia as always and forever a danger to the West, such thinking dovetails nicely with the new alarm about an imminent Russian offensive against Ukraine. It does not, though, explain why that particular strand of scaremongering is suddenly back.
Let’s dispense with the obvious explanation: that Russia indeed plans to invade Ukraine. Why would anyone, least of all Russia, plan a military offensive in the heart of Europe at the start of winter? And why would it jeopardise approval for its Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline – which would surely be forfeit in the event of any Russian move against Ukraine? It does not make sense.
So what might? First, the US administration has been quietly mending fences with Russia and a new summit is planned. Washington’s hawks have to be convinced Joe Biden won’t sell out US interests. Some trumpeting about a Russia threat wouldn’t come amiss. Second, with NATO’s extension of operations into the Pacific theatre not going well, a Russia threat always offers NATO a new sense of purpose, especially among its east and central European members.
Third, Europe, especially Germany, needs Russian gas, and prices have soared, in part because of the EU’s own mis-steps. But Russia has to be shown that it can’t dictate terms. There has to be a bit of hard-ball before Nord Stream 2 gets its licence.
And fourth, closer to home, Global Britain is in the throes of a belated love-in with Ukraine, which includes not just military training, but building ships and supplying weapons. The Black Sea incident in June demonstrated that the UK is not above indulging in risky machismo. Now, as well as sending a ‘small military detachment’ to help Poland secure its border with Belarus, it has 600 special-forces personnel ‘set’ to be dispatched to Ukraine. Take away an imminent Russia threat, and the wisdom of subsidising Ukraine’s war machine, let alone fomenting tensions in the Black Sea, might draw more public scrutiny than it currently does.
Many disparate interests might thus help to explain why a new Russia threat is being conjured up now. But exaggerating a threat can be just as dangerous as neglecting a real one. The so far non-military crisis at the Belarus-Polish border introduces a whole new element of very human unpredictability that demands restraint, rather than hype, from all sides.
*
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.
Mary Dejevsky is a writer and broadcaster. She was Moscow correspondent for The Times between 1988 and 1992. She has also been a correspondent from Paris, Washington and China.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
The most powerful leader since Mao. In reality, President Xi Jinping has less control than Mao Zedong but is more powerful as China was not the global economic titan it is today when the Great Helmsman died in 1976.
But Xi feels less comfortable than his status implies he should as he bids to be president for life.
The mountains are high and the emperor is far away is a saying in China that hints at how difficult it is to run a country of 1.4 billion people across 23 provinces, five autonomous regions, four municipalities and two special administrative regions. Then there are 3,000 prefecture and county level regions, and at least 40,000 township divisions. Consequently, local governments have long turned a blind eye to some Beijing diktats, a dynamic captured by a saying in Sun Tzu’s The Art of War: “A general in the field is not bound by the orders from his sovereign.”
China is top heavy. Public dissent is verboten, and officials hide problems and silence whistle-blowers.
Simply put there is often nothing to be gained by trying to correct a wrong. When Covid-19 first appeared in Wuhan, police targeted eight doctors who tried to warn the public. The city’s mayor later said he had to wait for Beijing’s instructions before releasing information on the outbreak.
The cult of personality, once believed dead and buried, has been resurrected. No, we are not on the verge of a new cultural revolution but we are in a time of cultural resolution.
To confirm this, the Chinese Communist Party endorsed a “historical resolution” this month, putting Xi behind Mao but ahead of Deng Xiaoping the man who “made modern China”. It says that Xi is core leader and his beliefs are bedrock doctrine.
Without mentioning names, previous leaders are dammed.
Before Xi took office, the resolution says, China’s “capacity to safeguard its national security was lacking’’.
Xi has expanded China’s global influence, the resolution adds, with no hint of irony but it warns that the party needs to remain vigilant to tackle dangers ahead.
“Constant retreat will only bring bullying from those who grab a yard if you give an inch,” says the resolution ignoring that, officially, China is on the metric system. But it sounds better than grab a meter if you give a centimeter. “Making concessions to get our way will only draw us into more humiliating straits,” it claims.
This will give Xi the type of unquestioned authority necessary to push his agenda through. The endorsement is only the third of its kind since the founding of the party – the first was passed by Mao in 1945 and the second by Deng Xiaoping in 1981. The question is why was it necessary?
China was the future once, now it seems the past is looming ahead.
The light-touch relative liberalism of the Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao eras are a distant memory. Dissent during their presidencies was allowed online and universities could debate democracy and constitutional change, even if discreetly.
Under Xi they resemble almost halcyon days. The genuine pride felt in China’s rising global status seems to have kept the middle class broadly in line but this is not a blank check. An economic downturn could change the equation.
Already property values are falling and the true cost of Evergrande and other failed developers has still to be factored in. And there is a sense that an opportunity has been lost. The international atmosphere has changed and China realizes it should have capitalized more in the goodwill it enjoyed globally up to about say four years ago. And the Taiwan issue has yet to be settled, from Beijing’s point of view.
This is a pivotal 12 months with a major party congress in October next year, when Xi will seek confirmation of his third unlimited term.
Both Jiang and Hu were forced to step down after two five-year terms each. This was meant to prevent the life-term power grab that Mao had enjoyed. Xi, in contrast, has made it clear that he intends to go for a third term and beyond. There seems little chance of home-grown political opposition derailing his plans. Xi has the army and presidency.
Xi, China’s first ruler for life since Mao, came to office extolling the virtues of the Chinese Dream. It is little mentioned today.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Israeli human rights group B’Tselem in a report on Sunday, November 14, stated that it has documented 451 instances of settler violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank since the beginning of 2020. It claimed that in most of the cases, Israeli security forces did not intervene to stop the violence or protect the Palestinians. According to the report, in 66% of such settler attacks, the Israeli forces did not even report to the scene. In 170 attacks, Israeli forces were present on the scene but either did not intervene, or actively participated in the attacks, resulting in the deaths of five Palestinians and the arrest of 22 others. In only 13 attacks did the Israeli forces take action to “prevent the settler violence.”
According to the report,
“the state fully supports and assists these acts of violence, and its agents sometimes participate in them directly. As such, settler violence is a form of government policy, aided and abetted by official state authorities with their active participation. Settler attacks against Palestinians are a strategy employed by the Israeli apartheid regime, which seeks to advance and complete its misappropriation of more and more Palestinian land. When the violence occurs with permission and assistance from the Israeli authorities and under its auspices, it is state violence. The settlers are not defying the state; they are doing its bidding.”
Such acts of violence aimed at intimidating Palestinians constitute one of the two main ways that Israel confiscates and annexes Palestinian land, the other being with the help of the judicial system to officially misappropriate and take over Palestinian property.
The report includes several instances of settler violence to show how the illegal Israeli settlers and the Israeli state work hand-in-hand to execute this systematic “massive takeover” of Palestinian land. One of the cases cited involved the Ma’on farm, an illegal outpost erected in the southern West Bank on about one square mile of land. As per the report, settlers here have regularly attacked and harassed Palestinians in the area who used to historically use the land for pasture. This ultimately resulted in the confiscation of the land by the Israeli state. The farm now illegally occupies about 264 hectares (652 acres) of land and also now has an additional sub-post.
According to B’Tselem, violent attacks by settlers against Palestinians have seen an uptick in recent months, especially during the olive harvesting season in the months of October and November. The livelihood of approximately 80,000-100,000 Palestinian families is dependent on olive harvesting. Moayyad Besharat, programs and project manager at the Union of Agricultural Work Committees, added that the olive harvest this season has been the toughest in recent memory.
Ghassan Daghlas, who monitors settler violence in the northern West Bank, said that these attacks are “planned and not spontaneous.” While such settler attacks have been documented in books, research reports and documentaries, little or no action has been taken by the Israeli authorities against the settlers, says the report. It states that “Israel’s inaction continues after settler attacks on Palestinians have taken place, with enforcement authorities doing their utmost to avoid responding to these incidents. Complaints are difficult to file, and in the very few cases in which investigations are in fact opened, the system quickly whitewashes them. Indictments are hardly ever filed against settlers who harm Palestinians and when they do, usually cite minor offenses, with token penalties to match in the rare instance of a conviction.”
The report emphasizes that settlers act as a proxy of the state and inaction by the authorities encourages such violence. B’Tselem said that “state violence – official and otherwise – is part and parcel of Israel’s apartheid regime, which aims to create a Jewish-only space between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.”
*
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: Israeli settlers have been accused of repeatedly setting fire to Burin’s olive groves, such as here in 2017. (Photo: MEE/Muna Asous)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Another annual international conference on the climate crisis ended on November 13 in Glasgow, Scotland where a contentious debate over the final document revealed fundamental differences on key issues.
Officially labeled as the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26), the event was attended by representatives of approximately 200 countries and territories.
Undoubtedly, the broad character of the summit which included representatives from government delegations alongside Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) and independent mass groupings, constrained the ability to pass sweeping resolutions in favor of radical programs for addressing the climate crisis. For example, references to the phasing out of coal production and usage was altered to eliminate any real commitment to shift to more environmentally safe energy sources.
A proposal for the payment of loss and damages to lesser developed countries was removed even from the draft document. The final resolutions made no mention of compensating the former colonial territories for the impact of centuries of mineral extraction, the dislocation of populations and the western demand for cheap labor and control over waterways.
The United States, which was represented by former U.S. Senator John Kerry, was involved in the negotiations over the final document. Although Kerry’s comments appeared to have expressed empathy for poor countries, the actual decisions made in Glasgow were devoid of basic concerns expressed by the peoples of Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean.
Moreover, tens of thousands of youth staged demonstrations outside the conference hall over the two weeks duration of the summit. The main criticism levelled at the COP26 was that it was just another talking session which shied away from making the decisions necessary to mitigate and reverse the process of environmental degradation.
Developments over the last several years have been devastating for the peoples of the Global South and indeed throughout the world. Flooding, severe storms and drought have plagued people internationally. These environmental problems have been worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic making the distribution more difficult of medicines, including vaccines, to population groups which are not easily accessible by modern transportation.
There were 40,000 delegates to the COP26 gathering yet only a small number were actually allowed to enter the area where the serious discussions were held among participants representing their governments. Assessments of the outcome of the summit will be ongoing. However, there were divergent views on the impact and effectiveness of the gathering. (See this)
“The final 11-page document, called the Glasgow Climate Pact, says that greenhouse gas emissions must fall by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 for global warming to be maintained at 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. It notes that, under existing emissions reduction pledges, emissions will be nearly 14% higher than in 2010 by 2030. Countries acknowledged the need to reduce emissions faster, and also agreed to report on progress annually. For the first time in a COP text, nations agreed to begin reducing coal-fired power (without carbon capture) and to start to eliminate subsidies on other fossil fuels.”
China and U.S. Announce Agreement During Summit
During the course of the summit, it was announced that China and the U.S. had agreed to work together on the reduction of carbon and methane greenhouse emissions. The current worsening relationship between Beijing and Washington was reflected in the statements made by those representing the administration of President Joe Biden.
The Chinese reaffirmed that the developing countries could not make the transition to green energy sources and production in light of the economic costs involved. China supported the demands for the payments by the western capitalist states for loss and damages to the developing regions of the world.
According to China Daily newspaper: “Both countries have agreed to cooperate on the implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement on the development of international markets for carbon offsetting. This could help the development of clear international standards to promote the effective functioning of carbon markets, including the voluntary purchase of offsets by companies, which could mobilize billions of dollars of investment in developing countries. The two major powers have also agreed to communicate new nationally determined contributions to the Paris Agreement in 2025 with targets for 2035. However, given the shortfall in planned emissions reductions in relation to the 1.5 C target, the world needs revised and more ambitious nationally determined contributions from all countries well before 2025.”
Who Is Responsible for Climate Change?
Critics of the COP26 summit denounced the event for being the most exclusionary in its history. This was due in part to the lack of vaccine availability and adequate economic resources to facilitate the travel by peoples from the Global South.
Middle East Eye (MEE) website noted that there are 20 corporations which are behind a third of all carbon emissions between 1965-2017. The news agency emphasized that the blaming of China and India for the deteriorating climate situation overlooks the role of fossil fuels and the demand for this energy resource.
An important liberation movement in North Africa, the Polisario Front, which has fought a decades-long struggle against Spain and now Morocco for its independence, complained that they were excluded from many of the critical deliberations at the summit. The Polisario Front is the major political force within the provisional government of the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) that is represented at both the United Nations and the African Union (AU).
MEE describes the situation related to the Saharawi by noting:
“Sidi Breika, a representative for Polisario, the Western Sahara independence movement, told MEE the UN’s climate summit ‘endorses illegal occupation via climate injustice and people’s exclusion from adequate participation and subsequent funding in order to tackle climate change’. Breika, who was in Glasgow, believes the summit was representative of the fact that the international community favors Polisario’s enemy, Morocco. ‘Our exclusion from global climate governance and finance mechanisms means the Sahrawis are denied access to technical and financial support to address climate change, contrary to principles of equity and inclusion.’”
Another major aspect of the rising temperature of the planet is the role of the Pentagon as a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Several studies have been published documenting that the U.S. military is the planet’s largest polluter. With the escalation of its military presence in the Asia-Pacific region in confrontation with China as well as the numerous military bases and direct occupations throughout Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Latin America, this situation is unlikely to change without a radical departure from the imperialist projects dominating Washington’s foreign policy.
Interestingly enough, the Pentagon was not represented in the U.S. delegation to the COP26 summit in Glasgow. Although there has been much rhetoric from the Defense Department equating the rapidly evolving crisis of climate change as being a threat on the level with the People’s Republic of China, military officials were not requested to attend the gathering. By keeping the Pentagon away from Scotland, the U.S. is attempting to obscure the role of its security apparatus which is endangering the planet. (See this)
Science Daily in 2019 reported on independent research conducted by two universities in the United Kingdom which evaluated the Pentagon’s massive polluting impact. The summary of the study says:
“The U.S. military’s carbon footprint is enormous and must be confronted in order to have a substantial effect on battling global warming, experts argue. Research by social scientists from Durham University and Lancaster University shows the U.S. military is one of the largest climate polluters in history, consuming more liquid fuels and emitting more CO2e (carbon-dioxide equivalent) than most countries…. In 2017 alone, the U.S. military purchased about 269,230 barrels of oil a day and emitted more than 25,000 kt- CO2e by burning those fuels. In 2017 alone, the Air Force purchased $4.9 billion worth of fuel and the Navy $2.8 billion, followed by the Army at $947 million and Marines at $36 million.”
Any serious program aimed at curtailing the most devastating effects of climate change will require a political confrontation with the Pentagon. This is where the struggle against imperialism, unjust wars and the existing international division of labor and economic power converge. The abolition of the ongoing threats of imperialist war combined with the reorganization of the extraction and distribution of energy resources will require a global movement whose mission will be to bring environmental justice and peace to 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.
Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: COP26 delegates in Glasgow (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Major health organizations across the world have changed several definitions of medical terms, including the definitions for “vaccine,” “herd immunity” and “pandemic,” which in turn have a significant impact on everyday life. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is now considering changing the definition of “fully vaccinated”
Israel and Australia have already pushed back the goal post. Citizens must get a booster at six months after their second jab or lose all “passport freedoms.” Australian premier Daniel Andrews has actually stated that, going forward, life for the vaccinated will “be about the maintenance of your vaccination status”
Updating the definition of “fully vaccinated” will also have the side effect of skewing mortality statistics, giving government another round of ammunition for false claims. We’ve been repeatedly told that we’re now in a pandemic of the unvaccinated, and this lie will gain new traction once fully vaccinated people are dropped into the unvaccinated category, six months after their last dose
The National Basketball Association is urging players who got a single-dose Janssen shot as recently as two months ago to get a Pfizer or Moderna booster, or face game-day testing starting December 1, 2021. Players who completed a two-dose regimen are being told to get a booster at the six-month mark
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is already talking about expanding its COVID-19 vaccine rule, so that small businesses with fewer than 100 employees may also be required to force the jab on their employees or face stiff fines. The public comment period closes December 6, 2021
*
In recent years, and especially after the start of the COVID pandemic in 2020, major health organizations across the world have changed several definitions of medical terms, which in turn have a significant impact on everyday life. In fact, were it not for the World Health Organization changing its definition of “pandemic” back in 2009, we wouldn’t even be in this mess.
Like the swine flu before it, SARS-CoV-2 would not have qualified as a pandemic were it not for the WHO erasing a few key words from the definition. Pre-2009, the official definition of a pandemic was:1,2
“… when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several, simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.”
Then, in 2009, the WHO removed the severity and high mortality criteria (“enormous numbers of deaths and illness”), leaving the definition of a pandemic as “a worldwide epidemic of a disease.”3
By removing the restrictive criteria of severe illness causing high morbidity and leaving geographically widespread infection as the only criteria for a pandemic, the WHO has the ability to declare a pandemic any time there’s more cases of a given disease than normal.
Having this ability is of crucial importance, seeing how the WHO has played a central role in the technocratic takeover we’re now facing. The WHO has emergency powers over its 194 member countries, so when the WHO declares an international public health incident, all member states are required to follow along “in lock step” with the WHO’s directives.
Were it not for the WHO, nations would respond to any given outbreak in any number of ways. Trying to influence them to respond in ways that benefit the technocracy would be like herding cats. Without lockstep coordination between all the world’s nations, using a biosafety narrative to control people and shift wealth distribution on a global scale simply would not be feasible.
But there’s also an even greater and more long-lasting implication for society. By redefining what certain words and terms mean, the rising biosecurity state is attempting to change your perception of what’s true and what is false. In the process, they’re perverting science into something ruled by faith, speculation and biased opinion. The dangers of that are incalculable.
What Is a ‘Vaccine’?
In September 2021, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shocked medical experts by changing the definition of a vaccine from “a product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease,”4 to “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”5
The key change is that a “vaccine” no longer produces immunity, so it no longer protects you against the disease. It only stimulates an immune response against a given disease. This definition was obviously contrived to describe the limited function of the COVID-19 gene therapy injections, which do not make you immune and can’t prevent you from getting or spreading the infection.
By any definition of a vaccine in use before 2021, the COVID shot is not a vaccine. At best, the shot will reduce your symptoms. This also means they cannot, ever, produce herd immunity. This despite the redefinition of herd immunity, from being something produced as a result of natural infection, to something resulting from mass-vaccination.
Definition of Herd Immunity No Longer Has Scientific Basis
The WHO changed their definition of herd immunity in October 2020, likely in anticipation of the global mass vaccination campaign. To reiterate, in the past, herd immunity meant when enough people had acquired immunity to an infectious disease, such that the disease could no longer spread widely in the community.
Before science introduced vaccinations, herd immunity was achieved by exposure to and recovery from normal exposures to an infectious disease. Courtesy of the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, before October 2020, the WHO’s definition of herd immunity included both vaccine immunity and “immunity developed through previous infection.”6
However, in October 2020, the updated definition dropped natural immunity altogether. The current definition now reads as follows:7
“‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached.”
Adding insult to injury, they also specify that “Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.” This totally ignores the billions of people throughout history who have been infected naturally with measles, mumps, chicken pox and other infectious diseases, and who now have lifelong immunity to those diseases thanks to their natural infection, as opposed to vaccines that wane and need regular boosters.
Definition of ‘Fully Vaccinated’ May Soon Be Rewritten
Speaking of boosters, the rollout of COVID jab boosters means the CDC will most likely rewrite the definition of “fully vaccinated” as well. As reported by Axios, October 22, 2021:8
“Currently, the CDC’s definition is the following: ‘Fully vaccinated persons are those who are ≥14 days post-completion of the primary series of an FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccine’ … ‘We may need to update our definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ in the future,’ [CDC director Rochelle] Walensky said during a press briefing.”
It’s not complicated to understand what such a redefinition will mean. It means that anyone who has received the initial single- or double-dose of COVID “vaccine” will magically be considered unvaccinated again once a certain amount of time has elapsed. As noted by The Atlantic,9 the term “fully vaccinated,” if redefined, will lose its meaning.
Not surprisingly, the CDC director’s comments are a complete reversal of her position in late September 2021. According to The Epoch Times, at that time she said officials were not considering changing the definition of “fully vaccinated.”10
Just one month later, at the end of October 2021, The Epoch Times reported Walensky was now suggesting that the definition “may change as boosters become more commonplace.” Coincidentally, just five days after that, the CDC announced their recommendations for a booster shot for everyone, even suggesting a fourth dose for certain immunocompromised individuals.11
How Is Segregation Even Remotely Acceptable?
The redefinition of “fully vaccinated” will be a means to enforce never-ending booster shots, as your vaccine pass will expire at a certain time after each dose and, with it, all of your so-called “freedoms.” It’s quite clear that the whole idea behind vaccine passports is to create segregation.
We’re seeing this in Australia and a number of other countries, where unvaccinated individuals are being excluded from economic and social activities.12,13 Australian premier Daniel Andrews has actually stated that, going forward, life for the vaccinated will “be about the maintenance of your vaccination status.” Can you believe it? That’s what “life” has been reduced to now. Maintaining your vaccination status.
We’re seeing the same scenario play out in Israel too, where vaccine passports expire six months after the second COVID dose. If you refuse to get the next dose, you’re shunned from society like everyone who refused from the get-go.
In Australia, individuals are even facing arrest if they don’t take the booster shots when required. It’s mindboggling to consider that all of this is happening because of an illness that has killed just .012% of the population and 1% of those infected.14,15 And the reason it can happen at all is because certain word definitions have been unscientifically manipulated and altered to support their heinous actions.
New Definitions Will Skew Mortality Statistics Too
Updating the definition of “fully vaccinated” will also have the side effect of skewing mortality statistics, giving government another round of ammunition for false claims.
We’ve been repeatedly told that we’re now in a pandemic of the unvaccinated, and this lie will gain new traction once fully vaccinated people are dropped into the unvaccinated category, six months after their last dose.
We’re already seeing this narrative roll out in Israel. As reported by The Wall Street Journal,16“unvaccinated Israelis have made up the bulk of those severely ill” in recent days. However, it also states that officials attribute this to the fact that over 2 million people have gotten the third booster shot. This implies that far from being completely unvaccinated, some of those counted as “unvaccinated” may actually only be lacking the third booster:
“‘The most vulnerable group right now are those people who have been inoculated with two doses and not the third,’ Mr. Bennett said in a cabinet meeting last week, adding that they behaved as if they were fully protected, but weren’t.”
In the video below, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko testifies before the rabbinic court in Israel about the side effects being seen following the COVID-19 shot and the success he’s had in treating his patients with simple nutraceuticals and off-patent drugs. Despite his testimony and their own data, health officials in Israel are still pushing everyone to get a booster shot.
In the U.S., the National Basketball Association (NBA) is now urging players who got a single-dose Janssen shot as recently as two months ago to get a Pfizer or Moderna booster, or face game-day testing starting December 1, 2021.17 Players who completed a two-dose regimen are being told to get a booster at the six-month mark.
It was obvious that this would happen, but I think many were naively thinking that if they just comply with the initial round of jabs, life would go back to normal. Just get fully vaccinated and you’re done. The fact that nothing is going back to normal should be a wakeup call that the initial understanding of the consequences of these regulations was wildly incorrect.
The shots are not about eliminating COVID-19. They’re part of a system for mass control. Ultimately, this system will enslave everyone in it, as opting out means forgoing any possibility of making a living, getting an education, buying anything or going anywhere. The truth of this will become painfully apparent once digital vaccine passports are tied to a new digital central bank currency.
Already, the government in Australia is confiscating people’s bank accounts and canceling their driver’s licenses to recover COVID fines. They’re also canceling unemployment benefits and shutting down bank accounts until people get the jab.18 Such actions can be automated once banking is tied to a digital health pass.
Perhaps now more people will start to realize that there will be no end to the number of times they’ll be required to acquiesce to medical experimentation. And let’s not forget, each time you get the jab, you face the potential of side effects that can disable you for life, or kill you outright. To force experiment on military personnel, athletes, pregnant women and children is truly incomprehensible. In response to the NBA’s new rule, sports commentator Clay Travis tweeted:19
“Wake up, sheep. The NBA is already mandating the vaccine booster now. This won’t ever end, we [are] going to make 100% healthy people get COVID shots every six months for the rest of their lives?”
Along the same vein, Inner Sports founder Garret Kramer tweeted, “On what planet do we continue to mandate drugs for people who are not sick? Say NO.” Golf champion Steve Flesch also chimed in, saying “This world and league is getting more asinine by the day.”20
We Must Unite Against Tyranny
DeSantis: “Those individuals who have gone through a normal vaccination series for COVID—you will be determined to be unvaccinated very soon…They’re gonna to tell you: ‘You have to get a booster, otherwise you could face loss of employment’…This is just the tip of the iceberg.” pic.twitter.com/hGe5t4YJ8O
As noted by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis during a recent press conference, in which he spoke out against the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s requirement — imposed at the behest of the Biden administration — that businesses with 100 employees or more must require all staff to get the jab:
“To be clear about what OSHA is doing — they’re clearly not doing science, because they reject immunity through prior infection, they reject the Israel study … that shows people who have recovered from COVID have strong protection …
Make no mistake about it, those individuals who have gone through a normal vaccination series for COVID, you will be determined to be unvaccinated very soon. They will do that.
They’re going to tell you, ‘You’re unvaccinated and you have to get a booster, otherwise you could face loss of employment. That is going to happen … So, this is just the tip of the iceberg. It’s going to get more restrictive. There’s going to be more power brought to bear going forward if we don’t stand up now.”
As I predicted, OSHA is already talking about expanding the COVID-19 vaccine rule to small businesses of 100 employees or less as well. NTD reported, November 5, 2021:21
“The emergency temporary standard, issued by the Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and scheduled to go into effect on Friday, is presented as only applying to firms that have 100 or more employees. But OSHA is seeking public comments on that aspect of the standard, and it may be ultimately expanded to include smaller businesses, the agency said in the 490-page document.22
OSHA said it is ‘soliciting stakeholder comment and additional information to determine whether to adjust the scope of the ETS,’ or emergency standard, ‘to address smaller employers in the future.’”
Forcing even small businesses, which would probably include the self-employed, would be an unmitigated disaster for the U.S. economy. But, of course, that is the goal, so there’s every reason to assume the rule will be expanded unless the pushback is deemed too overwhelming. The open comment period closes December 6, 2021. As of this writing, more than 3,100 comments have been submitted. You can submit your comment here.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
CDC once was a federal agency that nearly everyone respected. That no longer is the case. Now there are many reasons why CDC should be widely disrespected. Its latest debacle is how it changed the definition of vaccine.
Just imagine this: The entire push for COVID “vaccines” was based on a lie – they did not meet the official CDC definition of a vaccine. By doing this the government could coerce the entire population to get the shot. Calling them “vaccines” was the biggest lie from Fauci and the key to drug companies making many billions of dollars.
Why would the government’s key public health agency change the definition of what a vaccine is in the midst of a pandemic? After millions of Americans have taken the shot? And millions more are being beaten into taking it for the first time and others to get booster shots.
Words matter
Here is the key point. It became widely recognized by medical experts and informed citizens that COVID vaccines clearly did not fit the official CDC vaccine definition. CDC thought the answer was not to fix what was deficient with the COVID vaccines or stop their use by most people as so many medical experts advised. Their response was to change the vaccine definition to fit the so-called vaccines.
This was done so that vaccine mandates could keep getting pushed by the government. Of course, the COVID “vaccines” should be referred to as gene therapy products, even better than calling them experimental vaccines.
To see how corrupt this action by CDC was, it is necessary to examine the details of the vaccine definition debacle.
Prior to September 1, 2021 here is how CDC defined vaccine:
A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
This definition had been used for years and it makes sense. No expert or sensible citizen would find fault with it. But did it honestly apply to the COVID vaccines?
Then this is what CDC concocted:
A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Here is what CDC also said:
Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.
Think about that last sentence: You can be exposed to COVID without being infected; but we know that is not true for fully vaccinated people who still get infected.
This is the key language in the original definition:
“stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”
How rational to invoke the purpose of a vaccine to stimulate an immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease that protects the recipient from that disease. Exactly what everyone for years thought was the correct way to think about a vaccine. People want permanent protection from the COVID infection disease.
But now CDC has taken out the language referring to getting immunity for a specific disease and getting protection from that disease.
Now, COVID vaccines do not have to directly produce immunity.No, now they only have to stimulate the body’s immune system.
You don’t get immunity because COVID vaccines do not directly produce immunity. They do not directly kill the COVID virus. Vaccinated people can still have high viral loads and also transmit the virus to others. While some individuals may get some health benefits from COVID shots, they do not necessarily protect the entire population. This is why mandates to get everyone the shots really do not make sense from a public health perspective, that Alexander has well substantiated.
Apparently, the only logical way to understand what CDC has done is to accept the truth belatedly seen by CDC that COVID vaccines do not, in fact, produce effective immunity for COVID infection and do not provide effective protection, once vaccinated, from that infection.
Much of the public surely does not yet know what CDC has acknowledged for the COVID vaccines. Odds are that everyone who depends on mainstream media for good information about the pandemic has not been informed about what CDC has done and its implications.
The new vaccine definition, if publicly known, would reduce public confidence in current COVID vaccines. You don’t have to be a medical expert to see how the new definition has been created to accommodate COVID shots.
In fact, these definition changes reflect what is now known about the limitations of the COVID vaccines.
Fully vaccinated people can still get COVID disease, referred to as breakthrough infections that, contrary to what the government says, can be very serious, often requiring hospitalization and sometimes causing death, as was the case for Colin Powell.
Such serious effects have been well discussed by Kampf. Other times, breakthrough infections greatly disrupt lives, as recently described by Madrigal, a strong proponent of COVID shots.
Moreover, the COVID vaccines are now widely known from considerable clinical evidence to lose their effectiveness typically in about six months. And even worse, they do not provide hardly any protection against variants like the delta variant. Same disease but from a different virus in terms of its complex genetic makeup. So, befitting the new CDC definition the COVID shots really do not have long lasting effective immunity to the specific COVID infection caused by all variants.
Elsewhere on the CDC website is a glossary of many terms; here is what is especially relevant to the debate about COVID vaccines:
Attenuated vaccine: A vaccine in which a live microbe is weakened (attenuated) through chemical or physical processes in order to produce an immune response without causing the severe effects of the disease. Attenuated vaccines currently licensed in the United States include measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, rotavirus, yellow fever, smallpox, and some formulations of influenza, and typhoid vaccines.
Most people would read this and find that it fits with what they think of as vaccines that have been routinely taken by most people, especially children. Clearly, COVID vaccines do not fit this definition. But seeing this established view of vaccines helps explain why so many people resist and reject the COVID shots. They are so fundamentally different than long accepted and used vaccines.
Natural immunity
One of the biggest pandemic scandals is that the government refuses to give full credit to natural immunity that people get from once being infected by the COVID virus. It should be officially recognized as equivalent to “vaccine” immunity.
The following CDC glossary definition is especially relevant:
Active immunity: The production of antibodies against a specific disease by the immune system. Active immunity can be acquired in two ways, either by contracting the disease or through vaccination. Active immunity is usually permanent, meaning an individual is protected from the disease for the duration of their lives.
This CDC definition of active immunity recognizes that you can get it by contracting the disease versus through vaccination. In other words, it recognizes what today is commonly called natural immunity achieved by once being infected by the COVID virus. And that such immunity is likely permanent and better than vaccine immunity, as recent clinical studies substantiate. But it also infers that active immunity obtained through vaccination is also permanent, which clearly is not the case for COVID shots, as evidenced by breakthrough infections.
Also note that it has recently been revealed that CDC has not been able to provide any proof of at least one instance of an unvaccinated, naturally immune individual transmitting the COVID-19 virus to another individual.
And a new study found that almost 60 percent of the people with antibodies had no idea they had even had COVID at all. But they would have natural immunity. Quite consistent with the reality that most people suffer no significant health impacts from being infected with the COVID virus, regardless of all the fear mongering by Fauci and others.
Conclusions
To sum up, a close look at what CDC has done lately reinforces the thinking of millions of people who have reservations and concerns about getting COVID genetic therapy shots that pose myriad adverse impacts and sometimes death.
There is a rational, science basis for thinking that the limited benefits of those shots do not adequately offset their risks. This is true for the vast majority of healthy people, especially children, who have extremely low risk from COVID infection for serious illness, hospitalization or death.
Mandates that do not recognize natural immunity are merely a sham tactic to make money for drug companies.
How interesting it would be, in the context of informed consent, if people were shown the original and new CDC vaccine definitions as a means to stimulate productive discussion with medical providers of COVID shots.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of Pandemic Blunder and many articles, podcasts and radio shows on the pandemic, worked on health issues for decades. As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine. As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 US Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers. He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years. He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and America’s Frontline Doctors.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
“… we’re never going to learn about how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it.” – Professor Eric Rubin of Harvard University,actually testifying to the VRBPAC panel regarding the high incidences of myocarditis and deaths, mostly in younger males following mRNA injections
***
At least 42% of American children already have acquired robust natural immunity which is far superior compared to vaccine immunity and that those with naturally-acquired immunity receive no benefit from the vaccines – only risks, some of which may be lethal.
An hour of informed consent is worth a lifetime of regret.
Children are not capable of giving informed consent. Parents are capable but many defer to the CDC or their healthcare giver as a trustworthy authority (which they often aren’t), despite evidence of incomplete and fraudulent data, exclusion of subjects from the study, whistleblower testimony and expert warnings in public comments.
As a parent or guardian you are responsible to do your own due diligence regarding the short and long-term safety of your child.
Before you allow your child to be injected with the mRNA with a still-experimental polyethylene glycol and other ingredients, some not disclosed, you are responsible for being fully informed. The best time to become informed is before injecting this onto your child’s body, not after.
Note below the famously never shown on mainstream media that show that Americana children with no chronic illnesses have an essentially ZERO chance of dying from Covid-19, even if they receive NO treatment!!
Informed Consent
Any person who consents to a medical procedure for themselves or their dependents, must be informed of ALL the known or potential adverse effects of the treatment.
If they have not been FULLY INFORMED, those responsible for injecting the vaccine may be guilty of malpractice and liable to being sued for adverse events (which cannot legally be done to the conscienceless pharmaceutical giants).
___ I agree (or not) to allow my child to receive the Pfizer BioNTech mRNA injection knowing that it remains experimental and that safety testing is incomplete and inconclusive
___ I am informed (or not) that mRNA injections are technically not “vaccines,” and that they do not prevent infection and transmission.
____ I am informed (or not) that effectiveness of the Pfizer ‘”accines” wanes in a few months and my child may be required to take booster shots several times a year, indefinitely.
___ I am informed (or not) that there is no fully approved FDA covid vaccine that is available in the US
___ I am informed (or not) that the FDA and CDC are permitting administration of the Pfizer mRNA injections to 5 – 11-year-old based on an EUA, Emergency Use Authorization, eventhough there is no emergency for 5 – 11-year-olds.
___ I am informed (or not) that Covid-19 poses no risk to healthy children. The few children who died had serious illnesses like leukemia, cystic fibrosis and other serious diseases. They died with Covid, not from Covid.
___ I am informed (or not) that there exist protocols for effective early treatments for Covid that prevent hospitalizations and deaths, and that doctors who have been educating about these have been censored.
___ Most children who get Covid have mild symptoms, if any, and acquire superior, robust and enduring natural immunity shown to persist for many years or a lifetime and is effective against variants. T-cell tests demonstrate natural immunity whether or not there are also antibodies.
____ I am informed (or not) that at least 42% of American children already have acquired robust natural immunity which is far superior compared to vaccine immunity and that those with natural immunity have no benefit from the vaccines and no legitimate reason to incur the risk.
____ I am informed (or not) that those with natural immunity to Covid-19 have at least a 30% higher risk of adverse reactions to the shots, including death, and have been warned by experts like Dr. Hooman Noorchasm and many others of this unnecessary, high risk.
____ I am informed (or not) that we have no information now about long-term reactions that may show up in days, weeks, months, years or decades
____ I am informed (or not) that the Pfizer shots instruct the cells to manufacture toxic spike proteins which circulate the body and lodge in many organs, in high concentrations in the endothelial cells, ovaries and testes, spleen, heart, and cross the blood-brain barrier
___ I am informed (or not) that based on animal studies and “vaccine” data thus far that some scientists are concerned about vaccine-induced infertility and chronic diseases in the future
___ I am informed (or not) that those receiving the vaccines have a risk of myocarditis, especially high in young males, and that instead of the expected rate of 1 -4 cases in 12 – 17 year-olds there were 128.
___ I am informed (or not) that the CDC has not adequately investigated the 800 cases of myocarditis and has falsely claimed that there is more myocarditis from getting Covid than from the “vaccines.” Their “remedy” for this undeniable risk was increased surveillance.
___ I am informed (or not) that the CDC’s voluntary VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. It is estimated that only 1% – 10% of adverse events are reported. Doctors, injured, and their family members describe toxic spike proteins that penetrate ovaries, testes, brain, spinal cord, nervous system, heart, lungs, intestines, kidneys, and cross the placenta in pregnant women.
___ I am informed (or not) that the adverse effects from mRNA “vaccines” may include micro-clots in their cardiovascular system, anaphylactic shock, allergic reactions, blood clotting and bleeding disorders, thrombosis in the brain other thrombotic events, myocarditis, pericarditis, heart damage, stroke, tinnitus, vertigo, etc.
___ I am informed (or not) that if my child has symptoms of concern after the first shot, they should not get the second
___ I am informed (or not) that longer term events might include antibody dependent enhancement, (ADE) development of autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative disorders, prion disease and an increase in chronic diseases and reproductive harms including infertility.
Studies used as a basis for approval for Emergency Use Authorization
___ I am informed (or not) that the studies were conducted by Pfizer, with conflicts of interest, and not by any independent researcher, and that all the data was controlled by Pfizer, including elimination of subjects who had adverse reactions to the first or second dose.
___ I am informed (or not) that the studies were conducted on very few subjects, far, few fewer than other treatments before being administered to the public, too few to detect reactions that occur in 1/5000 of the population
___ I am informed (or not) that subjects were followed for a very short time, so no long-term effects beyond 2 months can be known
___ I am informed (or not) that the only adverse reactions to the shots recoded include arm soreness, fever chills, and fatigue and there was no way to record other adverse reactions.
___ I am informed (or not) that many subjects who had adverse reactions were eliminated from the study
___ I am informed (or not) that most with adverse reactions and severe adverse reactions were misdiagnosed, told it was psychological, denied and abandoned.
___ I am informed (or not) that studies were methodologically flawed in many ways
___ I am informed (or not) that studies extrapolating from those done on 12 – 17 year-olds, it is a statistical certainty that there will be adverse reactions, injuries, disabilities, trauma and deaths among 5 – 11 year-olds.
____ I am informed (or not) that the childhood Pfizer dose is 1/3 of the adult dose, but it is not less if one accounts for weight. The lower the weight, the more likely the adverse effects.
Risk/Benefit Analysis
Each person has a unique risk/benefit ratio. It is not one size fits all.
Older people with co-morbidities have a higher risk from Covid and a lower risk from the “vaccines.” Younger people have almost no risk at all for Covid and increasingly higher risks from the “vaccines” with younger 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.
Our thanks to Dr. Gary G. Kohls for bringing this article of Dr. Perlman to our attention.
Diane Perlman, PhD, is US convener of Transcend International, guest editorialist of Transcend Media Service, visiting scholar at George Mason University, Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School for Peace and Resolution.
Comments Off on Fully Informed Consent for Dependent Children. The Absence of Which May Make Injecting Vulnerable Children a Form of Medical Malpractice
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
“Man is born free but everywhere is in chains.”—Jean-Jacques Rousseau
We are moving fast down the road to fascism.
This COVID-19 pandemic has shifted us into high gear.
The heavy-handed collusion between the Techno-Corporate State and the U.S. government over vaccine mandates is merely the latest manifestation of the extent to which fascist forces are working to overthrow our constitutional republic and nullify the rights of the individual.
Although OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) is requiring that employees be paid for the time it takes to get vaccinated and recover from any side effects, those who refuse to get vaccinated but keep their jobs will have to test negative for COVID weekly and could be made to shoulder the costs of those weekly tests. Healthcare workers are not being given an option for testing: it’s the vaccine or nothing.
In other words, as Katrina Trinko writes for USA Today, “the government is turning employers—who are not paid by, nor work for, the government—into an army of vaccine enforcers.”
You know who won’t suffer any harm as a result of these vaccine mandates? The Corporate State (manufacturers, distributors, and health care providers), which were given a blanket “get out of jail” card to insulate them from liability for any injuries or death caused by the vaccines.
While this vaccine mandate is being presented as a “targeted” mandate as opposed to a national mandate that impacts the entire population, it effectively leaves those with sincere objections to the COVID vaccine with very little options beyond total compliance or unemployment.
This has long since ceased to be a debate over how best to protect the populace at large against an unknown pandemic. Rather, it has become a massively intrusive, coercive and authoritarian assault on the right of individual sovereignty over one’s life, self and private property.
As such, these COVID-19 mandates have become the new battleground in the government’s tug-of-war over bodily autonomy and individual sovereignty.
Already, the legal challenges to these vaccine mandates are piling up before the courts. Before long, divided circuit court rulings will make their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will be asked to decide whether these mandates constitute government overreach or a natural extension of the government’s so-called emergency powers.
With every new court ruling that empowers corporations and the government to use heavy-handed tactics to bring about vaccine compliance, with every new workplace mandate that forces employees to choose between their right to bodily autonomy and economic livelihood, and with every new piece of legislation that insulates corporations and the government from being held accountability for vaccine injuries and deaths, our property interest in our bodies is diminished.
At a minimum, our right to individual sovereignty over our lives and our bodies is being usurped by power-hungry authoritarians; greedy, self-serving corporations; egotistical Nanny Staters who think they know what’s best for the rest of the populace; and a short-sighted but well-meaning populace which fails to understand the long-term ramifications of trading their essential freedoms for temporary promises of safety and security.
We are more vulnerable now than ever before.
This debate over bodily autonomy, which covers broad territory ranging from forced vaccinations, abortion and euthanasia to forced blood draws, biometric surveillance and basic healthcare, has far-reaching ramifications for who gets to decide what happens to our bodies during an encounter with government officials.
On a daily basis, Americans are already being made to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to clear the nearly insurmountable hurdle that increasingly defines life in the United States: we are now guilty until proven innocent.
This merely pushes us one step further down that road towards a total control society in which the government in collusion with Corporate America gets to decide who is “worthy” of being allowed to take part in society.
Right now, COVID-19 vaccines are the magic ticket for gaining access to the “privileges” of communal life. Having already conditioned the population to the idea that being part of society is a privilege and not a right, such access could easily be predicated on social credit scores, the worthiness of one’s political views, or the extent to which one is willing to comply with the government’s dictates, no matter what they might be.
The government is litigating and legislating its way into a new framework where the dictates of petty bureaucrats carry greater weight than the inalienable rights of the citizenry.
When all that we own, all that we earn, all that we say and do—our very lives—depends on the benevolence of government agents and corporate shareholders for whom profit and power will always trump principle, we should all be leery and afraid.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, nothing good can come from totalitarian tactics—no matter how benevolent they appear—that are used to make us cower, fear and comply with the government’s dictates.
*
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.
For more than 20 years, Global Research has been bringing our readers a broad spectrum of voices analyzing complex global situations.
And we will continue to do so because we believe that access to information is the key to the truth.
In relation to the corona crisis, we are publishing on a daily basis the writings of prominent scientists, health professionals and social analysts.
Our objective is to document the devastating impacts of the Covid “vaccine” and lockdown policies, with a view to ultimately confronting the government policies and mandates which are affecting people’s lives Worldwide.
Global Research is independent. We have been able to develop our activities almost entirely thanks to contributions from our readers. We remain indebted to our authors and research associates.
Please consider supporting our Fall donation campaign. Our objective is to raise $25,000 from now until the middle of December.
The stakes of this summit were high. The meeting can be summed up as ‘one point five to keep the planet alive’. After fourteen days of negotiations, the anger among climate activists and countries from the South is great and rightly so. What’s next?
Since the annual U.S. Veterans Day holiday honoring military veterans was just observed on November 11, it seems more than appropriate to suggest the creation of a U.S. Victims Day, just as in a similar effort at truth in labeling, the Defense Department should be renamed the Offensive War Department.
None of the champions of vaccination have succeeded in eliminating the virus, nor in avoiding strong resurgence of the epidemic, and very few have totally liberated their vaccinated people from the supposedly health liberating measures imposed without scientific proof of their effectiveness.
Certainly, data very clearly show the mass “vaccination” campaign has not had a discernible impact on global death rates. On the contrary, in some cases the death toll shot up after the COVID shots became widely available.
The firm, BlackRock Inc., the world’s largest asset manager, invests a staggering $9 trillion in client funds worldwide, a sum more than double the annual GDP of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Mr. Robert Kennedy Jr. came to Bern for a specific reason and what he said to the Swiss is that Switzerland was the Last Bastion of Democracy in the World. The upcoming Referendum on 28 November 2021, where the Swiss have the opportunity to vote for or against a Covid Law – a Martial Law in disguise – that had quietly been ratified in September 2020 by Parliament, but had to be put on ice, because a referendum was immediately launched against it.
Dr. Daniel Nagase, persecuted for saving his patients’ lives with Ivermectin, explains that the experimental injections are particularly dangerous for children. Notwithstanding the fact that the jabs do not work, and that natural immunity is superior, he explains that the introduction of an artificial spike protein into chidrens’ developing immune systems presents added risks of changing their DNA, impairing their immune “specificity”, and increasing their risks of cancer.
If you believe in Palestinian liberation and return and the exercise of our people’s right to self-determination on their entire national soil on the path to building a democratic, participatory human society, and building the institutions of this democratic Palestine, as a society and as a state, then Masar Badil is the movement for you.
On the latest episode of “The Jimmy Dore Show,” comedian and political commentator Jimmy Dore discussed the recent bombshell report in The BMJ on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID vaccine trial. The BMJ’s report exposed faked data, blind trial failures, delayed follow-ups on serious adverse reactions and the silencing of researchers who were critical of the trials practices.
On October 25 the military leadership of General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and Commander of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemetti), took complete control of the state and placed under house arrest interim Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
A project of the multilateral development banking system, the Rockefeller Foundation and the New York Stock Exchange recently created a new asset class that will put, not just the natural world, but the processes underpinning all life, up for sale under the guise of promoting “sustainability.”
Last month, the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) announced it had developed a new asset class and accompanying listing vehicle meant “to preserve and restore the natural assets that ultimately underpin the ability for there to be life on Earth.” Called a natural asset company, or NAC, the vehicle will allow for the formation of specialized corporations “that hold the rights to the ecosystem services produced on a given chunk of land, services like carbon sequestration or clean water.” These NACs will then maintain, manage and grow the natural assets they commodify, with the end of goal of maximizing the aspects of that natural asset that are deemed by the company to be profitable.
Source: Unlimited Hangout
Though described as acting like “any other entity” on the NYSE, it is alleged that NACs “will use the funds to help preserve a rain forest or undertake other conservation efforts, like changing a farm’s conventional agricultural production practices.” Yet, as explained towards the end of this article, even the creators of NACs admit that the ultimate goal is to extract near-infinite profits from the natural processes they seek to quantify and then monetize.
NYSE COO Michael Blaugrund alluded to this when he said the following regarding the launch of NACs: “Our hope is that owning a natural asset company is going to be a way that an increasingly broad range of investors have the ability to invest in something that’s intrinsically valuable, but, up to this point, was really excluded from the financial markets.”
Framed with the lofty talk of “sustainability” and “conservation”, media reports on the move in outlets like Fortune couldn’t avoid noting that NACs open the doors to “a new form of sustainable investment” which “has enthralled the likes of BlackRock CEO Larry Fink over the past several years even though there remain big, unanswered questions about it.” Fink, one of the world’s most powerful financial oligarchs, is and has long been a corporate raider, not an environmentalist, and his excitement about NACs should give even its most enthusiastic proponents pause if this endeavor was really about advancing conservation, as is being claimed.
How to Create a NAC
The creation and launch of NACs has been two years in the making and saw the NYSE team up with the Intrinsic Exchange Group (IEG), in which the NYSE itself holds a minority stake. IEG’s three investors are the Inter-American Development Bank, the Latin America-focused branch of the multilateral development banking system that imposes neoliberal and neo-colonalist agendas through debt entrapment; the Rockefeller Foundation, the foundation of the American oligarch dynasty whose activities have long been tightly enmeshed with Wall Street; and Aberdare Ventures, a venture capital firm chiefly focused on the digital healthcare space. Notably, the IADB and the Rockefeller Foundation are closely tied to the related pushes for Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and biometric Digital IDs.
The IEG’s mission focuses on “pioneering a new asset class based on natural assets and the mechanism to convert them to financial capital.” “These assets,” IEG states, make “life on Earth possible and enjoyable…They include biological systems that provide clean air, water, foods, medicines, a stable climate, human health and societal potential.”
Put differently, NACs will not only allow ecosystems to become financial assets, but the rights to “ecosystem services”, or the benefits people receive from nature as well. These include food production, tourism, clean water, biodiversity, pollination, carbon sequestration and much more. IEG is currently partnering with Costa Rica’s government to pilot its NAC efforts within that country. Costa Rica’s Minister of Environment and Energy, Andrea Meza Murillo, has claimed that the pilot project with IEG “will deepen the economic analysis of giving nature its economic value, as well as to continue mobilizing financial flows to conservation.”
With NACs, the NYSE and IEG are now putting the totality of nature up for sale. While they assert that doing so will “transform our economy to one that is more equitable, resilient and sustainable”, it’s clear that the coming “owners” of nature and natural processes will be the only real beneficiaries.
Per the IEG, NACs first begin with the identification of a natural asset, such as a forest or lake, which is then quantified using specific protocols. Such protocols have already been developed by related groups like the Capitals Coalition, which is partnered with several of IEG’s partners as well as the World Economic Forum and various coalitions of multinational corporations. Then, a NAC is created and the structure of the company decides who has the rights to that natural asset’s productivity as well as the rights to decide how that natural asset is managed and governed. Lastly, a NAC is “converted” into financial capital by launching an initial public offering on a stock exchange, like the NYSE. This last stage “generates capital to manage the natural asset” and the fluctuation of its price on the stock exchange “signals the value of its natural capital.”
Source: IEG
However, the NAC and its employees, directors and owners are not necessarily the owners of the natural asset itself following this final step. Instead, as IEG notes, the NAC is merely the issuer while the potential buyers of the natural asset the NAC represents can include: institutional investors, private investors, individuals and institutions, corporations, sovereign wealth funds and multilateral development banks. Thus, asset management firms that essentially already own much of the world, like Blackrock, could thus become owners of soon-to-be monetized natural processes, natural resources and the very foundations of natural life itself.
Both the NYSE and IEG have marketed this new investment vehicle as being aimed at generating funds that will go back to conservation or sustainability efforts. However, on the IEG’s website, it notes that the goal is really endless profit from natural processes and ecosystems that were previously deemed to be part of “the commons”, i.e. the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a habitable earth. Per the IEG, “as the natural asset prospers, providing a steady or increasing flow of ecosystem services, the company’s equity should appreciate accordingly providing investment returns. Shareholders and investors in the company through secondary offers, can take profit by selling shares. These sales can be gauged to reflect the increase in capital value of the stock, roughly in-line with its profitability, creating cashflow based on the health of the company and its assets.”
Researcher and journalist Cory Morningstar has strongly disagreed with the approach being taken by NYSE/IEG and views NACs as a system that will only exacerbate the corporate predation of nature, despite claims to the contrary. Morningstar has described NACs as “Rockefeller et al. letting the markets dictate what in nature has value – and what does not. Yet, it’s not for capitalist institutions and global finance to decide what life has value. Ecosystems are not ‘assets.’ Biological communities exist for their own purposes, not ours.”
A New Way to Loot
The ultimate goal of NACs is not sustainability or conservation – it is the financialization of nature, i.e. turning nature into a commodity that can be used to keep the current, corrupt Wall Street economy booming under the guise of protecting the environment and preventing its further degradation. Indeed, IEG makes this clear when they note that “the opportunity” of NACs lies not in their potential to improve environmental well-being or sustainability, but in the size of this new asset class, which they term “Nature’s Economy.”
Source: IEG
Indeed, while the asset classes of the current economy are value at approximately $512 trillion, the asset classes unlocked by NACs are significantly larger at $4,000 trillion (i.e. $4 quadrillion). Thus, NACs open up a new feeding ground for predatory Wall Street banks and financial institutions that will allow them to not just dominate the human economy, but the entire natural world. In the world currently being constructed by these and related entities, where even freedom is being re-framed not as a right but “a service,” the natural processes on which life depends are similarly being re-framed as assets, which will have owners. Those “owners” will ultimately have the right, in this system, to dictate who gets access to clean water, to clean air, to nature itself and at what cost.
According to Cory Morningstar, one of the other aims of creating “Nature’s Economy” and neatly packaging it for Wall Street via NACs is to drastically advance massive land grab efforts made by Wall Street and the oligarch class in recent years. This includes the recent land grabs made by Wall Street firms as well as billionaire “philanthropists” like Bill Gates during the COVID crisis. However, the land grabs facilitated through the development of NACs will largely target indigenous communities in the developing world.
As Morningstar notes:
“The public launch of NACs strategically preceded the fifteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the biggest biodiversity conference in a decade. Under the pretext of turning 30% of the globe into “protected areas”, the largest global land grab in history is underway. Built on a foundation of white supremacy, this proposal will displace hundreds of millions, furthering the ongoing genocide of Indigenous peoples. The tragic irony is this: while Indigenous peoples represent less than 5% of the global population, they support approximately 80% of all biodiversity.“
IEG, in discussing NACs, tellingly notes that proceeds from a NAC’s IPO can be used for the acquisition of more land by its controlling entities or used to boost the budgets or funds of those who receive the capital from the IPO. This is a far cry from the NYSE/IEG sales pitch that NACs are “different” because their IPOs will be used to “preserve and protect” natural areas.
The climate change panic that is now rising to the take the place of COVID-19 panic will surely be used to savvily market NACs and similar tactics as necessary to save the planet, but – rest assured – NACs are not a move to save the planet, but a move to enable the same interests responsible for the current environmental crises to usher in a new era where their predatory exploitation reaches new heights that were previously unimaginable.
*
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.
Whitney Webb has been a professional writer, researcher and journalist since 2016. She has written for several websites and, from 2017 to 2020, was a staff writer and senior investigative reporter for Mint Press News. She currently writes for The Last American Vagabond.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
The stakes of this summit were high. The meeting can be summed up as ‘one point five to keep the planet alive’. After fourteen days of negotiations, the anger among climate activists and countries from the South is great and rightly so. What’s next?
Key issues and (missing) results
1.5°C. The final text explicitly states that the aim must be to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5°C and not to 2°C. That is a good thing, but that is only an aspiration, a target. With the current national plans of all countries combined, we are heading for a catastrophic warming of 2.4°C.
Annual revision. Until now, there was a major climate summit every five years. From now on it will be held annually. Each country will then be required to review its climate plans against the targets and, if necessary, improve them and make them more ambitious. In itself this is a good thing. However, poor countries that are far less responsible for historical emissions and have far fewer resources at their disposal will now come under just as much pressure as the rich countries.
‘Fossil fuels’. It may sound unlikely, but since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, no summit has explicitly referred to the phase-out of fossil fuels. Now, for the first time, this summit did. There were pledges and alliances to phase out the use of fossil fuels. However, a look at the details shows that they will bring little or no change in the short term.
To avoid a climate crisis, oil and gas production should immediately and steadily decline by 3 percent per year from now on. Instead, production continues to increase year after year (it exceptionally did not in 2020, but that was the covid year).
Subsidies. It was agreed to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. Annually, the sector still receives as much as $5,900 billion in subsidies. This should not be ‘phased out’ but should be reduced immediately and dramatically. $5,900 billion is far more than what is needed to enable a rapid green energy transition.
Keeping it in the ground. For the temperature of the planet to stay below 1.5°C, according to the scientific journal Nature, 89 percent of proven coal reserves, 58 percent of oil reserves and 59 percent of gas reserves must remain underground. The lobbyists of the fossil fuel industry did everything they could to avoid being confronted with binding agreements made on this. They succeeded.
Coal. Coal is the big culprit, but many countries of the South are extremely dependent on it. India, for example, depends on coal for 70 percent of its energy, China for almost 60 percent. Under the influence of these countries, the final text was toned down: ‘phase-out’ of coal burning was replaced by ‘phase-down’.
The director of the International Energy Agency (IEA) hopes “that advanced economies take a leading role and become an example for the emerging world. If they don’t do it, they shouldn’t expect the emerging world to do it.”
Methane. More than 100 countries signed an agreement to reduce methane emissions by 30 percent between 2020 and 2030. That was the low-hanging fruit of the summit. It could reduce the global average temperature by about 0.1°C by 2050. We must remember that this is only as much as the warming we have experienced since COP21 in Paris in 2015.
Climate justice. According to the IAE, an annual investment of $4,000 billion will be needed until 2030 to achieve zero emissions. About 70 percent of that, or $2,800 billion, should go to the emerging and developing countries. This is necessary to realize the energy transition there, to compensate for the damage caused by warming, and to enable these countries to adapt to climate change.
The 100 billion dollars annual aid pledged in Copenhagen in 2009 is only a trifle of what is needed, and that meagre promise has not even once been kept. The summit went no further than a vague call ‘to mobilize climate finance from all sources to reach the level needed to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, including significantly increasing support for developing country Parties, beyond $100 billion per year.’ Nowhere does it specify how that funding will happen or how big it should be.
Deforestation. More than 100 world leaders have pledged to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030. The problem with this nice-sounding promise is that it is neither enforceable nor transparent, and it lacks a financing plan. Moreover, logging is allowed to continue in the meantime.
The equation
As is typical of such summits, glowing promises and polite calls are easily brushed aside. What is usually missing – and this summit is no exception – is a long-term action plan and concrete commitment from the participants. There is no enforceability at all.
The good news is that a consensus has been reached and agreements have been made to meet every year. Also good news is that China and the US, the two biggest emitters, have agreed to work closely together despite the very tense atmosphere between them. This cooperation is an important precondition for tackling important dossiers in the future.
The big winner of this summit is the fossil sector. With more than 500 lobbyists, they formed the largest delegation of this climate summit. The sector can sleep soundly: despite the great promises and alliances, this sector still holds its grip on the global economy, at least in the short term.
The big losers are the countries of the South. They bear the least responsibility for global warming, but take the heaviest blows. Nor do they have the resources to realize the necessary energy transition. Yet climate justice was one of the main demands of the vast majority of the countries and of the many climate activists.
The countries of the North are unwilling to bear the cost of their historic climate debt. This makes them primarily responsible for the ongoing climate degradation. Without a serious transfer of resources – a multiplicity of what they are now promising – we are heading for a climate disaster.
Certainly, the result could have been worse. But we cannot ignore the fact that the heads of government ultimately failed. Lia Nicholson, chief negotiator for Antigua and Barbuda and chair of the 37-member Alliance of Small Island States, said: ‘We are extremely disappointed and we will express our grievance in due course.’
‘Our fight is far from over. We must recognize that this is a fight that we cannot afford to lose,’ said Selwin Hart, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Climate Change. UN Secretary-General Guterres, for his part, reiterates his urgent appeal: ‘Our fragile planet is hanging by a thread. (…) It is time to go into emergency mode – or our chance of reaching net zero emissions will itself be zero.’
Greta Thunberg fully agrees with that urgency. Together with a number of young climate activists from around the world, she petitioned Guterres to declare a ‘climate emergency’.
The real battle is not fought at such a summit, but outside of it. That battle has yet to begin. It is up to us to build a different balance of power and to force government leaders and the economic elite to take a different course. A course that does not safeguard the profits of the large capital groups, but that of the planet. A course that does not pass costs on to the common man or woman, or to the countries of the South.
We will all have to seek forms of struggle that ensure the survival of our planet and that this is achieved in a social way.
*
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.
Since the annual U.S. Veterans Day holiday honoring military veterans was just observed on November 11, it seems more than appropriate to suggest the creation of a U.S. Victims Day, just as in a similar effort at truth in labeling, the Defense Department should be renamed the Offensive War Department.
For the victims of American terrorism far outnumber the American soldiers who have died in its wars, although I consider most U.S. veterans to be victims also, having been propagandized from birth to buy the glory of war, not the truth that it’s a racket that serves the interests of the ruling class.
Such wars, carried out with bombs, drones, mercenaries, and troops, or by economic embargoes and sanctions, are by their nature acts of terrorism. This is so whether we are talking about the mass fire bombings of Japanese and German cities during WW II, the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the carpet bombings and the agent orange dropped on Vietnam, the depleted uranium on Iraq, the use of terrorist surrogates everywhere, the economic sanctions on Cuba, Iran, Syria, etc. The list is endless and ongoing. All actions aimed at causing massive death and damage to civilians.
According to U.S. law (6 USCS § 101), terrorism is defined as an act that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources; is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or other subdivision of the United States; and appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.
By any reasonable interpretation of the law, the United Sates is a terrorist state.
Let me tell you about Bert Sacks. Perhaps you’ve heard of him. His experiences with the U.S. government regarding terrorism tell an illuminating story of conscience and hope. It is a story of how one person can awaken others to recognize and admit the truth that the U.S. is guilty of crimes against humanity, even when one is unable to stop the carnage. It is a tale of witness, and how such witness is contagious.
In November 1997 Sacks led a delegation to Iraq to deliver desperately needed medicines ($40,000 worth, all donated) that were denied into the country because of US/UN economic sanctions. For such an act of human solidarity, he was later fined $10,000 by the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Sacks had refused to ask for a license to travel to Iraq or to subsequently pay the fine for compelling reasons connected to his non-violent Gandhian philosophy, which teaches that non-cooperation with evil is as much an obligation as cooperation with good.
For years previously, Sacks had been learning, as would have anyone who was following the news, that the American sanctions under George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton following the illegal and unjust Gulf War, had been aimed at crippling the Iraqi infrastructure upon which all civilian life depended. Iraq had been devastated by the U.S. war of aggression, and a great deal of its infrastructure, especially electricity and therefore water purification systems, had already been destroyed. Clinton kept up the sanctions and the bombing in support of Bush’s war intentions. So much for differences between Republicans and Democrats! Regular Iraqis were suffering terribly. All this was being done in the name of punishing Saddam Hussein in order to oust him from power, the same Hussein whom the U. S. had supported in Iraq’s war with Iran by assisting him with chemical and biological weapons.
As Sacks later (2011) wrote in his declaration to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington when he sued OFAC:
Weeks after the end of the Gulf War, on March 22, 1991, I read a New York Times front- page story covering the UN report by Martti Ahtisaari on the devastating, ‘near- apocalyptic conditions’ in Iraq after the Gulf War. The report said, ‘famine and epidemic [were imminent] if massive life-supporting needs are not rapidly met. The long summer… is weeks away. Time is short.’ The same article explained U.S. policy this way: ‘[By] making life uncomfortable for the Iraqi people, [sanctions] will eventually encourage them to remove President Saddam Hussein from power.’ This sentence has stayed with me for twenty years. It says to me that my government – by inflicting suffering and death on Iraqi civilians – hoped to overthrow President Saddam Hussein, and that we would simply call it “making life uncomfortable.” [my emphasis]
The years to follow the first war against Iraq revealed what that Orwellian phrase really meant.
In 1994 Sacks read a survey on health conditions of Iraqi children in The New England Journal of Medicine that said: “These results provide strong evidence that the Gulf War and trade sanctions caused a threefold increase in mortality among Iraqi children under five years of age. We estimate that an excess of more than 46,900 children died between January and August 1991.”
And that was just the beginning. For the number of dead Iraqi children [and adults] kept piling up as a result of “making life uncomfortable.”
Anton Chekov’s story “Gooseberries” pops into my mind:
Everything is quiet and peaceful, and nothing protests but mute statistics: so many people gone out of their minds, so many gallons of vodka drunk,so man y children dead from malnutrition. . . . And this order of things is evidently necessary; evidently the happy man only feels at ease because the unhappy bear their burdens in silence, and without that silence happiness would be impossible. It’s a case of general hypnotism. There ought to be behind the door of every happy, contented man someone standing with a hammer continually reminding him with a tap that there are unhappy people; that however happy he may be, life will show him her laws sooner or later, trouble will come for him — disease, poverty, losses, and no one will see or hear, just as now he neither sees nor hears others.
Sacks has long been that man with a gentle hammer, far from happy, comfortable, or contented in what he was learning. In 1996 he watched the infamous CBS 60 Minutes interview of Madeleine Albright by Leslie Stahl who had recently returned from Iraq. Albright was then the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and soon to be the Secretary of State. Stahl, in reference to how the sanctions had already killed 500,000 Iraqi children, asked her, “Is the price worth it?” – Albright blithely answered, “The price is worth it.”
In April 1997, a New England Journal of Medicine editorial said that “”Iraq is an even more disastrous example of war against the publichealth . … The destruction of the country’s power plants had brought its entire system of water purification and distribution to a halt, leading to epidemics of cholera, typhoid fever, and gastroenteritis, particularly among children. Mortality rates doubled or tripled among children admitted to hospitals in Baghdad and Basra…” [my emphasis]
The evidence had accumulated since 1991 that the U.S. had purposely targeted Iraqi civilians and especially very young children and had therefore killed them as an act or war. This was clearly genocide. In its 1999 news release, UNICEF announced: “if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998.”
The British journalist Robert Fisk called this intentional destruction of Iraq’s infrastructure “biological warfare”: “The ultimate nature of the 1991 Gulf War for Iraqi civilians now became clear. Bomb now: die later.” In his declaration to the court, Sacks wrote that the Centers for Disease Control, in warning about potential terrorist biological attacks on the U.S., clearly lists attacks on water supplies as terrorism and biological warfare:
Water safety threats (such as Vibrio cholerae and Cryptosporidium parvum): Cholera is an acute bacterial disease characterized in its severe form by sudden onset, profuse painless watery stools, nausea and vomiting early in the course of illness, and, in untreated cases, rapid dehydration, acidosis, circulatory collapse, hypoglycemia in children, and renal failure. Transmission occurs through ingestion of food or water contaminated directly or indirectly with feces or vomitus of infected persons.
By January 1997, as a result of such statements and those of U.S. military and government officials and reports in medical journals and media, Sacks concluded that the United States government was guilty of the crime of international terrorism against the civilian population of Iraq. And being a man of conscience, he therefore proceeded to lead a delegation to Iraq to alleviate suffering, even while knowing it was a drop in the bucket.
It is important to emphasize that the U.S. government knew full well that its intentional destruction of Iraq’s infrastructure would result in massive death and suffering of civilians. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney said of such destruction that “If I had to do it over again, I would do exactly the same thing.” All the deaths that followed were done as part of an effort at regime change – to force Hussein out of office, something finally accomplished by the George W. Bush administration with their lies about weapons of mass destruction and their 2003 war against Iraq that killed between 1-2 million more Iraqis. The recent accolades heaped on Colin Powell, who as Secretary of State consciously lied at the UN and who led the first war against Iraq – two major war crimes – should be a reminder of how unapologetic U.S. leaders are for their atrocities. I would go so far as to say they revel in their ability to commit them. Because he called them out on this by doing what all journalists and writers should do, they have pursued and caged Julian Assange as if he were a wild dog who walked into their celebratory dinner party.
In this 1991 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency document, “Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities,” you can read how these people think. And read Thomas Merton’s poem “Chant to be Used in Processions around a Site With Furnaces,” and don’t skip its last three lines and you can grasp the bureaucratic mind at its finest. Euphemisms like “uncomfortable” and “collateral damage” are their specialties. Killing the innocent are always on their menu.
Bert Sacks and his delegation got some brief media publicity for their voyage of mercy. He believed that if the American people really knew what was happening to Iraqi children, they would demand that it be stopped. This did not happen. His tap with the hammer of conscience failed to awaken the hypnotized public who overwhelmingly had elected Clinton to a second term in 1996 six months after the 60 Minutes interview. Yes, “Everything is [was] quiet and peaceful, and nothing protests but mute statistics.”
Although the evidence was overwhelming that Iraqi children in the 1990s were dying at the rate of at least 5,000 per month as a direct result of the sanctions, very few major media publicized this. The 60 Minutes show, with its shocking statement by Albright, was an exception and was seen by millions of Americans. After that show aired, to claim you didn’t know was no longer believable. And although most mainstream media buried the truth, it was still available to those who cared. There were some conscience-stricken officials, however. In his declaration to the court, Sacks wrote:
The first two heads of the “Oil-for-Food” program – Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck – each resigned a position as UN Assistant Secretary General to protest the consequences of the U.S. imposed sanctions policy on Iraq. Mr. Halliday said, ‘We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that.’ He called it genocide.
There were also, doctors, politicians, independent writers, and Nobel Peace Laureates who called the policy genocide and said, “Sanctions are the economic nuclear bomb.” Sacks told the court that “Finally, this list includes a 32-year career, retired U.S. diplomat – Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism – who says: ‘you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in [terrorist] activities. Ours is one of them.’”
Military planners, moreover, wrote in military publications that it was desirable to kill Iraqi civilians; that it was an essential part – if not the major part – of war strategy. They called it “dual-use targeting” and called themselves “operational artists.”
Sacks was able to reach a few officials and journalists who realized this was not art but massive war crimes. This showed that it is not impossible to change people, hard as it is. The judge in his court case, James L. Robart, while agreeing that OFAC had not exceeded its authority in fining him, acknowledged that the court had to accept as true that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children as reported by UNICEF had come to constitute genocide, but [my emphasis] U.S. law prohibited the bringing of any consideration of genocide into a legal proceeding, which allows the U.S. government to commit this crime while barring any other party from raising the issue legally.
In other words, the U.S. government can accuse others of committing genocide, but no one can legally accuse it. It is above all laws.
Ten months before his 1997 trip to Iraq, Sacks met with Kate Pflaumer, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington. He says:
We met in her office and I asked her for the legal definition of terrorism pursuant to the laws of the United States. She asked what could she do for me. I said “Prosecute me for violating U.S. Iraq sanctions by bringing medicine there.” She said, “I won’t do that for you! Can I help in any other way?” I asked for the U.S. legal definition of terrorism. She pulled out a law book, had her secretary copy the page for me, and didn’t forget my request.When she left office, she wrote the op-ed on June 21, 2001…calling U.S. Iraq policy terrorism! The two main elements relevant to the issue here are: (1) it is an act dangerous to human life; and (2) done apparently to coerce or intimidate a civilian population or a government (see 18 U.S.C. § 2331).
On June 21, 2001, Ms. Pflaumer, then the former U.S. Attorney, wrote in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer the following:
The reality on the ground in Iraq is not contested. Thousands of innocent children and adult civilians die every month as a direct result of the 1991 bombing of civilian infrastructure: sewage treatment plants, electrical generating plants, water purification facilities. Allied bombing targets included eight multipurpose dams, repeatedly hit, which simultaneously wrecked flood control, municipal and industrial water storage, irrigation and hydroelectric power. [Four of seven major pumping stations were destroyed, as were 31 municipal water and sewerage facilities. Water purification plants were incapacitated throughout Iraq. We did this for “long term leverage.” These military decisions were sanctioned by then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney.]
In May 1996, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright reaffirmed that the “price” of 500,000 dead Iraqi children was “worth it. ”
Article 54 of the Geneva Convention states: “It is prohibited to attack, destroy or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population” and includes foodstuffs, livestock and “drinking water supplies and irrigation works.”
Tittle 18 U.S. Code Section 2331 defines international terrorism as acts dangerous to human life that would violate our criminal laws if done in the United States when those acts are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.
Thus did Kate Pflaumer, in an act of conscience and upholding her legal obligation as an attorney, call the U.S a terrorist state. This probably never would have happened without the non-violent hammer of Bert Sacks, who over the years has made nine trips to Iraq with other brave and determined souls who are a credit to humanity. Messengers of love, truth, and compassion.
Despite their witness, such U.S. terrorism continues as usual.
We cannot let “nothing protest but mute statistics.” The first lesson in U.S. Terrorism 101 is to become people with hammers, and hammer out truth and justice for the world to hear. Bert Sacks has done this. We must follow suit.
Therein lies our only hope.
For by any reasonable interpretation of the law, the United Sates is a terrorist state – beyond the law.
P.S. The case against Sacks was eventually dismissed because the U.S. government did not sue Sacks in a timely manner.
*
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.
Edward Curtin is a prominent author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Featured image is from Twitter
He is the author of Seeking the Truth in a Country of Lies
“Seeking Truth in a Country of Lies is a dazzling journey into the heart of many issues — political, philosophical, and personal — that should concern us all. Ed Curtin has the touch of the poet and the eye of an eagle.” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
“Edward Curtin puts our propaganda-stuffed heads in a guillotine, then in a flash takes us on a redemptive walk in the woods — from inferno to paradiso. Walk with Ed and his friends — Daniel Berrigan, Albert Camus, George Orwell, and many others — through the darkest, most-firefly-filled woods on this earth.” James W. Douglass, author, JFK and the Unspeakable
“A powerful exposé of the CIA and our secret state… Curtin is a passionate long-time reform advocate; his stories will rouse your heart.” Oliver Stone, filmmaker, writer, and director
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
During his first official visit to Moscow under the military rule in Mali, Abdoulaye Diop, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, held extensive discussions with his counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The discussions in November focused on increasing bilateral cooperation in economic sectors. But particularly significant was Russia’s military assistance to strengthen the position of the new government and to fight rising terrorism in the Sahel region.
Lavrov reaffirmed commitment to further develop the long-standing military-technical cooperation and military ties. Several agreements to this effect have been signed in recent years.
“We will fulfill them, including by supporting the Malian government’s efforts to ensure the country’s defence capabilities, which is especially relevant in the face of the persisting terrorist threat,” he said during the media conference.
“We do understand the need to reinforce Mali’s counter-terrorism potential. In this connection, the Russian state supplies the necessary equipment, weapons and ammunition. The risk of a power vacuum in the country’s north should not be allowed to materialise in the wake of the decision by our French colleagues to withdraw part of their troops from Mali and close three of the five military bases in regions with the most active terrorist groups,” he added.
Lavrov explained that terrorist groups have been increasingly active, especially in the north of the country, and therefore does not offer a favourable environment for launching an election campaign. This threat exists and could become more acute following the decision of the French government to considerably reduce its military presence in Mali (Operation Barkhane), especially in the north of the country where terrorists feel increasingly relaxed.
As for the nervous reaction of the French and some other Western representatives to Mali’s plans to work with a private military company from Russia in the past few months (something the Prime Minister of Mali spoke openly about at the UN General Assembly session), the decision is exclusively within the competence of the lawful Malian government.
On November 12, Russian top diplomat Sergey Lavrov and defence chief Sergey Shoigu held a meeting with their French counterparts in Paris. According to Vedomosti, local Russian business and financial newspaper, Paris has repeatedly expressed concern about Russia’s activities in the region that France considers to be its backyard.
In June, Paris announced plans to significantly reduce its participation in a counterterrorism operation in Mali and its neighboring countries, which had been launched in 2014. In August, news came that Mali’s authorities had launched talks with the Russian private military company Wagner Group that could replace the French military. Reuters reported that a possible contract could be worth $10.8 million a month.
In an interview, Grigory Lukyanov, a Senior Researcher at the Russia’s Institute of Oriental Studies, explained that the current goal is to boost business ties, particularly in the field of resource extraction and security services, where Russia has competitive advantages. In the future, Mali is capable of becoming a transport hub for commodities coming from the west and south to Africa’s north and then to the European Union, so apart from France, China and the United States are also interested in it. It’s vital for Paris to remain in its former colony and France is reluctant to let other players enter the country.
According to Lukyanov, France views the region as the former outskirts of its empire, while for Russia, Mali is a shady remote country and Moscow could trade activities there for a number of concessions related to other issues, crucial for its relations with France, the EU and the West in general. As far as Paris is concerned, it will most likely replace the current Malian government, which is sending pro-Russian signals, with another one that will better suit its goals.
As well-known facts, two military coups have taken place in Mali since August 2020. The first one, which occurred on August 18, 2020, ousted President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita. Interim President Bah Ndaw was removed from power by the military on May 26, 2021, while Deputy President Assimi Goita became Mali’s Transition President based on the Constitutional Court’s order.
There have been discussions at the United Nations Security Council, African Union, and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) about rivalry and competition for influence between France and Russia in Mali. The Economic Community of West African States, the regional bloc, has already suspended its membership and imposed a number of sanctions against Mali’s transitional leaders after they informed the organisation they would not be able to hold presidential and legislative elections next February.
It reiterates the need to adhere to the transition timetable in respect of the elections scheduled for February 27, 2022 and calls on the transition authorities to act accordingly to ensure expeditious return to constitutional order. Accordingly, it calls on the international community to take the necessary measures to ensure that the transition authorities respect their commitment to an expeditious return to constitutional order.
The African Union, Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and foreign organizations such as the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN) have requested a quick transition to a civilian government. They further urged that efforts are taken to resolve outstanding issues relating to sustainable development and observing strictly principles of democracy.
The Republic of Mali, home to nearly 20 million people, is a landlocked country located on rivers Senegal and Niger in West Africa. As a former French colony, it persistently faces serious development challenges primarily due to its landlocked position and it is the eighth-largest country in Africa. Over the years, reform policies have had little impact on the living standards, majority highly impoverished in the country. As a developing country, it ranks at the bottom of the United Nations Development Index (2020 report).
*
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.
Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), is now a frequent and passionate contributor to Global Research. As a versatile researcher, he believes that everyone deserves equal access to quality and trustworthy media reports.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Now that news about Masar Badil is beginning to surface, some Palestinians and their allies may be a bit confused. How does this movement differ from initiatives out there, such as the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) and the One Democratic State Campaign (ODSC), that have already achieved some traction on the international scene?
Like BDS and ODSC, Masar Badil is a popular mass movement with supporters from diverse Palestinian viewpoints. But there is a fundamental (not simply rhetorical) difference to approaching the Palestinian struggle among these movements. BDS is a tactic without a political program (included in Masar and expanded to up “the economic costs to the Zionist entity… to isolate it in international diplomacy and ostracize its official and semi-official academics, athletes, artists and journalists.”) And although Masar is for a single, undivided Palestine from the river to the sea, it defines itself as struggling for the liberation of all of Palestine, which is not exactly the same demand as that made by “one democratic state,” which seeks to dismantle apartheid in Israel, rather than to liberate (decolonize Palestine) and then go on from there to grapple with humanitarian and practical issues vis-a-vis Israeli Jews.
In an excellent report on the conference titled “Masar Badil Founded in Madrid, Sao Paolo and Beirut,” Blake Alcottwrites:
The language used by Masar Badil is refreshing: All of Palestine is occupied, not just the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Jerusalem. In most contexts, the present colonialist state ruling Palestine is referred to as the Zionist entity rather than ‘Israel’. Most participants define Palestine as Arabic in linguistic, historical and cultural ways. There is no mincing of words in describing the Palestinian Authority as not only corrupt but, in terms of leading or speaking for Palestinians, illegitimate. Most participants would not limit the term settler to those in the West Bank — a view captured by a graffito of last May: “There is not a city in Israel that was not at one time Sheikh Jarrah.”
Because Masar Badil’s rhetoric derives from Marxist ideology and the revolutionary history of the PLO in its early years (See: The Palestinian National Charter: Resolutions of the Palestine National Council July 1–17, 1968), and because the movement correctly identifies the enemies of the Palestinian revolution as Zionism, Israel, imperialism and Arab reaction, some people associate it with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), but it is not, in fact, linked to any of the existing Palestinian political blocs.
At long last, more and more people are speaking out, albeit cautiously, against Zionism, not simply as a legalized apartheid regime that has been dehumanizing Palestinians since it violently manifested itself in Palestine as a Jewish state in 1948, but crucially as a settler-colonial regime. They reject the Zionist claim (aka Israel’s “narrative”) to the land of Palestine as a land belonging to Jews worldwide, rather than to its indigenous population, and ally the Palestinian struggle for liberation from Zionist colonization with that of other struggles worldwide, including the struggles of the Filipino, Turtle Island, Indian and South African peoples.
Those speaking out against Zionist ideology include Jews who hark back to when a Jewish anti-Zionist movement was alive and well as expressed, for example, in the 1931 lyrics: Oy Ir Narishe Tsienistn / Oh You Foolish Little Zionists / Глупые Сионисты:
You want to take us to Jerusalem
So we can die as a nation
We’d rather stay in the Diaspora And fight for our liberation
It’s worth noting that among the many organizations and activists that participated in Masar Badil conference was the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network.
Masar Badil salutes “the whole struggle of our Palestinian people in all their places of residence, and all the resistance forces in Palestine.” It promotes an alternative path of revolutionary resistance meant to isolate the Zionist state.
Its rallying cries are bold, direct, straightforward and unapologetic: Long live the struggle of our Palestinian people everywhere!
No voice is louder than the voice of the Palestinian people!
Glory to the martyrs, freedom to the prisoners!
We shall return and be victorious!
Although rooted in revolutionary political thought, Masar Badil has gone beyond generalities. In the conference that took place in Madrid, Spain; Beirut, Lebanon; and Sao Paulo, Brazil between 30 October and 2 November 2021, Masar Badil
… not only discussed the politics of Palestinian organizing and resistance but also developed a five-year plan and numerous policy proposals that lay out a distinct plan for upcoming activities. Committees focusing on organizing Palestinian students, protecting and implementing the Palestinian right to return and advancing the boycott of Israel were launched, while the conference planned to develop a network of Palestine centers in cities around the world, focusing on the needs of Palestinian refugees alongside political organizing and education.
Masar Badil has a very sacred task, namely, to protect the Palestinian revolution at this critical time in Palestine’s history, a 4,000-year long history, as historian Nur Masalha details it in his book with that title, from Late Bronze Age Egypt through the Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Islamic empires to the modern era.
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: Masar Badi–Palestinian Alternative Revolutionary Path Movement (Source: Rima Najjar)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
According to a September 2021 analysis, based on conservative, best-case scenarios, the COVID shots have killed five times more seniors (65+) than the infection
In younger people and children, the risk associated with the COVID shot, compared to the risk of COVID-19, is bound to be even more pronounced
Data show higher vaccination rates do not translate into lower COVID-19 case rates
The COVID shots are an epic failure. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports having more than 30,000 spontaneous reports of either hospitalizations and/or deaths among the fully vaccinated; data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services show 300,000 vaccinated CMS recipients have been hospitalized with breakthrough infections; 60% of seniors over age 65 hospitalized for COVID-19 have been vaccinated
50% of reported deaths after COVID-19 “vaccination” occur within 24 hours; 80% occur within the first week. According to one report, 86% of deaths have no other explanation aside from a vaccine adverse event. A Scandinavian study concluded about 40% of post-jab deaths among seniors in assisted living homes are directly due to the injection
“A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic.
The risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially.”
McCullough has impeccable academic credentials. He’s an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist and a full professor of medicine at Texas A&M College of Medicine in Dallas. He also has a master’s degree in public health and is known for being one of the top five most-published medical researchers in the United States, in addition to being the editor of two medical journals.
Authors Defend Their Paper
Not surprisingly, the Toxicology Reports paper has received scathing critique from certain quarters. Still, corresponding author Ronald Kostoff told Retraction Watch that the criticism has actually been “an extremely small fraction” of the overall response, which by and large has been overwhelmingly positive and supportive. Kostoff went on to say:2
“Given the blatant censorship of the mainstream media and social media, only one side of the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ narrative is reaching the public. Any questioning of the narrative is met with the harshest response …
I went into this with my eyes wide open, determined to identify the truth, irrespective of where it fell. I could not stand idly by while the least vulnerable to serious COVID-19 consequences were injected with substances of unknown mid and long-term safety.
We published a best-case scenario. The real-world situation is far worse than our best-case scenario, and could be the subject of a future paper.
What these results show is that we 1) instituted mass inoculations of an inadequately-tested toxic substance with 2) non-negligible attendant crippling and lethal results to 3) potentially prevent a relatively small number of true COVID-19 deaths. In other words, we used a howitzer where an accurate rifle would have sufficed!”
COVID Jab Campaign Has Had No Discernible Impact
Certainly, data very clearly show the mass “vaccination” campaign has not had a discernible impact on global death rates. On the contrary, in some cases the death toll shot up after the COVID shots became widely available. You can browse through covid19.healthdata.org3 to see this for yourself. Several examples are also included at the very beginning of the video.
This trend has also been confirmed in a September 2021 study4 published in the European Journal of Epidemiology. It found COVID-19 case rates are completely unrelated to vaccination rates.
Using data available as of September 3, 2021, from Our World in Data for cross-country analysis, and the White House COVID-19 Team data for U.S. counties, the researchers investigated the relationship between new COVID-19 cases and the percentage of the population that had been fully vaccinated.
Sixty-eight countries were included. Inclusion criteria included second dose vaccine data, COVID-19 case data and population data as of September 3, 2021. They then computed the COVID-19 cases per 1 million people for each country, and calculated the percentage of population that was fully vaccinated.
According to the authors, there was “no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last seven days.” If anything, higher vaccination rates were associated with a slight increase in cases. According to the authors:5
“[T]he trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.”
The Kostoff Analysis
Getting back to the Toxicology Reports paper,6 which is being referring to as “the Kostoff analysis,” McCullough says the analysis is definitely making news in clinical medicine. The paper focuses on two factors: assumptions and determinism.
Determinism describes how likely something is. For example, if a person takes a COVID shot, it’s 100% certain they got the injection. It’s not 50% or 75%. It’s an absolute certainty. As a result, that person has a 100% chance of being exposed to whatever risk is associated with that shot.
On the other hand, if a person says no to the injection, it’s not 100% chance they’ll get COVID-19, let alone die from it. You have a less than 1% chance of being exposed to SARS-CoV-2 and getting sick. So, it’s 100% deterministic that taking the shot exposes you to the risks of the shot, and less than 1% deterministic that you’ll get COVID if you don’t take the shot.
The other part of the equation is the assumptions, which are based on calculations using available data, such as pre-COVID death statistics and death reports filed with the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reports System (VAERS).
Mortality Data
As noted by McCullough, two reports have detailed COVID jab death data, showing 50% of deaths occur within 24 hours and 80% occur within the first week. In one of these reports, 86% of deaths were found to have no other explanation aside from a vaccine adverse event. McCullough also cites a Scandinavian study that concluded about 40% of post-jab deaths among seniors in assisted living homes are directly due to the injection. He also cites other eye-opening figures:
The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention reports having more than 30,000 spontaneous reports of either hospitalizations and/or deaths among the fully vaccinated
Data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services show 300,000 vaccinated CMS recipients have been hospitalized with breakthrough infections
60% of seniors over age 65 hospitalized for COVID-19 have been vaccinated
COVID Shots Are ‘Failing Wholesale’
“When we put all these data together, we have clear-cut science that the vaccines are failing wholesale,” McCullough says. The shots are particularly useless in seniors.
Again, based on a best-case conservative scenario, seniors are five times more likely to die from the shot than they are from the natural infection. This scenario includes the assumption that the PCR test is accurate and reported COVID deaths were in fact due to COVID-19, which we know is not the case, and the assumption that the shots actually prevent death, which we have no proof of.
All things considered, you are FAR better off taking your chances with the natural infection, as McCullough says. The Kostoff analysis also does not take into account the fact that there are safe and effective treatments.
It bases its assumptions on the notion that there aren’t any. It also doesn’t factor in the fact that the COVID shots are utterly ineffective against the Delta and other variants. If you take into account vaccine failure against variants and alternative treatments, it skews the analysis even further toward natural infection being the safest alternative.
FDA and CDC Should Not Run Vaccine Programs
While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the CDC claim not a single death following COVID inoculation was caused by the shot, they should not be the ones making that determination, as they are both sponsoring the vaccination campaign.
They have an inherent bias. When you conduct a trial, you would never allow the sponsor to tell you whether the product was the cause of death, because you know they’re biased.
What we need is an external group, a critical event committee, to analyze the deaths being reported, as well as a data safety monitoring board. These should have been in place from the start, but were not.
Had they been, the program would most likely have been halted in February, as by then the number of reported deaths, 186, already exceeded the tolerable threshold of about 150 (based on the number of injections given). Now, we’re well over 17,000.7 There’s no normal circumstance under which that would ever be allowed.
“The CDC and FDA are running the [vaccination] program. They are NOT the people who typically run vaccine programs,” McCullough says. “The drug companies run vaccine programs.
When Pfizer, Moderna, J&J ran their randomized trials, we didn’t have any problems. They had good safety oversight. They had data safety monitoring boards. The did OK. I mean I have to give the drug companies [credit].
But the drug companies are now just the suppliers of the vaccine. Our government agencies are now just running the program. There’s no external advisory committee. There’s no data safety monitoring board. There’s no human ethics committee. NO one is watching out for this!
And so, the CDC and FDA pretty clearly have their marching orders: ‘Execute this program; the vaccine is safe and effective.’ They’re giving no reports to Americans. No safety reports. We needed those once a month. They haven’t told doctors which is the best vaccine, which is the safest vaccine.
They haven’t told us what groups are to watch out for. How to mitigate risks. Maybe there are drug interactions. Maybe it’s people with prior blood clotting problems or diabetes. They’re not telling us anything!
They literally are blindsiding us, and with no transparency, and Americans now are scared to death. You can feel the tension in America. People are walking off the job. They don’t want to lose their jobs, but they don’t want to die of the vaccine! It’s very clear. They say, ‘Listen, I don’t want to die. That’s the reason I’m not taking the vaccine.’ It’s just that clear.”
Bradford Hill Criteria Are Met — COVID Jabs Cause Death
McCullough goes on to explain the Bradford Hill criterion for causation, which is one of the ways by which we can actually determine that, yes, the shots are indeed killing people. We’re not dealing with coincidence.
“The first question we’d ask is: ‘Does the vaccine have a mechanism of action, a biological mechanism of action, that can actually kill a human being?’ And the answer is yes! because the vaccines all use genetic mechanisms to trick the body into making the lethal spike protein of the virus.
It is very conceivable that some people take up too much messenger RNA; they produce a lethal spike protein in sensitive organs like the brain or the heart or elsewhere. The spike protein damages blood vessels, damages organs, causes blood clots. So, it’s well within the mechanism of action that the vaccine could be fatal.
Someone could have a fatal blood clot. They could have fatal myocarditis. The FDA has official warnings of myocarditis. They have warnings on blood clots. They have warnings on a fatal neurologic condition called Guillain-Barré syndrome. So, the FDA warnings, the mechanism of action, clearly say it’s possible.
The second criteria is: ‘Is it a large effect?’ And the answer is yes! This is not a subtle thing. It’s not 151 versus 149 deaths. This is 15,000 deaths. So, it’s a very large effect size, a large effect.
The third [criteria] is: ‘Is it internally consistent?’ Are you seeing other things that could potentially be fatal in VAERS? Yes! We’re seeing heart attacks. We’re seeing strokes. We’re seeing myocarditis. We’re seeing blood clots, and what have you. So, it’s internally consistent.
‘Is it externally consistent?’ That’s the next criteria. Well, if you look in the MHRA, the yellow card system in England, the exact same thing has been found. In the EudraVigilance system in [Europe] the exact same thing’s been found.
So, we have actually fulfilled all of the Bradford Hill criteria. I’ll tell you right now that COVID-19 vaccine is, from an epidemiological perspective, causing these deaths or a large fraction.”
Zero Tolerance for Elective Drugs Causing Death
There may be cases in which a high risk of death from a drug might be acceptable. If you have a terminal incurable disease, for example, you may be willing to experiment and take your chances. Under normal circumstances however, lethal drugs are not tolerated.
After five suspected deaths, a drug will receive a black box warning. At 50 deaths, it will be removed from the market. Considering COVID-19 has a less than 1% risk of death across age groups, the tolerance for a deadly remedy is infinitesimal. At over 17,000 reported deaths, which in real numbers may exceed 212,000,8 the COVID shots far surpass any reasonable risk to protect against symptomatic COVID-19. As noted by McCullough:
“There is zero tolerance for electively taking a drug or a new vaccine and then dying! There’s zero tolerance for that. People don’t weigh it out and say, ‘Oh well, I’ll take my chances and die.’ And I can tell you, the word got out about vaccines causing death in early April [2021], and by mid-April the vaccination rates in the United States plummeted …
We hadn’t gotten anywhere near our goals. Remember, President Biden set a goal [of 70% vaccination rate] by July 1. We never got there because Americans were frightened by their relatives, people in their churches and their schools dying after the vaccine.
They had heard about it, they saw it. There was an informal internet survey done several months ago, where 12% of Americans knew somebody who had died after the vaccine.
I’m a doctor. I’m an internist and cardiologist. I just came from the hospital … I had a woman die of the COVID-19 vaccine … She had shot No. 1. She had shot No. 2. After shot No. 2, she developed blood clots throughout her body. She required hospitalization. She required intravenous blood thinners. She was ravaged. She had neurologic damage.
After that hospitalization, she was in a walker. She came to my office. I checked for more blood clots. I found more blood clots. I put her back on blood thinners. I saw her about a month later. She seemed like she was a little better. Family was really concerned. The next month I got called by the Dallas Coroner office saying she’s found dead at home.
Most of us don’t have any problem with vaccines; 98% of Americans take all the vaccines … I think most people who are still susceptible would take a COVID vaccine if they knew they weren’t going to die of it or be injured. And because of these giant safety concerns, and the lack of transparency, we’re at an impasse.
We’ve got a very labor-constrained market. We’ve got people walking off the job. We’ve got planes that aren’t going to fly, and it’s all because our agencies are not being transparent and honest with America about vaccine safety.”
Early Treatment Is Crucial, Vaxxed or Not
As noted by McCullough, the vast majority of patients require hospitalization for COVID-19 is because they’ve not received any treatment and the infection has been allowed free reign for days on end.
“To this day, the patients who get hospitalized are largely those who receive no early care at home,” he says. “They’re either denied care or they don’t know about it, and they end up dying.
The vast majority of people who die, die in the hospital; they don’t die at home. And the reason why they end up in the hospital, it’s typically two weeks of lack of treatment. You can’t let a fatal illness brew for two weeks at home with no treatment, and then start treatment very late in the hospital. It’s not going to work.
There’s been a very good set of analyses, one in the Journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases … that showed, day by day, one loses the opportunity of reducing the hospitalization when monoclonal antibodies are delayed … No doctor should be considered a renegade when they order FDA [emergency use authorized] monoclonal antibody. The monoclonal antibodies are just as approved as the vaccines.
I just had a patient over the weekend, fully vaccinated, took the booster. A month after the booster she went on a trip to Dubai. She just came back, and she got COVID-19! … I got her a monoclonal antibody infusion that day. [The following day] she started the sequence of multidrug therapy for COVID-19. I am telling you, she is going to get through this illness in a few days …
Podcaster Joe Rogan just went through this. Governor Abbott was also a vaccine failure. He went through it. Former President Trump went through it. Americans should see the use of monoclonal antibodies in high risk patients, followed by drugs in an oral sequenced approach. This is standard of care!
It is supported by the Association of Physicians and Surgeons, the Truth for Health Foundation, the American Front Line Doctors, and the Front Line Critical Care Consortium. This is not renegade medicine. This is what patients should have. This is the correct thing! …
If we can’t get the monoclonal antibodies, we certainly use hydroxychloroquine, supported by over 250 studies, ivermectin, supported by over 60 studies, combined with azithromycin or doxycycline, inhaled budesonide … full-dose aspirin … nutraceuticals including zinc, vitamin D, vitamin C, quercetin, NAC … we do oral and nasal decontamination with povidone-iodine.
In acutely sick patients we do it every four hours, [and it] massively reduces the viral load … Fortunately, we have enough doctors now and enough patient awareness, patients who … understand that early treatment is viable, is necessary, and it should be executed.”
*
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.
The recent unprecedented surprise two-day visit by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) William Burns to Moscow for talks with his counterparts has triggered considerable discussion within retired spook circles in and around Washington. Even among active CIA employees the preparations for the trip were tightly held with few advisers briefed on the agenda that had been prepared for the meetings, which were clearly initiated at Langley’s request. Burns met with Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev as well as Russian Foreign Intelligence Service Director Sergei Naryshkin last Tuesday. President Vladimir Putin was briefed on the meetings on the following day. Concerning the discussions, a Kremlin spokesman said only that “Of course, dialogue at this level and dialogue on such sensitive issues is extremely important for bilateral relations and for the exchange of views on the problems that we have” elaborating only that various international issues were discussed. A US Embassy press release echoed the Russian comments.
There is a consensus that Burns, a former Ambassador to Russia and a Russian speaker, was on a mission ordered by the president to create a more stable and predictable relationship.
The move comes in spite of US issuance of a new wave of sanctions for past presumed Russian offenses in April. Leaks regarding the visit, if verifiable, indicate that Burns was in Moscow to discuss specifically alleged Russian ransomware hacking and even the widely discredited view that Moscow has been continuing its interference in US elections. If all of that is so, the visit would be pointless as the Kremlin has denied any such involvement and dismissed claims that the alleged Russian hackers are in any was associated with the government.
The most popular narrative currently making the rounds among some conspiracy theorists is that the Biden Administration has compiled what might be described as a dossier on the expansion of Chinese influence operations worldwide and is keen to make the case that they threaten everyone, including the Europeans and Russians. Presumably Burns would have been in Moscow to share that information in hopes that the burgeoning de facto alliance between Russia and China can be reversed. Whether Burns was successful in such a task remains to be seen, but it of course would not take into account that views in Beijing and Moscow have been shaped and hardened by confrontational activity that the United States has been engaged in both in the Baltic and South China Sea.
Joe Biden for his part has not helped any rapprochement by his assurances to defend Taiwan and his critical comments about Vladimir Putin at the recent climate change conference in Glasgow. So one must ask why is it that an Administration that is increasingly seen as disconnected and incapable at home been persisting in provocative policies that could plausibly lead to war against major powers like China and Russia? Particularly given the fact that recent war games and exercises have suggested that the in-disarray US armed forces might well be defeated? Is the trip of William Burns to Moscow something of a wake-up call to the fact that US foreign policy basically makes no sense?
Unfortunately, the Republicans are equally locked into an adversarial mode when it comes to Russia and China. Ex-UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, is now calling for economic war against Beijing. Some might conclude that everything in contemporary Washington comes down to a latter-day opera buffa in which an assortment of comic characters parade for a moment only to be replaced by the next bumbler sporting an equally ridiculous message.
Russia aside, witness the recent wave of China bashing, begun by Barack Obama with his pivot to Asia, continued under Donald Trump with his China virus rants, and endorsed by Joe Biden’s team which persists in labeling Beijing as enemy number one. No one steps back and considers even for a moment that the US is China’s largest market and that the US in turn relies on Chinese manufactured products to fill its Walmarts. If ever two nations had good reasons not to go to war, it would be China and the United States, yet the US desire to confront the “Red Menace” to include defending Taiwan continues to drive policy.
So, it remains to be seen what might come out of the William Burns delegation going to Moscow. But there have been other recent visits by senior American officials. If you really want to consider policy making that is brain dead, the prize would have to go to the recently concluded trip made by State Department Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland to Moscow. The mainstream media that reported the trip saw it, just like the Burns trip, as a gesture being made by the Biden White House to mend fences with the Vladimir Putin government. But if that were so, the selection of Nuland as the interlocutor was particularly inappropriate. She is a hard-core neoconservative who is married to Robert Kagan. She was in fact on a Russian sanctions list before her trip and had to be removed from it so she could carry out the official travel. Nuland is best known in the media for having said in an intercepted phone call “Fuck the EU” when a colleague suggested that the European Union might have a role to play in the future direction of Ukraine.
Nuland at State Department under Barack Obama was in fact the driving force behind demanding regime change in Ukraine to oust its pro-Russian government. She would drop in on Kiev’s Maidan Square with her buddy Senator John McCain to pass out cookies to demonstrators. After the government was changed to satisfy Washington, it was admitted that the US had spent something like $5 billion to bring about the “revolution.” Moscow and Putin, however, were not amused and promptly moved to take back Crimea and to stir up resistance in the largely ethnic Russian Donbass region.
Nuland met in Moscow with the Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov. What she chose to discuss belies suggestions that she was there to talk nice and mend fences. A major issue was a demand from Washington to greatly reduce the Russian diplomatic presence in the United States. The number that Nuland reportedly presented to Ryabkov was that 300 dips would have to go. The demand reportedly came from Congressional pressure to greatly reduce the number of accredited Russians based on the claim that Moscow had interfered in American elections. Nuland had with her two lists of names for removal, and suggested that the first fifty should be returned home by January.
The Russians responded that they were willing to lift all sanctions of US diplomats if Washington would reciprocate by lifting sanctions on Russian diplomatic missions in the US. Nuland said that was not acceptable. Ryabkov countered with his observation that many of the diplomats were accredited to the United Nations and were not accountable to the US approved diplomatic list. Ryabkov elaborated that “If you will insist, we are ready to close down all US missions in Russia, and to lock down our remaining offices at Washington. We can terminate all diplomatic interaction; if you want our relations be based on the number of our nuclear missiles, we are ready. But it’s your choice, not ours.” So the discussion obviously went nowhere.
In fact, the discussion went downhill from that point, including as it did US disapproval of Russian involvement in Mali and in Libya and a sounding out of possible Kremlin response if the Biden Administration pushes forward with plans to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. The Russians also confirmed that they would not permit hosting US intelligence personnel on military bases in former Central Asian Soviet countries “the ‘Stans” to monitor developments in Afghanistan. Crimea was apparently not mentioned.
Ryabkov concluded that “…he and Nuland made no progress on normalizing the work of their diplomatic missions, which has been hampered by multiple rounds of sanctions, adding that the situation could exacerbate even further. The Russian Foreign Ministry reiterated Moscow’s readiness to respond in kind to any unfriendly US action.” The only positive development was thin gruel, coming when Ryabkov floated a suggestion that Putin might be willing to meet with Joe Biden at some undesignated point in the future to discuss mutual concerns.
One has to wonder who exactly selected someone as toxic as Victoria Nuland to go to Russia, but worse was to come after her return to America. Any Putin-Biden summit meeting is now less likely than it was several weeks ago as right after Nuland’s departure for the United States, the bilateral relationship worsened.
The NATO headquarters in Brussels declared several Russian diplomats ‘personae non gratae’, and the Russian Foreign Ministry responded to the provocation by sending home all NATO representatives present at diplomatic missions in Russia. In response back in the United States, the media and some Congressmen and Biden Administration officials immediately began to press forward with their plans to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, a vital or even existential issue for Russia that guarantees to scuttle any attempts to actually improve relations. And the White House continues to make a bad situation worse by suggesting that it has an obligation to “defend Ukraine.”
So why was CIA Director William Burns in Moscow and what did he accomplish? God only knows!
*
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.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
In lieu of Covid-19 killer vaccines, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, MD, the acclaimed treating family physician for heads of state, has successfully cured over 6,000 Covid-19 patients with a combo of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, quercetin, Vitamin C and Vitamin D as an alternative treatment resulting in a 99% survival rate. While his notable accomplishments have garnered nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize and Presidential Medal of Freedom, speaking out publicly against the dangers of the so-called vaccines has caused him to endure daily death threats, character and career assassination attempts and widespread censorship. Because he is a courageous speaker of the truth, supplying an effective, inexpensive health remedy that openly opposes the cabal’s genocidal depopulation agenda, he is deemed a threat to the New World Order medical and political tyranny.
After being de-platformed off all the social media, on October 25, 2021 Dr. Zev Zelenko boldly exposes “the demons” behind this the eugenics depopulation agenda;
I am a conspiracy realist.
Vanguard and Black Rock [sic] are stakeholders in all industry, media, academia, and politics.
Vanguard and Black Rock invest in each other through something called circular ownership.
Thus, consider Vanguard and Black Rock as a monopoly that owns everything. With due diligence you will discover that the major stakeholders of this monopoly are:
These foundations are instrumental for geopolitical destabilization. Chaos is good for business and power acquisition. Only a divinely inspired force can overcome this Goliath. The world will be redeemed by acts of goodness and kindness. We need collective divine consciousness in order to merit divine intervention. The owners of the vanguard/black rock monopoly are a manifestation of the primordial serpent.
I am VERY optimistic about an upcoming redemptive event that will rebalance our dark world.
Fasten your seatbelts and enjoy the ride. –
Vladimir Zev Zelenko, MD
***
Even a cursory examination amazingly done by Tim Gielen exposing today’s two biggest controlling stakeholders –Vanguard and BlackRock – shows that the same handful of monopolists succinctly pointed out by Dr. Zelenko, essentially own and control the entire world.
Their absolute power over humanity has permitted them to literally get away with murder while toxically destroying our planet.
For example, take the top worldwide food industry manufacturers as the largest name brand corporations – Coca Cola, PepsiCo, Unilever, Nestle and Mondelez International, all these giant makers of our chemically processed food are controlled by the same two biggest monopolizing shareholder investors Vanguard and BlackRock. The world’s third and fourth largest investment companies are Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway and State Street Corporation.
The Communications Technology Industry
Another example in this monopoly game is the largest companies in the technology industry. Facebook owns WhatsApp and Instagram, and Alphabet as the parent company of all Google businesses, owns YouTube, Gmail, and the largest sponsor of Android, the world’s largest mobile app platform, the near exclusive operating system of all smart phones, and Apple IOS, the other major operating system.
Thus, Bill Gates’ Microsoft Corporation, Facebook, Apple and Alphabet constitute the four largest Big Tech companies that virtually all the world’s computers, telex and smart phones run on.
The same two top investors – Vanguard and BlackRock, also own the most controlling shares of all these corporations in the Big Tech industry. In fact, all the companies that build computers, TVs, smart phones and household appliances – IBM, HP, Intel, Sony and Dell, including the biggest online marketplaces Amazon and E-Bay, the largest department and grocery store chains, all the payment methods, all are owned by the same giant investment firms Vanguard and BlackRock.
Every Single Industry on Earth is Owned or Controlled by the same Two Top Investors
All the agricultural products, seeds owned by Monsanto, tobacco, alcohol and Big Pharma corporations, now killing us with their so-called vaccines masquerading as bioweapons, all are owned by the same bloodlines.
The economic game is totally rigged, from all the top internet travel websites, all the top airlines, the top airplane manufacturers, the top hotel and restaurant chains, the top oil refineries that fuel all the planes, trains, boats, trucks and cars, the steel corporations and mining companies that supply all the raw materials used in all modes of transportation, construction, textile and clothing manufacturing, all have the same controlling owners, including the so called green industry making solar panel and wind turbines.
Black Rock is considered the fourth arm of the government with its intimate ties to the Rothschild central banks. Even BlackRock’s largest shareholder is Vanguard and vice versa, although Vanguard ensures complete anonymity of its individual owners. But too late, overwhelming evidence proves that it’s the same handful of “nobility families” that the good Dr. Zelenko outed.
A recap – everything on earth is literally owned and controlled by these same top investment companies along with the largest banks, mutual funds, insurance companies and even political nations, owned and controlled through bribery and blackmail, all of these domains are completely dominated by the same controlling bloodlines – the Rothschild, Rockefeller, Du Pont, Carnegie, Orsini, Bush and Windsor family dynasties, along with a few lesser known yet equally powerful clans covered by Fritz Springmeier’s tome Bloodlines of Illuminati.
To lock in their controlling stranglehold on humanity, even all the smaller investment firms in the Fortune 500 are owned by the same familiar larger ones in a hierarchically vertical pyramid power structure.
Like the late great comedian George Carlin astutely observed over a dozen years ago, it’s all one “big club [of psychopaths] and you ain’t in it,” running virtually every single aspect of our lives and every single enterprise on the planet, including both legal and illegal, bar none.
*
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.
Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate, former Army officer and author of “Don’t Let the Bastards Getcha Down,” exposing a faulty US military leadership system based on ticket punching up the seniority ladder, invariably weeding out the best and brightest, leaving mediocrity and order followers rising to the top as politician-bureaucrat generals designated to lose every modern US war by elite design. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century. In Los Angeles he found himself battling the largest county child protective services in the nation within America’s thoroughly broken and corrupt child welfare system.The experience in both the military and child welfare system prepared him well as a researcher and independent journalist, exposing the evils of Big Pharma and how the Rockefeller controlled medical and psychiatric system inflict more harm than good, case in point the current diabolically lethal pandemic hoax and genocide.As an independent journalist for the last 8 years, Joachim has written hundreds of articles for many news sites, particularly Global Research and lewrockwell.com.
Trends in Mortality and Morbidity in the Most Vaccinated Countries : Twenty-one Proven Facts
If You Take the COVID Vax, You Can Never Achieve Full Immunity Again – Government Stats Unveil the Horrifying Truth
The Covid-19 Pandemic Does Not Exist
Food as a Weapon: Starving Us into Submission
Everyone Missed this One… Vaccinated People Are Up to Nine Times (9X) More Likely to be Hospitalized than Unvaccinated People
The Covid Outbreak: “Biggest Health Scam of the 21st Century.” Report by 1500 Health Professionals
Video: What’s Going On? Athletes Dropping Like Flies. Heart Disease Endemic in Young Athletes.
Mounting Death Toll from COVID-19 Injections, Mandates Imposed in the Name of “Safety in the Workplace”. Non-consenting Airline Employees Push Back.
Pfizer “Secretly” Added Heart Attack Drug Tromethamine (Tris) to Children’s COVID Vaccines … But Why?
Video: Covid-19 Injections Will Cause Massive Deaths: Dr. Elizabeth Eads
An Australian Horror Story
Vaccine Researcher Admits ‘Big Mistake,’ Says Spike Protein Is Dangerous ‘Toxin’
29,934 Deaths 2,804,900 Injuries Following COVID Shots in European Database of Adverse Reactions – Corporate Journalists Have Pericarditis after Pfizer Shots
“Our Species is Being Genetically Modified”: Humanity’s March Toward Extinction? Analysis of the Microbiome and Virome
Video: Graphene Oxide: A Toxic Substance in the Vial of the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine?
New VAERS Analysis Reveals Hundreds of Serious Adverse Events that the CDC and FDA Never Told Us About
The Covid Hoax: The Steamroller to Tyranny. “It’s not Just a Question of Vaccination or No Vaccination”
Video: Pfizer is A Global Criminal Entity. Settled for $75 Million for Using ‘Nigerian Children as Human Guinea Pigs’
Video: Legal Action Is Happening. Have Hope Because We Are Going to Win this.
High Recorded Mortality in Countries Categorized as “Covid-19 Vaccine Champions”. The Vaccinated Suffer from Increased Risk of Mortality compared to the Non-vaccinated
Covid Jab Is Far More Dangerous than Advertised. Dr. Peter McCullough
VAERS COVID Vaccine Data Show Surge in Reports of Serious Injuries, as 5-Year-Olds Start Getting Shots
Video: The mRNA Vaccine Generates Microscopic Blood Clots: Dr. Charles Hoffe
Technology Patent Suggests Tech Overlords Are Planning to Digitally Surveil People, Grant “Freedoms” Based on Vaccination Status
Unassailable Proof that the COVID Vaccines Are the Most Deadly Vaccines in Human History
Covid-19 Vaccines Lead to New Infections and Mortality: The Evidence is Overwhelming
Covid-19 and the New World Order. Who Owns Planet Earth?
Video: A Final Warning to Humanity from Former Pfizer Chief Scientist Michael Yeadon
Twenty Essential Studies that Raise Grave Doubts About COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates
