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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki was repeatedly criticised on Tuesday during a tense session in the European Parliament in Brussels, with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen warning Warsaw that its “direct challenges” against the unity of the bloc would not go unpunished.

“Your arguments are not getting better. You’re just escaping the debate,” von der Leyen said after four hours of frustrating debate with Morawiecki. She added that a ruling by Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal last week, which claimed that parts of EU law are incompatible with the Polish constitution, was “a direct challenge to the unity of the European legal order.”

In response, Morawiecki said Poland was a “proud country” and that threats of financial penalties from Brussels amounted to “blackmail.”

“I reject the language of threats, hazing and coercion,” he said, adding: “Poland will not be intimated.”

The European Court of Justice ruled against Warsaw’s establishment of disciplinary measures against Polish judges as it does not comply with the principle of their independence, thus once again instigating annoyance from Brussels.

It is recalled that at the end of last year, Warsaw and Budapest blocked the EU’s long-term budget and financial support package of over €750 billion. A compromise was finally reached with the allocation of funds, in accordance with the rule of law in the country, and was declared impossible until the EU Court decided whether such a mechanism is legal.

In another example, the European Court of Justice ruled that Poland was obliged to stop activities at the Turova mine and pay a fine of €500,000 per day to Brussels for non-compliance with the decision. However, Warsaw refused to comply with the order because it could harm the country’s energy security. At the same time, Warsaw hypocritically criticizes Berlin for the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline despite its essentiality in securing energy for Germany.

It is also worth mentioning that Poland is one of the few EU countries that is completely orientated towards US foreign policy interests, often to the frustration of Berlin and Paris, and also often undermining European interests.

With this context, the Polish Constitutional Court took another confrontational step which undermines the entire EU legal system. According to local media, the Polish decision was continually postponed for a long time as they suspected Brussels would be outraged and seek retaliation – likely through a financial mechanism.

Warsaw has already stated that it does not want to leave the EU because it will lose huge sums of money, as well as for the fact that most Poles support EU membership. At the same time, Warsaw appears to believe that it can exist in the union on its own terms and Brussels will not retaliate because it does not want Poland to leave the EU.

The problem is that this time Brussels must force the Poles to change their decision and not capitulate like they had at the end of last year. If Brussels were to capitulate again, a precedent will be established, which will effectively mean that EU laws will have no meaning and that the bloc’s authority is diminished.

Although many in the European Commission and other power centers like Berlin and Paris are evidently angered, Warsaw does not pay attention and has its own methods to counter any retaliations from the EU. The allocation of some billions to deal with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic has not yet been approved, and Poland could slow down this process significantly if Brussels decides to apply pressure.

Warsaw could block various EU decisions, something that could undermine the bloc’s newfound attempt to achieve “strategic sovereignty” away from Washington. Brussels could try and deprive Poland of its right to vote in the EU. However, this is unlikely as it requires a decision by the Council of Europe, and it is likely that countries such as Hungary would not vote in favour of it.

In short, the EU’s confrontation with Warsaw could be a long affair with an unclear outcome, with both sides being able to retaliate against each other. Warsaw made a very serious challenge though and it is unlikely that Brussels will capitulate again to Polish pressure unless it wants to set a new precedent and reality that undermines the EU’s authority.

*

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

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from African Leadership Magazine

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

This article provides a description. The geopolitical implications of the Nuclear Strike Exercise remain to be analyzed. NATO is on a dangerous path which requires careful analysis. (M.Ch. GR Editor)

***

NATO’s yearly “deterrence” exercise, codenamed “Steadfast Noon”, kicked off on Oct. 18, 2021. Dozens of aircraft from across the alliance are currently deployed to Italy and will carry out joint training during the 1-week drills.

As already happened in the past, this year’s Steadfast Noon takes place alongside another exercise, dubbed “Cross Servicing” or “X-Servicing”, whose goal is to test the ability of each partner to service other nation’s aircraft at NATO airfield operating on their territory. Actually, it looks like that X-Servicing or any other exercises preceding or coinciding with the Steadfast Noons are somehow used to disguise the main one considered the political sensitivity of the nuclear mission in many NATO countries.

Anyway, the routine Steadfast Noon strike exercise is hosted by a different NATO country (or two) each year usually at two air bases where U.S. tactical B61 nuclear bombs are stored. This year, the two Italian air bases involved in the exercise are Ghedi AB and Aviano AB, in the northeastern part of the country. According to the Federation of American Scientists, 35 B-61s are stored at the two bases in Italy.

The flying activity (that needless to say does not involve any “live” armament), is carried out (in specific days made public by AIP Supplement) inside restricted airspace in central and northeastern Italy and the Adriatic Sea.

Da martedì ha inizio l'esercitazione militare “NATO Cross-Servicing 2021” sull’Italia centro-settentrionale https://t.co/9pv9YzhP6a

— Desk Aeronautico (@DeskAeronautico) September 12, 2021

Since they are sort of back-to-back exercises, both X-Servicing and Steadfast Noon involve the same aircraft on the same bases: the missions are flown by DCA (Dual Capable Aircraft) –  aircraft from Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and the U.S. that are able to perform either conventional or theater nuclear missions carrying the B61 bomb – along with non-nuclear aircraft that support the mission under the SNOWCAT (Support of Nuclear Operations With Conventional Air Tactics) program, which is used to enable military assets from non-nuclear countries to support the nuclear strike mission without being formally part of it.

48th FW F-15E Strike Eagle

The DCA aircraft committed by the nuclear capable European air forces are always the same, since they are the only ones configured to carry the B61: German and Italian Air Force Tornado IDS; Belgian, Dutch and Turkish F-16s. The American participation involves the tactical assets based in Europe: F-16s and F-15Es.

Belgian F-16

For what concerns the non-nuclear and support assets, the 2021 iteration of Steadfast Noon/X-Servicing drills see the participation of five Czech Air Force JAS 39 Gripens and three Polish Air Force F-16s, along with NATO E-3A AWACS and Italian Air Force G550 CAEW (Conformal Airborne Early Warning).

Czech Air Force JAS 39 Gripen

In particular, the Belgian, Turkish and Polish F-16s, along with the Czech Gripens and U.S. F-15E are deployed to Aviano AB, while Ghedi AB, home of the Italian Tornado fleet, hosts the Dutch F-16s and German Tornados.

Turkish Air Force F-16.St

Polish Air Force F-16 landing at Aviano on Oct. 18, 2021

Even though, NATO is usually quite tight-lipped when it deals with this kind of exercise, you can get an idea of the flying activity thanks to some OSINT: flight tracking websites show some of the assets taking part in the drills as they operate inside the restricted airspaces announced by relevant NOTAMs (Notice To Airmen). Then, you can also get some interesting photographs to cross correlate the rest of the information, thanks to the aircraft spotters taking shots outside the main operating bases.

The airspace over Italy during Steadfast Noon with an E-3 AWACS and a G550 CAEW providing AEW to the rest of the aircraft. (Image credit: ADSBExchange.org)

*

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

David Cenciotti is a freelance journalist based in Rome, Italy. He is the Founder and Editor of “The Aviationist”, one of the world’s most famous and read military aviation blogs. Since 1996, he has written for major worldwide magazines, including Air Forces Monthly, Combat Aircraft, and many others, covering aviation, defense, war, industry, intelligence, crime and cyberwar. He has reported from the U.S., Europe, Australia and Syria, and flown several combat planes with different air forces. He is a former 2nd Lt. of the Italian Air Force, a private pilot and a graduate in Computer Engineering. He has written four books.

Featured image: One of the F-15E Strike Eagles deployed to Aviano AB for Steadfast Noon 2021. (All images: Claudio Tramontin)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Dr. Jessica Rose has given another presentation based on her analysis of the CDC and FDA VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) data.

Dr. Jessica Rose has a BSc in Applied Mathematics and completed her MSc in Immunology at Memorial University of Newfoundland in Canada. She completed her PhD in Computational Biology at Bar Ilan University and then did her first Post Doctorate at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Molecular Biology.

To date, she has compiled some of the best analysis of the VAERS data that I have seen this year. We have published some of her previous presentations: STUDY: Government’s Own Data Reveals that at Least 150,000 Probably DEAD in U.S. Following COVID-19 Vaccines, Study: Analysis of VAERS Shows the COVID Shots are Likely Cause of Deaths, Spontaneous Abortions, Cardiovascular, Neurological, and Immunological Adverse Events

She recently made a presentation to the World Council for Health, and her analysis of the data in VAERS revealed that in 2021 there has been a 5,427% increase in deaths following COVID-19 shots, and a 1,373% increase in adverse reactions following COVID-19 shots, as compared to all other vaccines given out for the past 10 years.

Another incredible statistic she found was that about one out of every 324 individuals receiving a COVID-19 shot has reported an adverse event.

In one of her previous analysis’ she determined that the data in VAERS is under-reported by a factor of X42. This would mean that about one out of every 8 individuals receiving a COVID-19 shot is reporting an adverse reaction.

This is the kind of analysis on the VAERS data that the CDC and FDA are supposed to be doing, and then removing experimental products that are killing and harming so many people.

But as we have exposed so many times over the past decade, these federal agencies are very corrupt, and the people running them go on to take lucrative positions with large pharmaceutical companies. See:

All 3 FDA-Authorized COVID-19 Vaccine Companies Employ Former FDA Commissioners

Public health is not their concern, but profits for Big Pharma.

Her presentation is on our Bitchute and Rumble channels.

*

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

Featured image is by Ali Raza from PxHere.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The study, titled, “Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2,947 counties in the United States,” was published late last month at the National Institutes of Health website and the peer-reviewed European Journal of Epidemiology.

On its face, the study purports rises in Covid cases are unrelated to vaccination rates, however, data presented in the study gives the exact opposite impression.

For example, the study claims, “At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days.”

However, it goes on to say, “In fact, the 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.”

“Notably, Israel with over 60% of their population fully vaccinated had the highest COVID-19 cases per 1 million people in the last 7 days,” the study authors state.

“The lack of a meaningful association between percentage population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases is further exemplified, for instance, by comparison of Iceland and Portugal,” the study notes, going on to demonstrate a meaningful association.

“Both countries have over 75% of their population fully vaccinated and have more COVID-19 cases per 1 million people than countries such as Vietnam and South Africa that have around 10% of their population fully vaccinated.”

The study goes on to illustrate the correlational relationship between vaccines and Covid rates in US counties.

“Across the US counties too, the median new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 people in the last 7 days is largely similar across the categories of percent population fully vaccinated.”

[…]

“Of the top 5 counties that have the highest percentage of population fully vaccinated (99.9–84.3%), the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identifies 4 of them as ‘High’ Transmission counties. Chattahoochee (Georgia), McKinley (New Mexico), and Arecibo (Puerto Rico) counties have above 90% of their population fully vaccinated with all three being classified as ‘High’ transmission.”

“Conversely, of the 57 counties that have been classified as ‘low’ transmission counties by the CDC, 26.3% (15) have percentage of population fully vaccinated below 20%.”

The study authors caution that mass vaccination should not be the sole Covid-19 preventative strategy.

“The sole reliance on vaccination as a primary strategy to mitigate COVID-19 and its adverse consequences needs to be re-examined, especially considering the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant and the likelihood of future variants…

“Other pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions may need to be put in place alongside increasing vaccination rates.

“Such course correction, especially with regards to the policy narrative, becomes paramount with emerging scientific evidence on real world effectiveness of the vaccines.”

Despite data in the study showing vaccinated people are spreading Covid, the study’s lead author, Harvard University Professor of Population Health and Geography S.V. Subramanian, claimed to PolitiFact the point of the study was not to highlight the high rate of “breakthrough infections” among the vaccinated, but to draw attention to the need to implement additional safety measures to combat the virus.

“Concluding from this analysis that vaccines are useless is misleading and inaccurate. Rather, the analysis supports vaccination as an important strategy for reducing infection and transmission, along with handwashing, mask-wearing, proper ventilation and physical distancing.”

The Blaze‘s Daniel Horowitz noted researchers used a one-month lag when compiling the data.

It’s also important to keep in mind that when calculating the data, the authors used a sensitivity analysis by applying a one-month lag on the percentage population fully vaccinated so that people wouldn’t be considered fully vaccinated until 14 days after the second dose. However, studies have shown that this is the most vulnerable time for getting the virus. Why should that be blamed on the lack of vaccination rather than on the vaccine? So if anything, the numbers are likely even more unfavorable to the vaccine than this analysis suggests.

Interestingly, despite the researcher’s explanation, PolitiFact rated a claim that the study showed “COVID-19 ‘surges among most vaxxed communities” half-true.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

A study by the Hans Böckler Foundation, which is part of the German Trade Union Federation (DGB), uncovered interesting facts in Germany. Notably, the survey of 5000 employees did not only deal with trade union issues or questions about how Corona affects work or what effects the virus has on the workplace.

Instead, the study by the DGB showed that many Germans see democracy and freedom in danger in their country. The official Corona figures announced by various politicians are also distrusted. For the authors of the study this has been an indication of a “susceptibility to conspiracy myths”.

The study highlighted distrust in politics, doubts about the Corona policy and “conspiracy theories”, said Andreas Hövermann, sociologist and employee at the research institute of the union’s own foundation.

Between June 29 and July 13, 2021, some 5000 participants were asked about six premises for the study. And it was also revealed that for all questions, except for the one about the danger of the virus, approval has increased since last year. The questions from the survey and the responses are listed below:

• The current restrictions on freedoms pose a threat to democracy. (36 percent in agreement)
• I am concerned that the restrictions on fundamental rights will not be completely lifted after the crisis. (43 percent in agreement)
• I don’t think the coronavirus is as dangerous as it is often claimed. (27 percent in agreement)
• I have doubts about the official Corona numbers. (43 percent in agreement)
• I can imagine that behind the pandemic there is an elite that wants to create a new world order. (20 percent in agreement)
• I can imagine that the pandemic will be used by elites to enforce the interests of the rich and powerful. (32 percent in agreement)

Union for the powerful, not for ordinary people

For the union researchers , the result of the study has been an alarm signal. It supposedly shows that a fifth of those questioned were susceptible to Corona doubts and so-called conspiracy myths. The implication of the trade union’s research does not augur well for the mainstream political parties either: They noticed that in a large cohort of the study participants, the commitment to “established democratic parties” was vanishingly small. However, the AfD was the only party that could convince this clientele.

Apparently, less attention was paid to the fact that citizens were extremely skeptical of the restrictions on their freedoms with 43 percent of those surveyed expressing their doubts about the official Corona numbers. The logical conclusion would have been to finally open up a public debate on the issue. Instead, the “researchers” recommend refuting this “disinformation”.

Healthy understanding of democracy

The study actually showed a healthy understanding of democracy because people had questioned politicians and wanted to be informed without reservation. Under normal circumstances, responsible citizens do not readily accept conflicting political statements and government propaganda. And there was actually a very specific trade union issue among their concerns.

After all, 32 percent could imagine “that the pandemic would be used by elites to enforce the interests of the rich and powerful”. Evidently, the assumption is that an honest trade union would provide a reasonable solution to end the crisis for their members. The rich have experienced phenomenal asset growth, while the general population had to tighten their belts and suffer the economic consequences of the health decrees.

Embarrassing for the elite

In June this year, reported the German daily FAZ, the results of a survey by the renowned Allensbach Institute showed that around half of the respondents believed that they could no longer express their opinion freely in their country.

Those who want to believe the mainstream media consider the discussion about the renaming of cities, pharmacies, and chocolates which contain the part of the name “Neger” or “Mohren”, to be of great social relevance. Well-known news anchors stutter everywhere on television and make linguistically nonsensical pauses, choking sounds and grunts to show how gender-aware they are. “Equality”, “diversity” and “justice” are certainly the most frequently used terms.

Despite this, the FAZ correctly noted: “Even today, a strikingly large number of citizens complain about strong social control, have the impression that an attempt is being made to dictate to them in detail how they should behave, and many have the feeling that they cannot defend themselves.”

Freedom of expression in free fall

In the opinion of many citizens, freedom of expression is currently worse than ever in Germany: Only 45 percent of those surveyed believe that one can freely express a political opinion. And the survey also underscored that over the past twenty years, the assessment of the respondents has deteriorated considerably.

This means that, in the opinion of the respondents, the climate of opinion is increasingly deteriorating. In times of “political correctness” and “cancel culture”, the common citizen is increasingly afraid of being socially marginalized.

A fifth of Austrian students did not buy Corona narrative

The communication scientist Jürgen Grimm carried out a remarkable study at the University of Vienna also in June this year. In the course of a survey of 600 students, he determined how “susceptible” they were to “conspiracy theories” due to the Corona situation. His conclusion: was that 20 percent of the students were “hostile” in their worldview. They were questioning who and what was behind Corona policies. Grimm found this fundamentally problematic and labeled them “conspiracy theorists” too.

“A smaller proportion – around 20 percent – are prone to conspiracy theories. They have a hostile view of the world. They are no longer just threatened – objectively we all are – but look for someone to blame, an ‘enemy’,” explained Grimm in an interview.

*

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: Protest against Corona measures in Berlin on August 1, 2020: Leonhard Lenz, Wikimedia Commons, CCO

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Big Pharma will earn billions in profits this 2^nd pandemic year; projected to be $16 billion for Moderna this year 2021 and $38.7 billion in 2022, as a startup vaccine maker.  Pfizer’s RNA vaccine is expected to $54.5 billion in 2022, says the drug industry resource Fierce Pharma.

Big Pharma has the world by the tail, able to make an RNA vaccine for a variant viral strain overnight and put it on the market with no advertising, using public health officials “vaccinate or die” sales pitch, or the false Executive Order for a vaccine mandate, issued by paid-off politicians.

The well-publicized fear of dying of Covid-19 is countered by the fact 99% of the infected got well on their own. In fact, a report issued by Children’s Health Defense indicates 81 research studies confirm natural immunity to Covid is “equal” or “superior” to vaccine immunity.

That Covid-19 is surging in the most vaccinated counties in the USA is good for business!  Sell the booster shots.  Invent a vaccine that doesn’t prevent disease nor does it halt its spread, it just creates more reliance upon vaccines and booster shots for mutant strains that occur with greater frequency among the vaccinated.

Big Pharma has control of the news media and has paid off politicians.  The world is now Big Pharma’s oyster.

The little problem Big Pharma faces, while it is busy counting its profits, is that its products don’t work, and even kill.  In fact, selling known risky products without warnings could be classified as manslaughter.

The fact agents of the Defense Intelligence Agency were aware of the so-called deadly virus more than a month before any officials in the Chinese government knew suggests premeditation and collusion between government and industry.

And you don’t have to have Big Pharma’s fingerprints on the deaths.  Politicians can pull the trigger with vaccine mandates.  Intelligence agencies are penetrating news sources and turning medical disease reports into propaganda.

Vaccination: it’s illogical

If numbers only confuse you, maybe logic will undo the crossed wires about the pandemic.  Forget statistics, the panic of the pandemic has no logical basis.  As one nurse recently asked: “Why do the protected need to be protected from the unprotected by forcing the unprotected to use the protection that did not protect the protected in the first place?”

The credo to vaccinate to protect others is illogical.  It is like saying you should wear a rain coat so others don’t get wet.

Save 1 life, kill 15

According to a report at Global Research, for every 1 life that the RNA Covid-19 saves, 15 people die from the vaccine.  Only 1 death is spared per 22,000 vaccinated individuals.  An estimated 150,000 Americans died from the vaccine and 10,000 lives were saved.

But to Big Pharma these are just numbers, not dead people.  With no liability for their deadly products, who is to care?

More to come

And there is more to come.  A Covid-19 vaccine creator suggests this toxic RNA technology now be used to take on 12 more infectious diseases.  More hell on Earth.

The numbers mislead

There is sleight of hand that Big Pharma uses to portray its prescription drugs that gain approval from the Food & Drug Administration that relies upon 45% of its budget from the drug industry, and is almost never revealed by paid-off news media that derive advertising dollars from the pill pushers.  Doctors complicitly play along with the fraud to keep their waiting rooms full.

Just create the data

Big Pharma has been issuing misleading data for decades now, none greater than the cholesterol theory of heart disease.

For decades now, the statin drug/cholesterol scam has been founded on the statistical misrepresentation that these liver-toxic statin molecules (enzyme inhibitors) reduce the risk for a heart attack by a third.

Hard numbers vs relative numbers

That is a relative number.  Over a 5-year period maybe 3 in 1000 adults will experience a heart attack, and the statins drop that number to 2.   3 minus 2 = one third (33%), but in hard numbers that is only 1%.  And this multi-billion-dollar medicine only prevents non-mortal heart attacks!

It takes 217 healthy adults to swallow statin pills for 5 years for 1 to benefit, which is the so-called number needed to treat (NNT).

With all of this known to medical reporters, we get more of the same.  Today we read in the news headlines that “Taking Statins Could Slash Your Risk Of Dying From Covid By Up To 12%” says John Ely, reporter for The Daily Mail.

But when we examine the data carefully, there were 963,876 subjects in a retrospective study; 169,642 statin drug users and 794,234 non-users; 765 statin users and 1,780 of the non-users died of Covid (that is, if you can believe the PCR nasal swab test that produces many false positives) over a 9-month period in 2020.  But there is no argument, they died of something, which is called all-cause mortality.

• 765 of 169,642 statin drugs users = 0.0045% or 4.5 in 1000 died of Covid.
• 1780 of 794,234 non-statin drug users = 0.0022% or 2.2 in 1000 died of Covid

In hard numbers, the authors of the study published in the Public Library of Science Journal (PLoS) stated: “mortality was not statistically significant” between the two groups.  That never got into print.

Authors of the study pointed to two more demonstrative studies that allegedly showed a 30% reduction in Covid fatalities.  But upon further investigation, the first study published in the journal Diabetes & Metabolism (2021) concluded: “no significant reductions in either in-hospital mortality or Covid-19 severity were reported among statin users;” and the second study, a metanalysis of four studies comprised of 8,990 patients “suggested a reduction in fatal or severe disease by 30%” but pulled the same statistical trick of using relative numbers.

There was a statistical but not a clinical benefit (clinical meaning in the clinic any benefit would hardly be noticeable).  Smoke and mirrors medicine.  Big Pharma has been getting away with this for a long time.  Big Pharma is not in the health business.  It is in the wealth business.

The naïve public is reliant upon news sources for information about vaccination.  It is not surprising to learn that those individuals who don’t watch television are the most likely to be vaccine hesitant.

*

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 Lew Rockwell for this article.

Bill Sardi, writing from La Verne, California. 

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

 

Zac Spolar found himself running around in a frenzy amid the COVID-19 surge in December, tending to three or four patients at once and laboring late into the night at a Los Angeles hospital. The hardest part of the job, he said, was having to constantly console people who couldn’t be with their loved ones in the intensive care unit, even if they were dying.

Now Spolar is among the many essential workers threatened with unemployment and diminished job prospects for refusing vaccination.

Police, firefighters, doctors, nurses, paramedics, airport security and prison guards across the country are facing termination this week if they don’t comply with their employers’ vaccine requirements. Many have already lost their jobs or have been disciplined. Other say they will defy the vaccine mandates on principle. As a result, essential workers may soon be in short supply in many parts of America.

Spolar said he isn’t opposed to vaccination in theory; his wife already got the shot. But he is young and fit with antibodies higher than they would be with a vaccine, thanks to getting COVID from a patient before Christmas. “The only reason I got sick is because I had a week where I worked six days in a row with crazy hours, I wasn’t getting any sleep, I was all run down.” Not getting the vaccine boils down to a matter of principle for him. Why force someone to take a drug that they don’t want or need?

Spolar is now reduced to part-time contract medical work with lower pay and no benefits, retirement, or upward mobility as no hospital will hire him unvaccinated. And with Los Angeles County’s vaccine passport mandate for restaurants, movie theaters, retail establishments, and other places, he cannot move freely in the city he serves.

He is not alone. Los Angeles city employees are required to be vaccinated by Tuesday, Oct. 19. Roughly a quarter of Los Angeles fire personnel have signed a notice of intent to sue the city if they are terminated for not being vaccinated. There are rebellions in other parts of the country. In Newark, New Jersey, firefighters and police officers are protesting the city’s vaccine mandates. In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul announced she will deploy the National Guard to compensate for staff shortages due to the firing of unvaccinated nurses and hospital workers.

The U.S. federal government has set a deadline of Monday, Nov. 22 for all civilian federal workers to be vaccinated. The Transportation Security Administration has said four-in-10 of its employees are unvaccinated; any terminations of TSA staff due to not meeting the deadline would come right before one of America’s biggest travel periods, the Thanksgiving holiday. Meanwhile, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency is in an uproar over Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas threatening to terminate a significant portion of the unvaccinated workforce.

Similar protests and potential firings over the COVID vaccines are happening all over America in government workplaces at the federal, state, and local level as well as in many parts of the private sector.

Two days before I spoke with Spolar, an anesthesiologist named Christopher Rake was escorted out of UCLA Health in California for refusing to be vaccinated on grounds that it violated ethics and personal freedom. He had created a support group for like-minded medical workers, Citizens United for Freedom, made up of both vaccinated and unvaccinated members.

Rake talked to me about his final days on the job. “I wasn’t put on the schedule Friday [Oct. 1] but I went to work anyway, and it was a good thing that I did because they called me and said: ‘We need your help in operating room eight, somebody called in sick.’” Everything seemed fine until Rake received an email later informing him that he had been placed on administrative leave without pay. Still, he came into work on the next Monday. After a confusing discussion with management about whether he had been terminated or not, security guards led him off the campus.

Rake was just one of many casualties of the first vaccine mandates imposed in September and early October. A hospital in upstate New York made so many of its nurses resign mid-September over the vaccine that it had to suspend delivering babies. Three weeks later, Northwell Health, New York’s largest health care provider, fired 1,400 employees over the same issue. By Oct. 6, Kaiser Permanente had placed 2,200 employees nationwide on unpaid leave.

But it’s not just hospital workers who are getting cut or forced out.

“Me and my coworkers never took time off because of stress,” said Josh Sattley, a veteran Beverly Hills firefighter, explaining what it was like working through the pandemic. “When we got sick, we took COVID leave, and then came back to work right after—it wasn’t devastating for any of us.” Sattley contracted the virus on the job, and he isn’t necessarily opposed to vaccines. However, the aggressiveness of the mandates and skepticism of the pharmaceutical industry led him to request a religious exemption after he prayed about the issue.

Sattley said that the Beverly Hills city bureaucracy swatted down the initial slate of applications for religious exemptions. The city implemented its own process to judge applications, which included religious tests to determine if one is, in fact, a true believer. Sattley described it as an “interrogation” about his religious beliefs.

On the day that the firefighters were scheduled to receive word on their exemptions, Beverly Hills City Councilmember John Mirisch published an ominous memo in Beverly Hills Weekly. “Religious exemptions are meant for deeply held and sincere religious convictions,” he wrote, “they are not hall passes for those who don’t want to take the vaccine, however strong those feelings are or whatever conspiracy theories they may believe.”

Sattley and his colleagues took Mirisch’s letter as a sign that they never had a fair shot. They were right. Out of 25 applications, the vast majority received only temporary exemptions, which will be re-evaluated at the end of an interval. Half a dozen applicants, including Sattley, were outright denied.

“I told the city ‘No,’” Sattley said upon learning of its decision and the ultimatum he faced to get the jab. “The next day, on Friday, they shot me a letter stating that I was going to be on leave without pay. I was relieved of duty.”

Termination could be next for Sattley. California firefighters have their own bill of rights, which, in theory, provides them with the most thorough privacy protection of any public employee in the state. Among other things, it entitles them to due process and protection from interrogation. All that has taken a backseat to the ongoing medical state of exception, he said.

Even when they get exemptions, unvaccinated firefighters are subject to a kind of soft discrimination. “The city has removed anybody with an exemption from the frontlines,” Sattley said. “They put them on a rig that doesn’t respond to any emergency calls; they only go to fire-related calls. They are ordered not to respond; they are not allowed to be involved with patient care although they are meeting the county mandate.”

The result of these “segregated rigs” is a delay in response times, with parts of the city going uncovered by paramedics providing advanced life support resources, Sattley said.  In other words, in the name of public safety, Beverly Hills officials are making the public less safe.

William Amalu, a San Francisco firefighter, told me that his city, fire department, and even the firefighter union are marching in lockstep against the unvaccinated. The result is a growing crisis within the stations.

“There’s been a lot of bullying in the firehouses,” Amalu said, “and a lot of bullying by the command staff.” A chief reportedly told one crew not to bother submitting religious exemptions because they wouldn’t be approved anyway. Amalu said that a higher up told him that the leadership of the San Francisco Fire Department said during a meeting he was present at that they had no intention of handling religious and medical exemptions in good faith. It seemed like paranoid hearsay—until the applications came back and all were rejected. As of Oct. 13, out of about 800 San Francisco city workers who have asked for medical or religions exemptions to avoid termination, not a single request has been approved, a human resources official told the Associated Press.

A call and an email to the San Francisco Fire Department’s information officer and human resources center requesting comment wasn’t immediately returned.

In Amalu’s rejection, the department acknowledged the sincerity of his religious convictions but declined him because “accommodation would pose a direct threat to the health and safety of others and/or yourself,” according to an official form he allowed me to review. Further, the document states accommodation would prevent him from performing “essential functions” and “result in undue hardship for the city.”

But Amalu says the reasoning behind his rejection conflicts with the department’s public messaging. During a city meeting, the question was posed to the municipal departments: could you provide essential services with the number of employees you are slated to lose? A higher-up who was present told Will that every department gave a negative answer, especially the Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA). The SFMTA oversees San Francisco’s massive public transit system, which is anticipating service disruptions for buses and trains due to impending firings of unvaccinated workers. At about 11 percent of the agency’s workforce, it has the most unvaccinated number of employees of any city department. MTA employees have complained about “threatening” letters from managers warning of discipline or terminations, the San Francisco Examiner reported.

San Francisco Fire Department Chief Jeanine Nicholson has downplayed the potential for disrupted essential services. According to her, the department has contingency plans to make up for potential firings and resignations, so there isn’t any reason to worry.

Nicholson mentioned “not-compliant” firefighters during a Sept. 22 meeting with city officials. “We have 122 people who are not compliant; out of that 122, 18 of them are on long-term leave, so really we have 104 people,” she said. “We’ll see what the final number is, but we’ll definitely be losing some people due to the vaccination.”

In an earlier internal meeting, long before the mandates were imposed, Nicholson asked Stephanie Phelps, the department’s nurse practitioner over Zoom: “Why are we not mandating the vaccine? Because I would love to mandate the vaccine.” Phelps explained that such measures are historically rare and, ironically, that “states are unlikely to enact mandatory COVID-19 vaccination mandates in the absence of long-term safety data.” Nicholson was nonplussed with that answer. “Despite what you said, I would still like to mandate the vaccine for our members, but I can’t.”

For his part, Amalu feels betrayed. “I, and every other member facing termination, have bled and wept for this department,” he said. “This is not just affecting me, but rather thousands of San Francisco employees who have families to feed and have placed their trust in this city to be there for them when times are tough.”

It’s unclear what the contingency plan for mass firings of essential works looks like. Firefighters and paramedics are not easily replaced anywhere in America. Even before the pandemic, localities across the country were battling shortages of medics and firefighters. The same goes for police departments. Indeed, amid the ongoing crime surge, dismissing cops over vaccine noncompliance is a bit like playing Russian roulette with public safety.

A new Guardian analysis found homicides across the 12 counties that make up the greater San Francisco region soared 25 percent in 2020, compared with the previous year. That is 114 homicides more than the year before. The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) is currently short 400 officers and has a hard time attracting new recruits. Nevertheless, an officer with that department told me that about a hundred unvaccinated officers are on the chopping block.

Two months ago, there were 500 hundred unvaccinated members of the SFPD. However, pressure from the city, the department’s leadership, and an antagonistic police union caused many officers to grudgingly take the jab, said the officer, who asked to remain anonymous because of fear of retaliation for speaking out. SFPD members who stood their ground on principle had the rug yanked out from under them, the officer said.

“We were granted about 150 religious exemptions—they were approved, permanent exemptions,” the officer said. “But about a month later, leadership effectively rescinded them by saying they needed ‘additional questions’ answered.” Every application was subsequently and officially rejected, the officer said.

Many of the SFPD cops forced to vaccinate are reportedly in talks with other departments about transferring. For the underpaid and overworked, it’s not hard to imagine that being bullied into taking a drug, by their own union no less, against their religious or ethical reservations was the final straw.

Even if the SFPD could find more bodies to replace the outgoing uniforms, they wouldn’t hit the streets right away. In Frisco, someone is not considered a full-fledged, independent officer until a minimum probationary period of two years. “They’ve talked about closing stations,” the officer told me. “It’s going to get ugly.” Things already look that way. Another officer reported they had to wait two hours for an ambulance to arrive on the scene of a medical emergency.

The military may soon experience manpower problems, too. A Coast Guard officer told me about his experience and why he and many others feel up against the wall. The Coast Guard officer, who asked to remain anonymous because he fears that his pension and benefits could be in jeopardy if he speaks out, said he isn’t necessarily anti-vaccine. But he is leery of the pharmaceutical industry’s rush to sell its wares without any long-term data about side effects.

The Coast Guard officer’s stance has only hardened due to what he sees as an emerging double standard in the military. When the vaccinated catch COVID-19, as they can and often do, no one seems to mind much. However, when the unvaccinated fall ill, there’s hell to pay. “Senior leadership is hugging this line,” he said, “where they say, ‘we’re not punishing you for being unvaccinated, we’re just trying to be safe’—but it’s starting to feel more like it is punishment.’”

For the unvaccinated, there are default restrictions on travel and stricter quarantine protocols not only for those who are sick but those who are presumed “exposed”—a vague term. A vaccinated person exposed to COVID can resume work upon producing a negative test, but an unvaccinated person cannot—they are forced to isolate even if they can prove they’re not sick.

The two-tiered system is frustrating. “They’re being vague, they’re threatening us that we’re failing to obey lawful orders, and they’re having us sign documentation about being counseled to take the vaccine.” Those signatures will make it easier to discharge them in the end, but Coast Guard senior leadership hasn’t even made it clear what kind of discharge it will be if they pull the trigger.

How the military jettisons the unvaccinated will determine whether they receive full benefits, or benefits at all, from their time served. Without an honorable discharge, someone with a sterling service record could be sent off with the professional equivalent of a misdemeanor or a felony.

The question is, how many people is the military willing to lose? The Coast Guard assists in various domestic missions, from law enforcement activities to search and rescue operations. Replacing them isn’t easy and discharging them won’t make America safer. The Army is making a similar gambit: 485,900 active-duty soldiers have until Dec. 15 to be vaccinated. Another 336,500 National Guard and 189,800 reserve troops have until the end of June. With looming deadlines, hundreds of thousands more across all the other branches haven’t complied with vaccine mandates.

Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote that “the degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.” Something similar can be deduced by how we treat the unvaccinated. These essential workers kept at their jobs before vaccines were available. Yet they and their families are now suffering professionally and financially for their convictions. Their unions are against them, their superiors have turned on them, their cities have shunned them. They served America, but America is turning its back on them.

*

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.

Pedro Gonzalez is the associate editor at Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. 

Featured image: Flickr-Globovision, CC BY-NC 2.0

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Before it’s too late, we need to ask ourselves a crucial question: Do we really — I mean truly — want a new Cold War with China?

Because that’s just where the Biden administration is clearly taking us. If you need proof, check out last month’s announcement of an “AUKUS” (Australia, United Kingdom, U.S.) military alliance in Asia. Believe me, it’s far scarier (and more racist) than the nuclear-powered submarine deal and the French diplomatic kerfuffle that dominated the media coverage of it. By focusing on the dramatically angry French reaction to losing their own agreement to sell non-nuclear subs to Australia, most of the media missed a much bigger story: that the U.S. government and its allies have all but formally declared a new Cold War by launching a coordinated military buildup in East Asia unmistakably aimed at China.

It’s still not too late to choose a more peaceful path. Unfortunately, this all-Anglo alliance comes perilously close to locking the world into just such a conflict that could all too easily become a hot, even potentially nuclear, war between the two wealthiest, most powerful countries on the planet.

If you’re too young to have lived through the original Cold War as I did, imagine going to sleep fearing that you might not wake up in the morning, thanks to a nuclear war between the world’s two superpowers (in those days, the United States and the Soviet Union). Imagine walking past nuclear fallout shelters, doing “duck and cover” drills under your school desk, and experiencing other regular reminders that, at any moment, a great-power war could end life on Earth.

Do we really want a future of fear? Do we want the United States and its supposed enemy to once again squander untold trillions of dollars on military expenditures while neglecting basic human needs, including universal health care, education, food, and housing, not to mention failing to deal adequately with that other looming existential threat, climate change?

A U.S. Military Buildup in Asia

When President Joe Biden, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson declared their all-too-awkwardly named AUKUS alliance, most of the media focused on a relatively small (though hardly insignificant) part of the deal: the U.S. sale of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia and that country’s simultaneous cancellation of a 2016 contract to buy diesel-powered subs from France. Facing the loss of tens of billions of euros and being shut out of the Anglo Alliance, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian called the deal a “stab in the back.” For the first time in history, France briefly recalled its ambassador from Washington. French officials even cancelled a gala meant to celebrate Franco-American partnership dating back to their defeat of Great Britain in the Revolutionary War.

Caught surprisingly off guard by the uproar over the alliance (and the secret negotiations that preceded it), the Biden administration promptly took steps to repair relations, and the French ambassador soon returned to Washington. In September at the United Nations, President Biden declared declared that the last thing he wants is “a new Cold War or a world divided into rigid blocs.” Sadly, the actions of his administration suggest otherwise.

Imagine how Biden administration officials would feel about the announcement of a “VERUCH” (VEnezuela, RUssia, and CHina) alliance. Imagine how they’d react to a buildup of Chinese military bases and thousands of Chinese troops in Venezuela. Imagine their reaction to regular deployments of all types of Chinese military aircraft, submarines, and warships in Venezuela, to increased spying, heightened cyberwarfare capabilities, and relevant space “activities,” as well as military exercises involving thousands of Chinese and Russian troops not just in Venezuela but in the waters of the Atlantic within striking distance of the United States. How would Biden’s team feel about the promised delivery of a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines to that country, involving the transfer of nuclear technology and nuclear-weapons-grade uranium?

None of this has happened, but these would be the Western Hemisphere equivalents of the “major force posture initiatives” U.S., Australian, and British officials have just announced for East Asia. AUKUS officials unsurprisingly portray their alliance as making parts of Asia “safer and more secure,” while building “a future of peace [and] opportunity for all the people of the region.” It’s unlikely U.S. leaders would view a similar Chinese military buildup in Venezuela or anywhere else in the Americas as a similar recipe for safety and peace.

In reaction to VERUCH, calls for a military response and a comparable alliance would be rapid. Shouldn’t we expect Chinese leaders to react to the AUKUS buildup with their own version of the same? For now, a Chinese government spokesperson suggested that the AUKUS allies “should shake off their Cold War mentality” and “not build exclusionary blocs targeting or harming the interests of third parties.” The Chinese military’s recent escalation of provocative exercises near Taiwan may be, in part, an additional response.

Chinese leaders have even more reason to doubt the declared peaceful intent of AUKUS given that the U.S. military already has seven military bases in Australia and nearly 300 more spread across East Asia. By contrast, China doesn’t have a single base in the Western Hemisphere or anywhere near the borders of the United States. Add in one more factor: in the last 20 years, the AUKUS allies have a track record of launching aggressive wars and participating in other conflicts from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya to Yemen, Somalia, and the Philippines, among other places. China’s last war beyond its borders was with Vietnam for one month in 1979. (Brief, deadly clashes occurred with Vietnam in 1988 and India in 2020.)

War Trumps Diplomacy

By withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan, the Biden administration theoretically started moving the country away from its twenty-first-century policy of endless wars. The president, however, now appears determined to side with those in Congress, in the mainstream foreign policy “Blob,” and in the media who are dangerously inflating the Chinese military threat and calling for a military response to that country’s growing global power. The poor handling of relations with the French government is another sign that, despite prior promises, the Biden administration is paying little attention to diplomacy and reverting to a foreign policy defined by preparations for war, bloated military budgets, and macho military bluster.

Given the 20 years of disastrous warfare that followed the George W. Bush administration’s announcement of a “Global War on Terror” and its invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, what business does Washington have building a new military alliance in Asia? Shouldn’t the Biden administration instead be building alliances dedicated to combating global warming, pandemics, hunger, and other urgent human needs? What business do three white leaders of three white-majority countries have attempting to dominate that region through military force?

While the leaders of some countries there have welcomed AUKUS, the three allies signaled the racist, retrograde, downright colonial nature of their Anglo Alliance by excluding other Asian countries from their all-white club. Naming China as its obvious target and escalating Cold War-style us-vs.-them tensions risk fueling already rampant anti-Chinese and anti-Asian racism in the United States and globally. Belligerent, often warlike rhetoric against China, associated with former President Donald Trump and other far-right Republicans, has increasingly been embraced by the Biden administration and some Democrats. It “has directly contributed to rising anti-Asian violence across the country,” write Asia experts Christine Ahn, Terry Park, and Kathleen Richards.

The less formalized “Quad” grouping that Washington has also organized in Asia, again including Australia as well as India and Japan, is little better and is already becoming a more militarily focused anti-Chinese alliance. Other countries in the region have indicated that they are “deeply concerned over the continuing arms race and power projection” there, as the Indonesian government said of the nuclear-powered submarine deal. Nearly silent and so difficult to detect, such vessels are offensive weapons designed to strike another country without warning. Australia’s future acquisition of them risks escalating a regional arms race and raises troubling questions about the intentions of both Australian and U.S. leaders.

Beyond Indonesia, people worldwide should be deeply concerned about the U.S. sale of nuclear-propelled submarines. The deal undermines efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons as it encourages the proliferation of nuclear technology and weapons-grade highly enriched uranium, which the U.S. or British governments will need to provide to Australia to fuel the subs. The deal also offers a precedent allowing other non-nuclear countries like Japan to advance nuclear-weapons development under the guise of building their own nuclear-powered subs. What’s to stop China or Russia from now selling their nuclear-powered submarines and weapons-grade uranium to Iran, Venezuela, or any other country?

Who’s Militarizing Asia?

Some will claim that the United States must counter China’s growing military power, frequently trumpeted by U.S. media outlets. Increasingly, journalists, pundits, and politicians here have been irresponsibly parroting misleading depictions of Chinese military power. Such fearmongering is already ballooning military budgets in this country, while fueling arms races and increasing tensions, just as during the original Cold War. Disturbingly, according to a recent Chicago Council on Global Affairs survey, a majority in the U.S. now appear to believe — however incorrectly — that Chinese military power is equal to or greater than that of the United States. In fact, our military power vastly exceeds China’s, which simply doesn’t compare to the old Soviet Union.

The Chinese government has indeed strengthened its military power in recent years by increasing spending, developing advanced weapons systems, and building an estimated 15 to 27 mostly small military bases and radar stations on human-made islands in the South China Sea. Nonetheless, the U.S. military budget remains at least three times the size of its Chinese counterpart (and higher than at the height of the original Cold War). Add in the military budgets of Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and other NATO allies like Great Britain and the discrepancy leaps to six to one. Among the approximately 750 U.S. military bases abroad, almost 300 are scattered across East Asia and the Pacific and dozens more are in other parts of Asia. The Chinese military, on the other hand, has eight bases abroad (seven in the South China Sea’s Spratley Islands and one in Djibouti in Africa), plus bases in Tibet. The U.S. nuclear arsenal contains about 5,800 warheads compared to about 320 in the Chinese arsenal. The U.S. military has 68 nuclear-powered submarines, the Chinese military 10.

Contrary to what many have been led to believe, China is not a military challenge to the United States. There is no evidence its government has even the remotest thought of threatening, let alone attacking, the U.S. itself. Remember, China last fought a war outside its borders in 1979. “The true challenges from China are political and economic, not military,” Pentagon expert William Hartung has rightly explained.

Since President Obama’s “pivot to Asia,” the U.S. military has engaged in years of new base construction, aggressive military exercises, and displays of military force in the region. This has encouraged the Chinese government to build up its own military capabilities. Especially in recent months, the Chinese military has engaged in increasingly provocative exercises near Taiwan, though fearmongers again are misrepresenting and exaggerating how threatening they truly are. Given Biden’s plans to escalate his predecessors’ military buildup in Asia, no one should be surprised if Beijing announces a military response and pursues an AUKUS-like alliance of its own. If so, the world will once more be locked in a two-sided Cold-War-like struggle that could prove increasingly difficult to unwind.

Unless Washington and Beijing reduce tensions, future historians may see AUKUS as akin not just to various Cold-War-era alliances, but to the 1882 Triple Alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. That pact spurred France, Britain, and Russia to create their own Triple Entente, which, along with rising nationalism and geo-economic competition, helped lead Europe into World War I (which, in turn, begat World War II, which begat the Cold War).

Avoiding a New Cold War?

The Biden administration and the United States must do better than resuscitate the strategies of the nineteenth century and the Cold War era. Rather than further fueling a regional arms race with yet more bases and weapons development in Australia, U.S. officials could help lower tensions between Taiwan and mainland China, while working to resolve territorial disputes in the South China Sea. In the wake of the Afghan War, President Biden could commit the United States to a foreign policy of diplomacy, peace-building, and opposition to war rather than one of endless conflict and preparations for more of the same. AUKUS’s initial 18-month consultation period offers a chance to reverse course.

Recent polling suggests such moves would be popular. More than three times as many in the U.S. would like to see an increase, rather than a decrease, in diplomatic engagement in the world, according to the nonprofit Eurasia Group Foundation. Most surveyed would also like to see fewer troop deployments overseas. Twice as many want to decrease the military budget as want to increase it.

The world barely survived the original Cold War, which was anything but cold for the millions of people who lived through or died in the era’s proxy wars in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Can we really risk another version of the same, this time possibly with Russia as well as China? Do we want an arms race and competing military buildups that would divert trillions of dollars more from pressing human needs while filling the coffers of arms manufacturers? Do we really want to risk triggering a military clash between the United States and China, accidental or otherwise, that could easily spin out of control and become a hot, possibly nuclear, war in which the death and destruction of the last 20 years of “forever wars” would look small by comparison.

That thought alone should be chilling. That thought alone should be enough to stop another Cold War before it’s too late.

*

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

David Vine, a TomDispatch regular and professor of anthropology at American University, is the author most recently of The United States of War: A Global History of America’s Endless Conflicts, from Columbus to the Islamic State, just out in paperback. He is also the author of Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World, part of the American Empire Project.

Featured image is from Pixabay

National Security Alert: Thousands of U.S. Special Forces and Combat Troops Discharged as Total Force ‘Vaccination’ Decimates Military Readiness

David DeGraw, October 14 , 2021

57 Top Scientists and Doctors Release Shocking Study on COVID Vaccines and Demand Immediate Stop to All Vaccinations

Dr. Roxana Bruno, October 14 , 2021

A Comparison of Official Government Reports Suggests the Fully Vaccinated Are Developing Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

Anonymous, October 19 , 2021

Proof that the CDC Is Lying to the World About COVID Vaccine Safety

Steve Kirsch, October 18 , 2021

Study by Harvard Researcher Finds Countries with Lowest COVID-19 Vaccination Rates Have Fewer Cases of COVID than Fully Vaccinated Countries

Brian Shilhavy, October 19 , 2021

Video: The Pandemic is a Global Coup d’état. Reiner Füllmich

Free West Media, October 16 , 2021

Now it has Happened: Vaccinated Pilot Dies in Flight. Emergency Landing and Uproar in the Aviation Industry

Niki Vogt, October 15 , 2021

Video: A Final Warning to Humanity from Former Pfizer Chief Scientist Michael Yeadon

Dr. Mike Yeadon, October 14 , 2021

27,247 Deaths and 2,563,768 Injuries Following COVID Shots in European Database – Taiwan Records More Deaths from Vaccine than Virus

Brian Shilhavy, October 16 , 2021

It All Makes Sense Once You Realize They Want to Kill Us

Mike Whitney, October 18 , 2021

The Incidence of Cancer, Triggered by the Covid 19 “Vaccine”

Dr. Nicole Delépine, October 19 , 2021

The COVID-19 “Vaccine” and the Nuremberg Code. Crimes Against Humanity, Genocide

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 17 , 2021

The Final Solution. Full Digitization. “The QR Codification of the World”

Peter Koenig, October 12 , 2021

Does the PCR Test Affect the Pineal Gland? Humans and “Transhumans”. Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger

Peter Koenig, October 17 , 2021

Forced Vaccination Was Always the End Game. America’s Move Towards Authoritarianism

Barbara Loe Fisher, October 20 , 2021

Over 7,000 Doctors and Scientists Sign “Rome Declaration” Accusing COVID Policy-Makers of ‘Crimes Against Humanity’

Debra Heine, October 13 , 2021

A Letter to the Unvaccinated

Dr. Angela Durante, October 17 , 2021

There Has Been No Mandatory Vaccination Executive Order

Renee Parsons, October 20 , 2021

The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 15 , 2021

What Happens When Doctors Buck Government Narrative on COVID?

Children’s Health Defense, October 16 , 2021

The “Killer Vaccine” Worldwide. 7.9 Billion People

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 18 , 2021

The WHO Recommends Genetic Manipulation and Gene Editing of Humans “To Promote Public Health”

Jens Bernert, October 20 , 2021

What’s Not Being Said About the Pfizer Coronavirus Vaccine. “Human Guinea Pigs”?

F. William Engdahl, October 17 , 2021

Taiwan Deaths from COVID-19 Vaccination Exceed Deaths from COVID-19

Medical Trend, October 20 , 2021

The Noose is Tightening, the Clock is Ticking: Justin Trudeau’s “Covid Mandate” against Canadians, Both “Unvaccinated” and “Vaccinated”

Marina Bulatović, October 22 , 2021

World Economic Forum Unveils COVID Passport that Uses Blood Test Markers to Determine Vaccination Status

Infowars.com, October 18 , 2021

The COVID-19 RT-PCR Test: How to Mislead All Humanity. Using a “Test” To Lock Down Society

Dr. Pascal Sacré, October 17 , 2021

Dystopian “Great Reset”: “Own Nothing and Be Happy”, Being Human in 2030

Colin Todhunter, October 20 , 2021

U.S Air Transportation in Crisis: Pilots Taking a Bold Stand against “Killer Vaccine”

Joachim Hagopian, October 12 , 2021

J’Accuse! The Gene-based “Vaccines” Are Killing People. Governments Worldwide Are Lying to You the People, to the Populations They Purportedly Serve

Doctors for COVID Ethics, October 17 , 2021

The 2020-21 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 12 , 2021

Groundbreaking: Nebraska AG Says Doctors Can Legally Prescribe Ivermectin, HCQ for COVID, Calls Out FDA, CDC, Fauci, Media for ‘Fueling Confusion and Misinformation’

Megan Redshaw, October 19 , 2021

“Is the Virus Fictitious”? Laboratories in US Can’t Find COVID-19 in One of 1,500 Positive Tests

Xander Nieuws, September 6 , 2021

People are Dying Worldwide: “Foreign Aid” to Finance 1.8 Billion Vaccine Doses. Western Governments, Billionaires and Big Pharma Come to the “Rescue of the Poor Countries”

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 16 , 2021

Putting Trudeau On Notice, Our Governments are No Longer Legitimate: Throwing Off the Tyranny of Canada’s Mandatory Vaccines

By Prof. Anthony J. Hall, October 21, 2021

Trudeau ran against those condemning his government’s blindness to the plague of vaccine deaths and injuries that is accompanying the forced injection of Covid clot shots.

From Russia, with (Taliban) Love

By Pepe Escobar, October 22, 2021

Lavrov’s presentation essentially expanded on the themes highlighted by the recent SCO Dushanbe Declaration: Afghanistan should be an “independent, neutral, united, democratic and peaceful state, free of terrorism, war and drugs,” and bearing an inclusive government “with representatives from all ethnic, religious and political groups.”

High Recorded Mortality in Countries Categorized as “Covid-19 Vaccine Champions”. The Vaccinated Suffer from Increased Risk of Mortality compared to the Non-vaccinated

By Gérard Delépine, October 22, 2021

Gibraltar (34,000 inhabitants) started vaccination in December 2020 when the health agency counted only 1040 confirmed cases and 5 deaths attributed to covid19 in this country. After a very comprehensive vaccination blitz, achieving 115% coverage (vaccination was extended to many Spanish visitors), the number of new infections increased fivefold (to 5314) and the number of deaths increased 19-fold.

The Noose is Tightening, the Clock is Ticking: Justin Trudeau’s “Covid Mandate” against Canadians, Both “Unvaccinated” and “Vaccinated”

By Marina Bulatović, October 22, 2021

In his election campaign, Trudeau has divided and labeled the people of Canada into two categories, the “vaccinated ones” and “the anti-vaccine mob,” without much tact or diplomatic wisdom and completely ignoring those who believe in and stand up for their right to choose.

Vaccine Researcher Admits ‘Big Mistake,’ Says Spike Protein Is Dangerous ‘Toxin’

By Celeste McGovern, October 22, 2021

‘Terrifying’ new research finds vaccine spike protein unexpectedly in bloodstream. The protein is linked to blood clots, heart and brain damage, and potential risks to nursing babies and fertility.

Colin Powell and the “The Sloppy Dossier”: Plagiarism and “Fake Intelligence” Used to Justify the 2003 War on Iraq: Copied and Pasted from the Internet into an “Official” British Intel Report

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Glen Rangwala, October 21, 2021

The Iraq war was based on a Big Lie, which was known and documented MORE THAN A MONTH before the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003. Both the US and UK media remained mum. The US Congress and the House of Commons failed to act.

Poland Threw Down the Gauntlet to the EU

By Andrew Korybko, October 21, 2021

Should EU law be imposed upon Member States in contravention of their constitutions, then the bloc risks creating a dangerous precedent that would lead to the erasure of state sovereignty and the accelerated creation of a centrally managed entity divorced from the democratic control of the same people that it purports to represent.

Melbourne: The Longest in Lockdown

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, October 21, 2021

The lockdowns – six in total – came with overly vigilant threatened and threatening police, punitive powers of hefty magnitude, mask mandates, curfews, limits on recreation time and demarcated areas of travel.

US Marines on Taiwan: Major Provocation, but Not News

By Brian Berletic, October 21, 2021

US troops had fully withdrawn from Taiwan in the 1970s and until now have not returned because it was in the 1970s that the United States along with virtually every other nation on Earth broke off official recognition of the Republic of China (ROC) government based in Taipei, recognized one single China including Taiwan, and officially recognized one government of China, based in Beijing – that of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

White House Details Plan to “Quickly” Vaccinate 28 Million Children Age 5-11

By Zero Hedge, October 21, 2021

The jab – which doesn’t prevent transmission of Covid-19 will be available at pediatricians, local pharmacies, and possibly even at schools, according to the White House, which expects FDA authorization of the Pfizer shot for children – the least likely to fall seriously ill or die from the virus, in a matter of weeks, according to the Associated Press.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

October 20^th was a day of escalation in Syria’s north, with casualties on most, if not all sides and October 21^st dawned with an expectation of even more fighting and preparations for the ensuing chaos.

Most significantly, several explosions rocked the US-led coalition garrison in the southeastern Syrian area of al-Tanf, where some 200 American troops are deployed. Arabic media reported that five suicide drones struck the garrison.

The attack was reportedly carried out by Iranian-backed forces. The Allies of Syria Operations Room, which commands Iranian-backed forces in Syria, vowed to respond “very harshly” to the October 13 Israeli airstrikes that targeted the outskirts of the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra. That attack reportedly originated from the direction al-Tanf.

It all began on the previous day, when the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) boasted with its reinforcements on the northern frontlines sent there to deter a Turkish ground operation against the Kurdish groups in the region, in which many civilians would also suffer.

Then “a series of unfortunate events” ensued, beginning with an IED attack on an SAA bus in Damascus city that left 14 SAA soldiers dead.

Then, near the frontlines, a large explosion rocked an SAA ammunition depot on the outskirts of Hama city, along the Hama-Homs highway. Reports put the casualty number at 6, all possibly members of the National Defense Forces or Iranian-backed factions. The reason behind the blast was dubbed a technical failure.

Later in the day, Turkey carried out a drone strike on the northeastern Syrian town of Kobane which is held by the US-backed Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

The drone strike came just ahead of the expected Ankara operation against Kurdish forces in the countryside of Aleppo, where Kobane is located.

Prior to that, artillery of Turkish-backed forces hit positions of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) near the town of Tel-Tamr in Syria’s Hassakah governorate. Several areas were targeted, and it is very apparent that Turkey’s increased activity in the past several days is preparing the situation for the upcoming operation.

Possibly taking advantage of Ankara’s forces and proxies being focused on the Kurdish-controlled areas, SAA and its allies are turning their attention also towards Greater Idlib.

On October 20, 10 people were killed and at least 20 others were wounded in a series of artillery strikes that targeted the town of Arihah in the northwestern Syrian region of Greater Idlib.

The strikes were attributed to the SAA. The town of Arihah is a well-known stronghold of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the de-facto ruler of Greater Idlib.

HTS and its allies shelled several artillery positions of the SAA in what they claimed to be a “response” the strikes that targeted Arihah. No casualties or material losses were reported.

It is a week of escalation, and all sides are expecting the others to make the first move so that chaos ensues. It is highly likely that Turkey cannot focus on both defending the so-called “moderate opposition” in Greater Idlib, while attacking the Kurdish-controlled areas, and Damascus and its allies are betting exactly on that.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Facing high expectations, a five-man band Taliban finally played in Moscow. Yet the star of the show, predictably, was the Mick Jagger of geopolitics: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

Right from the start, Lavrov set the tone for the Moscow format consultations, which boast the merit of “uniting Afghanistan with all neighboring countries.” Without skipping a beat, he addressed the US elephant in the room – or lack thereof: “Our American colleagues chose not to participate,” actually “for the second time, evading an extended troika-format meeting.”

Washington invoked hazy “logistical reasons” for its absence.

The troika, which used to meet in Doha, consists of Russia, the US, China and Pakistan. The extended troika in Moscow this week featured Russia, China, India, Iran, Pakistan and all five Central Asian ‘stans.’ That, in essence, made it a Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) meeting, at the highest level.

Lavrov’s presentation essentially expanded on the themes highlighted by the recent SCO Dushanbe Declaration: Afghanistan should be an “independent, neutral, united, democratic and peaceful state, free of terrorism, war and drugs,” and bearing an inclusive government “with representatives from all ethnic, religious and political groups.”

The joint statement issued after the meeting may not have been exactly a thriller. But then, right at the end, paragraph 9 offers the real bombshell:

“The sides have proposed to launch a collective initiative to convene a broad-based international donor conference under the auspices of the United Nations as soon as possible, certainly with the understanding that the core burden of post-conflict economic and financial reconstruction and development of Afghanistan must be shouldered by troop-based actors which were in the country for the past 20 years.”

The West will argue that a donor conference of sorts already happened: that was the G-20 special summit via videoconference earlier in October, which included UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Then, last week, much was made of a European promise of 1 billion euros in humanitarian aid, which, as it stands, remains extremely vague, with no concrete details.

At the G-20, European diplomats admitted, behind closed doors, that the main rift was between the West “wanting to tell the Taliban how to run their country and how to treat women” as necessary conditions in exchange for some help, compared to Russia and China following their non-interference foreign policy mandates.

Afghanistan’s neighbors, Iran and Pakistan, were not invited to the G-20, and that’s nonsensical. It’s an open question whether the official G-20 in Rome, on 30-31 October, will also address Afghanistan along with the main themes: climate change, Covid-19, and a still elusive global economic recovery.

No US in Central Asia

So the Moscow format, as Lavrov duly stressed, remains the go-to forum when it comes to addressing Afghanistan’s serious challenges.

Now we come to the crunch. The notion that the economic and financial reconstruction of Afghanistan should be conducted mainly by the former imperial occupier and its NATO minions – quaintly referred to as “troop-based actors” – is a non-starter.

The US does not do nation-building – as the entire Global South knows by experience. Even to unblock the nearly $10 billion of the Afghan Central Bank confiscated by Washington will be a hard slog. The IMF predicted that without foreign help the Afghan economy may shrink by 30 percent.

The Taliban, led by second Prime Minister Abdul Salam Hanafi, tried to put on a brave face. Hanafi argued that the current interim government is already inclusive: after all, over 500,000 employees of the former administration have kept their jobs.

But once again, much precious detail was lost in translation, and the Taliban lacked a frontline figure capable of capturing the Eurasian imagination. The mystery persists: where is Mullah Baradar?

Baradar, who led the political office in Doha, was widely tipped to be the face of the Taliban to the outside world after the group’s takeover of Kabul on 15 August. He has been effectively sidelined.

The background to the Moscow format, though, offers a few nuggets. There were no leaks – but diplomats hinted it was tense. Russia had to play careful mediator, especially when it came to addressing grievances by India and concerns by Tajikistan.

Everyone knew that Russia – and all the other players – would not recognize the Taliban as the new Afghan government, at least not yet. That’s not the point. The priority once again had to be impressed on the Taliban leadership: no safe haven for any jihadi outfits that may attack “third countries, especially the neighbors,” as Lavrov stressed.

When President Putin casually drops the information, on the record, that there are at least 2,000 ISIS-K jihadis in northern Afghanistan, this means Russian intel knows exactly where they are, and has the capabilities to snuff them, should the Taliban signal help is needed.

Now compare it with NATO – fresh from its massive Afghan humiliation – holding a summit of defense ministers in Brussels this Thursday and Friday to basically lecture the Taliban. NATO’s secretary-general, the spectacularly mediocre Jens Stoltenberg, insists that “the Taliban are accountable to NATO” over addressing terrorism and human rights.

As if this was not inconsequential enough, what really matters – as background to the Moscow format – is how the Russians flatly refused a US request to deploy their intel apparatus somewhere in Central Asia, in theory, to monitor Afghanistan.

First they wanted a “temporary” military base in Uzbekistan or Tajikistan: Putin–Biden actually discussed it at the Geneva summit. Putin counter-offered, half in jest, to host the Americans in a Russian base, probably in Tajikistan. Moscow gleefully played along for a few weeks just to reach an immovable conclusion: there’s no place for any US “counter-terrorism” shenanigans in Central Asia.

To sum it all up, Lavrov in Moscow was extremely conciliatory. He stressed how the Moscow format participants plan to use all opportunities for “including” the Taliban via several multilateral bodies, such as the UN, the SCO – where Afghanistan is an observer nation – and crucially, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which is a military alliance.

So many layers of ‘inclusiveness’ beckon. Humanitarian help from SCO nations like Pakistan, Russia and China is on its way. The last thing the Taliban need is to be ‘accountable’ to brain-dead NATO.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Cradle.

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Cradle

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The CDC released more data into VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) this past Friday which included cases through October 1, 2021.

The U.S. Government is now reporting that in the past 10 months since the emergency use authorization for the COVID-19 shots 16,310 people have died following those shots. (Source.)

By way of contrast, prior to December, 2020, the date when the first COVID-19 shots were given emergency use authorization, 6,214 people reportedly died following ALL FDA-approved vaccines for the past 30 years. (Source.)

So in the past 10 months, over 2.5X more people have died following COVID-19 shots than people dying after all vaccines for the past 30 years, according to official government statistics.

In addition to recording over 2.5X more people dying after a COVID-19 shot, in the past 10 months following COVID-19 shots there have been more permanent disabilities, more life threatening reactions, and more hospitalizations than the past 30 years following all vaccines.

And yet the CDC and the FDA continue to lie to the American people and people around the word by claiming COVID-19 shots are “Safe and Effective.”

CDC website.

In addition to these recorded deaths following COVID-19 shots, the VAERS database has now recorded 2,102 fetal deaths following the injection of COVID-19 shots into pregnant women for the past 10 months. (Source.)

By way of contrast, VAERS lists 2,184 fetal deaths following all vaccines for the past 30 years. (Source.) So about as many babies have been lost to pregnant women for the past 10 months following COVID-19 shots as have been lost to pregnant women for the past 30 years following all vaccines.

And yet the CDC and FDA are telling all pregnant women to get a COVID-19 shot. (Source.)

Record Number of People Suffering Blood Clots and Heart Disease Following COVID-19 Shots

The CDC admits that there are risks of blood clots (thrombosis) and heart disease (myocarditis and pericarditis) from the COVID-19 shots, especially among young males.

But they brush aside these known side effects as “rare” and continue to push at-risk people to get the shots.

They do this through “selective bias” by only including in their reports some of these side effects, but not all of them.

Fortunately, the VAERS database is open to the public to fact-check their claims. We have run searches on ALL cases of both thrombosis and carditis, and then compared that data to the data associated with all vaccines for the past 30 years by way of comparison.

The most recent (10.1.21) data entered into VAERS for COVID-19 shots during the past 10 months lists 12,553 cases of thrombosis (blood clots), resulting in 589 deaths, 869 permanent disabilities, and 2,543 life threatening events. (Source.)

Using the same data set, we performed the exact same search for thrombosis for ALL vaccines for the past 30 years, which reports 487 cases of thrombosis (blood clots), resulting in 18 deaths, 65 permanent disabilities, and 110 life threatening events. (Source.)

So for the past 10 months following COVID-19 shots, there have been 26X more cases of blood clots, and 33X more deaths from blood clots, than cases and deaths due to blood clots following ALL vaccines for the past 30 years.

How about damaged hearts (carditis)?

According to the most recent (10.1.21) data entered into VAERS for COVID-19 shots during the past 10 months there have been 7,791 cases of carditis, resulting in 119 deaths, 250 permanent disabilities, and 867 life threatening events.

Using the same data set, we performed the exact same search for carditis for ALL vaccines for the past 30 years, which reports 911 cases, 97 deaths, 43 permanent disabilities, and 135 life threatening events.

So for the past 10 months following COVID-19 shots, there have been 8.5X more cases of heart disease, and 1.2X more deaths due to heart problems than cases and deaths due to heart problems following ALL vaccines for the past 30 years.

The Genocide of Our Senior Citizens

Seniors over the age of 65 comprise 76% of the recorded deaths following a COVID-19 shot, which translates to 12,396 deaths according to the latest statistics. (Source.)

How many seniors have died following vaccination for all vaccines for the past 30 years, before the COVID-19 shots were given emergency use authorization?

There were 1,068 deaths in people over the age of 65 following ALL vaccines for the past 30 years. (Source.)

So for the past 10 months, there have been 11.6X more deaths among people over the age of 65 than there have been for the past 30 years following ALL vaccines.

And yet the CDC and FDA just approved a 3rd “booster” COVID-19 shot for this age group.

These are the Reported Numbers, but What are the True Numbers of Dead and Injured following COVID-19 Shots?

Ever since the VAERS database began, it has been known that the system is a “passive” system, and is vastly under-reported.

Some estimates over the years have been published that theorized that perhaps only 1% of all cases are reported.

And we know from testimonies today of frontline workers working with patients in the hospitals that there is tremendous pressure put on nurses and doctors to NOT report side effects from the COVID-19 shots to the VAERS database.

But now, a comprehensive analysis regarding the under-reporting of COVID-19 adverse events has been conducted by Dr. Jessica Rose, who has a BSc in Applied Mathematics, an MSc in Immunology, and a PhD in Computational Biology.

Based on her analysis, which is already over 1 month old, at least 150,000 people have died following COVID-19 shots in the United States.

This is maybe the most brilliant analysis of the VAERS data I have ever seen. What Dr. Rose did was take an independent analysis of a single VAERS event, one that the FDA and CDC admitted was an adverse reaction based on trials before the shots were even authorized, anaphylaxis, and then looked at independent studies reporting the rate of anaphylaxis to determine the true percentage, compared to what is actually being reported in VAERS.

What she found was that anaphylaxis was being under-reported in VAERS by 41X. Read her full comprehensive analysis here: STUDY: Government’s Own Data Reveals that at Least 150,000 Probably DEAD in U.S. Following COVID-19 Vaccines

So as damning as the government’s current data is which I just explained above in this article, take these statistics for the past 10 months following COVID-19 shots and multiply them by 41X, and then you will get a truer number of reality than what the government is currently reporting.

This is, by far, the biggest cover-up and scandal in the history of the human race.

A Universal Vaccine for Everyone on the Planet has been the Goal for the Eugenic Tyrants for Decades

If you have not yet seen the October, 2019 video that was recorded pre-COVID-19 where Anthony Fauci and other Globalists planned for a new kind of “Universal Flu Vaccine” that implemented new, untested technology called “mRNA” technology, then please go read my report and watch that video, as it will explain why we are at this place today in human history where medical tyrants who believe that they control the human race and the planet have been planning this “vaccine” for many years now.

BOMBSHELL: Video Emerges Where Fauci and Others Planned for a “Universal mRNA Flu Vaccine” Which Became the “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine” Because People were not Afraid Enough of the Flu Virus

This video will reveal to you just how it can be that human life in 2021 has little to no value in the eugenicist psychopaths’ minds who believe that billions of people need to die to save humanity and the planet.

This knowledge can potentially save your life, and the lives of others who are still walking in the dark and have no clue as to what is actually transpiring in our world 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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

 

***

 

.

Contradiction: Was Justin Trudeau Vaccinated??? Click below

Video: Has Justin Trudeau Been Duly Vaccinated? Registered Nurse Expresses Doubt on Authenticity of Trudeau’s Vaccine Jab 

.

***

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had called early elections for September 20, 2021, which is two months ahead of schedule. Prime Minister Trudeau’s Liberal Party has won a close election race but has failed to win an absolute majority in the national parliament.

Trudeau announced better days ahead for Canada after his victory, and he declared new COVID-19 measures already on October 6, with numerous private companies informing their employees by e-mail on the same day that they would lose their jobs if they failed to get vaccinated by December 31 of this year. The staff would not be able to work online either, as the COVID-19 virus appears to be transmitted over the Internet as well as remotely.

Trudeau’s new measures read (briefly) as follows:

*From October 30, 2021, all passengers over the age of 12 traveling by plane, train and boat must be fully vaccinated before boarding, regardless of whether they are heading to a domestic or international destination.*

“Thirty years ago, when we moved to Canada, we almost immediately realized that there was no such thing as democracy in the West. Liberals win in big cities and Conservatives gain votes in small and rural areas. For now, more people live in cities, especially since Trudeau has welcomed numerous refugees who voted in gratitude to him and the Liberals,” claim emigrants from Bosnia and Herzegovina, who have lived here for decades.

On October 6 in Canada, which has a population of over 38 million, there was a total of 41,636 active cases of COVID-19 [estimated by the flawed PCR test], which in percentage terms amounted to 0.11%. On the same day that Trudeau announced the new measures, 3,722 new cases of COVID-19 were reported, which was 0.01% of the total population.

In a virtual world, on Canada’s official state website says it has “approved and recognized” four vaccines: Moderna, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca. However, in reality it is possible to receive only Moderna or Pfizer, while the state has donated millions of Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca doses to poor countries such as Jamaica, Barbados, Ecuador, Peru, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Trinidad and Tobago.

Incidentally, the donated vaccines have received very bad publicity in Canada itself because, in truth, the one-dose Johnson & Johnson hardly pays off. In the meantime, the third dose, Pfizer’s booster, is ‘taking over’ the planet to a great extent.

There are several different types of coronavirus vaccines on the world market: Messenger RNA/mRNA (Moderna and Pfizer); Vector (Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca and Sputnik V) and the Chinese vaccine, which is based on traditional technology that uses an inactivated or dead virus.

In his election campaign, Trudeau has divided and labeled the people of Canada into two categories, the “vaccinated ones” and “the anti-vaccine mob,” without much tact or diplomatic wisdom and completely ignoring those who believe in and stand up for their right to choose. 

“For the vast, vast majority of people, the rules are very simple: to travel you’ve got to be vaccinated,” Trudeau said when he announced better days ahead for Canadians. The phrase that something ‘has go to’ be done says the most about the PM, the Liberals, democracy and human rights in this country. It is also unclear what the “vast majority of people” means, as he had narrowly won the election race. Specifically, in 2021, the PM received the lowest percentage of votes at the national level in the history of Canada in terms of the number of voters for the ruling party.

In short: Canadians are forced to receive only the “modern” and insufficiently tested Messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines by October 30, 2021. If they fail to do so, they will not be able to visit relatives or friends living in another province or territory nor take an overseas vacation.

The question is what, in the given circumstances, can the Canadian immigrants with dual citizenship do, those whose native country may be China, India, Bangladesh, Serbia, Bosnia, Italy, Ireland, France – which are the majority population of this country? Only 32.3% consider themselves to be Canadians, and the 4.4% with indigenous peoples status have long been placed on reservations.

And ultimately: many people, unless they comply, will lose their jobs!

The noose is tightening and the clock is ticking relentlessly towards October 30. As a matter of fact, it should be said that since the beginning of the pandemic, every Canadian who earned a minimum annual income of C$5,000 (the socially vulnerable group) in the previous year of 2019, was entitled to social assistance in the amount of C$2,200 per month, after 10% tax. Some time ago, that amount was reduced to C$1,300 per month, after tax. However, it was announced that this aid would be stopped on October 23, 2021. 

Longos Supermarket

As the cuts to social assistance coincide (as precisely as a Swiss watch) with the date of universal vaccination, it is clear that this may not involve a medical issue (nor is it a matter of protecting humankind), but rather a political agenda of the ruling circles crowing that Canada has one of the highest rates of coronavirus vaccinations worldwide.

Of course, this allegedly excellent result was achieved by means of much coercion and blackmail, while the election victory was secured by spending an incredible C$37 billion on maintaining social peace, in order for the public assistance to be suspended after the election.

If you are wondering what Canadians are doing this October, following the announcement of the new measures, the answer is this: some 200 to 2,000 demonstrators against mandatory vaccination gather in a park next to the Ontario Parliament in Toronto every Saturday at noon – and that’s it.

There is no stand taken among the people about the announced forced vaccination or the restrictions on movement that will turn Canada into a kind of quarantine camp for the unvaccinated: people gather, in an infantile manner but also somewhat dejectedly in preparation for Halloween, which is traditionally celebrated on October 31, when the faithful Orthodox throughout the world celebrate the Feast of St. Luke. 

The question arises of why there is a lack of interest in the people’s own lives, but also in the future of their children, as once they are deprived of the freedom of opinion and the right to choose, it is inevitable that those following in the steps of Trudeau will get in on the act.

Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that the dollar is the supreme deity in western world; or that atheism is too “popular”; or in the endless faith in authority bordering on belief in Santa Claus; or in the trust in the media that daily serve lies such as: “Russians are rushing to Serbia to get jabbed with Western vaccines (reference to Pfizer).”

Maybe it’s the fear of draconian measures if the set rules are not followed (for example: if you sit on a park bench or play basketball or tennis – the fine is C$100,000); or the fear of losing a job; or it is a matter of idle reluctance to think with one’s own head and thus take on some responsibility. It may, after all, just be easier to trust a medical profession that is regrettably often corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry.

In any case, the (non)democratic black days of October are going by quickly for the unvaccinated.

In the meanwhile, protests are in full swing across the planet – in Australia, France, Austria, Italy, Greece, Slovenia – and Austria has officially put the Chinese vaccination on its list of “approved and recognized” vaccines.

Trudeau’s troubles in the pre-election campaign

On September 7, during the election campaign in London (Ontario), gravel was thrown at Trudeau while he was facing indignant protesters. The Liberal leader acknowledged that he may have been struck by some of the projectiles but that he would not bow to the demands of those he called “mobs that are against vaccines” or “anti-vaxxer mobs.” Some people from the crowd also cursed him loudly!

Earlier, in the city of Bolton (Ontario), his visit was canceled due to the large number of protesters who had gathered there.

What Canadian farmers think of Trudeau is perhaps best illustrated by the photographs in this text, which read: “Save Canada – say NO to Trudeau” or “No more lockdowns!” 

Trudeau – Covid-19 and other crises 

At the very beginning of the pandemic, in addition to a shortage of masks, gloves, and alcoholic sanitizers, there were other scarcities in Canada, and there was rationing on purchasing of flour and eggs (as can be seen from the attached photos).

Shops selling alcoholic beverages (LCBO), but also those selling beer and cannabis (marijuana) were declared as “essential business” and there were no shortages. Dr. Eileen de Villa, the Medical Officer of Health for the City of Toronto, said that she remorsefully admits that many Canadians have serious dependence issues when it comes to alcohol, which is why those particular shops are to remain open.

At the end of May 2020, the Canadian military drew the curtain on horrific allegations of elder abuse in long-term care homes. Soldiers called in to help in the facilities at the height of the pandemic observed staff leaving patients in soiled diapers, ignoring calls for help and using unsterilized equipment.

They said that the situation in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, where about 1,400 soldiers were called in as part of an effort to assist the health system, was particularly difficult and that about 80% of all coronavirus deaths in Canada had occurred in care homes during that period.

In a report published by many media outlets, the residents of the care homes were mistreated, practically drugged, and left in soiled sheets for hours and days at a stretch.

During a daily press conference, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that he was “sad, shocked, disappointed and angry” because of what he had heard. He added he was “deeply disturbed.”

Concerning foreign policy, the PM has led Canada on an unsuccessful bid for temporary membership on the United Nations Security Council.

A new scandal appeared at the end of May 2021: the remains of 215 children were found in Canada at the site of a former residential school for indigenous peoples. The report documented the physical abuse, rape, starvation and other atrocities suffered by many of the 150,000 indigenous children.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the latest discovery of the remains of children’s bodies was a “painful reminder” of a “shameful chapter” in Canadian history. However, if it had happened in another country (especially in the Balkans), he would surely have named it “genocide.”

The September ordeal 

I returned to Canada from Belgrade at the beginning of September 2021, taking with me a negative PCR test from the Belgrade-based Batut Institute of Public Health. As soon as I landed at Pearson Airport, I had another PCR test done, which was also negative, and I was sent the result by e-mail.

Then, at home, on the eighth day, I had to self-test for the third time, via a video link in the presence of a state representative. That result was also negative. However, the quarantine rule, despite three negative PCR tests, was mandatory for a full 14 days.

If I had violated one of the above rules, I would have had to pay a fine of up to $750,000 or face imprisonment for up to 6 months.

*

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.

Marina Bulatović, a journalist and a regular member of the Independent Journalists’Association of Serbia (NUNS) since 1998.

All images in this article are from the author

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

An anonymous nurse whistleblower, ‘Sarah’, speaks to Stew Peters about what she’s seeing in the US hospital she works at regarding the injured patients coming in. Her general perception about who is injured and why confirms the impressions of UK funeral director John O’Looney that we reported on yesterday. See this video and report titled COVID ‘Medication’, Not The Virus, Triggers 250 Percent Death Rare Spurt

 

Here are some notes from this 14-minute video interview:

• Peters: We were told hospitals were over run with Covid patients that were sick and dying. It was never true. Nurse: The overflow has been happening since the vaccination rollout; it was never Covid.
• Nurse: Someone who presents with a group of symptoms referred to as Covid gets a PCR test and either goes to the main hospital floor (negative) or the isolation unit (positive). In the hospital, everyone takes the PCR test result as absolute truth. Even with no respiratory symptoms, a positive test result would see that person put in the isolation unit. So people who don’t have ‘Covid’ could still be put in there with Covid-infected people. Depending on oxygen-saturation levels, the Covid ICU is where everybody is gowned and gloved with few staff in there. They’re also put on Remdesivir – that is standard care. As well as ventilators. Most of them ‘do not do well’ and ‘pass away’. Patients put on Remdesivir typically not do well, and get kidney and heart issues.
• Peters: Fauci and others at the national medical organizations already knew that Remdesivir (R) causes kidney problems and sends fluid to the lungs, the ventilator explodes. People are ‘drowning, essentially’. Nurse: Yes, this has been the standard medication since the beginning. There was a period over the summer where numbers were low, and R was combined with ivermectin for some patients. Now that’s been phased out and it’s R by itself. Patients did do better on ivermectin in her experience. With R, people get heart problems that they didn’t have before and develop kidney issues. Many patients go on dialysis for the first time.
• Peters: Are doctors permitted or not to prescribe ivermectin? She doesn’t know.
• Peters: Is there a test for the Delta variant? No. In fact, no notes from within the hospital or from outside such as a specialist’s office mention these words ‘Delta variant’. Only letters going out from the hospital administration to the staff mention this in relation to getting the vaccination. But no patients have been diagnosed with the Delta variant (DV). It’s all ‘Covid-19′. There’s no test for the DV. The patients’ actual clinical conditions haven’t changed since they started using this DV term. Has the number of sick people changed since using this term? No. There has not been an influx of patients recently. The only influx that the nurse has seen has been since the vaccination rollout. It’s more vaccine-related injuries – blood clots, cardiac issues, neurological problems, balance issues, cognitive issues, aggressive behaviour, encephalopathy, etc., which are all different from the previous Covid. Right now, the majority of patients in her care are not Covid patients but vaccine-injured patients.
• Peters: Are these injuries reported to the VAERS system? Nurse: I haven’t seen an instance of this. Staff or patients’ families who raise this topic are completely dismissed. Doctors don’t acknowledge that the patient’s injuries have anything to do with the vaccination, even if the injuries come immediately after. Doctors do not only not acknowledge the possibility of vaccine injury but they will stop you mid-sentence if you mention it.
• Peters: We have suspected this all along.
• Peters: Is it fair to say that the cases labelled ‘Covid-19’ or a ‘new Delta surge’ by the media are simply vaccinated people presenting with a variety of symptoms? Yes. For those medical staff who are aware, we say ‘the Delta variant is the vaccine injuries’.  It’s common knowledge among those medical staff who are aware and not in denial.
• Peters: To your knowledge, what % of people you work with would refuse this shot? About 50%. And these people will probably be terminated when the mandates come to her facility.
• Peters: What’s the one big thing the public is being lied to about, what’s the reality in the hospitals that the media frenzy is covering up, what do you want people to know? Nurse: Stop watching the news – it is absolutely false. I would prefer to go 10 times through the original Covid problem (ER: we assume this was last year around March/April) than what we’ve seen with the vaccination rollout. The injuries, the loss of life, and loss of functioning such as breathing issues, etc. A lot of these people will not be leaving. We have people coming in who were caregivers to their families and they’re changed forever, and now their family is taking care of them. It’s horrific. This vaccine rollout is a nightmare, and the media is completely hiding what is going on with these vaccines.
• Peters: Are the doctors pushing the vaccines on the patients who are there? Nurse: Yes. What’s sad is that doctors are aware of the effects of them. If we as nurses can see this, they can. But if you raise the topic, you are shut down.
• Peters: Why do you think this is? Are the doctors getting paid? Nurse: We don’t know. It’s an unwritten rule that you can’t talk about it; the administration is pushing this on the staff. And we’re helpless.
• Peters: Doctors swear a hippocratic oath… Yet over the vaccine issue, they are not following it and instead are acting in a way which harms patients. Nurse: Yes. I no longer trust doctors’ care.Some patients come in after only one dose, and they’re being talked into getting the 2ndonce they leave the hospital. It’s insane. So she tells the patients not to do this.
• Peters: So patients like this are shut away within the hospital, being denied family and advocates, being denied the treatment they are requesting (ER: could this be ivermectin?) and basically being given a death sentence. ‘This looks like murder for money to me.’

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Should EU law be imposed upon Member States in contravention of their constitutions, then the bloc risks creating a dangerous precedent that would lead to the erasure of state sovereignty and the accelerated creation of a centrally managed entity divorced from the democratic control of the same people that it purports to represent.

The Polish Prime Minister threw down the gauntlet to the EU in the open letter that he published to the bloc’s leaders on Monday. It came shortly after his country’s Constitutional Tribunal ruled that EU law cannot be promulgated at the expense of national law. This in turn prompted groundless fearmongering that the Central & Eastern European (CEE) leader of the promising “Three Seas Initiative” (3SI) intends to pull a so-called “Polexit”, which its ruling conservative-nationalist Law & Justice (PiS according to its Polish acronym) denies.

In his letter, Mateusz Morawiecki carefully explained that while Poland still respects the importance of EU law, it cannot be imposed on Member States in contravention of their domestic law. Should that happen, then the bloc risks creating a dangerous precedent that would lead to the erasure of state sovereignty and the accelerated creation of a centrally managed entity divorced from the democratic control of the same people that it purports to represent.

A day later on Tuesday, he accused the bloc of blackmail while arguing with its representatives at the European Parliament. Poland believes that the EU’s threat to withhold billions of euros’ worth of COVID-19 aid pending the country’s political capitulation to Brussels’ judicial demands is illegal and threatens to divide the bloc even more than it already is. This suggests that the EU has already gone so far with its anti-democratic and illegal centralizing tendencies that Poland has no choice but to make a final stand for the sake of its sovereignty.

The EU is reacting hysterically to Poland’s principled position. EU Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders told Axios that same day that this is the EU’s January 6^th moment. Considering the mainstream narrative about that contentious event, this implies that Poland is behaving in a “seditious” and perhaps even “terroristic” manner. Such innuendo suggests that a political compromise is impossible between the disputing sides. It also hints that the EU is preparing to severely punish Poland in order to make an example out of it and deter others.

The impending political battle will be very dirty. The joint US-German Hybrid War on Poland will most likely intensify through more Color Revolution provocations, information warfare, and sanctions threats. In response, Poland will seek to assemble its regional ideological allies into a pro-reform bloc within the EU aimed at pushing back against this transnational entity’s anti-democratic and illegal actions. If the fellow conservative-nationalist government of the country’s top Hungarian ally falls after next spring’s elections, Poland will be isolated.

It would no longer be able to depend on Budapest to block the EU’s punitive measures that require consensus among its members. That would certainly escalate tensions between Warsaw and Brussels. The primary problem for Poland is that it doesn’t have any geopolitical or geo-economic pressure valves after burning all its bridges with Russia and increasingly behaving antagonistically towards China. This will place the country in an even more strategically disadvantageous position than before, further compounding its domestic challenges.

These aforesaid challenges will be externally exacerbated in an attempt to weaken support for PiS ahead of future elections. It should be remembered that the party barely won re-election last year so it’s definitely possible for the EU to successfully reshape Polish perceptions of the party to the point where it loses the next polls. In the context of Hybrid War theory, this means that they’re promoting a superficially “democratic” regime change through anti-democratic measures by meddling through economic means.

By throwing down the gauntlet to the EU, Poland is making a final stand for its fellow Member States’ sovereignty in the face of the bloc’s obsession with centralizing at their expense and subsequently institutionalizing a political hierarchy within it. The CEE leader’s efforts are noble but might ultimately not be enough to succeed. That wouldn’t be unprecedented though since Poland has a proud history of fighting impossible battles in order to make a final stand in support of its principles, which has left an enduring legacy.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

It was decried as yet another one of Boris Johnson’s hairbrained schemes: a bridge connecting Scotland with Northern Ireland, therefore mainland Britain with the island of Ireland. ‘The world’s most stupid tunnel’ said Dominic Cummings; ‘nothing more than a vanity project’ scoffed the SNP Transport Minister.

Critics needn’t have worried: the Johnson government plans were shelved almost before they got off the ground. Sources cited financial concerns. Yet there are those who still think the project should have gone ahead.

Professor Alan Dunlop, the bridge’s architect, is one who believes in the scheme’s potential.  In an interview with The National newspaper, Dunlop says the UK government has missed out on an opportunity to boost the economy post-Brexit.  He states that ‘such a major transportation and infrastructure project would be an investment in the future after Brexit and also post-Covid.’ He compares it to former US President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal during the 1930s’ Great Depression which put so many people back to work, describing the plan as ‘transformative and a world first’.

There could have been other benefits as well for the Johnson government. At a time when the Union is arguably at its weakest, after Brexit, and Scottish independence and Irish reunification are on the table, the bridge project could have demonstrated London’s commitment to the devolved regions.  Symbolically, it would have permanently connected Northern Ireland to the UK mainland, emphasizing that it is very much a part of Great Britain, and will remain so.

But the idea of the bridge was immediately unpopular with politicians in Scotland and Northern Ireland alike. Fundamentally, they probably disliked the prospect of the UK government meddling in their regional infrastructure, but they also cited concerns about the cost and presence of dumped munitions in the Irish Sea. SDLP leader Colum Eastwood said ‘The Prime Minister’s fantasy bridge to Northern Ireland could cost £33 billion. This while our road and rail networks have been absolutely decimated from decades of underinvestment.’ Scottish Transport Secretary Michael Matheson reminded London that the Scottish government already had its own “robust process” for planning future transport infrastructure projects and that such a tunnel project simply wasn’t ‘a priority’ for Scotland or Northern Ireland.

The fact is that the devolved administrations of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, are so used to their autonomy that it will be very difficult now for London to start throwing its weight around again in these regions in future. Once freedom is given, it’s almost impossible to claw it back. Particularly after the 2016 Brexit result, when both Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU, the regions of the UK felt abandoned by Westminster and Boris Johnson’s determination to exit the EU ‘come what may’. There is no doubt a feeling that if such a project is going to go ahead between Scotland and Northern Ireland, it will be at the bidding of Edinburgh and Belfast, and not London.

Although the project has been temporarily shelved however, it doesn’t mean that it will stay there. It is likely that the UK government will come up with other schemes such as this in the near future to try to maintain the Union and dilute feelings of Irish and Scottish nationalism. It was reported in March this year that around 1000 British civil servants would be relocating from London to Glasgow to what is to be a second headquarters for the UK Cabinet Office. With Glasgow being something of a hub of Scottish nationalism in Scotland, there can be no doubt that this is part of a strategic move to plant pro-Union personnel in the city. Such ‘planting’ of the English has been done by the British government since time immemorial. In the 1600s English Protestants who had pledged allegiance to the King were ‘planted’ in Ulster in Northern Ireland, where their descendants remain to this day, still loyal to the British crown. Extraordinary to think such a technique is still in use today.

Therefore, bridge, or no bridge, Boris Johnson’s government will do what it takes to rally support for the Union in the devolved regions in the near future.  The question remains however, with nationalist sentiment higher than it has ever been (particularly in Scotland) is it now too little, too late?

*

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

Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland. You can follow the author on Twitter.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

In Syria’s north, in Tel Rifaat and Manbij, a new Turkish operation seems all but inevitable against the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

As of October 15^th, Turkey has been transferring additional special forces and armored vehicles to the border with Syria in the area of ​​the city of Kobani, which is under the control of the Kurds.

Turkey said its proxies in Syria’s Azaz region were hit in a guided missile attack on October 17^th, from Tel Rifaat by the YPG (the People’s Protection Units, the core of SDF).

Ankara has, more than once, said that if diplomacy fails, it would be time for a military operation. And justifications come a dime a dozen in Syria’s north.

Any casual observer could see that there hasn’t even been an attempt at actual diplomacy. Ankara has carried several military operations in Northern Syria targeted at the Kurdish, dubbing most of them terrorists and collaborators of the YPG, no negotiations have taken place, only artillery shells have spoken.

The operation against the Kurds was a foregone conclusion, simply waiting for the proper moment to happen.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said that Ankara was determined to eliminate threats originating in parts of Syria under Kurdish control and that the attack that killed two Turkish police officers was “the final straw”.

Meanwhile, the Kurds are saying that Turkey’s aggressive actions are making the entire Middle East unstable, and that if they begin their most recent operation, Ankara’s forces will be met with “heavy popular resistance”. They are “shocked” at Erdogan and Co.’s constant accusations and increasing assertiveness.e

Northern Syria is a sort of beehive, as it is filled with Iran-backed fighters, Turkish-supported insurgents, jihadists, US troops, Kurdish troops and Syrian Arab Army (SAA) forces operating across the patchwork of territories. Russian warplanes flying overhead add to the general sense of chaos.

Later on October 16^th, warplanes of the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) dropped leaflets over the Turkish-occupied Syrian towns of Marea and Azaz warning Turkish-backed militants against launching any attack in the northern Aleppo countryside.

The warning is unlikely to work, as Ankara has been itching for a fight for a while now, and it wants to make a show of force against any possible SAA offensive on Greater Idlib, where it mostly protects the interests of the al-Qaeda affiliated so-called “moderate opposition.”

Meanwhile, fourteen SAA servicemen were killed and three others were injured in a terrorist attack with two explosive devices that targeted a bus in Jisr al-Rais in Damascus. In total there were three explosive devices, but sappers managed to defuse one of them.

Occasional attacks such as this one are not entirely uncommon, as Bashar al-Assad’s government has many enemies attempting to impede its progress both towards Greater Idlib, and damage it’s recent success in the southern Dara’a province.

If Turkey begins an operation in northern Syria against the Kurdish groups, it would not be entirely unexpected if the SAA also begins its operation against the militants in Greater Idlib to take advantage of Ankara’s focus being elsewhere. In just a matter of days or weeks, all hell may break loose in Syria’s north.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Americans want to feel good about themselves by giving money to charities that claim to be helping the Syrian people.

But they are being duped into supporting terrorist forces that have brought misery and violence to the country—while crippling U.S. sanctions accentuate the humanitarian crisis.

Are major charitable organizations supporting terrorist organizations through tax-deductible donations while denying aid to those they claim to serve?

Doctors Without Borders, the Syrian Emergency Task Force, the International Rescue Committee, the Syrian American Medical Society, the White Helmets, Syrian Forum USA, Islamic Relief USA, CARE, the Syrian American Council, and other major tax-deductible charities all advertise that they are providing humanitarian aid to Syrians. Their ads appear in Facebook, Twitter and other social media on a regular basis. But their aid is not reaching 6.5 million displaced and needy Syrians in Syria.

Some of the international charities do excellent work in other countries, but in the small portion of Syria where they provide services and supplies through proxies, their work is under the control of al-Qaeda affiliates and their aid is directed primarily to the fighters and their families.

This is the case for both medical services like Doctors Without Borders, and for delivery of food, medical and other relief supplies, hoards of which have been discovered in massive quantities in terrorist headquarters after removal of the terrorists. The civilians in areas formerly held by the fighters report that they often had to pay extortionist sums to get services or supplies.

[Source: asavic.org.au]

The vast majority of displaced persons are in government-controlled Syria, where U.S. siege sanctions do not permit international organizations to distribute aid through Syrian charitable organizations such as the Syrian Red Crescent, the Syrian equivalent of the Red Cross.

The U.S. claims that humanitarian aid is exempt from the sanctions, but they permit aid to enter these areas only if the foreign charity distributes the aid through its own personnel(paid or volunteer). But very few organizations are prepared to create their own distribution system inside government-controlled Syria, and those who cooperate with terrorists fighting against Syria are not likely to be welcome in those areas.

In fact, only four U.S. charitable organizations can operate in most of Syria. The largest of these is the International Medical Corps, which provides medical aid throughout the world. In Syria it addresses psychosocial trauma, hygiene, malnutrition, and the COVID-19 pandemic. It provides personal protective equipment, and infection prevention and control, but not vaccines. Although it diagnoses malnutrition and reports that it is widespread, there is no indication that it provides actual food, perhaps for fear of violating U.S. sanctions.

The other three are tiny. One is the Adventist Development and Relief Agency, operated by the Seventh Day Adventist Church. It is authorized to operate in Syria, but there is no indication that it is currently doing so. Its website reports only that the organization offers aid to refugees through its office in Serbia.

Another is SAWA (“together” in Arabic) the Syrian-American Women’s Charitable Association, based in Washington, D.C. It is also authorized to operate in Syria, but serves mainly the refugee population outside. The only aid inside Syria reported on its website is to support another organization, al-Mubarra, to provide clean water to refugees returning to Syria.

The remaining U.S.-based 501(c)(3) tax exempt charitable organization is the Syria Solidarity Movement, a small California-based nonprofit that helps needy Syrians on an individual basis through volunteers.

Its aid includes shelter, medical procedures, economic self-sufficiency and similar measures for destitute Syrians. Separately, it also advocates for human rights, including respect for Syrian sovereignty and territorial integrity, an end to U.S., Turkish and Israeli occupation of Syrian territory, and the lifting of all sanctions against Syria.

Paraplegic ambulance driver receives physiotherapy provided by Syria Solidarity Movement. [Source: syriasolidaritymovement.org]

More than 30 other international relief organizations, mostly from Europe, also operate in government-controlled areas of Syria. But most are small and not well known, despite the important work that many of them do with often scant means at their disposal.

The best known is probably Oxfam, based in the UK, but it is an exception in terms of size and effectiveness. United Nations agencies like UNHCR and UNICEF also provide relief under conditions limited by the sanctions.

Oxfam distributing aid in Syria. [Source: oxfamamerica.org]

If you have responded to appeals for donations to help Syrians, you have probably learned that almost half the entire Syrian population have fled their homes due to the fighting and destruction since March 2011. The appeals have described the suffering, malnutrition, homelessness, disease, exposure and desperation of the population.

Unfortunately, these appeals come primarily from organizations that have no intention of helping the majority of this needy population. Why? Because this majority fled to government-held areas, never left Syria and chose not to live under the “protection” of terrorist organizations and their Turkish allies in occupied Idlib province and small portions of Aleppo province.

This means that the Syrian government, Syrian civil and charitable groups and the exceptional international organizations operating in government areas had to take responsibility as best they could for these displaced and desperate persons even as major Syrian agricultural and petroleum resources were being confiscated by the U.S. military and draconian sanctions were destroying the Syrian economy. These organizations did their duty and distributed the increasingly meager resources as best they could, but they had no help from most of the organizations that appeal for your donations.

Syria is suffering like few other places on earth. Although in 2010 it was largely self-sufficient, with no debt and healthy exports, that now seems a distant memory. The war is a main factor, of course, but the U.S. is confiscating (stealing) most of Syria’s oil and much of its agricultural production. Worse than all of this, however, have been the crushing economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. and its allies.

Six-year-old Ghazzal Khudeir’s father died fighting terrorists and her home was destroyed. She and her mother and two brothers were homeless until the Syria Solidarity Movement got a small apartment for them. Millions more face similar circumstances. [Source: Syria Solidarity Movement]

Social and medical services and education, including university, are free to all Syrians, but the sanctions have severely affected Syria’s ability to deliver those services. Even its once strong pharmaceutical industry cannot import the necessary components to make medications, and its hospitals cannot get replacement parts for medical devices.

The U.S. theft of Syria’s oil is crippling both income and the transportation sector, and its currency has dropped to one-fifth of its former value because the sanctions forbid most banking transactions with Syria. Syria cannot even repair many of the homes destroyed in the fighting, due to a lack of building materials.

The economy is in shambles and the 9% unemployment rate would be much higher if not for the flight abroad of millions of Syrian citizens, many or most of whom would prefer to return home if their country were free of occupying forces and crippling sanctions.

Where are your donations going? Some become aid to Syrian refugees that have fled to other countries. But in many cases, they end up in occupied Idlib, where accountability for the funds is tenuous at best. Idlib has seen a transformation of its traditional population in the last decade.

As al-Qaeda affiliated fighters armed with vast quantities of sophisticated U.S. weaponry (e.g., TOW missiles) began to inflict unsustainable casualties on the Syrian defenders, most Idlib natives fled to other parts of Syria still under government control, emptying the area of its original inhabitants.

In their place came a new population from two sources. First, the large numbers of radical foreign mercenaries began to bring their families from the countries where they were recruited, with the encouragement of the Turkish government and the international alliance that is attempting to install a Salafi/Wahhabi government in Damascus.

Second, as the Syrian army began to turn the tide and retake its territory with the help of its Russian, Iranian, and Lebanese allies, the Syrian government offered the opposition fighters the option of a) amnesty and reintegration into Syrian society or b) safe passage to areas not yet under government control, mainly Idlib.

The first option was open only to Syrian nationals, so the second became the choice of many foreign mercenaries as well as some diehard Syrian opposition fighters. This is how Idlib came to be populated by a dizzying array of al-Qaeda affiliates speaking a diverse group of languages and dialects, only one of which is Syrian Arabic.

As the territories held by the non-Kurdish Syrian “opposition” shrunk to less than 3% of the total area of Syria—mostly Idlib province—so did the size of the population they served, probably less than a million, with a large percentage of non-Syrians.

Furthermore, the control of that territory was split among hundreds of al-Qaeda affiliates of different sizes, each of which usually refuses access to international aid agencies in their mini-realm. As a result, the charities came up with a protocol that paired them with local opposition partners (aka Civil Service Organizations) registered in Turkey, many of them organized into an umbrella organization called the Syria Relief Network.

These opposition CSOs act as proxies to deliver the aid through intermediaries that are trusted by the opposition groups. Baytna Syria is another organization that facilitates meetings in Turkey between the local proxies and the armed groups in order to arrange the protocols and logistics for the aid to be delivered to them at their camps within occupied Syria.

The protocol was described in early 2017 in “Localisation and cross-border assistance to deliver humanitarian health services in North-West Syria: a qualitative inquiry for The Lancet-AUB Commission on Syria,” which gives a good picture of the situation as it was in 2016. By 2021 the players had changed and much of the territory was back in government hands, but the description still quite accurately reflects the “remote monitoring” of aid administration, with two or more degrees of separation between the international charities and the recipients.

This leaves accountability opaque at best for aid distribution, and at worst significant skimming by the intermediaries and the governing councils of the recipient groups. As the report says, “some local charities that claim to focus their work on orphans or widows actually only cater to orphans and widows of opposition fighters.” And even when the aid goes to its intended population rather than to intermediaries, to what extent is it helping needy Syrians rather than immigrant populations from other parts of the world?

Aid is not always going to the neediest people. [Source: thenewhumanitarian.org]

In sum, the main international charity organizations are doing nothing to make things better for most Syrians, and their appeals for funds are misleading, since they fail to state that they do not operate in most of Syria. They do not transparently acknowledge in their appeals that they only serve small portions of Syria under the rule of al-Qaeda and its affiliates, or that some of its “local partners” have strong connections to the terrorists and that a significant portion of the population served is not even Syrian.

Sadly, this is what we have come to expect from “charitable” organizations that function at the behest of U.S. interests. Even when they provide needed aid, they do so only when it also serves U.S. hegemony in territories of interest to U.S. foreign policy. Furthermore, some get huge government grants but barely provide aid at all.

The White Helmets, for example, have received considerably more than $60 million. These funds are primarily for operations, liaison, legal counsel, administration, public relations and film production (propaganda), news feeds to networks and publications, and similar activities. Even their rescue work has been directed primarily to the fighters and their families.

Such organizations must therefore be considered allies of, or adjuncts to, the “rebel” fighters that the U.S. supports with lavish military aid that typically gets used by terrorist groups that the U.S. claims to be fighting but which the U.S. tacitly supports if they are against the Syrian government.

U.S.-funded White Helmets assist in public execution in rebel-held Syria. [Source: twitter.com]

Regrettably, the U.S. perceives the death, destruction and destitution of the Syrian people to be a desirable part of its campaign against Syria. The irony is that, by devoting billions of U.S. dollars of taxpayer money to create misery for Syrians, it also denies its own citizens the use of these funds for their benefit, bringing misery to them as well.

*

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 Larudee is a former Ford Foundation project supervisor and Fulbright-Hays lecturer in Lebanon, and US government advisor to Saudi Arabia. He co-founded the Global March to Jerusalem, the Free Palestine Movement and the Syria Solidarity Movement, and went to Syria with delegations led by Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire in 2013 and 2014. He was one of six US observers of the Syrian presidential elections in June, 2014.

He is treasurer of the Association for Investment in Popular Action Committees, EIN 20-5516191, which is the parent nonprofit corporation of human rights projects like the Northern California chapter of the International Solidarity Movement, the Free Palestine Movement, the Syria Solidarity Movement and others, and which is authorized to accept tax-exempt donations for human rights advocacy.

Paul can be reached at: [email protected].

Featured image is from rescue.org

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The annual Valdai Club meeting has always been positioned as absolutely essential when it comes to understanding the non-stop movement of geopolitical tectonic plates across Eurasia. 

The ongoing 18th meeting in Sochi, Russia once again lived up to expectations. The overall theme was Global Shake-Up in the 21^st Century: The Individual, Values, and the State. It expands on the theme of a “crumbling world” that Valdai had been analyzing since 2018: as the organizers highlight, this “has ceased to be a metaphor and turned into a palpable reality before our own eyes.”

Framing the discussions in Sochi, Valdai released two intriguing reports capable of offering prime food for thought, especially for the Global South: The Age of the Pandemic: Year Two. The Future is Back, and History, to be Continued: The Utopia of a Diverse World.

The “Future is Back” concept essentially means that, after the Covid-19 shock, the notion of a linear one-sided future, complete with “progress” defined as globalized democracy enshrining the “end of history,” is dead and buried.

Globalization, as framed by neoliberalism, proved to be finite.

The slide towards medical totalitarianism and the trappings of a maximum-security penitentiary are self-evident. As some Valdai participants noted, Foucault’s concept of “biopower” is no longer abstract philosophy.

The first session in Sochi went a long way in terms of framing our current predicament, starting with how the current incandescent US-China clash is unfolding.

Thomas Graham, from the Council on Foreign Relations – the conceptual matrix of the US establishment – recited the proverbial “indispensable nation” platitudes and how it’s “prepared to defend Taiwan,” even as he admitted, “the Biden administration is still articulating its policy.”

It was up to Zhou Bo, from the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University, to ask the hard questions: if the US and China are in competition, “how far are we from conflict?” He stressed “cooperation” instead of a slide into confrontation, yet China “will cooperate from a position of strength.”

Zhou Bo also clarified how Beijing is “not interested in bipolarity,” in terms of China “replacing the USSR during the Cold War”: after all, “China is not competing with the US elsewhere in the world.”

Yet even as “the center of gravity is moving irreversibly to the East,” he admitted the current situation “is more dangerous than during the Cold War.”

Surveying the global chessboard, former Brazilian foreign minister Celso Amorim stressed “the absurdity of the UN Security Council deciding even matters related to the pandemic.”

Amorim voiced one of the Global South’s key demands: the “need for a new institutional framework. The closer we get would be the G-20 – a little more African, a little less European.” This G-20 would command the authority the current UN Security Council lacks.

So Amorim had to tie it all to the centrality of inequality: his quip about “coming from a forgotten region,” Latin America, was very much on point. He also had to stress, “we didn’t want a Pax Americana.” A real, “concrete step” towards multipolarity would be “a big conference” that could be led by this “modified G-20.”

Togtbaatar Damdin, a Mongolian parliamentarian, evoked “my great, great, great grandfather,” Genghis Khan, and how he built “that huge empire and called it Pax Mongolica,” focused on what matters to the here and now: “peaceful trade and economic integration in Greater Eurasia.” Damdin stressed, “we [Mongolians] no longer believe in war. It’s much more profitable to be involved in trade.”

A constant theme in this and other Valdai sessions has been “Hybrid War” and “Shadow War”, the new imperial instruments deployed against parts of Latin America, the greater Middle East and Russia-China, in contrast to “a transparent system under the rule of law – and kept by international law,” as noted by Oksana Sinyavskaya from the Institute for Social Policy at the Higher School of Economics.

The discussions in Sochi essentially focused on the twilight of the current hegemonic socio-economic system – essentially neoliberalism; the crisis of alliance systems – as in the rot within NATO; and the toxic confluence of Hybrid War and the pandemic – impacting billions of people. An inevitable conclusion: the current dysfunctional international system is incapable of dealing with crisis management.

In the roundtable presenting the Valdai report on Year Two of the Age of Pandemic, Thomas Gomart, a director of the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI), stressed how hard it still was to analyze the geopolitics of data.

With the Chinese privileging the concept of “ecological civilization,” questions of technological monitoring – as in how social credit is framed – are now on the forefront.

And as we delve deeper into “invisible wars” – Gomart’s own terminology – we face a toxic convergence of environmental degradation and hyper-concentration of digital platforms.

Gomart also made two crucial points that escape many analyses across the Global South: Washington has decided to remain the primus inter pares, and won’t abdicate from this position no matter what. This is happening even as global capital – heavily slanted towards the US – wants to find the new China.

That set the stage for Nelson Wong, the vice-chairman of the Shanghai Center for RimPac Strategic and International Studies, to diplomatically shatter divide and rule tactics and the US obsession with a zero-sum game. Wong stressed how China “does not hold a hostile attitude towards the US”; its aim, he claims, is a “peaceful rise.”

But most significantly, Wong made sure that “the post-pandemic world will not be determined by the outcome of the confrontation between the US and China, or by splitting the world into two competing camps.”

This hopeful perspective implies the Global South will eventually have its say – aligned with Amorim’s proposal of a tweaked G-20.

The Valdai discussions in Sochi significantly take place just as Moscow decided to suspend the work of its mission to NATO from November 1, and close the NATO information office in Moscow.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had already stressed that Moscow no longer pretends that changes in the relationship with NATO are possible in the near future: from now on, if they want to talk, they should contact the Russian ambassador to Belgium.

One of the questions at Sochi had to revolve on whether Moscow should expect NATO to take the first step to improve relations. Lavrov had, once again, to repeat the obvious: “Yes, we proceed from this. We have never started the deterioration of our relations with NATO, the European Union, or any other country in the West or any other region of the world.

“Everyone knows this story well. When Saakashvili in August 2008 gave the criminal order to bomb the city of Tskhinval and the positions of peacekeepers (including Russian ones), Russia insisted on convening the Russia-NATO Council to consider this situation.

“The then US secretary of state Condoleeza Rice categorically refused, although when creating the Russia-NATO Council, the founding act emphasized that it should act in any ‘weather,’ especially when crisis situations occur. This is one example that marked the beginning of the current state of affairs between the US and NATO.”

So Russia has established the new game in (Atlanticist) town: we only talk to the masters and ignore the lackeys. As for NATO now geared to create “capabilities” to be used against China, the Global South may collectively engage in rolls of laughter – considering the fresh NATO humiliation in Afghanistan.

With the inevitability of an EU more and more geo-economically intertwined with China, dysfunctional NATO at best may keep on prowling as a bunch of zombie rabid dogs. Now that’s a Utopia theme for Valdai 2022.

*

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 Asia Times.

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: An aerial view of Sochi, Russia. Photo: Wikipedia / Евгений Лодянов

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

For several years now a common front in the relentless propaganda war by Western media and NGOs against Nicaragua’s Sandinista government has involved false accusations that the authorities damage or neglect the rights and well being of the country’s Indigenous peoples.

In fact, the opposite is the case. Nicaragua’s indigenous peoples enjoy the most progressive and advanced system of autonomous self-government in the hemisphere. But reporting by the Western human rights industry, in particular by US and European NGOs claiming to defend Indigenous peoples, consistently omits that fact to focus on sporadic incidents of violence, which they systematically misrepresent.

In general, North American and European anti-Sandinista propaganda published by corporate or billionaire funded organizations like Global Witness or the Oakland Institute and international news media advance three main false claims

• Nicaragua’s government permits and even encourages invasion by outsiders called “colonos” of Indigenous lands, in particular affecting the Biosphere Reserve of Bosawas
• the government fails to investigate or remedy incidents of violence against the country’s Indigenous peoples’ communities
• the Indigenous peoples concerned are invariably innocent victims whose interests are genuinely represented and defended by local foreign funded NGOs

First hand reporting over the last year has categorically demonstrated that every one of these propaganda claims is untrue.

Most recently, a team of reporters visited the site of a violent attack that took place in Kiwakumbai in the nucleus of the Bosawas Biosphere Reserve. Their reporting demonstrated that some members of local Indigenous communities themselves not only promoted illicit use of their people’s lands causing deforestation and contamination of water sources but also participated in murderous violence.

Download the complete report (PDF 1.4Mb)

The incident at Kiwakumbai and a subsequent incident involving a nearby community called Palan cast new light on similar events in the community of Alal in January 2020.

All these events demonstrate:

• land settlement in the area has a long history not infrequently involving members of local Indigenous communities engaged in irregular land transactions with outsiders, leading occasionally to violent disputes in which some members of Indigenous communities themselves have engaged in murderous attacks
• despite the area’s remoteness and difficult terrain, violent incidents invariably receive prompt and thorough investigation by the authorities
• government institutions including the police and the army coordinate with the regional autonomous government, the Indigenous territorial governments and the Indigenous community governments as well as the relevant local municipal authority both to remedy loss and damage to the victims, and also to resolve the immediate conflict while seeking to prevent future conflicts

None of this reality is ever reported by local opposition media, who uncritically cite information from local foreign funded NGOs like the Center for Justice and Human Rights of Nicaragua’s Atlantic Coast (CEJUDHCAN), the Center for Legal Assistance to Indigenous Peoples (CALPI) or the Fundación del Río, all aligned with Nicaragua’s political opposition.

These NGOs falsely claim to represent the area’s Indigenous peoples, a claim rejected by Indigenous leaders themselves, for example by the leaders of the Mayangna Nation whose lands include the communities of Alal, Kiwakumbai and Palan. In an extensive interview from November 2020, those leaders acknowledge the positive role of the Nicaraguan government in conflict remediation and resolution. They also acknowlege the involvement of some members of their own Indigenous people’s communities in irregular land transactions.

This makes available reporting on conflicts affecting Indigenous peoples in Nicaragua very different to reporting on such conflicts in neighboring Honduras, for example. In Honduras, reporting on the situation of Indigenous peoples is often based on information from the Consejo Cívico de Organizaciones Populares e Indígenas de Honduras (COPINH) which is an organization authentically representing the Lenca people in western Honduras.

Likewise, the Organización Fraternal Negra Hondureña (OFRANEH), genuinely represents the Garífuna people living along the country’s Caribbean coast. Both organizations have mass support from their peoples at grass roots resisting corporate depredation abetted by the corrupt Honduran authorities.

So when international NGOs base their reports on information from these or similar organizations in Honduras, they can be regarded as generally trustworthy. This has been borne out, for example, in the cases of Bertha Cáceres or of the four garífuna activists forcibly disappeared in July 2020.

But in the case of Nicaragua, international NGOs posing as defenders of Indigenous rights base their reports on unrepresentative local foreign funded organizations all of whom are aligned with the country’s political opposition. Their version of events in Nicaragua’s Caribbean Coast is directly contradicted by elected representatives of the region’s Indigenous people’s governments.

The material collected here includes a review by independent writer John Perry of reporting on the situation of Nicaragua’s Indigenous peoples, as well as interviews and reports about the violent incident at Kiwakumbai and its social and economic context. Practically everything emerging from those interviews and reports confirms the views expressed by the leaders of the Mayangna Nation in the interview they gave in November 2020. All told, this material demonstrates the utter falsity of reporting on Nicaragua by international NGOs and news media.

It is a mistake to dismiss this reality as some kind of unfortunate oversight or misunderstanding on the part of the international organizations concerned. The Western human rights industry depends on corporate and related funding whose objective is to advance the social, economic and political interests of the wealthy elite interests concerned. Self-evidently, a corollary of that objective is to attack any government prepared to defend its country’s national sovereignty against corporate and related elite interests.

To that end, Western human rights organizations and international institutions like those of the United Nations have been intensely coopted by sinister corporate and related power brokers like, for example, the influential Clinton network, among others. That is the underlying explanation for the relentless assault on Nicaragua’s Sandinista government by the Western human rights industry in general and its subsidiary Indigenous peoples’ rights branch in particular. These international organizations and the local NGOs they depend on are financed by Western elites who for centuries have plundered, enslaved and massacred Indigenous peoples around the world. For its part, Nicaragua’s revolutionary government has defended the rights of the country’s Indigenous peoples by promoting the most advanced model of autonomy in Latin America and the Caribbean.

*

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 Tortilla con Sal.

Stephen Sefton,  renowned authors and political analyst based in northern Nicaragua is actively involved in community development work focussing on education and health care.

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

Featured image: The mining camp, scene of the attack at  Kiwakumbai (Source: Tortilla con Sal)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

According to all-cause mortality statistics adjusted for population growth, the number of Americans who have died between January 2021 and August 2021 is 14% higher than 2018, the pre-COVID year with the highest all-cause mortality, and 16% higher than the average death rate between 2015 and 2019

Did COVID-19 raise the death toll despite mass vaccination, or are people dying at increased rates because of it?

The COVID jab killed an estimated 1,018 people per million doses administered during the first 30 days of the European vaccination campaign

When counting only deaths categorized as COVID-19 deaths, the death toll from the jabs is estimated to be between 200 and 500 deaths per million doses administered. With 4 billion doses having been administered around the world, that means 800,000 to 2 million so-called “COVID-19 deaths” may in fact be vaccine-induced deaths

Data from 23 countries reveal the number of new COVID cases (i.e., positive tests) after the start of the COVID jab campaign is 3.8 times higher than it was before the rollout of the shots, and the daily COVID death rate is 3.82 times higher

*

According to all-cause mortality statistics,¹ the number of Americans who have died between January 2021 and August 2021 is 16% higher than 2018, the pre-COVID year with the highest all-cause mortality, and 18% higher than the average death rate between 2015 and 2019. Adjusted for population growth of about 0.6% annually, the mortality rate in 2021 is 16% above the average and 14% above the 2018 rate.

The obvious question is, why did more people die in 2021 (January through August) despite the rollout of COVID shots in December 2020? Did COVID-19 raise the death toll despite mass vaccination, or are people dying at increased rates because of the COVID jabs?

Vaccine-Induced Mortality

In a two-part series,² Matthew Crawford of the Rounding the Earth Newsletter, examined mortality statistics before and after the rollout of the COVID shots. In Part 1,³ he revealed the shots killed an estimated 1,018 people per million doses administered (note, this is doses, not the number of individuals vaccinated) during the first 30 days of the European vaccination campaign.

After adjusting for deaths categorized as COVID-19 deaths, he came up with an estimate of 200 to 500 deaths per million doses administered. With 4 billion doses having been administered around the world, that means 800,000 to 2 million so-called “COVID-19 deaths” may in fact be vaccine-induced deaths. As explained by Crawford:⁴

“This does not even include vaccine-induced deaths that have not been recorded as COVID cases, though I suspect that latter number is smaller since the only good way to hide the vaccine mortality signal is to smuggle deaths through the already-established COVID death toll.”

Corroborating Crawford’s calculations are data from Norway, where 23 deaths were reported following the COVID jab at a time when only 40,000 Norwegians had received the shot.

Not taking into account the possibility of underreporting in Norway, that gives us a mortality rate of 575 deaths per million doses administered. What’s more, after conducting autopsies on 13 of those deaths, all 13 were determined to be linked to the COVID jab. As reported by Norway Today back in January 2021:⁵

“‘The reports might indicate that common side effects from mRNA vaccines, such as fever and nausea, may have led to deaths in some frail patients,’ chief physician Sigurd Hortemo in the Norwegian Medicines Agency noted.

The Norwegian Medicines Agency and the National Institute of Public Health (FHI) jointly assess all side effects reports. As a result, the FHI has updated the corona vaccination guide with new advice on the vaccination of frail elderly people.

‘If you are very frail, you should probably not be vaccinated,’ Steinar Madsen at the Norwegian Medicines Agency said at a webinar on corona vaccine for journalists …”

Is the COVID Jab Responsible for Excess Deaths?

Crawford goes on to look at data from countries that have substantial vaccine uptake while simultaneously having very low rates of COVID-19. This way, you can get a better idea as to whether the COVID jabs might be responsible for the excess deaths, as opposed to the infection itself.

He identified 23 countries that fit this criteria, accounting for 1.88 billion individuals, roughly one-quarter of the global population. Before the COVID jabs rolled out, these nations reported a total of 103.2 COVID-related deaths per million residents. Five nations had more than 200 COVID deaths per million while seven had fewer than 10 deaths per million.

As of August 1, 2021, 25.35% of inhabitants in these 23 nations had received a COVID jab and 10.36% were considered fully vaccinated. In all, 673 million doses had been administered. Based on these data, Crawford estimates the excess death rate per million vaccine doses is 411, well within the window of the 200 to 500 range he calculated in Part 1.

Equally intriguing is the finding that the number of new COVID cases (i.e., positive tests) after the start of the COVID jab campaign is 3.8 times higher than it was before the rollout of the shots, and the daily COVID death rate is 3.82 times higher.

Morocco and Saudi Arabia were the only two nations in which the case rate and COVID death rates went down after the vaccination campaign started. “If deaths were scaled by 3.82 due to the vaccines, then there were 276,465 excess deaths during this time span,” Crawford writes.

He goes through a number of adjustments to remove outliers that might skew the data sets, so for a more detailed review, see the original article. But in summary, after removing nations with more than 100 COVID deaths per million before their vaccination program (to evaluate the impact of the shots alone), he came up with 13 countries with a combined population of 354 million.

The number of doses administered in these 13 countries is similar to the original cohort. The adjusted number of excess deaths per million is now 318, which is still within the 200 to 500 per million range.

Remarkably, though, the number of COVID deaths in these 13 countries is 11.61 times higher post-vaccination, compared to before the jabs were rolled out. In five of the 13 countries, a whopping 90% of their COVID-19 fatalities have been logged after their vaccination campaigns began! This obliterates any fantasy that the COVID injections are actually helping.

“On face, these results reinforce the case that the experimental vaccines are killing people,”Crawford writes. “At the very least, this is one more dramatic [lack of] safety signal that should spur authorities who care about our health to come to the table for a discussion about how to refine the data they’re not analyzing to anyone’s knowledge …

More concerning is that numerous of these nations — largely located in Asia — seemed to have no susceptibility at all to the pandemic prior to vaccination. There are a lot of theories as to why this might be aside from just vaccines triggering deaths.

Meanwhile, health authorities still seem to have no issue with the lack of risk report or risk-benefit analysis performed by any of the vaccine manufacturers or anyone else. This strikes me as one of the worst signs in my lifetime that corporations have taken over government on an essentially complete level.”

US Whistleblower Highlights Underreporting

In mid-July 2021, America’s Frontline Doctors, represented by Renz Law,⁶ filed a lawsuit⁷ against the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra. In that lawsuit, they cite whistleblower testimony by a computer programmer with expertise in health care data analytics and access to Medicare and Medicaid data maintained by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

According to this whistleblower, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) under-reports deaths caused by the COVID shots by a conservative factor of five or more. She claims the number of Americans killed by the shots was at least 45,000 as of July 9, 2021.

At that time, VAERS reported 9,048 deaths following COVID injection. That number is now 16,310 (as of October 1, 2021⁸). Using an under-reporting factor of five, that gives us an estimated death toll of 81,550.

COVID Shots May Have Killed More Than 200,000 in the US

Steve Kirsch, executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, has come up with even more drastic numbers. In the video “Vaccine Secrets: COVID Crisis,”⁹ he argues that VAERS can be used to determine causality, and shows how the VAERS data indicate more than 212,000 Americans have already been killed by the COVID shots.¹⁰

Anywhere from 2 million to 5 million have also been injured by them in some way. Kirsch is so confident in his analyses, he’s offered a $1 million academic grant to anyone who can show his analysis is flawed by a factor of four or more. He’s even offered $1 million to any official willing to simply have a public debate with him about the data, and none has accepted the challenge.

Woman’s Obituary Blames COVID Vaccine for Her Death

While it may be challenging to determine exactly how many people have died as a direct result of the COVID shots, we can be certain that deaths are occurring.

One Oregon woman’s obituary¹¹ went viral after her family blamed side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine on her death. The family minced no words, calling out state and local governments for their “heavy-handed vaccine mandates.” Jessica Berg Wilson left behind a husband and two young daughters, aged 5 and 3.

“Jessica Berg Wilson, 37, of Seattle, Washington, passed away unexpectedly September 7, 2021 from COVID-19 vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) surrounded by her loving family,” the obituary states.¹²

“Jessica was an exceptionally healthy and vibrant 37-year-old young mother with no underlying health conditions … Local and state governments were determined to strip away her right to consult her wisdom and enjoy her freedom.

She had been vehemently opposed to taking the vaccine, knowing she was in good health and of a young age and thus not at risk for serious illness. In her mind, the known and unknown risks of the unproven vaccine were more of a threat.

But, slowly, day by day, her freedom to choose was stripped away. Her passion to be actively involved in her children’s education — which included being a Room Mom — was, once again, blocked by government mandate.

Ultimately, those who closed doors and separated mothers from their children prevailed. It cost Jessica her life. It cost her children the loving embrace of their caring mother. And it cost her husband the sacred love of his devoted wife.”

Picture of Jessica (killed by COVID jab) with her family.

COVID Jab Effects Are Rapidly Waning

To add insult to injury, there’s ample evidence showing that whatever benefit you glean from the COVID jab is short-lived, requiring you to risk life and limb yet again with another booster shot (and probably more to come after that).

If you need a refresher on the potential mechanisms of harm, download and read Stephanie Seneff’s excellent paper,¹³ “Worse Than The Disease: Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19,” published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research in collaboration with Dr. Greg Nigh.

Among those incriminating data sets is an analysis by Humetrix,¹⁴ which assessed the effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against the delta variant among 5.6 million Medicare beneficiaries, aged 65 and older. Three key questions answered by the data analysis are:

1. Is vaccine effectiveness waning over time?
2. Is vaccine effectiveness reduced for the delta variant?
3. Does the need for a booster shot vary by sub-population?

The executive summary lays out the answers:

1. Yes, the effectiveness of both Moderna and Pfizer’s injections rapidly wane in this cohort.
2. As of mid-August 2021, the vaccine effectiveness against delta infection was only 41% and effectiveness against hospitalization due to the delta variant was 62%, both of which are “lower than previously reported.”
3. The shots were even less effective in those over the age of 75, and a breakthrough hospitalization risk model suggests prioritizing people over age 65 for boosters.

Breakthrough Infections Don’t Seem so Rare in the Elderly

According to Humetrix, between January 2021 and August 14, 2021, 5.6 million Medicare beneficiaries (out of 20 million) were fully vaccinated with either two doses of Pfizer or Moderna, or one dose of Janssen.

Of those, 148,000 experienced a breakthrough infection, 30,000 required hospitalization and 9,400 needed intensive care. That means breakthrough infections in this age group occur at a rate of about 1 in 38, which doesn’t strike me as being particularly rare.

As per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance, patients were only considered fully vaccinated two weeks after the second dose. So, anyone who developed COVID-19 symptoms before then were not counted.

While the analysis reports success, saying the hospitalization rate for breakthrough infections was reduced by one-third compared to the hospitalization rate between March and December 2020, and the death rate in breakthrough infections was reduced six-fold, a central problem remains.

The shots don’t protect you for very long. As shown on Page 8 of the PowerPoint, the breakthrough infection rate at five and six months’ post-vaccination is double the rate at three and four months’ post-vaccination.

Considering the risk of lethal vaccine injury is elevated in the elderly — as noted by the Norwegian Medicines Agency — starting them on a treadmill of booster shots strikes me as an idea that can only end in heartbreak for families around 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.

Notes

¹ Twitter Jeremy Horpedahl October 7, 2021

^2, 4 Rounding the Earth Newsletter August 7, 2021

³ Rounding the Earth Newsletter August 5, 2021

⁵ Norway Today January 14, 2021

⁶ Renz-law.com

⁷ US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Civil Action No: 2: 21-cv-00702-CLM (PDF)

⁸ OpenVAERS Data as of October 1, 2021

⁹ Lew Rockwell October 11, 2021

¹⁰ SKirsch.io/vaccine-resources

^11, 12 Obits.Oregonlive.com Jessica Berg Wilson

¹³ International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research May 10, 2021; 2(1): 38-79

¹⁴ Humetrix Powerpoint September 21, 2021

Featured image is from 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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

To support his claim, Powell produced a vial of white powder, allegedly anthrax from the Iraqi arsenal. He played a recording of a supposed discussion among Iraqi military officers about UN inspection teams, which had been doctored to make the proceedings appear sinister. Staking his reputation as a cautious, matter-of-fact soldier, four-star general, and former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who served four presidents, he produced photographs of alleged Iraqi WMD depots and other facilities. He also showed detailed drawings of what he claimed were Saddam Hussein’s mobile chemical weapons production facilities.

As we now know, and as some of us suspected at the time, every statement Powell made on that day was untrue. Every single assertion was backed by “sources” fabricated by the neocon cabal which had decided to push America into war against Iraq many years earlier. Powell never belonged to this group, which looked down on him and eagerly plotted to exploit him. They wanted to turn him into a useful idiot, to use him – broadly speaking – the way Stalin used Walter Duranty and Hitler used Lloyd George.

Colin Powell, to his eternal discredit, allowed some very bad people to use him. He failed to check the veracity of the material they prepared for him, even though his presentation was potentially a matter of life and death for thousands of people. He was told that his speech had been prepared by the National Security Council. In reality it was written by Vice President Dick Cheney’s team, which in the words of a summary of events published Monday by The Guardian,  “led the charge in browbeating CIA analysts into coming up with evidence and when that failed, going around the CIA altogether.”

Could Powell not smell a rat? Two years later, when he was no longer a senior official, Powell said the speech was “a blot” on his career. “It was painful,” Powell told Barbara Walters. “It’s painful now.”

His expression of remorse isn’t enough to exculpate him. Powell could not have been willfully oblivious to what was going on, as some of Stalin’s fellow travelers were. He made a deliberate moral choice, fully in accordance with his rank and station. “For Colin Powell, the situation put reputation and duty in conflict,” according to Sir Christopher Meyer, the UK ambassador in Washington at the time. “When the commander in chief of the United States of America says ‘Go to New York and deliver a presentation,’ a man like Powell doesn’t say no.”

Indeed, this is the crux of the matter. At a crucial juncture in his life Colin Powell decided that he would just follow orders, like countless officers before him, most notably German ones. He may have been a decent sort to start with, but the Superior Orders defense is unlikely to save him from the harsh judgment of history.

*

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. Srdja Trifkovic, foreign affairs editor of Chronicles, is the author of The Sword of the Prophet and Defeating Jihad.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Neoconservatives—like Michael Rubin at the American Enterprise Institute (“The One Foreign Base Biden Should Abandon”)—haven’t gotten over President Joe Biden’s withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

But Rubin is also upset that “the Biden administration is determined to hold on to the one base that America should have abandoned a decade ago.” This is Incirlik Air Base in Turkey.

Rubin maintains that during the Cold War, Incirlik was crucial. But even though “the base supported U-2 surveillance flights, U.S. operations during the 1958 Lebanon crisis, the 1991 liberation of Kuwait, and, most recently, the fight against the Taliban,” Incirlik—which “also hosts approximately 50 nuclear weapons”—is “now a strategic liability” instead of “a strategic asset.”

Turkey “is as much an enemy as an ally.” President Erdogan cannot be trusted. “Every American serviceman, contractor, and family at Incirlik are potential hostages.” “Incirlik now risks a repeat of the 1979 Iran hostage crisis.” An American “departure from Incirlik” would not “affect U.S. operations.” The United States should use the “Mihail Kogalniceanu air base in Romania” or the “Souda Bay Naval Base” in Greece. It would not be “irresponsible” to leave “an obsolete base.”

Rubin is right. The United States needs to “end the U.S. military presence in Turkey.”

But here is a better idea: Why not abandon all foreign bases?

According to the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Base Structure Report: “The DoD manages a worldwide real property portfolio that spans all 50 states, 8 U.S. territories with outlying areas, and 45 foreign countries. The majority of these foreign sites are located in Germany (194 sites), Japan (121 sites), and South Korea (83 sites).” Incredibly, the DOD is “one of the Federal government’s larger holders of real estate managing a global real property portfolio that consists of over 585,000 facilities (buildings, structures, and linear structures), located on 4,775 sites worldwide and covering approximately 26.9 million acres.” The DOD has acknowledged the existence of about 800 U.S. military bases in 80 countries, but we know from the work of Nick Turse, David Vine, and the late Chalmers Johnson that that number could be over 1,000. The United States has about 95 percent of the world’s foreign military bases. “Red” China has just one.

There are also about 175,000 active duty U.S. troops overseas in over 170 countries and territories. World War II ended in 1945, and yet the United States still maintains tens of thousands of troops in Germany and Japan.

Why not abandon all foreign military bases, bring all of the troops home (not just the ones in Afghanistan), and stop policing the world? And while we’re at it, turn over all of the DOD golf courses in Japan to the Japanese.

The U.S. global empire of bases and troops is unnecessary to the defense of the United States, a global force for evil, and a drain on U.S. taxpayers. Its only purpose is to carry out an imperialistic, militaristic, reckless, belligerent, and meddling U.S. foreign policy that is not in the interest of the American people.

*

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

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from central Florida. He is the author of The War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom; War, Christianity, and the State: Essays on the Follies of Christian Militarism; War, Empire, and the Military: Essays on the Follies of War and U.S. Foreign Policy; King James, His Bible, and Its Translators, and many other books. His newest books are Free Trade or Protectionism? and The Free Society.

Featured image is by max.ku via 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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Over a hundred workers at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in Albuquerque, New Mexico, are suing the federal government due to mandates involving the experimental Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines. Specifically, the workers named the federal contractor Triad National Security LLC, which is paid by the Department of Energy to run the lab.

The plaintiffs in the case include scientists, nuclear engineers, project managers, research technicians and others with high-security clearances. Some employees say that many of those who risk losing their jobs are specialists in their fields and that it would be difficult to replace them immediately.

A state judge has the power to issue an injunction that prevents the workers from being fired as the case is being considered. The workers claim that the management has created a hostile work environment as it tried to induce employees into getting vaccinated.

Some employees have estimated that the lab could lose up to 10 percent of its workforce because of the mandate. The lab says more than 96 percent of its workers have had at least one COVID-19 vaccine shot. The lab employs around 14,000 and is among the largest employers in the state.

Attorney Jonathan Diener, who is representing the workers, says that the case includes scientific information that should be considered. He is hoping that the judge would make the decision soon as people’s lives stand to be upended in the process.

“The fact that the vaccines have only been shown to reduce symptoms of the recipient and not prevent infection or transmission is a fact extremely important to plaintiffs’ claims,” the workers state in the lawsuit.

Since the lab’s vaccination rate is high, forcing the few holdouts to get the vaccine will no longer make an epidemiological difference. “If LANL doesn’t have herd immunity at this point, there is no basis for the mandate. LANL is not being scientific,” the workers point out in the lawsuit.

Biden imposes stringent vaccine rules

Biden’s new vaccination requirements could apply to as many as 100 million Americans as he imposed stringent vaccine rules on federal workers, employers and healthcare staff in an attempt to contain COVID-19.

The president has criticized millions of Americans who remain unvaccinated despite the months of availability and incentives. “We’ve been patient. But our patience is wearing thin, and your refusal has cost all of us,” he says. He adds that the unvaccinated are “bringing a lot of damage” in the country’s recovery process.

Republican leaders and some union chiefs have threatened to sue the Biden administration over the vaccine mandates. (Related: Republicans vow to sue Biden over COVID-19 vaccine mandate.)

Governor Henry McMaster of South Carolina says that Biden has thumbed through the Constitution, and changes like vaccine mandates should be negotiated with bargaining units where appropriate.

Biden has required employers with over 100 workers to be vaccinated or get tested for the virus weekly, which can affect about 80 million Americans. Another 17 million workers at health facilities that receive federal Medicare or Medicaid will also have to be fully vaccinated.

Employees for the executive branch and contractors who do business with the federal government are also required to get vaccines, with no option to test out. Several federal agencies have already announced vaccine requirements for much of their staff, especially those in healthcare roles.

*

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

Featured image is from Pandemic.news

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The Biden administration on Wednesday unveiled its plan to ‘quickly’ vaccinate roughly 28 million children age 5-11, pending authorization from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The jab – which doesn’t prevent transmission of Covid-19 will be available at pediatricians, local pharmacies, and possibly even at schools, according to the White House, which expects FDA authorization of the Pfizer shot for children – the least likely to fall seriously ill or die from the virus, in a matter of weeks, according to the Associated Press.

Federal regulators will meet over the next two weeks to weigh the benefits of giving shots to kids, after lengthy studies meant to ensure the safety of the vaccines.

Within hours of formal approval, expected after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory meeting scheduled for Nov. 2-3, doses will begin shipping to providers across the country, along with smaller needles necessary for injecting young kids, and within days will be ready to go into the arms of kids on a wide scale. -AP

According to the announcement, the White House has secured enough to supply more than 25,000 doses for pediatricians and primary care physicians who have already signed up to deliver the vaccine, while the country now has enough Pfizer vaccine to jab roughly 28 million kids who will soon be eligible, meaning this won’t be a slow roll-out like we saw 10 months ago when doses and capacity issues meant adults had to wait.

Meanwhile, the White House is rolling out an ‘advertising’ campaign to convince parents and kids that the vaccine is safe and effective. According to the report, “the administration believes trusted messengers — educators, doctors, and community leaders — will be vital to encouraging vaccinations.”

“COVID has also disrupted our kids lives. It’s made school harder, it’s disrupted their ability to see friends and family, it’s made youth sports more challenging,” said surgeon general Dr. Vivek Murthy in a Wednesday statement to NBC. “Getting our kids vaccinated, we have the prospect of protecting them, but also getting all of those activities back that are so important to our children.”

According to Murthy, the administration is leaving the question of mandates for school, local and state officials.

“Those are decisions on, when it comes to school requirements, that are made by localities and by states,” said Murthy. “You’ve seen already some localities and states talk about vaccine requirements for kids. And I think it’s a reasonable thing to consider to get those vaccination rates high. And it’s also consistent with what we’ve done for other childhood vaccines, like measles, mumps, polio.”

The US government has purchased 65 million doses of the Pfizer pediatric shot – which is expected to contain one-third of the dosage for adults and adolescents. The FDA’s independent advisory committee will meet Oct. 26 to consider authorizing the Pfizer shot for children aged 5-11.

To top it all off, CDC Chief Rochelle Walensky says her agency will still recommend that children wear masks in schools even after the vaccine is approved for kids.

*

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

Featured image is from Zero Hedge

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

“To obtain embryo cells, embryos from spontaneous abortions cannot be used, nor can those obtained by means of abortions performed via the vagina: in both cases, the embryo will be contaminated by micro-organisms.”

“The correct way consists in having recourse to Caesarian section or to the removal of the uterus. Only in this way can bacteriological sterility be guaranteed.”

“In either case, then, to obtain embryo cells for culture a programmed abortion must be adopted, choosing the age of the embryo and dissecting it while still alive, in order to remove tissues to be placed in culture media.”

“Given these premises, we face the dilemma of whether the deliberate systematic destruction of a human creature to obtain cell material can be justified, when it is recognized that this is of great interest to fundamental research and for the diagnosis of some human diseases. Are research and diagnosis of such great value that they justify the destruction of human beings?”

“The Geneva Declaration affirms that the doctor has the duty to take the greatest care to safeguard the life of a human being from its conception and will not, even under threat, use his knowledge to infringe humanitarian laws.” (1986-04-26; Herranz, Gonzalo; Il Sabato, no.15…Professor Herranz was, at the time, president of the Committee of Medical Ethics of Spanish Doctors and vice-president of the Permanent Committee of Medical Ethics of the European Community.)

What exactly happened in 1972 or 1973, in the Netherlands, where an infant girl was aborted, and her kidneys used to make a cell line that would be used, going forward, in the testing of vaccines?

That cell line is called HEK 293 (HEK stands for human embryonic kidney), and it has been used to test COVID vaccines.

I have already presented evidence for concluding the abortion involved removing the living infant from her mother’s womb, and taking her kidneys, which of course killed her.

This evidence rests on the realization that, in order to extract viable and useful kidney tissue, the baby had to have a functioning blood supply, which meant she was alive.

But the evidence ALSO comes from knowing many other abortions have been carried out, in order to harvest tissue for medical research, by murdering living babies.

I have found a very informative article (2/9/2021) at the Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform UK, by Christian Hacking, titled, “What the HEK?!” by Christian Hacking. Quoting from the article:

“HEK 293 is a human cell line created using a kidney from a dissected unborn baby in the Netherlands between 1972 and 1973. It is the second most common cell line and is used extensively in ‘pharmaceutical and biomedical research’. It is also used in vaccine creation and cancer research.”

“It was used, along with other human cell lines, to develop a genetically engineered spike protein (that the mRNA vaccine codes for) in the original development stage of the vaccine. The ‘new technology’ Pfizer vaccine and the Moderna Vaccine were tested on HEK 293 before they began human trials. This testing is ongoing for all new batches. Finally the ‘old technology’ Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine grew a weakened viral strain in HEK 293 cell culture…”

“The kidney in question was dissected from a healthy Dutch baby girl of unknown origin by the team at Leiden University in the Netherlands in 1972. Despite the inclusion of the term ‘embryonic’ in the title, the baby in question was probably 12-13 weeks old when she was killed so as to secure functioning kidney cells. The man in charge of the research was named Alex Jan Van der Eb; he is still alive and still based in Holland.”

“When questioned on the matter by the FDA in 2001, Dr Van der Eb confirmed it was an intentional abortion of a ‘fetus’ but gave hazy details of the exact experiments.”

“’So the kidney material, the fetal kidney material was as follows: the kidney of the fetus was, with an unknown family history, obtained in 1972 probably. The precise date is not known anymore. The fetus, as far as I can remember, was completely normal. Nothing was wrong. The reasons for the abortion were unknown to me. I probably knew it at that time, but it got lost, all this information’.”

Author Hacking continues:

“…extracting and growing living cells is incredibly difficult. In order to give oneself the best chance of success you need to ensure the child is healthy, fresh, intact and sterile. As one embryologist and Emeritus Professor of Anatomy confirms:”

“’In order to sustain 95% of the cells, the live tissue would need to be preserved within 5 minutes of the abortion. Within an hour the cells would continue to deteriorate, rendering the specimens useless’.”

[That statement was made by “Dr C Ward Kischer, embryologist and Emeritus Professor of Anatomy; specialist in Human Embryology, University of Arizona College of Medicine…”]

[My comment: This suggests the abortion, in the Netherlands, in 1972, was planned and technicians were standing by. I would say that, to ensure the viability of the tissue, the infant had a functioning blood supply and was alive when her kidneys were removed, killing her.]

Hacking:

“In order for the organs to be at ‘optimal viability’, the child needs to be dissected and organs extracted within 5 minutes of delivery. Anaesthetic also cannot be used so as to not change the cellular activity of the organs the researcher wants to obtain.”

“Acclaimed Doctor, Ian Donald, the pioneer of the ultrasound scanner, also claims to have witnessed the WI-38 [another cell-line] dissections [1962], conducted at the Karolinska Institute; he described them such:

“’Experiments were being performed on near-term alive aborted babies who were not even afforded the mercy of anesthetic as they writhed and cried in agony, and when their usefulness had expired, they were executed and discarded as garbage’.”

“In his dense book ‘The Foetus As Transplant Donor the Scientific, Social, and Ethical Perspectives’, immunologist Dr Peter McCullagh relays detailed descriptions of the methods used on dozens of ‘fetal tissue donors’ from the 1970’s onward, including the deaths of babies between 7 and 26 weeks gestation by decapitations, exposure, dissection and drug testing. Gynaecologist and ex-abortionist Dr Bernard Nathanson, relaying his own understanding of abortion, and citing McCullagh’s book claims the Swedish experiments took place thus:

“’…in Sweden they have been puncturing the sac of a pregnant woman at let us say 14 to 16 weeks, and then they put a clamp on the head of the baby, pull the head down into the neck of the womb, drill a hole into the baby’s head, and then put a suction machine into the brain and suck out the brain cells….. Healthy human fetuses from 7 to 21 weeks from legal abortions were used. This is in Sweden. The conception age was estimated from crown rump length and so on. Fetal liver and kidney were rapidly removed and weighed. Now at 21 weeks, what they were doing, or 18 weeks, or 16 weeks, was what is called prostaglandin abortions. They would inject a substance into the womb. The woman would then go into mini-labor and pass this baby. 50% of the time, the baby would be born alive, but that didn’t stop them. They would just simply open up the abdomen of the baby with no anesthesia, and take out the liver and kidneys, etc.’”

“A research paper from the University of Toronto from June 1952 commenting on the method of their experiments suggests that these techniques were universal with researchers working in close proximity to the abortions.”

“’No macerated [softened after death] specimens were used and in many of the embryos the heart was still beating at the time of receipt in the virus laboratory.”

“According to Gonzalo Herranz, former head of the Committee of Medical Ethics of Spanish doctors, the best way to prevent ‘contamination by microorganisms’ is to deliver the child by caesarean section or the removal of the uterus.”

“A 1982 review of a history of tissue donation affirms this, and much of the above evidence:”

“’Fetal tissue for transplantation must be “harvested” within a few minutes of delivery. Ideally this is by hysterectomy, with the fetus delivered in utero. Drugs which reduce fetal physiological activity need to be avoided. The fetus is therefore in as alive and aware a state as possible when being opened’.”

From Hacking’s article, it’s quite clear how the standard procedure of infant-murder is carried out.

It’s entirely reasonable to assume fetal cell line HEK 293—used for COVID vaccine testing—was originally produced, in 1972, by the murder of an infant. Refusal to take a COVID vaccine on the basis of conscience and religion is more than justified.

Given the weight of the circumstantial case, I would say that for all people of faith, refusal is essential.

Lunatic medical murderers and their allies will say anything to avoid blame and the application of true justice to themselves. They will invent “science” at the drop of a hat and couch it in humanitarian terms. They will claim the ends justify the means. They will commit gross forgery to pretend those ends are vital.

But we don’t have to stand by and passively believe them.

Billions of people of faith can stand against them.

*

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

Featured image is from TrialSiteNews

This article pertaining to Colin Powell’s historical statement on February 5, 2003 was first published on August 3, 2018.

It should be noted that then Senator Joe Biden endorsed the misleading FAKE statement of Secretary of State Colin Powell, which was intended to provide the justification to wage war on Iraq.

The revelation of the “Copied and Pasted” from the Internet by Prof. Glen Rangwala was published by Global Research. It is also featured in my book entitled “America’s War on Terrorism”, Global Research, 2005

Michel Chossudovsky, October 21, 2021

 

***

Fake intelligence as well as plagiarized quotations had been slipped into an official intelligence report pertaining to Iraq’s WMD presented to the UN Security Council by Secretary of State Colin Powell on February 5, 2003.

This was the report used by the Bush Administration to justify the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

“I would call my colleagues’ attention to the fine paper that the United Kingdom distributed . . . which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities.” (Colin Powell, UN Security Council, February 5, 2003) 

Powell was referring to “Iraq Its Infrastructure Of Concealment, Deception And Intimidation”, published on January 30, 2003.

Powerful and Irrefutable evidence presented by Secretary of State Colin Powell, said the Washington Post February 6, 2003:

AFTER SECRETARY OF STATE Colin L. Powell’s presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Powell left no room to argue seriously that Iraq has accepted the Security Council’s offer of a “final opportunity” to disarm. And he offered a powerful new case that Saddam Hussein’s regime is cooperating with a branch of the al Qaeda organization that is trying to acquire chemical weapons and stage attacks in Europe. Mr. Powell’s evidence, including satellite photographs, audio recordings and reports from detainees and other informants, was overwhelming. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, called it “powerful and irrefutable.”

Revealing those tapes and photographs had a cost, as Iraq will surely take countermeasures. But the decision to make so much evidence public will prove invaluable if it sways public opinion here and abroad. At a minimum, it will stand as a worthy last effort to engage the United Nations in facing a threat that the United States could, if necessary, address alone or with an ad-hoc coalition.   (emphasis added)

The WP was explicitly pointing to the outcome ahead of the actual bombing and invasion of Iraq: “address alone or with an ad hoc coalition” with the U.K.

What Really Happened 

Damning evidence refuting Colin Powell’s official intelligence report was revealed by Cambridge Lecturer Dr. Glen Rangwala (image right) on  Britain’s Channel 4 TV following Secretary of State Colin Powell’s historic Iraq WMD presentation to the UN Security Council:

According to Rangwala, the  British intelligence document was fake. It had not been prepared by British intelligence. It was copied and pasted from the internet by members of Tony Blair’s staff:   

The Downing Street authors state they drew “upon a number of sources, including intelligence material” (p.1, first sentence). In fact, they copied material from at least three different authors and gave no credit to them. Indeed, they plagiarized, directly cutting and pasting or near quoting.

A close textual analysis suggests that the UK authors had little access to first-hand intelligence sources and instead based their work on academic papers, which they selectively distorted. Some of the papers used were considerably out of date. This leads the reader to wonder about the reliability and veracity of the Downing Street document.

It was a fake document prepared on the instructions of prime minister Blair with a view to building a “credible” justification to wage war on Iraq.  And the media failed to report the Big Lie.

Bastille 2.0: “Real Regime Change”: Building Protest and Resistance against the Covid-19 Agenda

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 21, 2021

The unspoken truth is that the novel coronavirus provides a pretext and a justification to powerful financial interests and corrupt politicians to precipitate the entire World into a spiral of mass unemployment, bankruptcy, extreme poverty and despair.

There Has Been No Mandatory Vaccination Executive Order

By Renee Parsons, October 20, 2021

Let’s assume for the moment that the Biden EO had actually been promulgated.  The issue is whether a hypothetical Executive Order to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA)  has the constitutional authority to issue a regulation to determine Covid as a ‘grave health concern” to the nation.

The Noose is Tightening, the Clock is Ticking: Justin Trudeau’s “Covid Mandate” against Canadians, Both “Unvaccinated” and “Vaccinated”

By Marina Bulatović, October 20, 2021

Trudeau announced better days ahead for Canada after his victory, and he declared new COVID-19 measures already on October 6, with numerous private companies informing their employees by e-mail on the same day that they would lose their jobs if they failed to get vaccinated by December 31 of this year.

Forced Vaccination Was Always the End Game. America’s Move Towards Authoritarianism

By Barbara Loe Fisher, October 20, 2021

With the exception of Pearl Harbor and Sept. 11, 2001, Americans have not been attacked by an enemy on our own soil. Unlike countries in Europe during World War II, America has never been occupied by a military force or locked down under martial law.

End the Covid Fraud and Global Genocide Now!

By Walter Gelles and The White Rose UK, October 20, 2021

Named after the famous German underground movement The White Rose (Die Weisse Rose) which distributed leaflets calling on people to resist the Nazi regime, The White Rose UK urges people everywhere to resist the medical/political tyranny being carried out under the guise of a fake pandemic.

Taiwan Deaths from COVID-19 Vaccination Exceed Deaths from COVID-19

By Medical Trend, October 20, 2021

On October 7th, the death toll after vaccination in Taiwan reached 852, while the death toll after the COVID-19 was diagnosed [largely based on the flawed PCR test] was 844. The number of deaths after vaccination exceeded the number of confirmed deaths for the first time.

“The Killing of Gaddafi 10 Years Ago Has Resulted in the Death of the Nation of Libya and the Destruction of Its People”

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, October 20, 2021

Few understand the evil intentions of their rulers and the way government is used to enrich the elite. British journalist Richard Medhurst explains how ten years ago US and French elites destroyed an entire country.

Nebraska Attorney General: Healthcare Providers can Legally Prescribe Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine for Treatment of COVID

By Informed Choice Washington, October 20, 2021

The Nebraska AG continues on to provide much evidence for the history of the safety and effectiveness of ivermectin, and to chastise the FDA for its clear attempt to undermine its use.

Testaments and Blood Samples to Establish a “Global DNA Data Bank”?

By Peter Koenig, October 20, 2021

To make sure that you have had your mRNA gene-modifying killer-shot, in the form of one of the multiple boosters that will soon become compulsory, there will be blood-sample spots around countries. So as to extend your covid-vaxx certificate, you will have to give a blood sample.

U.S. Billionaires Got 62 Percent Richer During Pandemic. They’re Now Up $1.8 Trillion.

By Chuck Collins, October 20, 2021

America’s billionaire bonanza demonstrates the flaws in our current economic and tax systems President Biden and Democrats in Congress are trying to remedy by advancing a $3.5 trillion budget package, which has already passed the U.S. Senate and is being considered in the U.S. House today.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

France for centuries had been involved in the Atlantic slave trade and colonialism making it one of the leading imperialist powers to emerge from the tumultuous conquering of large swaths of territory throughout the world.

It was against the rulers of France that the Africans on the island of Hispaniola won their national independence proclaiming the state of Haiti in 1804.

The enslaved Africans in Haiti waged a twelve-year revolutionary war that defeated France along with interventions by Spain and Britain. Haiti, the first Black Republic founded by former enslaved people, set the stage for the modern-day proliferation of neo-colonialism.

After independence under a world dominated by imperialism, the former colonial powers seek to dominate the oppressed peoples through economic and military means. Haiti was subjected to a blockade from both the United States and France during the early and middle decades of the 19th century. It was not until the Civil War in the U.S. that Haiti was recognized politically by Washington.

As early as 1825, France sent a flotilla of warships to the Caribbean to demand the payment of “indemnity” by Haiti to Paris for the loss of property and the profits which they would have accrued if the slave system had not been overthrown. Haiti had been the most prosperous of all the slave colonies during the 18th century.

Successive Haitian governments were forced to make payments to the former colonial power of France while its own economic development was stifled. France demanded from the people an arbitrary 150 million francs in unjustifiable claims over wealth which was stolen from the indigenous and African people victimized by European imperialism. The invented financial obligations to Paris were later reduced to 90 million francs in 1838. Today the value of these payments would exceed US$20 billion.

France refused to recognize Haiti if these payments were not made as the imperialist power collected the last indemnity payment in 1893. Subsequently, the government of the U.S. facilitated the acquisition of Haiti’s treasury in 1911. It would take until 1947 for Haiti to be released from the interest payments to the National City Bank of New York, now known as Citibank.

Today, Haiti is still impacted by the legacy of French and U.S. interference in its internal affairs which involved several military occupations along with the exploitation of the labor of the people. The kidnapping of 17 missionaries from the U.S. and Canada during mid-October must be viewed within the broader context of the recent assassination of President Jovenal Moise, the deployment of Pentagon military forces to the embassy in Port-au-Prince, the deportation without due process of thousands of Haitian migrants seeking refuge in the U.S. and the failure of the Haitian politicians to establish a stable successor administration.

Algeria Withdraws Ambassador and Bans France from Using Air Space

Another major historical struggle against French imperialism occurred in the North African state of Algeria between 1954-1962. France had colonized Algeria beginning in 1830 exploiting its natural resources and the labor of its people.

France’s tenure in colonial Algeria left a trail of massacres as people continued to demand their fundamental human and political rights. By 1954, the most advanced elements in Algerian society took up arms against the occupying military and political elites. During the course of the war, reports indicate that more than one million Algerians lost their lives.

In recent weeks, French President Emmanuel Macron made statements which attempted to deny the brutal colonial legacy of Paris in Algeria. France formerly controlled many colonies in Africa including the modern-day states of Senegal, Guinea, Mauritania, Ivory Coast, Central African Republic, Djibouti, Tunisia, Congo-Brazzaville, Madagascar, among others.

In response the Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune withdrew the country’s ambassador from France. Later it was announced that the French military would not be allowed to utilize Algerian airspace. The tensions between the two countries had worsened as well due to the hosting of a reception to honor those Algerians who fought against their own people on behalf of France during the revolutionary war of the 1950s and early 1960s.

Al Jazeera reported on the diplomatic row saying:

“The moves also come amid tension over a French decision to sharply reduce the number of visas it grants to citizens of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. ‘Following remarks that have not been denied, which several French sources have attributed by name to [Macron], Algeria expresses its categorical rejection of the inadmissible interference in its internal affairs,’ the statement said, adding the French comments were ‘an intolerable affront’ to Algerians who died fighting French colonialism. ‘The crimes of colonial France in Algeria are innumerable and fit the strictest definitions of genocide,’ it said. French daily Le Monde reported that Macron made critical remarks about Algeria during a meeting on Thursday (October 7) with French Algerian descendants of the Harkis, Algerians who fought on the French side during Algeria’s war of independence. According to Le Monde, Macron said Algeria was ruled by a ‘political-military system’ and described the country’s ‘official history’ as having been ‘totally re-written’ to something ‘not based on truths’ but ‘on a discourse of hatred towards France.’ The newspaper added the French president made clear he was not referring to Algerian society as a whole but to the ruling elite.”

On October 17, France recognized its role in a massacre of Algerians in Paris in 1961. The Algerians were demonstrating in alliance with the National Liberation Front (FLN) which led the mass and armed struggle against French colonialism. 60 years ago, the French police opened fire on thousands of demonstrators killing at least 120, injuring and arresting many more.

Algerian war of national liberation during the 1950s and early 1960s (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

A report published by the Associated Press stressed:

“’The repression was brutal, violent, bloody’ under the orders of Paris police chief Maurice Papon, Macron said in a statement released Saturday (Oct. 16). About 12,000 Algerians were arrested and dozens were killed, ‘their bodies thrown into the Seine River,’ the statement said…. Papon later became the highest-ranking Frenchman convicted of complicity in crimes against humanity for his role in deporting Jews during World War II…. The Movement against Fascism and for Friendship between People, or MRAP, deplored that Macron’s statement did not include ‘any word about the context of the Algeria war, any word on colonialism, nothing about archives… even less about reparations.’ Earlier this year, Macron announced a decision to speed up the declassification of secret documents related to Algeria’s 1954-62 war of independence from France. The new procedure was introduced in August, Macron’s office said.”

Rather than improving the post-colonial relationship between Paris and Algiers, Macron appears to be making it worse. Such a set of affairs in recent weeks indicates the unsustainability of French foreign policy in Africa going forward.

Other Attacks on French Neo-colonialism

The politico-military crises of governance in the West African states of Mali and Guinea are further indications of the inability of France to maintain a consistent diplomatic approach to its former colonies. Over the period since 2020, there have been two military coups in Mali and another one in Guinea.

Those involved in the military seizures of power from civilian governments had maintained close ties with the French and U.S. governments. The U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) has operations inside Guinea and Mali as well as several other countries in the West Africa region.

Pentagon defense colleges have provided training to the military coup makers in Mali and Guinea. The current military president of Guinea, Lt. Col. Mamady Doumbouya, was a former member of the French Foreign Legion and at the time of the coup in early September, he was involved as a special forces officer in maneuvers with AFRICOM forces. Although the U.S. and France claim that their governments had no involvement in the coup, their approach to the new military regime has been largely the same as before the putsch.

The regional Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), composed of 15 member-states, has been rebuked by both the Guinean and Malian military leaders. Business interests based in France and the U.S. conducting mining operations in Guinea, have not paused their economic activities.

Yet two interesting events have occurred in recent weeks that should be viewed alongside the diplomatic struggle between Algeria and France. An Africa-France Summit was held in early October in Montpellier where youth confronted Macron over his policies towards the continent.

Radio France International (RFI) reported on this event noting that:

“Kenyan civil society member Adele Onyango asked Macron to look at France’s troubled relationship with Africa, demanding an examination of inefficiencies, gaps in integrity, and unethical behavior. ‘We as Africans feel the pain of colonization every single day,’ Onyango said. ‘The air of denial that France chooses to sit in is uncomfortable not only for Africa but also for France… How can you trust the source of your pain when the source doesn’t acknowledge it?’ she added. Onyango evoked what she considered France’s double standard—claiming to stand for human rights, while collaborating with agencies, leaders and individuals whose position on a wide range of societal issues in Africa is less than clear.”

Finally, a military-appointed prime minister in Mali on October 8 accused France of training a terrorist organization inside its territory. This grouping was said to have been instrumental in the post-2011 destabilization of neighboring Libya, where a Pentagon-NATO bombing campaign resulted in the destruction of the government of the late leader Col. Muammar Gaddafi who was killed at the aegis of Washington a decade ago on October 20.

Pars Today reported on the allegation emphasizing:

“Mali’s Prime Minister Choguel Kokalla Maiga told Sputnik on Friday (Oct. 8) that French troops had created an enclave in Kidal, a town in the desert region of northern Mali, and handed it over to a terrorist group known as Ansar al-Din. ‘Mali has no access to Kidal, this is an enclave controlled by France,’ he said, adding that the Malian military was banned from entering the territory. ‘They have armed groups trained by French officers. We have evidence… We do not understand this situation and do not want to tolerate it,’ the Malian prime minister said. Maiga further said that the alleged terrorists that are operating in the country ‘came from Libya, and who destroyed the state of Libya? It was France with allies.’”

Therefore, from the youth to those aligned with the African military juntas see the contradictions within French foreign policy. It will be up to the masses of people around the world to unite against this colonial and neo-colonial project bringing it to a resounding conclusion.

*

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 Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: France massacre of Algerians in Paris 60 years ago commemorated (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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee told Yahoo! News that the committee has asked Langley to explain reports of plans to kill or kidnap the WikiLeaks publisher. 

Adam Schiff, the chairman of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday the committee has requested information from the CIA about reported plans to assassinate or abduct Julian Assange, the imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher.

Schiff told Yahoo! News that the request has already been made to the agency but refused to comment on whether the CIA has yet replied, the news site reported.

Schiff acted after reading a Yahoo! story last month that confirmed and expanded upon earlier reports from a Spanish court case that the CIA was seriously discussing killing or renditioning Assange.

Assange is next week to face a U.S. appeal of a January decision by lower court Judge Vanessa Baraitser not to extradite him because of a high-risk of suicide. The U.S. is seeking to overturn the ruling that Assange is too sick to be sent to a U.S. prison. U.S. prosecutors allege that Assange is a malingerer.

Assange’s lawyers intend to bring up the CIA’s plans. Yahoo! reported Tuesday that “lawyers for Assange intend to raise the issue of what they view as the CIA’s misconduct, arguing that returning him to a country where some top officials once plotted to kidnap him strengthens the judge’s conclusions about the risk of suicide and should be an additional basis for turning down the U.S. extradition request.”

Baraitser, who heard testimony in Assange’s extradition hearing about the CIA plot against him, showed little concern, even sympathy with the agency, writing in her judgement that “if the allegations are true, they demonstrate a high level of concern by the US authorities regarding Mr. Assange’s ongoing activities.”

The CIA plot against Assange was discussed at senior levels of the Trump administration and was instigated by Trump’s CIA chief Mike Pompeo, Yahoo! reported. Schiff was a bitter foe of Donald Trump. The Yahoo! reporting mentions that discussions about covert action against Assange had already been discussed in the Obama administration, presumably by Obama’s CIA director John Brennan.

Fears that he could be assassinated go back to at least October 2010, when the Obama CIA refused to say if there were such plans after a Freedom of Information Act request.  This tweet is from eleven years ago:

CIA refuses to confirm or deny plot to assassinate WikiLeaks editor; open government-Obama style http://is.gd/gLvcn

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 6, 2010

*

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.

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former UN correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe,  and numerous other newspapers. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London and began his professional work as a stringer for The New York Times.  He can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter @unjoe.

Featured image: Adam Schiff (Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Here are the latest COVID trends, following on from 10 COVID trends in August 2021 and 10 COVID trends September 2021. The situation is escalating as the NWO (New World Order) agenda plays itself out in a predictable fashion, step by step. Governments around the world, especially those of the English-speaking nations of the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, are suspiciously desperate to get every single citizen vaxxed – including the vulnerable such as children – no matter what it takes and no matter how much they have to bribe, blackmail, cajole and coerce the public. It is a time where the surreal has become real, where long-established legal and cultural traditions are being trampled underfoot. It is a time of out-of-control governments and disempowered people. It is a time where every single person must decide whether he or she prefers conformity, social approval and (in some cases) a paycheck, or whether he or she prefers freedom regardless of the price. Here are the latest scamdemic patterns and COVID trends.

COVID Trend #1: Implementation of Control Infrastructure Continues

To those with open eyes, it has long been patently obvious that the COVID scamdemic was an elaborate and clever ruse to usher in a control infrastructure that is intended to be permanent. Why would ruling bodies, from Canada to Israel to France, from California to New York, invest so much in vaccine certificates or passports with digital QR codes, if this were temporary? Why would Australia invest so much in building COVID quarantine camps for “ongoing operations” if this were temporary? Why would Canada invest so much in COVID isolating centers if this were temporary? Why would Victorian premier ‘Dictator Dan’ Andrews let slip he’s very happy for the Mickleham quarantine center for the “next pandemic”?

This is designed to permanent!

The structure of a future Orwellian surveillance state is being assembled. It is incredible that some people are still so asleep that they literally cannot see the architecture of control that is being rapidly constructed right here, right now, under their noses.

COVID Trend #2: Unvaccinated People Banned from Supermarkets and Grocery Shopping

Arch NWO insider and war criminal Henry Kissinger once said, “who controls the food supply controls the people.” The agenda of control is advancing methodically. First the carrot, then the stick, then the whip. The NWO controllers know that the idea is to eventually target people’s ability to obtain and/or grow their own food. They know that people may ignore their unlawful edicts and mandates, but only if they can remain independent. If they make people dependent on them for money and food, then compliance becomes far more widespread. A key goal in the ultimate agenda is to make it impossible for the unvaccinated to live a normal life, including getting food, so that then they cave in and get the shot. It was only a matter of time before they introduced this, however as with many things, they are trying it out in a few places first to test the public reaction. Earlier this year a mayor in the Philippines tried to stop the unvaccinated from getting food (and recently their tyrannical leader Duterte threatened to arrest those refusing the vax, as well as suggested vaxxing people in their sleep).

However, this is the first time to my knowledge that a rich Western nation has tried this. There is now a law in Hesse (a state in Germany) that allows all businesses, even supermarkets, to ban unvaxxed customers, even for groceries and other essentials.

Numerous COVID vax contents have been discovered which resemble synthetic substances or lifeforms.

COVID Trend #3: Numerous Independent Doctors Find Nanotech & Synthetic Lifeforms in COVID Fake-Vaccines

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

It is frightening how oligarchically-minded figures of a Great Resetting nature wish to use the structures of social credit to modify group behaviour under a post-Truth, depopulated/de-carbonized world order.

Ever since COVID-19 made a crazy world even crazier, many good people have become absorbed into anti-Chinese hysterics all across the Five Eyes-managed parts of the rules-based liberal west.

Every day, new accusations that China is running spy rings, honey pots, Trump’s overthrow, and even the Great Reset itself as part of a larger plot to undermine western democracy are repeated across the conservative press landscape. The two biggest “proofs” of China’s evil heart are:

1) China’s use of social credit that deprives people of freedom (and broader state regulation of the internet and video games), followed by

2) China’s regulation of religious organizations within their borders which somehow translates into “atheist commie state illegalizing religion”.

Frankly, these fears are impotent, unfounded and devoid of any understanding of either basic history or the actual power structures managing the world we all live in.

As I’ve written in countless locations (such as here, here, here, here and here), those same imperial forces that have driven the worst downshifts of human history via wars, assassinations, coups and economic terrorism, are very much alive today and are in fact attempting to steer humanity into a feudal slave model of society (with some technocratic 21^st century modifications).

This power structure is not Chinese, nor is it Russian. It isn’t even American, although it demands that all three nations be wiped out, their historic cultures reset and turned into fragmented, depopulated regions of a post-nation state global order.

Thankfully, genuinely nationalist leaders have arisen in this moment of global crisis and have created an alternative pathway into a very different future from the one which misanthropic globalists like George Soros or Klaus Schwab demand exist. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres complained of this alternative block in a recent speech saying:

 “I fear our world is creeping towards two different sets of economic, trade, financial, and technology rules, two divergent approaches in the development of artificial intelligence—and ultimately two different military and geo-political strategies. This is a recipe for trouble. It would be far less predictable and far more dangerous than the Cold War.”

In the course of the following series, I am going to nip some of the virulent anti-China mythologies in the bud by first focusing on synthetic cult creation past and present, the problem of Jesuits, the nature of China’s deep state, color revolutions, and the Chinese debt trap myth.

Social Credit: Not my Cup of Tea but Still a Necessity

Let me just state that on a personal level, speaking as someone who is shaped by democratic western values, all forms of surveillance, and social credit offend me.

I believe that people should cherish freedom and live in a cooperative world of love, trust and democracy.

That said, that world which I hope future generations get to experience bears little resemblance to the world of supranational oligarchism which has taken control of nations dumb enough to step into the globalist cage over the past decades and tie their fate to the Wall Street- City of London run bubble world order.

As I laid out in my recent article ‘Guterres and the Great Reset: How our Economy Became a Time Bomb’, those figures preparing to pull the plug on the bubble known as the western financial system tend to orbit one particular organization called the World Economic Forum, with names such as Klaus Schwab, Henry Kissinger and George Soros.

And while consumers of anti-Chinese propaganda might here exclaim that these individuals have all spoken well of China at different times, the only thing which Schwab, Soros or Kissinger admire is China’s centralized power structures and social credit systems. Everything that China is actually doing as far as building the New Silk Road, unleashing long term credit for development, empowering sovereign nation states to stand on their two feet and ending global poverty are despised.

Power hungry imperialists very much enjoy centralized national controls for the simple reason that these controls would give them the power to make their grandiose visions for a dystopic techno-feudal dictatorship happen fast without pesky democratic mechanisms getting in the way. The difference between China’s leadership when contrasted with the Schwabs of the Great Reset crowd is a matter of intention and governing ideology.

Where one is devoted to closed system depopulation and unipolarism, the other is devoted to open system long term growth and multipolarism.

A Lack of Humility

As hard as it is for some to admit, we who live here among the western trans-Atlantic states have a much more virulent form of social credit and surveillance state now in place under the Five Eyes and the multiheaded hydra which former CIA analyst Ray McGovern has called MICIMATT (Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank complex). This is easy to see from a top-down perspective, but for those whose minds are conditioned to make sense of the world “from the bottom up”, it is difficult to see beyond the thick veneer of propaganda (i.e.: just being at a rally on January 6, 2021 has countless people on do not fly lists, un-hirable or in jail).

Bankruptcy (either COVID-lockdown induced or other) results in poisoned credit penalties for many years which is nearly impossible to break out of for most people. In China, on the other hand, you can indeed find your wallet take a hit or job options limited by bad social credit, but inversely you can also recover your standing relatively easily.

Admittedly it frightens me to think how oligarchically-minded figures of a Great Resetting nature wish to use the structures of social credit tied to some form of Universal Basic Income in order to modify group behaviour under a post-Truth, depopulated/de-carbonized world order. But the thing to hold in mind is that mechanisms, like most tools, are generally morally neutral. It is how we use them that imbues them with evil or goodness.

Additionally, China is NOT forcing vaccines on their people while we here in the free west are making life unlivable if you don’t get the jab.

Recently, Canadians have lost the right to fly, sit on a train or cross a border to the USA without (at least) two mRNA jabs. Millions are threatened with a loss of livelihood if they don’t subject themselves as guinea pigs in a vast gene therapy experiment which is still in clinical stages and carrying a remarkably high rate of adverse events including death.

Chinese and Russian federal governments on the other hand have intervened on municipal/provincial administrators who have tried making the jab mandatory at different times and both nations have resisted pressure to use mRNA gene therapy relying instead on conventional viral vector technology.

Contrast this with the western nations, where our federal governments have demonstrated themselves to be little more than active appendages of the Great Reseting sociopaths with the only serious efforts at resistance coming from various state or provincial representatives.

In case this exercise in humility is still meeting resistance, it is worth being reminded that here in the freedom-loving liberal democracies of Canada, the USA and UK, jailed whistleblowers deprived of trial, or even basic civil liberties has become a normalized fact of life. When former CIA analyst John Kiriakou spoke out against his government’s use of illegal torture, he was put in prison. When Chelsea Manning exposed murderous drone assassinations of civilians committed by the US military, she found herself quickly jailed. When US Air force analyst Daniel Hale leaked information about the murder of innocent civilians, he paid the price with a 4 year prison sentence. Meanwhile Julian Assange rots in jail and Snowden would be in jail if he hadn’t found sanctuary in Russia.

In the next installments, we will tackle the important issue of asymmetrical warfare which has been deployed to divide and conquer China from within over the past 200 years. This will include an exposition of deep state operations within China, the use of religious organizations as fronts for color revolutionary tactics, and Soros-affiliated NGOs promoting regime change across Hong Kong, Tibet and Xinjiang.

*

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

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the‘Untold History of Canada’ book series and Clash of the Two Americas. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation . Consider helping this process by making a donation to the RTF or becoming a Patreon supporter to the Canadian Patriot Review

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Pressenza

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Yemen’s Ansar Allah is on the warpath and it seems that the Saudi-led coalition is incapable of stopping its advance.

As of October 18^th, the Houthis (Ansar Allah) have taken control of large swathes of Ma’rib province, and are priming to, once again, try to take the strategic city.

Ansar Allah announced that their fighters had captured an area of 3,200 square kilometers in the central Yemeni provinces of Shabwah and Ma’rib, during an operation dubbed “Spring of Victory”.

The operation resulted in the killing, wounding and capture of hundreds of mercenaries involved in the aggression. The Houthi spokesman, Brigadier General Yahya Sari claimed that among those were al-Qaeda and ISIS members.

Detailed information on the operation was promised in the upcoming days, with numbers of casualties and destroyed equipment. The Houthis usually boast greatly with all of their successes.

On the same day, the Saudi-led coalition boasted of its defensive capabilities. It claimed that it had intercepted and shot down two suicide drones which were launched from Yemen.

The two drones were most likely shot down within Yemeni airspace by fighter jets of the Royal Saudi Air Force with air-to-air missiles.

Additionally, the Saudi-led coalition said that its warplanes carried out 41 airstrikes on Houthi forces in the district of al-Abdiyah in the central Yemeni province of Ma’rib.

The coalition claimed that 165 Houthi fighters were killed and ten military vehicles were destroyed in the airstrikes. These numbers were not verified by any independent side.

Just days earlier, on October 12^th, the Houthis announced another successful operation dubbed “Dawn of Victory”.

According to the accompanying statement, throughout the operation, 1,300 Saudi-backed fighters were killed, 4,320 were wounded and 30 were captured by Houthi fighters.

During the operation, the Houthis’ air-defenses opened fire at Saudi-led coalition and US drones and warplanes 518 times and managed to shoot down a total of 17 drones.

The Yemeni group’s missile force carried out 49 attacks on targets inside Yemen and on 19 targets outside the country’s border. From its side, the drone force carried out 170 attacks on targets outside Yemen and 75 attacks on targets within the country.

The Saudi-led coalition carried out nearly 1,000 airstrikes in an attempt to impede the operation, but it failed. It is likely that numbers of the most recent operations are comparable, and it stands to show that Riyadh’s forces are incapable of mounting any form of adequate offense and defense.

The Houthis have been advancing towards Ma’rib city for more than seven months now. These two most recent operations are some of the most significant successes, as it isn’t a short-term gain that could potentially be quickly be lost if the Saudi-led coalition pushes back.

It appears that these two operations are the result of steady advances and tactical battlefield successes that could potentially be lasting and allow for Ansar Allah to push for Ma’rib city in the coming weeks.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

In a highly applauded, common sense legal opinion on October 15, 2021, the Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson stated that Nebraska healthcare providers can legally prescribe off-label medications like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID.

After citing numerous statutes and court decisions regarding the off-label use of prescription drugs, the AG opinion states:

“We conclude that governing law allows physicians to use FDA-approved medicines that are unproven for a particular off-label use so long as (1) reasonable medical evidence supports that use and (2) a patient’s written informed consent is obtained. In the context of this ever-changing global pandemic, we note that it is appropriate to consider medical evidence outside of Nebraska and to give physicians who obtained informed consent an added measure of deference on their assessment of the available medical evidence.”

The Nebraska AG continues on to provide much evidence for the history of the safety and effectiveness of ivermectin, and to chastise the FDA for its clear attempt to undermine its use, writing:

“The FDA’s most controversial statement on ivermectin came on August 21, 2021, when it posted a link on Twitter to its ‘Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin” webpage with this message: “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.’ This message is troubling not only because it makes light of a serious matter but also because it inaccurately implies that ivermectin is only for horses or cows.”

Informed Choice Washington strongly agrees with the Nebraska AG and disagrees with the Washington Medical Commission for harassing Dr. Miller, a physician’s assistant in Clark County, WA, for prescribing something that is his legal right to prescribe and that many doctors around the world are using to save lives during the pandemic. Community members stand with Dr. Miller.

The inventors of ivermectin won a 2015 Nobel Prize for saving human lives, not animals.

And the body of science on the safety and effectiveness for ivermectin’s use with COVID-19 is indisputable. There have been 63 trials; 625 scientists; 47,437 patients; 30 randomized controlled trials showing positive results for ivermectin preventing infection and/or preventing severe disease, hospitalization, and death.

Countries that have adopted ivermectin in their response to COVID (or portions of their country have adopted, or practitioners are independently prescribing with success for their patients)  include Argentina, Bangladesh, Belize, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Columbia, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Japan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Slovakia, South Africa, Thailand, and even the USA.

The U.S. National Institute of Health addresses ivermectin usage for COVD saying it is “generally well tolerated” and they are tracking some of the many studies underway. Tragically, they appear to be ignoring the existing completed studies and the massive success experienced by populations around the world. Still. There it is. Ivermectin acknowledged as a treatment protocol under consideration and usage.

So why did the Washington State Medical Commission suspend the license of Physician Assistant Scott Miller, and include in the charges that Miller had been promoting ivermectin and prescribing it for his patients?

While ICWA is not privy to all the details of the WMC’s charges, we are familiar with the unethical war on ivermectin being waged. We are highly concerned that the WMC is being fed misinformation by certain public health entities and are being used to put fear in doctors prescribing and promoting ivermectin. This fear-based suppression of the inexpensive lifesaving drug is being perpetrated to protect the profits of the drug industry that has anti-viral drugs in the pipeline that they hope to profit highly from.

Charge 1.12 against Dr. Miller quotes a false statement from Merck: “…ivermectin has no scientific basis for the potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19, no meaningful evidence of clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with with COVID-19, and a lack of safety data in the clinical studies that have been conducted with patients with COVID-19.” Ample studies, cited above, have proven otherwise. Ivermectin has been shown to be antiviral, antibacterial, and anti-inflammatory. It’s also “anti-big profit” since it is off-patent. Merck is just one of the makers of the generic, 40-year old medicine. Merck has no interest in supporting ivermectin since it makes them virtually nothing; they are pushing the FDA for Emergency Use Authorization on their new oral, anti-viral drug against COVID, Molnupiravir, with only interim data from a highly questionable clinical trial.

Some in the scientific community are very concerned that Molnupiravir’s mechanism of action—mutagenesis—“threatens to accelerate the evolution of the coronavirus” and the results could be catastrophic. The drug has also been shown to be “mutagenic in mammalian cells.” 

So while billions of doses of ivermectin have been taken safely over decades, Merck is seeking EUA for what they hope to be a highly profitable mutagenic drug with the potential to cause much harm. 

People are dying every day from COVID-19, both the vaccinated and the non-vaccinated, in hospitals and at home. Ivermectin, along with other drug and nutrient protocols, has proven globally to save lives. It is criminal — a crime against humanity — to punish doctors who weigh the evidence and prescribe ivermectin to their patients.

ICWA respectfully asks the WMC to take the time to fully explore the full body of science as well as the politics of ivermectin and to reconsider not only their charges against Scott Miller who is obviously passionate and frustrated trying to save patients, but also to reconsider their stance on ivermectin for all physicians in Washington State. One of the leading sources of ivermectin science and politics is the Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance. This is a group of highly respected and credentialed pulmonary care specialists working in critical care units with COVID patients.

It is no exaggeration to say that the future of the practice of medicine is at stake. After all, if doctors are to be nothing more than marketers for the pharmaceutical industry, unable to truly practice medicine based on the full body of evidence and their own experienced judgement, then why bother with licensing doctors at 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.

Featured image is from ICWA

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

More sanctions seem to be coming Belarus’ way, if European Foreign Ministers agree to them.

The most significant limitation is prohibiting EU companies from leasing jets to the Belarusian airline Belavia. This means that Minsk’s national airline would have no airplanes to fly passengers, it is a significant step.

The EU has accused the government of Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko of facilitating migration into the bloc in retaliation for EU sanctions.

According to the accusations, thousands of migrants have been lured to Belarus on tourist visas and encouraged to cross into Poland, Lithuania and to a lesser extent Latvia — all three of which are EU nations that border Belarus.

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko denied all of this and instead blamed the West for what he says is a looming humanitarian catastrophe this winter after migrants were left stranded on the Belarusian-Polish border.

In Poland, thousands took to the streets in Warsaw, protesting against migrant pushbacks.

Demonstrators marched through the Polish capital holding signs with messages such as, “Stop torture at the border,” “Nobody is illegal,” and “How many bodies lie in the forest?”

At least seven people have died at the EU’s eastern border since the uptick in migrant arrivals that began in summer, according to Polish, Lithuanian and Belarusian officials.

The United Nations refugee agency and the International Organization for Migration said they were “shocked and dismayed” by migrant deaths at the border, adding that groups of people have become stranded for weeks, unable to access any form of assistance or asylum.

Meanwhile, officials in Minsk, Warsaw, Vilnius and Riga have continued exchanging accusations while the deaths slowly pile up.

In response to the most recent sanctions, France’s ambassador was ordered out of Belarus.

France’s foreign minister said that Ambassador Nicolas de Lacoste’s departure was due to the “unilateral decision” of Belarusian authorities.

The Belarusian Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that the departure was connected to de Lacoste’s unwillingness to present his credentials to Lukashenko. Additionally, Minsk said it was recalling Belarus’ ambassador to France, Igor Fisenko, for consultations over the developments.

The French foreign ministry explained that the ambassador did not present his credentials to the 67-year-old leader because it was “in line with the common European position of not recognising the legitimacy of the outcome of the August 2020 presidential election.”

This diplomatic standoff between Belarus and the EU will continue, especially in view of the deepening integration between Minsk and Moscow, which Brussels also attempts to “prohibit”.

It is unlikely that these attempts to stop the integration will prove fruitful and result in anything significant. The migrant crisis, however, is a “ticking time bomb” that needs to be dealt with sooner, rather than later, as people dying along the borders is a worrisome development.

This is all taking place against the concerning backdrop of Russia closing its permanent mission to NATO. The Alliance’s representative office in Moscow was also shuttered. This means that all official communication mechanisms have been stopped, and the only way NATO can communicate with Moscow is through its Ambassador in Brussels.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

 

 

U.S. billionaires have seen their wealth surge $1.8 trillion during the pandemic, their collective fortune skyrocketing by nearly two-thirds (62 percent) from just short of $3 trillion at the start of the COVID crisis on March 18, 2020, to $4.8 trillion on August 17, 2021, according to a report from Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) and the Institute for Policy Studies Program on Inequality (IPS). A table of the top 15 billionaires is below and the full data set is here.

Elon Musk has seen his wealth increase by an eye-popping $150 billion during the pandemic, a gain of over 600 percent.

America’s billionaire bonanza demonstrates the flaws in our current economic and tax systems President Biden and Democrats in Congress are trying to remedy by advancing a $3.5 trillion budget package, which has already passed the U.S. Senate and is being considered in the U.S. House today. If it becomes law through the budget reconciliation process this fall, it will aid communities and working families by making healthcare, eldercare, childcare, housing and education more affordable, investing in clean energy, expanding the Child Tax Credit and providing 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave. It will be paid for by making the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share of taxes, and it will not raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000 a year.

Not only did the wealth of billionaires grow, but so did their numbers: in March of last year, there were 614 Americans with 10-figure bank accounts; this August, there are 708. Their $1.8 trillion of increased wealth alone over 17 months, which will not be taxed unless they sell their assets, would pay for more than half of Biden’s 10-year $3.5 trillion investment package.

Sources: March 18, 2020 data: Forbes, “Forbes Publishes 34th Annual List Of Global Billionaires,” accessed March 18, 2020. August 17, 2021 data: Forbes, “The World’s Real-Time Billionaires, Today’s Winners and Losers,” accessed August 17, 2021.

The great good fortune of these billionaires over the past 17 months is all the more appalling when contrasted with the devastating impact of coronavirus on working people. Over 86 million Americans have lost jobs, almost 38 million have been sickened by the virus, and over 625,000 have died from it.

President Biden’s investment proposals contained in the Senate-passed budget resolution would significantly improve Americans health by making private insurance in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchanges more affordable; closing the Medicaid coverage gap in 12 states that refuse to expand coverage under the ACA; expanding Medicare to cover dental, vision and hearing benefits; increasing long-term care benefits to help people afford home and community-based services; and lowering the cost of prescription drugs by giving Medicare the authority to negotiate lower drug prices with drug corporations.

Biden’s proposed investments would reduce health insurance premiums for 9 million people, according to the White House, saving an average 60-year-old making $55,000 a year hundreds of dollars a month on their ACA insurance policy premium, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The cost of extending these subsidies is $163 billion over 10 years, per the Treasury Department. That means the $1.8 trillion increase in American billionaire wealth over the last 17 months could pay the entire 10-year cost of making healthcare more affordable for 9 million people more than 10 times over.

While these investments in healthcare would benefit millions of Americans and save money in the long run, the ballooning wealth of billionaires benefits no one but the super-rich. That’s because the current tax code is riddled with loopholes and special breaks that allow the super wealthy to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

Due to one of the code’s biggest loopholes, increased wealth enjoyed by billionaires and other members of the richest 1 percent—for whom such wealth growth is the primary source of income—can go untaxed forever. The virtual tax-free status of billionaire wealth growth was highlighted recently by a report from ProPublica. It estimated that 25 top billionaires paid on average just 3.4 percent of their wealth-growth in federal income taxes and that several, including Jeff Bezos (worth $188 billion on August 17, 2021) and Elon Musk (worth $175 billion on August 17, 2021), went multiple recent years paying zero federal income tax.

Even when taxed, the top tax rate on wealth-growth income is only about half that of wage income—20 percent vs. 37 percent. President Biden would end those special breaks on the wealth-growth income of millionaires and billionaires as part of his tax-reform package. Following are Biden’s tax reforms that are expected to be a part of budget reconciliation legislation to be voted on in the fall, many of which will ensure billionaires start paying closer to their fair share of taxes:

• Tax wealth like work. People with more than $1 million a year in income will have to pay a top tax rate on the sale of stock and other assets that is the same as the top rate workers pay on wages. Biden also will close a loophole that often allows the wealthy to avoid paying taxes on investment gains for their entire lives. These reforms will raise $325 billion.
• Restore the top individual tax rate to 39.6 percent and stop avoidance of taxes by wealthy business owners that are used to fund healthcare. These two reforms will together raise $370 billion.
• Crack down on tax evasion by the wealthy, which will raise $700 billion. 
• Raise the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent, leaving it still far below the 35 percent rate in 2017. Corporate taxes are largely paid by the owners of corporations, which means the stockholders. Billionaires are among the wealthiest 1 percent that own over half of all corporate stock. This reform will raise nearly $900 billion.
• Curb offshore corporate tax dodging by eliminating incentives to outsource jobs and shift profits to tax havens. This reform will raise more than $1 trillion.

A more direct way to tax billionaire wealth is to tax the wealth itself instead of just its growth. If the wealth tax proposed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren had been in effect in 2020, the nation’s billionaires alone would have paid $114 billion for that year—and would pay an estimated combined total of $1.4 trillion over 10 years.

Poll after poll shows that Americans of all political persuasions and by large majorities believe that the wealthy and big corporations need to start paying their fair share of taxes. A June poll by ALG Research and Hart Research shows 62 percent of voters support Biden’s proposed $4 trillion (at the time) investments in healthcare, childcare, education, clean energy and more—paid for by higher taxes on the rich and corporations.

March 18, 2020 is used as the unofficial beginning of the coronavirus crisis because by then most federal and state economic restrictions responding to the virus were in place. March 18 was also the date that Forbes picked to measure billionaire wealth for the 2020 edition of its annual billionaires’ report, which provided a baseline that ATF and HCAN compare periodically with real-time data from the Forbes website. PolitiFact has favorably reviewed this methodology. 

*

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

Featured image is from 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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

On October 7th, the death toll after vaccination in Taiwan reached 852, while the death toll after the COVID-19 was diagnosed [largely based on the flawed PCR test] was 844. The number of deaths after vaccination exceeded the number of confirmed deaths for the first time.

According to a “Notice of Adverse Events after COVID-19 Vaccination” issued by Taiwan’s health department, on March 22 this year, Taiwan began vaccination. From that day to October 6, the death toll after vaccination in Taiwan has reached 849.

Among them, the death toll after vaccination with AZ was the largest, reaching 643; the death toll after vaccination with Moderna was 183, and the death toll after vaccination with Taiwan’s self-produced “Medigen” vaccine was 22.

Another news from Taiwan Chinatimes: 

Chinatimes reported that Taiwan’s “DCD” updated the “Notice of Adverse Events after COVID-19 Vaccination” on the 8th. According to data, as of 16:00 on the 7th, the “Suspected Serious Adverse Events after Vaccination” The number of deaths was 850, and as of the 8th, the number of deaths from COVID-19 pneumonia was 845.

Notification of adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination (Source: “Taiwan Chinatimes”)

As of the 6th, since the epidemic, the number of deaths due to the confirmed COVID-19 in Taiwan was 844. This is the first time that the number of deaths after vaccination has exceeded the number of confirmed deaths.

According to data released by the Taiwan Epidemic Command Center, on the 7th, there were 4 new confirmed cases of COVID-19 pneumonia in Taiwan, all of which were imported from abroad, and there were no new deaths among the confirmed cases. However, there were 3 new deaths after vaccination. The number of deaths after vaccination still exceeds the number of deaths after diagnosis.

On October 6, the Kuomintang “legislator” Yeh,Yu-Lan bluntly stated in a Facebook post that the vaccine given to save lives has also nearly doubled the number of deaths due to the COVID-19, which is indeed very ironic and confusing.

She mentioned that recently, some hospitals in Taiwan have reported that 25 people were vaccinated with undiluted vaccine stock solution, or the vaccination dose was insufficient. It should have been given 0.5cc, but only 0.1cc was given.

Netizens mentioned that the original appointment to go to the National Taiwan University Hospital for the second dose of Moderna was changed to a “high-end” vaccine. This series of vaccine problems can be clearly felt. The number of vaccination deaths has caught up with the COVID-19 diagnosis. The death toll is not accidental, nor is it accidental.

She said that many people would actively vaccinate to survive, and relevant departments should not turn life-saving vaccines into life-threatening vaccines because of negligence in control. People who are vaccinated in accordance with the island’s policies have become inexplicable victims under the epidemic.

In fact, as early as two weeks ago, the Kuomintang “legislator” Wu I-ding had questioned that the mortality rate after vaccination in Taiwan was higher than that in other regions. At that time, Chen Shih-chung said that “the judgment has not been completed” and death may not be related to vaccination.

Wu I-ding had no choice but to say that she could not get any information from Chen Shih-chung, so she went to the health department and the legal department. Unexpectedly, all parties have been “playing the ball” all the time.

The statement “not necessarily related” is a consistent statement that Chen Shih-chung has always used in the face of all doubts about vaccines, such as adverse reactions and deaths after vaccination.

As mentioned earlier, in the “Notice of Adverse Events after COVID-19 Vaccination” issued by the Taiwan authorities yesterday, the authorities have also been emphasizing that “(this document) itself cannot explain or be used to derive the existence or seriousness of vaccine-related problems. Conclusion of degree, frequency or incidence.”

*

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

Sources

https://www.ettoday.net/news/20211009/2097484.htm

https://news.sina.com.cn/c/2021-10-08/doc-iktzqtyu0213782.shtml

https://www.guancha.cn/politics/2021_10_08_609960.shtml

Featured image is from Medical Trend

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The United States regretted its inability to take part in the talks on Afghanistan in Moscow this week. The Russian side was pinning hopes on a meeting of the exclusive Troika Plus (US, China, Russia and Pakistan) followed by a gathering in an expanded format known as the ‘Moscow format’ on Wednesday. 

The US State Department spokesman Ned Price said during a briefing on Monday,

“We will not participate in the Moscow talks. The Troika Plus has been an effective, a constructive forum. We look forward to engaging in that forum going forward, but we’re not in a position to take part this week.” 

Conceivably, he alluded to the dramatic developments at the state department over the weekend  — the Oct. 15 memo to Secretary of State Blinken by the the acting inspector general at State Diana Shaw that she is launching a series of investigations into the Biden administration’s last diplomatic moves in Afghanistan and the resignation three days later by the special representative on Afghan reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad. read more 

Nonetheless, the meeting under the ‘Moscow format’ is going ahead on Wednesday attended by 10 regional countries and a high ranking Taliban delegation led by Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Salam Hanafi. A Russian Foreign Ministry statement in Moscow today said the meeting will focus on the developing political and military situation in Afghanistan and highlighted that the establishment of an inclusive government and efforts for a global response to prevent a humanitarian crisis will also be on the agenda. 

The MFA disclosed that a joint statement by the participants will be issued after the meeting, which is symbolic insofar as it will also include will also include Afghanistan’s de facto ruler, Taliban. Incidentally, Taliban was not invited to last week’s G20 talks on Afghanistan. This is the first time that a structured meeting of regional states will be including the Taliban officials since their seizure of power in August, although no government has so far recognised the group as the country’s legitimate rulers. It is a significant step. 

A CGTN commentary titled What may China and other countries do at the Moscow meeting on Afghanistan? has underscored that Chinese officials will harp on “a zero-tolerance approach toward terrorism” on the part of the. Taliban who “will be subject to its neighbours’ demands of stating its commitment to not allowing Afghanistan to be a base for terrorist groups and also working actively to prevent it from happening.” 

The commentary took note cautiously,

“However, despite the assurances to their neighbours, the Taliban will have to prioritise their concerns. Although they control Afghanistan, the rule is not yet fully consolidated. There are still many who oppose the rule and have protested against it. Some, like the Islamic State which is based in the country, have even targeted the Taliban for it.

“Because of this, the Taliban may well focus on those they deem a direct threat. That may mean that the Taliban invest less time and effort on behalf of their neighbours.” 

Nonetheless, the Moscow meeting can be expected to make a call for humanitarian assistance and urge the US and other rich countries to free up the money that has been frozen to ease help alleviate the current crisis. The Chinese commentary hinted that notwithstanding the challenging situation in Afghanistan, the Moscow meeting’s participants “might also explore more practical measures to help boost resources and revenues for the Afghan government. That could mean looking at ways to make trade easier between Afghanistan and its neighbours, whether it is reducing paperwork on imports and exports or providing alternative financial mechanisms and channels to enable investment.” 

In the backdrop of the Moscow meeting, reports have appeared that Delhi has sounded Islamabad about the logistics and feasibility of transporting 50,000 metric tonnes of wheat and medical aid to Afghanistan. Clearly, on the sidelines of the Moscow meeting on Wednesday, opportunities may arise for Indian and Pakistani officials to exchange views informally.

Delhi has extended an invitation to the Pakistani National Security Advisor Moeed Yusuf to participate in a conference on Afghanistan next month, which will be chaired by India’s National Security Advisor Ajit Doval. 

Indeed, if the looming crisis in Afghanistan gives impetus to Delhi and Islamabad to reach some degree of pragmatic understanding to reset their tense relationship, that will be a hugely consequential outcome of the Moscow meeting. Perhaps, it is too much to hope for. The odds may appear to be heavily stacked against it as the mutual antipathies run deep. There is no dearth of interest groups (on both sides) who strive to keep tensions alive. 

In geopolitical terms too, there are contradictions. Pakistan prioritises its close, fraternal relations with China while the Indian policy has steadily gravitated toward aligning with the US’ ‘strategic competition’ with China (and Russia). Pakistan has worked hard in the recent years to diversify its external relationships whereas India is seemingly acquiring a ‘bloc mentality’.

The point is, while the United States maintains that it has a ‘de-hyphenated’ regional policy toward India and Pakistan, in effect Washington is far from a passive onlooker. The US has high stakes in thwarting any regional processes vis-a-vis the Taliban government in Kabul. The Russian officials are not far off the mark when they question the US’ intentions in Afghanistan.

A senior columnist at the Kremlin-funded RT Finian Cunningham noted today that the geopolitical significance of the spate of terrorist attacks by the ISIS-Khorasan lately “seems clear.” Cunningham went to assess:

“The surge in violence in Afghanistan is aimed at preventing the country from creating a stable government and to stifle a postwar reconstruction from cooperation with regional partners, in particular China.

“In contrast to the overtures from Beijing, Moscow, Iran, Pakistan and others, the United States has sought to throw obstacles in the way of Afghanistan’s new Taliban government.” read more

Yesterday, the state department spokesman Ned Price had vaguely cited logistical reasons why the US has to stay away from the Moscow conference. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt for now. To be sure, Khalilzad is leaving as an embittered man. According to New York Times, in his resignation letter to Blinken, Khalilzad wrote that the “reasons for this (resignation) are too complex and I will share my thoughts in the coming days and weeks, after leaving government service.” 

Meanwhile, ‘Troika Plus’ went ahead and held their scheduled meeting alright in Moscow — minus the US, of course.

*

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

Featured image: A batch of emergency humanitarian aid donated by China arrived at Kabul International Airport, Afghanistan, September 29, 202 (Source: Indian Punchline)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

 

In country after country around the world, people are rising up to challenge entrenched, failing neoliberal political and economic systems, with mixed but sometimes promising results.

Progressive leaders in the U.S. Congress are refusing to back down on the Democrats’ promises to American voters to reduce poverty, expand rights to healthcare, education and clean energy, and repair a shredded social safety net. After decades of tax cuts for the rich, they are also committed to raising taxes on wealthy Americans and corporations to pay for this popular agenda.

Germany has elected a ruling coalition of Social Democrats, Greens and Free Democrats that excludes the conservative Christian Democrats for the first time since 2000. The new government promises a $14 minimum wage, solar panels on all suitable roof space, 2% of land for wind farms and the closure of Germany’s last coal-fired power plants by 2030.

Iraqis voted in an election that was called in response to a popular protest movement launched in October 2019 to challenge the endemic corruption of the post-2003 political class and its subservience to U.S. and Iranian interests. The protest movement was split between taking part in the election and boycotting it, but its candidates still won about 35 seats and will have a voice in parliament. The party of long-time Iraqi nationalist leader Muqtada al-Sadr won 73 seats, the largest of any single party, while Iranian-backed parties whose armed militias killed hundreds of protesters in 2019 lost popular support and many of their seats.

Chile’s billionaire president, Sebastian Piñera, is being impeached after the Pandora Papers revealed details of bribery and tax evasion in his sale of a mining company, and he could face up to 5 years in prison. Mass street protests in 2019 forced Piñera to agree to a new constitution to replace the one written under the Pinochet military dictatorship, and a convention that includes representatives of indigenous and other marginalized communities has been elected to draft the constitution. Progressive parties and candidates are expected to do well in the general election in November.

Maybe the greatest success of people power has come in Bolivia. In 2020, only a year after a U.S.-backed right-wing military coup, a mass mobilization of mostly indigenous working people forced a new election, and the socialist MAS Party of Evo Morales was returned to power. Since then it has already introduced a new wealth tax and welfare payments to four million people to help eliminate hunger in Bolivia.

The Ideological Context

Since the 1970s, Western political and corporate leaders have peddled a quasi-religious belief in the power of “free” markets and unbridled capitalism to solve all the world’s problems. This new “neoliberal” orthodoxy is a thinly disguised reversion to the systematic injustice of 19th century laissez-faire capitalism, which led to gross inequality and poverty even in wealthy countries, famines that killed tens of millions of people in India and China, and horrific exploitation of the poor and vulnerable worldwide.

For most of the 20th century, Western countries gradually responded to the excesses and injustices of capitalism by using the power of government to redistribute wealth through progressive taxation and a growing public sector, and ensure broad access to public goods like education and healthcare. This led to a gradual expansion of broadly shared prosperity in the United States and Western Europe through a strong public sector that balanced the power of private corporations and their owners.

The steadily growing shared prosperity of the post-WWII years in the West was derailed by a  combination of factors, including the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, Nixon’s freeze on prices and wages, runaway inflation caused by dropping the gold standard, and then a second oil crisis after the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

Right-wing politicians led by Ronald Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in the U.K. blamed the power of organized labor and the public sector for the economic crisis. They launched a “neoliberal” counter-revolution to bust unions, shrink and privatize the public sector, cut taxes, deregulate industries and supposedly unleash “the magic of the market.” Then they took credit for a return to economic growth that really owed more to the end of the oil crises.

The United States and United Kingdom used their economic, military and media power to spread their neoliberal gospel across the world. Chile’s experiment in neoliberalism under Pinochet’s military dictatorship became a model for U.S. efforts to roll back the “pink tide” in Latin America. When the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe opened to the West at the end of the Cold War, it was the extreme, neoliberal brand of capitalism that Western economists imposed as “shock therapy” to privatize state-owned enterprises and open countries to Western corporations.

In the United States, the mass media shy away from the word “neoliberalism” to describe the changes in society since the 1980s. They describe its effects in less systemic terms, as globalization, privatization, deregulation, consumerism and so on, without calling attention to their common ideological roots. This allows them to treat its impacts as separate, unconnected problems: poverty and inequality, mass incarceration, environmental degradation, ballooning debt, money in politics, disinvestment in public services, declines in public health, permanent war, and record military spending.

After a generation of systematic neoliberal control, it is now obvious to people all over the world that neoliberalism has utterly failed to solve the world’s problems. As many predicted all along, it has just enabled the rich to get much, much richer, while structural and even existential problems remain unsolved.

Even once people have grasped the self-serving, predatory nature of this system that has overtaken their political and economic life, many still fall victim to the demoralization and powerlessness that are among its most insidious products, as they are brainwashed to see themselves only as individuals and consumers, instead of as active and collectively powerful citizens.

In effect, confronting neoliberalism—whether as individuals, groups, communities or countries—requires a two-step process. First, we must understand the nature of the beast that has us and the world in its grip, whatever we choose to call it. Second, we must overcome our own demoralization and powerlessness, and rekindle our collective power as political and economic actors to build the better world we know is possible.

We will see that collective power in the streets and the suites at COP26 in Glasgow, when the world’s leaders will gather to confront the reality that neoliberalism has allowed corporate profits to trump a rational response to the devastating impact of fossil fuels on the Earth’s climate. Extinction Rebellion and other groups will be in the streets in Glasgow, demanding the long-delayed action that is required to solve the problem, including an end to net carbon emissions by 2025.

While scientists warned us for decades what the result would be, political and business leaders have peddled their neoliberal snake oil to keep filling their coffers at the expense of the future of life on Earth. If we fail to stop them now, living conditions will keep deteriorating for people everywhere, as the natural world our lives depend on is washed out from under our feet, goes up in smoke and, species by species, dies and disappears forever.

The Covid pandemic is another real world case study on the impact of neoliberalism. As the official death toll reaches 5 million and many more deaths go unreported, rich countries are still hoarding vaccines, drug companies are reaping a bonanza of profits from vaccines and new drugs, and the lethal, devastating injustice of the entire neoliberal “market” system is laid bare for the whole world to see. Calls for a “people’s vaccine” and “vaccine justice” have been challenging what has now been termed “vaccine apartheid.”

Conclusion

In the 1980s, U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher often told the world, “There is no alternative” to the neoliberal order she and President Reagan were unleashing. After only one or two generations, the self-serving insanity they prescribed and the crises it has caused have made it a question of survival for humanity to find alternatives.

Around the world, ordinary people are rising up to demand real change. The people of Iraq, Chile and Bolivia have overcome the incredible traumas inflicted on them to take to the streets in the thousands and demand better government. Americans should likewise demand that our government stop wasting trillions of dollars to militarize the world and destroy countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, and start solving our real problems, here and abroad.

People around the world understand the nature of the problems we face better than we did a generation or even a decade ago. Now we must overcome demoralization and powerlessness in order to act. It helps to understand that the demoralization and powerlessness we may feel are themselves products of this neoliberal system, and that simply overcoming them is a victory in itself.

As we reject the inevitability of neoliberalism and Thatcher’s lie that there is no alternative, we must also reject the lie that we are just passive, powerless consumers. As human beings, we have the same collective power that human beings have always had to build a better world for ourselves and our children – and now is the time to harness that power.

*

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

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

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

Both authors are frequent contributors to Global Research.

Featured image is by Tom Pennington

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

American billionaires’ wallets have had a good year, with their fortunes growing by 70%.

That’s according to a new report from the left-leaning Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and Americans for Tax Fairness, which tracks gains from March 18, 2020 to October 15, 2021. The groups analyzed real time data from Forbes on gains by the ten-figure club to find that billionaires in the US added a cumulative $2.1 trillion to their net worths during the pandemic.

It’s the latest data point showing that the world’s richest grew both in ranks and in fortune. In April, IPS released a report that found the world’s billionaires added $4 trillion to their wealth from March 18, 2020 to March 18, 2021. Research firm Wealth-X found that the number of billionaires in the world rose to over 3,000 in 2020 – a new record. The US alone rose from 614 billionaires in March 2020 to 745 this month.

Here’s how much America’s wealthiest added to their collective fortunes, and how their net worths stack up.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk saw the biggest gains by far. He again surpassed former Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos as the richest person in the world in March, a fact he hasn’t been shy about touting. Just this month he tweeted a silver medal at Bezos in response to a tweet from Bezos heralding Amazon’s success.

The gains come as America reckons with pandemic-exacerbated inequality. Across the country, thousands of workers are striking for better conditions and higher pay; millions of Americans are also quitting their roles en masse, driving up wages as the workforce contends with record months of quits.

Meanwhile, the top 1% of Americans just surpassed the entire middle class in how much wealth they hold. That unevenness – alongside continued revelations into how the world’s ultrawealthy weasel out of paying taxes through intricate loopholes and financial structures – have prompted calls for higher taxes on the highest-earners, alongside increased enforcement.

President Joe Biden has proposed tax measures targeted at America’s wealthiest to offset the costs of his party-line infrastructure package. His original plan included an increase in the top individual tax rate, along with a nearly doubled rate for capital gains – the profits from assets like bonds and stacks – although that rate eventually shrunk in Democrats’ proposal. The package would also pour money into the IRS to increase enforcement

A recent study from IRS researchers and academics found that the top 1% of Americans fail to report about a quarter of their income to the IRS. Income underreporting is nearly twice as high for the top 0.1%, which could account for billions in unreported taxes.

The gap between taxes owed and taxes paid could only grow if left without intervention, according to the Department of Treasury. Treasury estimates that Biden’s proposed $80 billion investment in the IRS could bring in an additional $700 billion over 10 years. That’s still with hundreds of billions in taxes going uncollected each year, as Insider’s Ayelet Sheffey reports.

Biden has also backed a proposal from Senate Finance Chair Ron Wyden that would tax unrealized gains from billionaires. Essentially, it would tax the profits that billionaires rake in from those capital gains, even if they’re not selling them off. A report from White House economists – which figured in those gains as income – found that America’s 400 wealthiest families pay just 8.2% in income taxes annually.

However, the fate of tax hikes is currently imperiled. Key moderate senator Kyrsten Sinema opposes raising taxes for both individuals and large corporations, Insider’s Joseph Zeballos-Roig reported. Her support is pivotal in getting a party-line package passed.

*

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

With the exception of Pearl Harbor and Sept. 11, 2001, Americans have not been attacked by an enemy on our own soil. Unlike countries in Europe during World War II, America has never been occupied by a military force or locked down under martial law.

We have never seen soldiers in armored vehicles patrolling the streets, warning us to stay in our homes or face arrest – or worse.

Beginning in 1776, when our freedom seeking founders wrote the Declaration of Independence¹ and stood their ground from Lexington and Concord to Saratoga and Valley Forge,² and then came together to create a constitutional Republic dedicated to protecting individual and minority rights, ³ the United States of America has defined and served as a beacon for liberty for people around the world. ⁴

This summer, we watched soldiers patrolling the streets of Sydney, Australia with helicopters overhead blaring warnings to a stunned, locked down people to stay in their homes in the name of the public health.^{5 6 7}

We have watched hundreds of thousands of people, young and old, gather together again and again in the streets of Paris, London, Rome, Athens, and Berlin.^{8 9 1011 12} They are marching against authoritarianism, the kind of Orwellian authoritarianism embodied in government issued vaccine passports that punish citizens for simply defending the right to make a voluntary medical decision for themselves and their minor children,¹³ a decision about whether to be injected with a biological pharmaceutical product that can cause serious reactions,^{14 15 16 17}  injure,^{18 19 20 21} kill^{22 23 24} or fail to work.^{25 26 27 28}

The signs they carry say:

“No forced testing, no forced vaccines”

“Stop the dictatorship”

“Hands off our children:

“My body is mine”

“Big Pharma shackles freedom”

“No to the Pass of shame”

“Better to die free than live as a slave”

In what has become a prophetic primal scream for liberty, governments are ordering the police to break up the largely peaceful demonstrators^{29 30} flooding the big cities and small villages of western Europe, the first populations to organize massive public protests against old fashioned tyranny dressed up in 21^st century clothes.

The people of Europe were the first to stand up for freedom during this government declared public health emergency because they know how tyranny begins. They know what it looks like and they remember what it feels like. They remember and are declaring, “Never again.”

In America, We Have Taken Our Freedom for Granted

Most Americans living today do not remember World War II or, if they do, it is through what their parents or grandparents told them about it. World War II was not fought on American soil. Americans went to war in Europe to stop the slaughter of millions at the hands of an authoritarian fascist government commanding the Army of the Third Reich that killed in the name of the public health and safety,^{31 32} even an authoritarian communist government slaughtered many more millions during a “Reign of Terror” in the Soviet Union. ³³ Most American children today are not taught what happened in China after World War II, when the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) implemented the Great Leap Forward and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Those militant ideological cleansing campaigns imprisoned and killed tens of millions of citizens because they criticized or opposed authoritarian government policies.^{34 35}

In America, we have taken our freedom for granted because, while we have been willing to fight to defend the freedom of others, we have never been called upon to defend it in our own backyard. Most Americans have never imagined we would experience a serious threat to autonomy and freedom of thought, ^{36 37} speech,^{38 39}conscience^{40 41}  and assembly.⁴² So deep has been our trust in the laws and cultural values which have, for the most part, ensured fundamental freedoms in our country, that we never believed it could happen here.⁴³⁴⁴

But the last 20 months have changed everything. Many Americans have begun to understand that tyranny can be disguised to look like safety, even as many others still cannot bring themselves to believe it.

America’s Move Toward Authoritarianism

Striking fear into the hearts and minds of the people, the move toward authoritarianism in America began with government officials suddenly telling us – even children as young as two years old – that we could not breathe fresh air or enter public spaces without a mask covering our face.^{45 46 47 48 49}  Millions of American workers judged to be “non-essential” lost the ability to earn a living so they could eat and pay rent during “flatten the curve” lockdowns we were told would only last a few weeks but, instead, went on for months.^{50 51 52} Anyone who criticized government narratives about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 virus^{53 54} or questioned social distancing restrictions was immediately publicly shamed and censored.^{55 56 57} Any doctor, who tried to provide early treatment to COVID-19 patients by repurposing safe and effective licensed drugs and nutritional supplements to help their patients survive the infection, ⁵⁸ were also publicly shamed and censored.^{59 60}

After the FDA granted Pfizer and Moderna an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) ⁶¹ in December 2020 to distribute their liability free experimental mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S.,^{62 63 64 65}  public health officials enlisted big corporations to launch a hard-sell national vaccine advertising campaign targeting all Americans over the age of 12. ^{66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73} Anyone who asked questions or challenged the hard sell was immediately censored on social media.^{74  75 76  77}  State governments and employers were encouraged to threaten workers,⁷⁸ especially health care workers and emergency responders, with loss of their jobs for refusing the vaccine.^{79 8081 82} Private businesses were encouraged to deny unvaccinated citizens entry to restaurants, stores and other public venues.⁸³

By the end of July 2021, the Department of Veteran Affairs directed all VA health care workers to be fully vaccinated or lose their jobs. ⁸⁴ In early August, the Department of Defense announced that all military service members must be fully vaccinated when the FDA officially licenses a COVID-19 vaccine or lose their jobs. ⁸⁵ Suddenly, on Aug. 23, the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was licensed without a public meeting of the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRPBAC) and full disclosure of the scientific data supporting licensure.⁸⁶

By the end of August, about 176 million Americans had been “fully” vaccinated, representing 53.6 percent of our population of 333 million people,⁸⁷ which is the third largest in the world. And studies had confirmed that the SARS-CoV-2 infection mortality ratio (IFR) in the U.S. remains at less than one percent.⁸⁸

Federal Government Declares War on Unvaccinated Americans

But the Executive Branch of the US government was not happy. Federal health officials had publicly set the goal of persuading 90 percent of Americans to get the COVID vaccine,⁸⁹ although it is clear now that the real goal all along was a 100 percent vaccination rate: no exceptions and no questions asked.

At the beginning of September, the politics of persuasion gave way to an iron fisted approach using the heel of the boot of the State to try to club 100 million unvaccinated Americans into submission.

On Sept. 9, 2021, the President of the United States followed the advice of top public health officials and, in effect, declared war on unvaccinated Americans.^{90 91} He scapegoated and placed all the blame for the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on the unvaccinated, even though federal health officials admit that fully vaccinated people can still get infected and transmit the virus to others;^{92 93 94 95} and even though breakthrough COVID infections, hospitalizations and deaths in fully vaccinated people are on the rise; ^{96 97} and even though evidence shows individuals who have recovered from the infection have stronger natural immunity than those who have been vaccinated; ⁹⁸ and even though officials at the World Health Organization now say that the SARS-COV-2 virus is mutating like influenza and is likely to become prevalent in every county – no matter how high the vaccination rate.^{99 100}

The President told 100 million unvaccinated Americans that “our patience is running thin” and issued an Executive Order that every person working for the Executive Branch of the federal government – more than two million people – must get fully vaccinated or lose their jobs.¹⁰¹  That order also applied to about 17 million health care professionals working in medical facilities that accept Medicare and Medicaid.¹⁰²

There is no option for Executive Branch employees to get tested – the rule is get vaccinated or be fired. It is interesting that the order does not apply to workers in the Judicial Branch or Legislative Branch, which includes members and staffers in Congress.

The President also ordered the Department of Labor to issue a rule that carries penalties of $14,000 per violation to force private companies with more than 100 employees to get their workers fully vaccinated or be tested weekly. He also called for all teachers and school staff in all schools to be fully vaccinated.^{103 104}

The next day, the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci, criticized the President for not going far enough.¹⁰⁵ Fauci said the government should give Americans no option but to get injected with the biological product that some describe as a vaccine, others characterize as a genetic therapy or cell disrupter biological, and others allege is a bioweapon made in a lab in China with U.S. funding.^{106 107 108} Then Fauci said all children must be vaccinated or denied a school education¹⁰⁹ and all unvaccinated people must be banned from getting on an airplane.¹¹⁰ At the same time, a Virginia congressman introduced the Safety Travel Act that would require travelers getting on a plane or Amtrak train in the U.S. to show proof of COVID vaccination or a negative COVID test within 72 hours of boarding.¹¹¹

Destroying the Lives of Those Who Dissent

Today, people in some cities are being denied entrance to restaurants and stores if they can’t prove they have been “fully” vaccinated.¹¹² Doctors are refusing to provide medical care to the unvaccinated.¹¹³ Hollywood entertainers are celebrating the deaths of unvaccinated people, saying they deserved to die, and are calling for the unvaccinated who get COVID to be denied admission to hospitals for treatment. ^{114 115} Judges are separating children from mothers who have not gotten a COVID shot. ¹¹⁶ Influential scientists are insisting lawmakers make it a hate crime for anyone to publicly criticize scientists and government health officials. ¹¹⁷

Dissenters are told they are “selfish”¹¹⁸ and characterized as an enemy of the state¹¹⁹ for simply defending the human right to informed consent to medical risk taking.¹²⁰ The normalizing of the ritualistic persecution of Americans who are refusing to give up the right to autonomy – which is the first and most fundamental human right – is underway. The Orwellian message is: the life of any person who dissents from government policy must be systematically destroyed.

Demanding obedience, government health officials characterize public health policies that segregate, discriminate and turn people against each other as “the good.” Yet, a lot of Americans instinctively know segregation and discrimination is not good. They know that persuading a majority of citizens to scapegoat a minority of citizens to cover up the failures of government is allowing evil to triumph.

Dissenting Americans, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, fill the ranks of every socio-economic class, every political party and every faith-based community. They understand the meaning of the warning that, “The only thing necessary for triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” and they are not going to stand by and do nothing.

When government threatens to take away an individual’s right to employment, education, health care and the ability to enter a store to buy food, enter a hospital or travel on public transportation, there is no other word for it but tyranny.

Weaponizing a Virus and A Vaccine Against the People

This virus, which has a 99 percent survival rate, and this leaky vaccine, which fails to reliably prevent infection and transmission in the fully vaccinated, has racked up a record breaking more than half a million vaccine adverse event reports in the U.S. alone.¹²¹ It will not be the last virus and vaccine to be weaponized against the people in the name of the greater good.

That is because forced vaccination is the tip of the spear in a culture war that has been going on for much longer than the 40 years that I have been a vaccine safety and human rights activist publicly warning that this day would come.^{122 123 124} It is a war that will cause more suffering until enough of us refuse to be siloed and, instead, join together to change dangerous laws that abuse the trust and good will of the people.

Every single American, whether you have been vaccinated or not, should stop to reflect upon what is happening in our country. Think about what liberty means.

Imagine What Life Will Be Like in the Future

Imagine what life will be like in the future if you cannot leave your home without being harnessed to a government issued digital ID, which contains personal information about your body and your life, and is hooked up to an electronic surveillance system that records and controls every move you make.

Imagine if you are a health care worker and your medical license is taken from you for refusing to get a government mandated vaccine, which is a public health policy being implemented in Washington, DC,¹²⁵ a city where doctors can now vaccinate children as young as 11 years old without the knowledge or consent of their parents.¹²⁶

Imagine if you cannot hold any type of job or enter a grocery store to buy food to feed your family, or enter a drug store, cafe, gym, school,¹²⁷ cinema, museum, park or beach without showing proof you’ve been vaccinated.

Imagine if you are denied entrance to a doctor’s office or lose your Medicare and social security benefits because you don’t have the vaccine passport, a suggestion made recently on national television.¹²⁸

Imagine if you cannot get on a plane or bus to visit your children or elderly parents because federal government officials have exercised authority over inter-state commerce and banned the unvaccinated from crossing state borders, an action that some proponents of forced vaccination are urging the current administration to invoke.^{129 130}

Imagine if you cannot get a driver’s license, file your taxes, open or access your bank account or use a credit card to make a purchase if you fail to produce the required vaccine paperwork stamped by the government.

Imagine if you or your child have already suffered a previous serious vaccine reaction or have an underlying inflammatory immune disorder that increases your risk for being harmed by vaccination,^{131 132 133} but doctors refuse to see you because you are unvaccinated – which is already happening in America – and you are denied admission to a hospital for a life saving operation.

Forced Vaccination Was Always the End Game Before and During this Pandemic

If you think that that the vaccine passport is only about this virus and this vaccine, think again. Forced vaccination was always the end game both before and during this pandemic and the proof of that lies in the decades of federal legislation and federal agency rule making paving the way for what we are experiencing today.^{134 135 136 137 138} Right now, forced vaccination is the quickest means to what the World Economic Forum transparently describes on its website as “The Great Reset.”¹³⁹ You, your children and grandchildren are the commodity, and in the name of the greater good, you are expected to obediently allow others to “reset” your lives in all kinds of ways without making a sound.

The government issued passport allowing you to function in society, is just the first step on the slippery slope to what will be many more requirements and restrictions on your freedom in the days, months and years to come. The question is, will you allow yourself to be used and abused by those currently holding the power to do what they want to do to you, or will you defend your God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

This pandemic of deception and incompetence has stolen from our daily lives the peace and joy we deserve to have, leaving too many of us confused and paralyzed by fear, divided from our family and friends, crippled with anxiety and despair, allowing hopelessness to rule our days.

We Can Refuse to Live in Fear and Push Back Against Authoritarianism

It doesn’t have to be like this. We can refuse to be psychologically manipulated so we are unable to engage in rational thinking and are crippled by fear.  We can push back against the authoritarians taking away our freedom and trying to divide us. We can do it the way that all successful social reform movements before us have done it: through actively participating in local, state and federal government and by engaging in non-violent civil disobedience,¹⁴⁰ if that becomes necessary.

Instead of allowing ourselves to be separated from one another, we can stay connected and meet together in small groups in our homes and neighborhoods.  We can develop personal relationships with our elected officials at every level of government – from our local sheriff and elected members of local school boards and city and county councils, to our elected state and federal legislators. If we don’t like the way the people we have elected are governing, we can vote them out, or run for office ourselves and help change the laws.

We can talk to the young men and women serving in our community police departments and the U.S. military to remind them of how important it is to value and protect human rights and civil liberties, so that if they are ever called upon to implement authoritarian rule, they will make the right choice.

Above all, we can be self-disciplined and make rational decisions that do not lead to violent confrontations, because that kind of behavior only plays into the hands of those, whose ultimate goal is to take away autonomy and more individual freedoms in the United States. During the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, the most profound statements were made by those who sat down in the front of the bus, or in a chair at a segregated restaurant or other public place, and simply refused to move.¹⁴¹

Standing Our Ground During This Time of Oppression and Suffering

There are restaurant owners in New York City, who are refusing to follow orders directing them to discriminate against and deny service to the unvaccinated. ^{142 143}

There are veteran health care workers on the frontlines caring for patients during the pandemic, who are being fired for supporting informed consent rights, ^{144 145} and giving up their careers to stand on principle. Many of them suspect that the next cruel order they will be told to obey is to deny life saving medical treatment to unvaccinated patients.

There are corporate CEO’s and union leaders, who are refusing to bow to political pressure to require rank and file workers to get the vaccine or risk losing their jobs.^{146 147}

There are courageous doctors and scientists, who have never spoken out publicly before, who are risking their careers by demanding that mass vaccination policies be backed up by good science;^{148 149} who are challenging the government’s narrative that natural immunity is not as good as vaccine acquired immunity; ¹⁵⁰who are criticizing the long term safety of mRNA vaccines,¹⁵¹ and providing convincing evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus did not spontaneously jump out of a bat but was genetically engineered by scientists in biohazard labs. ¹⁵²

There are state lawmakers, who are listening to the people and refusing to vote for the passage of forced vaccination laws that perpetuate the illusion that vaccine passports are the only solution to ending the pandemic.^{153 154}

These Americans are rejecting authoritarianism. They are heroes, and they are on the right side of history.

They and many other brave Americans are helping us make our way through this time of fear, oppression and suffering when the cultural values and beliefs that have guaranteed freedom in this great country of ours are being tested.

Restoring the Spirit of Freedom to the Center of Our Culture

I believe we will come together and pass this test. We will act responsibly to protect our liberty. We will restore the spirit of freedom to its rightful place at the center of our culture.

We will do it because we know that if the state can tag, track down and force individuals against their will to be injected with biologicals of known and unknown toxicity today, then there will be no limit on which individual freedoms the state can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow.

You can choose to be a hero wherever you live. You can choose to reject the ugly call to shame and punish your friends, family members, neighbors, colleagues and fellow citizens for defending the human right to autonomy and protection of bodily integrity, which is the essence of the informed consent ethic. You can choose freedom over fear.

Be the one who never has to say you did not do today what you could have done to change tomorrow. Do it for yourself, your children and grandchildren, and for all the generations to come.

It’s your health, your family, your choice. And our mission continues:

No forced vaccination. Not in America.

*

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

Notes

1 America’s Founding Documents: Declaration of Independence, U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. U.S. Archives.

2 John Jay College of Criminal Justice. American History: The Revolutionary War: Major Battles and Campaigns. Lloyd Sealy Library July 15, 2021.

3 Jefferson T. First Inaugural Address of President Thomas Jefferson, Mar. 4, 1801. National Archives. “All too will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

4 Ortega I. America, the Great Beacon of Liberty. The Heritage Foundation July 5, 2011.

5 Pyman T. Australia uses helicopters and the ARMY to enforce its “Zero Covid” lockdown as thousands of police flood Sydney to enforce the rules and hand out $500 no-mask fines – with just 17% of adults vaccinated. Daily Mail July 31, 2021.

6 News Australia. Lockdown protestors clash with police in Sydney and Melbourne. Aug. 21, 2021. (VIDEO)

7 Alam HA. Hundreds of anti-lockdown protesters clash with police in Australia. CNN Sept. 18, 2021.

8 Fisher BL. Protests Against COVID Lockdowns Flare Up in 2021 Around the World. The Vaccine Reaction Mar. 29, 2021.

9 Fisher BL. Hundreds of thousands march in London Protesting Pandemic Restrictions, Vaccine Passports. The Vaccine Reaction May 31, 2021.

10 Fisher BL. Mass Protests in Greece and France Opposing COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates and Health Passports. The Vaccine Reaction July 18, 2021.

11 Fisher BL. COVID Vaccine Mandates Strongly Opposed in Europe, US as Vaccine Failures Increase; Australia: The Lockdown is killing us, not COVID.” The Vaccine Reaction Aug. 2, 2020.

12 Lewis L, Conner N. Non! Hundreds of thousands of protestors take to the streets of Paris in opposition to controversial vaccine passport after it was launched amid backlash. Daily Mail Aug. 14, 2021.

13 Ellyatt H. ‘Breaking society apart’: Unvaccinated people are angry as they face more Covid restrictions. CNBC Aug. 13, 2021.

14 Higgins-Dunn N. FDA staff recommends watching for Bell’s palsy in Moderna and Pfizer vaccine recipients. CNBC Dec. 15, 2020.

15 CDC. Allergic Reactions Inducing Anaphylaxis After Receipt of the First Dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine – United States, December 14-23, 2020. MMWR Jan. 15, 2021; 70(2): 46-51.

16 Rutkowski K, Mirakian R et al. Adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines: a practical approach. Clin Exp Allergy 2021; 51(6): 770-777.

17 Kania K, Ambrosius W, Kupczyk ET, Kozubski W. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis in a patient vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology Sept. 4, 2021.

18 CDC. Myocarditis and Pericarditis After mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination. Sept. 8, 2021.

19 The Rio Times. NCAA Golfer has severe adverse heart condition due to Covid vaccine, speaks out against vaccine mandates. Sept. 17, 2021.

20 Bussel JB, Connors JM, Cines DB et al. Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (also termed Vaccine-induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia). American Society of Hematology Aug. 12, 2021.

21 Classen JB. US COVID-19 Vaccines Proven to Cause More Harm than Good Based on Pivotal Clinical Trial Data Analyzed Using the Proper Scientific Endpoint,
“All Cause Severe Morbidity.” Trend Int Med 2021; 1(1): 1-6.

22 Fisher BL. Healthy Mom, 39, in Utah Dies of Organ Failure Four Days After Moderna COVID Vaccination. The Vaccine Reaction Mar. 15, 2021.

23 Fisher BL. More Deaths Reported to VAERS Following COVID-19 Vaccinations Than for Any Other Vaccine. The Vaccine Reaction July 11, 2021.

24 Menon P. New Zealand reports first death linked to Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Reuters Aug. 30, 2021.

25 Hains T. CDC Director: Vaccines No Longer Prevent You From Spreading COVID. RealClearPolitics Aug. 6, 2021.

26 Yahi N, Chahinian H, Fantini J. Infection-enhancing antiSARSCoV2 antibodies recognize both the original Wuhan-D614G strain and Delta variants – A potential risk for mass vaccination? J Infect Aug. 9, 2021.

27 Van Beusekom M. Studies: COVID vaccine protection waning against infection but not hospitalization. CIDRAP Aug. 18, 2021.

28 Chemaitely H, Tang P, Hasan MR et al. Waning of BNT162b2 vaccine protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in Qatar.MedRxiv Aug. 27, 2021.

29 McLaughlin K, Ardrey T. Video Shows French police using tear gas to break up anti-vaccine protests. Business Insider July 14, 2021.

30 Mang C. Thousands march in Berlin in second day of anti-vaccination protests. Reuters Aug. 29, 2021.

31 Biddiss M. Disease and dictatorship: the case of Hitler’s Reich. J R Soc Med 1997; 90: 342-346.

32 Bachrach S. In the Name of Public Health – Nazi Racial Hygiene. N Eng J Med 2004; 351(5): 417-420.

33 Starks TA. Propagandizing the Healthy, Bolshevik Life in the Early USSR. AJPH 2017; 107(11): 1718-1724.

34 Effer DB. Medicine in Red China. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 1974; 67(2): 167-174.

35 Strauss V, Southeri D. How Many Died? New Evidence Suggests Far Higher Numbers for the Victims of Mao Zedong’s Era. Washington Post July 17, 1994.

36 Alwine J, Goodrum F. Personal freedoms should not trump public health. The Hill Dec. 5, 2020.

37 Sgaier S, Saldanha N. Biden’s Covid-19 Task Force Needs Behavioral Scientists. Harvard Business Review Dec. 8, 2020.

38 Thompson A, Otterbeing H, Ollstein AM. Anti-vaxx politicians under fire as coronavirus spreads. Politico Mar. 21, 2020.

39 Magness PW, Yang E. Who Fact Checks the Fact Checkers? A Report on Media Censorship. American Enterprise Economic Institute Aug. 11, 2021.

40 Chermerinsky E. Op-Ed: Don’t exempt religious objectors from vaccine mandates. Los Angeles Times July 23, 2021.

41 Low D. Remove religious exemption from childhood vaccines. Seattle Times Sept. 7, 2021.

42 Napolitano AP. Coronavirus fear lets government assault our freedom in violation of Constitution. Fox News  Mar. 19, 2020.

43 Kramer J. COVID-19 vaccines could become mandatory. Here’s how it might work. National Geographic Aug. 19, 2020.

44 CDC. Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings. July 26, 2020.

45 Shepardson D. CDC orders sweeping U.S. transportation mask mandate as COVID-19 rages. Reuters Jan. 29, 2021.

46 Alexander PE. Masking Children: Tragic, Unscientific and Damaging. American Institute for Economic Research Mar. 10, 2021.

47 Zweig D. Experts: CDC’s Summer-Camp Rules Are ‘Cruel’ and ‘Irrational.’ New York Magazine May 4, 2021.

48 Walach H, Weikl R, Prentice J et al. Experimental Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Content in Inhaled Air With or Without Face Masks in Healthy Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Pediatr June 30, 2021.

49 Markowitz A. State-by-State Guide to Face Mask Requirements. AARP July 28, 2021.

50 NPR. Public Health Experts Encourage Social Distancing to “Flatten the Curve” of Infection. Mar. 11, 2020.

51 Fisher BL. Unprecedented Response to COVID-19 by Governments Prohibits Physical Contact and Cripples World Economy. NVIC Newsletter Mar. 29, 2020.

53 Young a. Could an accident have caused COVID-19? Why the Wuhan lab-leak theory shouldn’t be dismissed. USA Today Mar. 22, 2021.

54 Henderson DR, Hooper CL. The Origin of SARS-CoV-2. American Institute for Economic Research June 18, 2021.

55 International Press Institute. Emergency COVID-19 measures must. not be used to roll back media freedom. Mar. 17, 2020.

56 Griffith K. Critics blast YouTube for ‘censorship’ for removing video of doctors urging an end to coronavirus shutdowns because they disputed ‘local health authorities.’ Daily Mail Apr. 29, 2020.

57 Richard L. ‘Single most qualified’ mRNA expert speaks about vaccine risks after he says YouTube banned his video. Yahoo June 24, 2021.

58 One America News Network. Veronica Wolski: A Medical Freedom Horror Story. Sept. 15, 2021.

59 Klecker M. State Sen. Scott Jensen says he’s being investigated by the state medical board for COVID-19 comments. Star-Tribune July 8, 2020.

60 Henderson DR, Hooper CL. Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe and Effective Drug? Wall Street Journal July 28, 2021.

61 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Dec. 18, 2020.

62 FDA. FDA Takes Key Action in Fight Against COVID-19 By Issuing An Emergency Use Authorization for First COVID-19 Vaccine. FDA Press Release Dec. 11, 2020.

63 FDA. Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. Dec. 11, 2020.

64 FDA. FDA Takes Additional Action in Fight Against COVID-19 by Issuing an Emergency Use Authorization for Second COVID-19 Vaccine. FDA Press Release Dec. 17, 2020.

65 FDA. Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. Dec. 18, 2020.

66 Welsh B. LAFD Officials Offering Vaccine Incentives. Los Angeles Times Jan. 6, 2021.

67 Sharma A. Roughly Half of Caregivers At Long Term Care Facilities Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine. KPBS Jan. 15, 2021.

68 Parpia R. Amazon, Google, Walmart and Starbucks Partnering with Local Governments to Distribute COVID-19 Vaccines. The Vaccine Reaction Jan. 31, 2021.

69 Megan Garnett Coyle. Ad Tech Leaders Unite to Measure the Ad Council & COVID Collaborative’s COVID-19 Vaccine Education Initiative – the Largest PSA Campaign in US History. Businesswire Mar. 30. 2021.

70 Fisher BL. Seeing through the COVID-19 Spin. NVIC Newsletter Apr. 26, 2021.

71 Raines K. State and Local Governments and Companies Offer Incentives to Get Vaccinated for COVID-19. The Vaccine Reaction July 4, 2021.

72 Solomon L. Vaccine Skepticism is Soaring Amid Heightened Government Hype and Steps to Hide Unwelcome Data. The Epoch Times May 12, 2021.

73 Durkee A. Biden’s ‘Door to Door’ Vaccine Plan Could Fizzle with Unvaccinated Republicans, Poll Suggests. Forbes July 14, 2021.

74 Fisher BL. Vaccination and Censorship: The Truth Will Set Us Free. NVIC Newsletter Jan. 26, 2021.

75 Attkisson S. CENSORED: National Vaccine Information Center. Mar. 8, 2021.

76 Attkisson S. Vaccine Info Site: CENSORED. May 4, 2021.

77 National Vaccine Information Center. NVIC Suspended from Twitter. May 24, 2021.

78 Emanuel EJ, Guido M, Diana A. Private companies must require vaccines for workers It’s the only way to get past COVID.USA Today July 26, 2021.

79  Fisher BL. Texas Bill Still Pending After Historic Hearing to Prohibit Vaccine Mandates and COVID Vaccine Passports. NVIC Newsletter May 21, 2021.

80 Stengle J. Houston hospital workers fired, resign over COVID-19 vaccine. Associated Press June 22, 2021.

81 Silvarole G. NY approves COVID mandate for health care workers, removes religious exemption. Democrat & Chronicle Aug. 26, 2021.

82 Wynter K, Kang G. LA city firefighters suing over COVID vaccine mandate. KTLA Sept. 16, 2021.

83 Ortiz JL, Aspegren E, Vargas S. New York Gov. Cuomo urges businesses to adopt ‘vaccine-only admission.’ USA Today Aug. 2, 2021.

84 Federal News Network. VA Mandates COVID-19 Vaccine for Health Care Workers. July 26, 2021.

85 Baldor CC. COVID vaccines to be required for military under new US plan. Associated Press Aug. 9, 2021.

86 Hendler C, Wrangham T, Caceres M. FDA Approves BioNTech’s Comirnaty. Pfizer COVID Shot Remains Experimental. The Vaccine Reaction Apr. 4, 2021.

87 World O Meter. US Population.

88 Irons NJ, Raftery AE. Estimating SARS-CoV-2 infections from deaths, confirmed cases, tests, and random surveys. Proc Natl Acad Sci Aug. 3, 2021.

89 Weixel N. Fauci Herd immunity could require 90 percent of the country to be vaccinated. The Hill Dec. 24, 2020.

90 Miller Z. Sweeping new vaccine mandates for 100 million Americans. Associated Press Sept. 9, 2021.

91 Stolberg SK, Rogers K. Biden’s New Vaccine Requirements Draw Praise, Condemnation and Caution. New York Times Sept. 9, 2021.

92 Bleier BS, Ramanthan M, Lane AP. COVID-19 Vaccines May Not Prevent Nasal SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Asymptomatic Transmission. Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery Dec. 15, 2020.

93 Plan Healthcare. New CDC Mask Guidelines Rest on Data Showing the Vaccinated May Transmit Virus – The New York Times. July 30, 2021.

94 Becker K. CDC Director Admits to CNN That COVID Vaccines Don’t Prevent Transmission of Virus. Becker News Aug. 6, 2021.

95 Ledger J. You’ve Had a COVID ‘Breakthrough Infection’ – Can You Really Spread It to Others? Yale Medicine Aug. 11, 2021.

96 Caceres M. More Breakthrough Cases of COVID Ending in Hospitalization or Death. The Vaccine Reaction Sept. 5, 2021.

97 Shastri J, Parikh S, Aggarwahl V et al. Severe SARS-CoV-2 Breakthrough Infection by Alpha Variant in a Fully Vaccinated Health Care Worker. Frontiers in Medicine Aug. 20, 2021.

98 Wadman M. Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine – but vaccination remains vital. ScienceAug. 26, 2021.

99 Mendez R. WHO says Covid will mutate like the flu and is likely here to stay. CNBC Sept. 7, 2021.

100 Phillips N. The coronavirus is here to stay – here’s what that means. Nature Feb. 16, 2021.

101 The White House. Path out of the Pandemic: President Biden’s COVID-19 Plan. Sept. 9, 2019.

102 Rosenthal J, Gee E, Calsyn M. Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccinations for Health Care Workers As a Condition for Medicare and Medicaid Participation. American Progress Institute Aug. 6, 2021.

103 O’Kane C. All New York City public school teachers and staff must be vaccinated, Mayor Bill de Blasio announces. CBS News Aug. 23, 2021.

104 Zilber A, Associated Press. Furious teachers protesting mandatory vaccinations march across Brooklyn Bridge chanting ‘F*** Joe Biden’: Businesses reel against new NYC indoor vaccine rule crackdown amid Delta infections flattening. Mail Online Sept. 14, 2021.

105 Alexander H. Fauci tells Biden to go FURTHER: CDC chief says president’s sweeping COVID-19 vaccine mandate is a ‘MODERATE’ plan and he would not give Americans the option of testing instead. Daily Mail Sept. 10, 2021.

106 Gertz B. Coronavirus link to China biowarfare program possible, analyst says. The Washington Times Jan. 26, 2020.

107 Shepherd I. mRNA Vaccines: The Silent Weapon. Lew Rockwell Aug. 28, 2021.

108 Browne E. Fauci Was “Untruthful” to Congress About Wuhan Lab Research, New Documents Appear To Show. NewsweekSept. 9, 2021.

109 So L. Fauci backs COVID-19 vaccine mandate for US children. Reuters Aug. 29, 2021.

110 Blanco A. ‘If you travel on a plane you should be vaccinated’: Fauci demands vaccine mandate for air travel and public schools in bid to reach herd immunity. Daily Mail Sept. 13, 2021. 

111  Beyer D. Beyer Introduces Legislation Requiring Vaccination or Testing for Airport, Amtrak Travelers and Workers. Press Release Sept. 9, 2021.

112 Milligan S. No Shot, No Shoes, No Service. US News & World Reports July 30, 2021.

113 Parpia R. US Doctors Refuse to Provide Care for Unvaccinated COVID Patients. The Vaccine Reaction Aug. 30, 2021.

114 Garvey M. Howard Stern to anti-vaxxers: ‘You had the cure and you wouldn’t take it.’ CNN Sept. 10, 2021.

115 Cohen K, Torres L. Jimmy Kimmel says unvaccinated. people shouldn’t get ICU beds in hospitals. Yahoo News Sept. 8, 2021.

116 Fox32. “Exceeds his jurisdiction:’ Chicago judge strips child custody from unvaccinated mother. Aug. 27, 2021.

117 Hotez PJ. Mounting antiscience aggression in the United States. PLOS Biology July 28, 2021.

118 Beam C. Why refusing the COVID-19 vaccine isn’t just immoral – it’s un-American.’ The Conversation Aug. 9, 2021.

119 Wilson J. US was warned of threat from anti-vaxxers in event of pandemic. The Guardian Apr. 27, 2020.

120 Fisher BL. Why Is Informed Consent to Vaccination A Human Right? NVIC Newsletter June 28, 2017.

121 MedAlerts. Search the VAERS Database: COVID-19 Vaccine.

122 Fisher BL. The Moral Right to Conscientious, Philosophical and Personal Belief Exemption to Vaccination. National Vaccine Advisory Committee May 2, 1997.

123 Fisher BL. The Vaccine Culture War in America: Are You Ready? NVIC Newsletter Mar. 8, 2015.

124 Fisher BL. Taking No Prisoners in the Vaccine Culture War. NVIC Newsletter Mar. 13, 2019.

125 Segraves M. DC Health Care Workers Could Lose Licenses if Unvaccinated. NBC Sept. 7, 2021.

126 Fisher BL. Doctors Given Power to Vaccinate Young Children Without Knowledge of Parents. NVIC Newsletter June 28, 2021.

127 Zwicker H. Is GMU Coercing students and staff to get experimental COVID-19 vaccine? Fairfax Times July 2, 2021.

128 Miller M. Vaccine should be mandatory for those receiving government healthcare, ABD News’s Margaret Hoover says. Yahoo July 26, 2021.

129 Gersen JS. Should the Government Impose a National Vaccination Mandate? The New Yorker Aug. 26, 2021.

130 Bomboy S. Current constitutional issues related to vaccine mandates. Constitution Daily Aug. 6, 2021.

131 Institute of Medicine Committee to Review Adverse Effects of Vaccines. Evaluating Biological Mechanisms of Adverse Events: Increased Susceptibility. Chapter 3 (p. 82). Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality; Washington, DC: The National Academies Press 2012.

132 Fisher BL.  Do You Know How to Identify a Vaccine Reaction? NVIC Newsletter  Aug. 27, 2018.

133  Fisher BL. Witnessing the Vaccine Injury Epidemic. Nov. 14, 2019; National Mall, Washington, DC.

134 Fisher BL. The National Electronic Vaccine Tracking Registry: History of Forced Vaccination: How The Plan To Force Vaccination Gave Birth To The National ID, A Government Health Records Database, and the End of Medical Privacy. National Vaccine Information Center July 1999.

135 NVIC. National Vaccine Information Center Cites “Betrayal” of Consumers by U.S. Supreme Court Giving Total Liability Shield to Big Pharma. Businesswire Feb. 23, 2011.

136 Fisher BL. CDC Wants to Expand Power to Eliminate Measles: What You Need to Know. NVIC Newsletter Sept. 12, 2016.

137 NVIC. National Vaccine Information Center Calls 21^st Century Cures Act “A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” and Urges Presidential Veto to Protect Public Health. Businesswire Dec. 8, 2016.

138 Fisher BL. The National Plan to Vaccinate Every American. NVIC Newsletter Mar. 21, 2020.

139 World Economic Forum. The Great Reset.

140 The King Center. Glossary of Nonviolence.

141 Encyclopedia Britannica. Sit-In Social Protest.

142 Fitzsimmons EG. Restaurant owners sue New York City, hoping to block its ‘ridiculous’ vaccine mandate. New York TimesAug. 18, 2021.

143 Trigoso E. Thousands Gather at ‘Freedom Rally’ in New York City to Oppose Vaccine Passport. The Epoch Times Sept. 18, 2021.

144 Mentzer R, Peek J. Health Workers Protest Hospital Systems’ COVID-19 Vaccine Requirements. Wisconsin Public RadioAug. 11, 2021.

145 Koons E, Court E. Nurses Who Won’t Vax Threaten Staffing Shortages. Bloomberg News Aug. 26, 2021.

146 Pavlich K. The Country’s Largest Healthcare Union is Protesting Against Vaccine Mandates. Townhall July 26, 2021.

147 Trujillo D. Labor Unions Push Back Against COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates. NBC Universal Aug. 3, 2021.

148 Bell R, Butler-Jones D, Clinton J et al. A Balanced Response: Open Letter to Government of Canada. July 6, 2020.

149 Kulldorff M, Gupta S, Bhattacharya J. The Great Barrington Declaration. Oct. 20, 2020.

150 Makary M. Natural immunity to covid is powerful. Policymakers seem afraid to say so. The Washington Post Sept. 15, 2021.

151 Richard L. ‘Single most qualified’ mRNA expert speaks about vaccine risks after he says YouTube banned his video. Yahoo June 24, 2021.

152 Murray S. How NIH-funded research in China could have led to the COVID-19 pandemic. US Right to Know Sept. 17, 2021.

153 Howard J. Some states move to block Covid-19 vaccine requirements in public schools. CNN July 13, 2021.

154 National Vaccine Information Center. NVIC Advocacy Portal.

All images in this article are from NVIC

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

On October 16, Colombian businessman and Venezuelan Special Envoy Alex Saab was in practical terms kidnapped for the second time, first by Cabo Verde under pressure from Washington, and now by the U.S., in flagrant violation of international law.

For nearly a year and a half, Saab had been imprisoned on the island nation of Cabo Verde, 400 miles off the northwestern coast of Africa in the Atlantic. As a Bloomberg article explains, “Saab was detained June 12 [2020] when the private plane he was traveling on from Venezuela to Iran made a fuel stop on the Cape Verdean island of Sal.”¹ What Bloomberg does not mention is that Saab’s plane was forced to land in Cabo Verde because two other nearby nations in mainland Africa, apparently under pressure from the U.S., refused to let him land.²

There is no extradition treaty and there was no Interpol order

The capture of Saab was made without any proper legal basis. While Washington prevailed upon Cabo Verde to seize Saab based upon the pretext that the U.S. wanted to extradite him for alleged crimes, the United States has no extradition treaty with Cabo Verde.³ Moreover, while Cabo Verde authorities claimed that Saab was detained pursuant to a valid Interpol notice, a regional court in Nigeria found that the detention took place before the Interpol notice was issued, raising huge concerns about the legal validity of Saab’s detention and imprisonment.⁴

The U.N. also demanded the extradition to be suspended

Indeed, this regional court, The Economic Community of West African States Court of Justice (ECOWAS), explicitly “ruled that Saab should be freed because he was detained before the Red Notice was issued.”⁵ As Reuters explains, “decisions by that court are final and binding under a 1991 protocol.”

And then, on June 8, 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Committee issued a decision for preliminary measures demanding that the extradition of Saab be suspended and that Saab, who is suffering from cancer, be given the necessary medical attention which he has been denied in Cabo Verde.⁶

On September 28, 2021, the African Bar Association issued a statement demanding “the immediate and unconditional release of Ambassador Alex Saab, respect for the ECOWAS Court and the Rule of Law in Africa by Cape Verde and all Governments and Institutions in Africa as the African Bar Association will continue to demand for the respect of treaty obligations and the independence of Judiciary in Africa.”⁷

In spite of the foregoing and the overwhelming opposition to Saab’s extradition amongst the citizenry of Cabo Verde, the Constitutional Court of Cabo Verde approved the extradition of Saab to the U.S. in September of this year.⁸ To put it simply, Saab was kidnapped in Cabo Verde nearly a year and a half ago, and there he was detained, until his “extradition” to the U.S. on October 16th, despite the lack of any valid extradition treaty and any valid arrest warrant at the time of capture.

While the allegations against him are hotly disputed, what is not in doubt is that Washington is behind his persecution. And it is also clear that the U.S. is interested in Saab, not because of any alleged crimes but because he may hold the key to Venezuela’s ability to circumnavigate Washington’s deadly illegal unilateral sanctions. First and foremost, the allegations against Saab involve alleged embezzlement from food and housing programs in Venezuela. Given that the U.S. is sanctioning Venezuela in an attempt, inter alia, to undermine the ability of Venezuela to maintain such programs, it is patently obvious that Washington has no real, bona fide concerns about someone allegedly taking kickbacks from such programs. And moreover, under established U.S. judicial doctrines of comity and forum non conveniens, it is Venezuela which, in the first instance, has the right to try to prosecute such crimes committed within its own domestic jurisdiction.

Sanctions against Iran: U.S. real reasons to harass Ambassador Saab

Bloomberg explains that Alex Saab was on his way to Iran to negotiate the exchange of Venezuelan gold for much needed gasoline supplies.⁹ Due to U.S. sanctions, the oil-rich nation of Venezuela is unable to obtain the necessary chemicals and supplies to refine its oil into gasoline which is needed to generate electricity and to transport goods throughout the country. In addition to gasoline, Saab was also attempting to negotiate the purchase of food, medicines and other critical supplies which have also been made scarce in Venezuela due to U.S. sanctions.¹⁰

As explained by Alena Douma, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the unilateral use of coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights:

The hardening of sanctions faced by the country since 2015 undermines… the state’s capacity to maintain infrastructure and implement social projects. Today, Venezuela faces a lack of necessary machinery, spare parts, electricity, water, fuel, gas, food and medicine. Venezuelan assets frozen in United States, United Kingdom and Portuguese banks amount to U.S. $6 bln. The purchase of goods and payments by public companies are reportedly blocked or frozen. . .

It has been reported that electricity lines are able to work at less than 20 per cent of their capacity today. . . .

An estimated 90% of households are connected to the national water distribution system. Numerous households, however, report frequent cuts because of electricity outages affecting water pumps and the maintenance of infrastructure, and because of the shortage of qualified maintenance staff.¹¹

It appears that Alex Saab’s very adeptness in helping Venezuela to get around these sanctions–sanctions which Alena Douma notes are illegal under international law–is the real reason for Washington’s interest in having him detained and extradited.¹²

As the New York Times explains, while the U.S. has brought vague “money-laundering” charges against Saab, “hard-liners at the Justice and State Departments, including Elliot Abrams, the State Department’s special envoy for Iran and Venezuela,” want to ensure Saab’s continued detention in Cabo Verde lest they “lose an opportunity to punish Mr. [Nicolás] Maduro.” As the Times continues, the “months long detention of Mr. Saab has stripped Mr. Maduro of an important ally and a major financial fixer at a time when fewer countries are willing or able to come to Venezuela’s aid. If Mr. Saab cooperates with American officials, he could help untangle Mr. Maduro’s economic web of support and assist the authorities in bringing charges against other allies of the Venezuelan government.”¹³

And how did the U.S. ensure Cabo Verde’s compliance in all this? It has used a carrot and a stick approach. The carrot is significant: U.S. economic development assistance to the island nation. In September of 2020, the U.S. embassy in Cabo Verde announced “the U.S. government would invest $1.5 million in Cabo Verde to support the country’s efforts to mitigate the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.”¹⁴ And in June, 2021, the embassy announced a plan to build a new U.S. embassy adjacent to the government palace:

This year, July 4 will mark a new chapter in Cabo Verde-U.S. history as representatives of both countries dedicate 4.5-hectares of land adjacent to the Government Palace in Praia as the site for a new U.S. embassy. This exciting, long-anticipated project represents a more than $400 million investment by the U.S. government in the bilateral relationship, with fully $100 million of that total going directly into Cabo Verde’s economy, benefitting local businesses and contractors and creating scores of construction jobs.¹⁵

The stick is the deployment of old-fashioned “gun-boat diplomacy”–a term coined by President Teddy Roosevelt. Thus, as the New York Times explains, the U.S. has anchored the Navy Cruiser San Jacinto off the coast of Cabo Verde to make sure that Saab did not escape somehow. While U.S. officials claimed that they were doing this in response to “threats” by Venezuela to take all measures to protect Saab’s human rights, the presence of the gun ship appeared calculated as much to ensure no second thoughts by the government of  Cabo Verde as it was to prevent some rescue attempt by Venezuela or its ally Iran.¹⁶

Saab’s extradition case is currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11^th Circuit which is to decide whether the U.S. has proper cause to extradite Mr. Saab under U.S. and international law. Quite tellingly, the U.S. prosecution has twice postponed the initial hearing in which it was to present evidence and arguments in favor of extradition. And, it has asked for a third postponement.¹⁷

The U.S. extracted Saab from Cabo Verde without court sanction

And, so, U.S. authorities, on October 16th, instead of waiting for the 11^th Circuit to decide the merits of the case–a case which they will surely lose–have kidnapped Saab a second time, flying him out of Cabo Verde to the U.S. without court sanction. It is no coincidence that this kidnapping took place, moreover, the day before Presidential elections in Cabo Verde which brought to power a new leader opposed to Washington’s mistreatment of Saab.

Alex Saab is now sitting in a federal prison in Miami. This is a flagrant violation of both international and U.S. domestic law. In addition, this has already had huge international repercussions, with the government of Venezuela suspending scheduled talks with the opposition in response.

The actions of the U.S. and Cabo Verde against Alex Saab have dealt a serious blow to international law and the security of diplomats worldwide. It sets the dangerous precedent that an individual, and especially a foreign diplomat, can be captured and detained without warrant and then “extradited” to the U.S. without a valid extradition treaty and without an U.S. court authorization. This type of action undermines the rule of law, and indeed establishes “the rule of the jungle” wherein powerful countries like the U.S. can simply ignore rights of individuals to due process and to freedom from arbitrary detention to bully developing countries such as Venezuela.

*

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.

Dan Kovalik teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, and he is one of COHA’s Senior Research Fellows.

Notes

1. “Maduro Financier Faces Extradition to U.S. After New Ruling.” Bloomberg. Mar 17, 2021. www.bnnbloomberg.ca Accessed October 17, 2021.file:///C:\Users\Owner\Documents\3953-2021-c-adocx.pdf
2. “Deal Maker for Venezuela’s Maduro Can Be Extradited to U.S., Court Rules.” Wall Street Journal. Jan 25, 2021. www.wsj.com Accessed October 17, 2021.
3. “U.S.-Indicted Dealmaker For Venezuela’s Maduro Detained On Way To Iran.” June 14, 2020. www.rferl.org Accessed October 17, 2021.
4. “Maduro Financier Faces Extradition to U.S. After New Ruling.” Bloomberg. Mar 17, 2021. www.bnnbloomberg.ca Accessed October 17, 2021.
5. Ibid.
6. “UN Committee Rules on Detention of Venezuelan Diplomat Saab.” June 8, 2021.
   www.telesurenglish.net Accessed October 17, 2021
7. “African Bar Association Statement on Venezuelan Diplomat Alex Saab.” Oct 22, 2021.
   orinocotribune.com Accessed October 17, 2021.
8. “Cape Verde Poll Shows Alex Saab Extradition Case will Harm Government in October Elections.” AllAfrica Info Wire. Sep. 20, 2021. allafrica.com Accessed October 17, 2021.
9. “Maduro Financier Faces Extradition to U.S. After New Ruling.” Bloomberg. Mar 17, 2021. bnnbloomberg.ca Accessed October 17, 2021.
10. Griffith, B. “Extradition of Alex Saab: U.S. takes effort to starve Venezuelans to new lows.” People’s Dispatch. July 7, 2021. peoplesdispatch.org Accessed October 17, 2021.
11. Preliminary findings of the visit to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela by the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights. Feb. 12, 2021. www.ohchr.org Accessed October 17, 2021.
12. Ibid.
13. Schmitt, E., and Turkewitz, J. New York Times. “Navy Warship’s Secret Mission Off West Africa Aims to Help Punish Venezuela.” Dec 22, 2020. www.nytimes.com Accessed October 17, 2021.
14. “The United States Provides Over $1.5 million to Help Cabo Verde Respond to COVID-19.” Press Release–September 3, 2020. U.S. Embassy, Cabo Verde. cv.usembassy.govAccessed October 17, 2021.
15. “Article by U.S. Ambassador to Cabo Verde, Jeff Daigle–Land Dedication.” June 30, 2021. U.S. Embassy, Cabo Verde. cv.usembassy.gov Accessed October 17, 2021.
16. Schmitt, E. and Turkewitz, J. “Navy Warship’s Secret Mission Off West Africa Aims to Help Punish Venezuela.” New York Times. www.nytimes.com Accessed October 17, 2021.
17. “Defense of Alex Saab Rejects Request for New Extension by U.S.” Oct 6, 2021.
    www.telesurenglish.net Accessed October 17, 2021.

Featured image is from COHA/MR Online

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

 

 

Named after the famous German underground movement The White Rose (Die Weisse Rose) which distributed leaflets calling on people to resist the Nazi regime, The White Rose UK urges people everywhere to resist the medical/political tyranny being carried out under the guise of a fake pandemic.

Several members of the German White Rose were caught by the Nazis and sentenced to death or imprisonment.  Today, the Biden-Harris regime is attempting to inject harmful, ineffective, and often lethal genetic-modification agents (“vaccines”) into every man, woman, and child in America.  These so-called vaccines have already killed, disabled, and severely injured millions of people in the US and around the world, according to the governments’ official statistics.  Unvaccinated, sensible people who refuse this grotesque experimental treatment are demonized, vilified, and falsely accused of spreading illness.

Backed by the presstitute news media, Big Tech censorship, and wholly corrupt government health agencies which are fronts for Big Pharma, the US government’s ultimate goal is to remove the unvaxxed from society—get them fired from their jobs, make them unable to go shopping or travel, and isolate them in FEMA-style concentration camps which have already been built. 

Distributing truth-telling leaflets, as do members of The White Rose UK, is one way to fight this insanity.  Another method is a freely distributed print newspaper. 

Druthers is a free newspaper widely distributed across Canada—350,000 copies of the November issue reportedly on the way, also available as a free pdf download (Druthers.net).  Druthers has announced that it has launched into the United States this month (DruthersUSA.com).  The newspaper has featured hard-hitting articles that tell the truth about the injurious COVID-19 “vaccines”, the fraudulent PCR test, the mountains of junk data, the mountains of corpses from those who got the jab, and grassroots resistance to the suicidal course that Canada, USA, and most other nations are pursuing.

Challenging the Narrative

The following statement, from The White Rose UK website, needs to reverberate far and wide across America, from sea to shining sea, or the USA will not survive physically as a nation:

The disproportionate and dehumanising covid restrictions are a disgrace to humanity.

Masks, social distancing and the so-called covid vaccines are causing great harm. People protesting against lockdowns have been arrested and treated like criminals for gathering and exercising their right of free speech. At the same time, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter have been censoring videos and posts that do not match the current trend of the mainstream media. Schools have now turned into social engineering sites. Forcing children to wear masks and keeping children constantly at a distance in class and on school grounds is deeply dehumanising, and will have a damaging effect on children’s mental development. Parents should stand up against these guinea-pig methods. It’s not the way we grew up, and we should make sure our children grow up with the same freedoms we enjoyed!

Many experts have warned that the so-called covid vaccines will do a lot of harm and now with over a million adverse reactions – many of them severe – and over a thousand six hundred deaths reported in the UK alone, there is proof that the covid jab is causing great harm. But those reported adverse reactions and deaths only make up 1-10% of all covid injection injuries. In fact, it has become clear that the covid jab is causing far more injuries and deaths than the alleged covid virus.

Bit by bit, we have given up our freedom and our rights out of fear of a virus. After the first lockdown it was evident that more people died from the lockdown than from the virus. Our economy will suffer severely and poverty will increase. How many people have lost their job and how many businesses are ruined due to the lockdowns?

The so-called ‘new normal’ is not normal, it’s entirely abnormal, and we should never get used to it! It’s time to take over responsibility and to make decisions for ourselves, or else, the next generation of grown-ups will not experience the same freedom we’ve had before this manufactured covid crisis.

Like the White Rose in Germany, that resisted the Nazi regime, we encourage people to resist the covid tyranny. We do not want anymore lockdowns and demand an end to all restrictions. Visit your friends and family, the lonely, the vulnerable and the dying. We are humans and not controllable robots. We need to socially interact, without anti-social distancing and without face masks.

Journalists, teachers, doctors, lawyers, politicians should stand up for the truth and speak out publicly. If the majority of people rid themselves of fear and panic and make use of common sense, those who want to control us will eventually have to give up, and we will be able to guarantee a future of peace and freedom for our children and grandchildren.

***

Here is The White Rose UK manifesto which sends a powerful message that needs to be absorbed and understood by every global citizen:

End the Covid Fraud and Global Genocide Now!

People are experiencing serious adverse reactions after receiving the covid jab, or are dying.

Many more will die in the coming months and years. The covid fraud is causing a global genocide. This needs to end now. Crimes being committed or supported by governments, government advisory groups, members of the World Economic Forum, the mainstream media, social media platforms and other agencies in positions of authority:

• Extreme fear mongering via press releases, media announcements and nation-wide advertisement, using taxpayers’ money
• Inducing unnecessary fear and terror of a virus less lethal than a strong seasonal flu
• Cynical use of new variants to promote fear and justify continued restrictions
• Falsifying death records by stating covid as the primary cause of death when not applicable
• Mask mandates on public transport, in shops, schools, work places and other public places – in many cases for hours a day – exposing the wearer to potential and actual damage to their mental and physical well-being
• Forcing children and adults to take covid tests, often regularly, that are not fit for purpose, produce mainly false positives, and can cause damage to health
• Using covid “cases”, which are based on false test results, for prolonging covid restrictions and lockdowns
• Coercing people into taking an experimental “vaccine”, which is in fact a gene-modifying injection, can induce infertility, and is causing more adverse reactions and deaths than all other vaccines together
• Promoting the use of an unlicensed therapy as though it were fully approved and safe
• Suppressing or underplaying the data regarding adverse reactions and deaths of the covid jabs
• Ignoring the Nuremberg Code by not enabling people to give informed consent before vaccination or testing
• Disruption of education
• Suppression of religious freedom, prevention of worship
• Restricting freedom of movement across borders, and during lockdowns, within the country
• Causing job losses, business failures and loss of opportunities
• Delaying diagnosis and treatment of conditions far more serious than covid resulting in unnecessary loss of life
• Forced quarantine of healthy people at their own expense
• Suppression of the right to protest, freedom of association and freedom of speech
• Suppression of scientific debate, giving voice only to “approved” agencies

Find out more: thewhiterose.uk

*

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 State of the Nation.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

According to a report from Israel’s Channel 12, the Israeli government approved a $1.5 billion budget to prepare for a potential attack on Iran.

The extra funds would be used to purchase additional aircraft, surveillance drones, and the munitions needed to strike Iran’s underground nuclear facilities. The report said about $620 million would come from the 2022 military budget, and the rest of the funds would come from this year’s budget.

For years, Israel has been seeking bunker-busting bombs that could penetrate Iran’s underground facilities. If they did acquire the munitions, Israel would also need bombers capable of carrying them, something it currently doesn’t have. The US tested a new 5,000-pound bunker buster earlier this month, which Israeli media interpreted as a possible message to Iran.

In July, it was reported that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) requested additional funds for next year’s budget to prepare for operations against Iran. Throughout the year, IDF Chief of Staff Aviv Kohavi has repeatedly said the IDF is “accelerating” plans to strike Iran, and Israeli politicians have constantly been threatening the Islamic Republic.

Israel frequently carries out covert attacks against Iran’s civilian nuclear program, but the IDF planning suggests an overt operation could happen in the future. The US has joined Israel in issuing threats against Iran. Last week, Secretary of State Antony Blinken hinted at military action against Iran alongside Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid. Blinken said if diplomacy with Iran fails, the US will turn to “other options.”

Lapid made clear that one of Blinken’s “options” was military action. “I would like to start by repeating what the Secretary of State just said.  Yes, other options are going to be on the table if diplomacy fails.  And by saying other options, I think everybody understands here … what is it that we mean,” Lapid said.

*

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.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

 

“It’s not necessary to censor the news, it’s sufficient to delay the news until it no longer matters,” Napoleon Bonaparte reportedly said. The same standard helps explain why Washington politicians and federal agencies usually get away with covering up their lies and abuses.

Many people assume that unless the government actively censors, people will learn what the government has done. But most government cover-ups succeed. Daniel Ellsberg, who risked life in prison to leak the Pentagon Papers, related in his 2002 memoirs:

“It is a commonplace that ‘you can’t keep secrets in Washington’ or ‘in a democracy’…. These truisms are flatly false. They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping secrets well. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public.”

Cover-ups succeed because people defer to promises by government officials to investigate themselves. This was how the Nixon-era Pentagon buried scores of Vietnam atrocities even after confirming the carnage. After the My Lai controversy exploded, many U.S. soldiers reported other atrocities to the Pentagon. Nine thousand pages of documents were compiled confirming more than 300 war crimes, including seven other massacres of civilians by U.S. troops. David Hackworth, a retired colonel and the most decorated officer in the Army, later commented, ‘’Vietnam was an atrocity from the get-go…. There were hundreds of My Lais. You got your card punched by the numbers of bodies you counted.’’ American soldiers faced more legal perils for reporting than for committing atrocities.

Nixon a mastermind of cover-ups

Nixon gave the order: “Get the Army off the front page.” Col. Jared Schopper, in charge of the war crimes files at the Pentagon in the early 1970s, later explained: “The only way to get them [articles on atrocities] off the front page is to say they are founded and appropriate action was taken, or that they are unfounded and propaganda tools.” But the “appropriate action” usually meant simply burying the case regardless of how much evidence existed of war crimes. As long as the government claimed to be investigating an alleged atrocity, the media downplayed the story.

While the media deferred, the Nixon administration aggressively slandered critics. In early 1971, former Navy officer John Kerry electrified the media with testimony that American soldiers in Vietnam had committed a wide array of grisly atrocities. Even though the Pentagon quickly provided confidential information to the White House confirming Kerry’s charges, “the Nixon administration went ahead with an aggressive backroom campaign to discredit as fabricators and traitors Kerry and other veterans who spoke out about war crimes,” as Deborah Nelson, the author of The War Behind Me, noted in 2008.

The Nixon cover-up of Vietnam atrocities played a role in the 2004 presidential election. After the Democrats nominated Sen. Kerry, a group known as “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” sprang up to, in its own words, “counter the false ‘war crimes’ charges John Kerry repeatedly made against Vietnam veterans.” The group savagely attacked Kerry in a series of ads. Kerry suffered far more political damage than he would have if the Pentagon had not succeeded in burying the evidence of the vast majority of Vietnam war crimes.

Bush’s cover-ups

The George W. Bush administration used similar charades to stifle the scandal over its worldwide torture regime. The only thing necessary for a successful cover-up was for the president first to continually proclaim that everything will be investigated, and then, months later, to proclaim that everything has already been investigated. A year after the first photos from Abu Ghraib leaked out, Bush declared: “There have been over, I think, nine investigations, eight or nine investigations by independent investigators that have made the reports very public.”

In reality, none of the investigations had been independent, and none of the reports were available in full to the public. Most of the investigations were based on the prior reports, which themselves did little or no honest digging. Yet, the Bush administration created the impression that anyone who refused to accept the good faith of the government’s self-investigations was acting in bad faith.

George Orwell made the official fabrication and rewriting of history the occupation of the main character in 1984. But nowadays, there is no need for a bureaucracy to rewrite history. Newspaper stories are “the first draft of history,” and the U.S. government routinely dictates the copy. If worse comes to worse, the military can simply delete photographs revealing too many victims.

The media as handmaiden to the state

The media elite happily plays lap dogs to the war machine. CNN chief Walter Isaacson explained: “Especially right after 9/11…. There was a real sense that you don’t get that critical of a government that’s leading us in war time.” Elisabeth Bumiller, the New York Times correspondent for the White House, explained why reporters did not ask tough questions at a Bush press conference just before he attacked Iraq: “It’s frightening to stand up there. Nobody wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time.” The Washington Post blocked or buried pre-war articles exposing the holes in the Bush team’s assertions on Iraq. PostPentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks explained: “There was an attitude among editors: ‘Look, we’re going to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary stuff?’” Jim Lehrer, the host of government-subsidized PBS’s Newshour, explained his timidity in 2004: “It would have been difficult to have had debates [about invading Iraq] … you’d have had to have gone against the grain.” The illusion that the media is independent makes its groveling more subversive to citizens’ understanding.

After he launched an invasion of Iraq in 2003, Bush perennially proclaimed that the United States had given freedom to 25 million Iraqis. Thus, any Iraqi civilians killed by U.S. forces were both statistically and morally inconsequential. And the vast majority of the news coverage left out the asterisks.

A 2005 American University survey of hundreds of journalists who covered Iraq concluded: “Many media outlets have self-censored their reporting on the conflict in Iraq because of concern about public reaction to graphic images and details about the war.” Individual journalists commented:

• “In general, coverage downplayed civilian casualties and promoted a pro-US viewpoint. No U.S. media show abuses by US military carried out on regular basis.”
• “Friendly fire incidents were to show only injured Americans, and no reference made to possible mistakes involving civilians.”
• “The real damage of the war on the civilian population was uniformly omitted.”

A 2008 New York Times article noted that “After five years and more than 4,000 U.S. combat deaths, searches and interviews turned up fewer than a half-dozen graphic photographs of dead U.S. soldiers.” Veteran photographers who posted shots of wounded or dead U.S. soldiers were quickly booted out of Iraq. The Times noted that Iraqi “detainees were widely photographed in the early years of the war, but the U.S. Defense Department, citing prisoners’ rights, has recently stopped that practice as well.” Privacy was the only “right” the Pentagon pretended to respect — since the vast majority of detainees received little or no due process.

Cover-ups succeed because it is easier to recite official denials than to unearth official crimes. The Washington media takes its reality from the government. The Washington media’s idea of “factual reporting” is telling people what the government told them. Quoting a government official carries its own absolution. For the media, the official exonerates the falsehood almost every time. Controversial news that lacks a government seal of approval is often treated as scurrilous — or at least unfit for family newspapers. Pulitzer Prize–winning Associated Press correspondent Charles Hanley wrote about the U.S. use of torture in Iraq six months before the Abu Ghraib story broke. Hanley later explained why his expose was almost completely ignored: “It was not an officially sanctioned story that begins with a handout from an official source.”

How craven was the media during the Iraq war? In 2008, the New York Times revealed how the Pentagon created a cadre of 75 retired officers who, in return for confidential briefings and flattery from top officials, would appear on TV and repeat Pentagon talking points — without admitting the source. The result was “a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated.” Former Green Beret officer Robert Bevelacqua described the process: “It was [the Bush administration] saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you.”’ Another retired officer described the whole process as “psy-ops on steroids.”

The Times noted: “Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.” Some of the commentators received lavish government contracts after gushing praise over the Pentagon’s policies. Even though the networks made no effort to screen their “experts” for brazen conflicts of interest, they denied they had done anything wrong.

Truth awards no licenses or regulatory exemptions. As former CBS news anchor Dan Rather explained in 2007: “Fear is in every newsroom in the country … fear … if you don’t go along to get along, you’re going to get the reputation of being a troublemaker. There’s also the fear that, particularly in [television] networks, they’ve become huge, international conglomerates. They have big needs, legislative needs, repertory needs in Washington. Nobody has to send you a memo to tell you that’s the case.” The networks became wealthy because of government preferences — they received scores of billions of dollars’ worth of scarce broadcast spectrum gratis. The fact that the airwaves were a gift leaves the recipient dependent on government. Rather’s CBS colleague Eric Sevareid made the same point years earlier: “The bigger the information media, the less courage and information they allow. Bigness means weakness.”

A government cover-up succeeds if it dissipates the outrage. Politicians routinely use controlled leaks of damaging information to blunt the impact of a government abuse or debacle. They choose a friendly media source who will frame the issue to their liking. A few embarrassing details leaking out is no substitute for the smoking gun. Coverups often aim to focus wrath on specific tidbits or people — and avoid or stifle fundamental questions about government powers. After the Hurricane Katrina debacle, the firing of the head of FEMA chief Michael Brown (“Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job!” President George W. Bush publicly declared) ensured that the heat would be greatly decreased on FEMA itself.

As long as the media uses a government-provided template, politicians have little to fear from the press. Information on government abuses is not self-propelled. If it were, political history would be radically different. The same people who wield power usually also determine what information is released. Politicians and pundits talk as if there is some divine law of democracy assuring that “truth will out.” In reality, the issue of whether truth will out is no different than any other political conflict.

Government lying is not simply a result of character defects in politicians, political appointees, and bureaucrats. Instead, it is often the result of a systemic bias against admitting systemic failures. The larger government becomes, the more the deck is stacked against honesty in public affairs. People in government and in power have far more tools and stronger incentives to deceive than the average citizen’s incentive and ability to discover the truth. This is not a problem that can be solved by finger-wagging or moralistic lectures calling for politicians to repent. As philosopher Hannah Arendt noted, “the lie did not creep into politics by some accident of human sinfulness; moral outrage, for this reason alone, is not likely to make it disappear.”

But things will be different now that Joe Biden is president, right? Unfortunately, the media continues celebrating his election victory by ignoring almost all his falsehoods and failures. The mere fact that Biden is not Donald Trump will likely continue to give him a free pass from the media for at least another six months. Or maybe cold, hard reality will never catch up with the most media-beloved president since Barack Obama.

*

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.

James Bovard is a policy adviser to The Future of Freedom Foundation. He is a USA Todaycolumnist and has written for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, New Republic, Reader’s Digest, Playboy, American Spectator, Investors Business Daily, and many other publications. He is the author of Freedom Frauds: Hard Lessons in American Liberty (2017, published by FFF); Public Policy Hooligan (2012); Attention Deficit Democracy (2006); The Bush Betrayal (2004); Terrorism and Tyranny (2003); Feeling Your Pain (2000); Freedom in Chains(1999); Shakedown (1995); Lost Rights (1994); The Fair Trade Fraud (1991); and The Farm Fiasco(1989). He was the 1995 co-recipient of the Thomas Szasz Award for Civil Liberties work, awarded by the Center for Independent Thought, and the recipient of the 1996 Freedom Fund Award from the Firearms Civil Rights Defense Fund of the National Rifle Association. His book Lost Rights received the Mencken Award as Book of the Year from the Free Press Association. His Terrorism and Tyranny won Laissez Faire Book’s Lysander Spooner award for the Best Book on Liberty in 2003. Read his blog. Send him email.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

 

As a follow up to the July 11-12 protests, the same opposition figures and groups that participated in them, requested permission for marches to be simultaneously held in several cities across Cuba on November 15. In response, the local municipal authorities, for example Old Havana, responded by pointing out that “Article 56 of the [Cuban] Constitution, which is mentioned as a legal basis [for the march permit], provides among its requirements for the exercise of the right to demonstrate legally and “in respect for public order and in compliance with the rules established by law.” (Note: This unofficial English version of the decision was translated by Water Lippmann and edited by the author.)

In other words, while the signatories invoke Article 56, they only recognize the portion concerning the “right to demonstrate peacefully” in the abstract as the request published in the FaceBook page Archipiélago reveals, the main platform spear heading the second phase of “colour revolution.” They are ignoring that section of the same article that stipulates limits: “Respect for public order and compliance with the rules established by law.” Which Cuban law are the signatories avoiding? The municipal decision goes on to explain: “Article 4 of the Constitution defines that the socialist system endorsed by this Constitution is irrevocable, therefore any action exercised against it is illicit.”

Contrasting US and Cuban Constitutional Rights

The mainstream media in the US and those in Cuba who have been denied permission then invoke self-righteous statements protesting that the safeguard of socialism should not be a precondition to demonstrate. They are outraged that any limitation may be imposed on these rights? What is their reasoning? Is it possible that they are so imbued with the US-centric notions of “freedom of expression” and “right to assemble” in the abstract, as found in the US Constitution? Let us explore. The First Amendment of the US Constitution stipulates:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Unlike the Cuban constitution, there is no explicit reference in the US Constitution to protection of the capitalist system. One might respond by arguing that there is indeed some kind of reference, as in for example, the notorious Preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility…” Does the latter mean that nothing can upset or challenge the capitalist status quo? We can only surmise that this is the case, as the entire history of the United States is based on the suppression of uprisings by the Indigenous Nations, African-Americans, the working class and youth against capitalism and imperialism. Whether one can extrapolate from “domestic tranquility” to mean the right of capitalism to operate in peace or not, it nevertheless remains a foregone conclusion: in practice, for the white supremist US elite, freedom of speech and right to assembly is tolerated unless it challenges the capitalist-imperialist status quo.

In contrast, the Cuban constitution and political system is frank and honest: Do not cross the red line we have established to defend our socialist system. Where does this limitation on freedom of expression and assembly come from?

The local authorities elaborate on their decision: “The Constitution of the Republic was widely debated and approved in a referendum by 86.85 percent of the voters, an overwhelming majority that sovereignly and freely chose the socialist system, its irrevocability and the right to fight by all means against anyone who tries to overthrow the established political, social and economic order.”

Communism: They Missed the Train

The process involved at arriving at this constitutional conclusion has been lengthy and complex, but also characterized by considerable public engagement and contribution. The first draft was made available to the entire Cuban population in 2018. Over many months, Cubans read the document and made a total of 780 suggestions and 9,600 proposals. Many of these were incorporated in the final draft, which was presented to the public.

One of the main sponsors of this month’s march request (and also involved in the July 11-12 protests), La Unión Patriótica de Cuba (UNPACU), called for a “massive and resounding ‘No’” on the February 24, 2019 Constitutional referendum vote.

However, how did it play out?

“Voter turnout: 84.4% of eligible voters.

Yes: 86.85%.

No: 9.0%.

Blank or spoiled: 4.5%.”

Not only did this mean a clear rejection of the No vote, but the voter turn-out increased in comparison to the previous vote in the last general elections in 2018, which registered an 82.9% voter turn-out. Furthermore, this thirst to fully participate in the referendum translated into an expressed desire to further enshrine socialism in the new Constitution and even expand on that goal. In the initial draft sent to the citizens for discussion, the ultimate goal of communism was not present. However, revolutionary blogs and journalists challenged this omission. The author was in Havana at the time and witness to the lively debate in the neighbourhoods and on television on the issue to exclude or include communism. We recall that La Unión Patriótica de Cuba (UNPACU) and the rallying call of other opposition groups on July 11-12 was then and is now in October 2021, “Down with Communism.” However, in the course of the debates at the grass roots level, this was the opportunity for the La Unión Patriótica de Cuba (UNPACU) to sway the electorate against communism being enshrined in the Constitution. It must be pointed out as clearly as possible that they did, indeed, miss the train.

In its futile appeal for a No vote, and perhaps reading the writing on the wall, UPAC asserted that the referendum and elections are “rigged.”

However, the author participated in all stages of the Cuban electoral system in 1997-98 and there is no evidence at all of fraud. In 2010, another study in Cuba confirmed this.

The Proof of the Pudding is in the Eating

In its decision, the local municipal assembly in Havana writes that:

“The promoters and their public projections, as well as the links of some with subversive organizations or agencies financed by the US government, have the manifest intention of promoting a change of political system in Cuba. This reaffirms that the announced march, whose organizational scheme is conceived simultaneously for other territories of the country, constitutes a provocation as part of the strategy of ‘regime change’ for Cuba, rehearsed in other countries…Furthermore, as soon as it was announced, the march received public support from US legislators, political operators and media that encourage actions against the Cuban people, attempting to destabilize the country and urging military intervention.”

Is this at all far-fetched? Hardly, the CNN reporter in Havana for example, in his enthusiasm to put a peaceful face on the efforts of protest organizers, had no difficulty violating his journalistic integrity by challenging the veracity of the Cuban government’s decision based on facts. He asserted that “Cuban government officials are making it clear that a request to hold a peaceful protest next month will not be authorized.” Inadvertently, he proves the point, namely that foreign “media encourage actions against the Cuban people.”

Nor is he alone in exhibiting the old adage about the “proof of the pudding.”

The municipal authority wrote: “As soon as it was announced, the march received public support from US legislators, political operators.” Indeed, after showing support for the march, once the decision came down on October 12, here are the words of US State Department spokesperson Ned Price, at a press conference later that day:

“QUESTION: Yeah. I wanted to ask you about the Cuba’s Government decision to ban a protest that was planned for November 15th, claiming that the organizers are backed by the US to overthrow the regime. Do you have any comment on that, any response?

MR PRICE: Well, let me make one thing very clear at the outset. What happened in July, what transpired in the days and the weeks after that, was not about the United States. It was about the conduct of the Cuban regime, the unmet aspirations of the Cuban people for freedom, for dignity, for prosperity, the elements that they have been denied by this regime for far too long, since 1959.”

Then with poker-faced elaboration, after denying US involvement, Ned Price volunteered the State Department as the megaphone for the subversive elements. “We call for the government in Havana to respect the fundamental freedoms and the fundamental rights of the Cuban people.”

On October 12, the Miami Herald reports on a Telegram messaging system press conference from Cuba leading up to the request for a march permit and featuring the Havana individual who filed the request. It is very revealing.

Firstly, the Miami Herald fondly recalls that “on July 11, hundreds of Cubans took to the streets to ask for regime change,” which is the main reason that the Municipal officials refused the permit.

Secondly, the Miami-based outlet quotes the signatory for the permit, “they always complain about the ‘blockade,’ he said, referring to the US embargo. ‘There is no worse blockade than the internal blockade on every Cuban citizen in this country.’” This is a dead give away about the intentions of these individuals, who do not seem to have a country.

Thirdly, we have to admire the political acumen of the signatories. They seem to be very aware that they have opened a beachhead among sections of the “left” in the US and Canada and want to go further. The Miami Herald quotes him:

“I am calling on the left worldwide, which is usually complicit and unfortunately usually behaves in a hypocritical way, to tell them that there are no left or right dictatorships, good or bad, there are dictatorships, and we must oppose them all, whatever their political sign.”

In contrast, for example, an independent watchdog journalism organization MintPress News in the US and the anti-imperialist socialist The Canada Files in Canada countered those sections of the sold out “left” in their respective countries, who were cheerleading the attempted July 11 “colour revolution” in Cuba.

Will they learn their lesson as we head into another one?

*

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

This article was originally published on The Canada Files.

Arnold August is a Montreal-based author and journalist whose articles are published in web sites across North America, Latin America, Europe and the Middle East in English, Spanish and French. He is a Fellow at the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute.

Featured image: Cubans take part in a mass rally in defence of the Cuban Revolution and calling for an end to US sanctions, July 2021. Photo: Helen Yaffe

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

 

History is strewn with the broken branches of twisted irony.  An individual who found himself entangled in it was the late Colin Powell, who, as a military man, gave a doctrine his name only to forgo it as a diplomat.

The Powell Doctrine was one of certitude and caution: do not engage in conflict except in conditions whereby you could bring overwhelming and decisive force to bear.  Political goals had to be clear; hostilities would be brief.  There would be no more quagmires, no more Vietnam Wars for the US imperium.  The model for this was his first engagement with Saddam Hussein’s forces in 1991.  The other manifestation of this approach was opposing military intervention in Bosnia.

Such ruminations were reached after service in Vietnam, where he made his mark as a major who questioned the account of the My Lai massacre.  Tasked with providing the first response to the Pentagon’s queries spurred on by Ron Ridenhour, he showed an all-establishment view to the butchering of over four hundred villagers, questioning the complaint against Charlie Company as vicious rumour mongering.

This approach served him well, enabling him to get a White House Fellowship, receive patronage from Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, assume the role of President Ronald Reagan’s Deputy National Security Advisor, then National Security Advisor.  The Chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs was only logical in the scheme of this alignment, granting him an almost panoptical view of military-intelligence operations.  He directly supervised the teachers of torture from the School of the Americas and learned the importance of keeping the death-squads in the service of US power at arm’s length.  Ridenhour conveys this point with gruesome precision.  “Just keep those big, burly, white American advisers far enough away from the actual mayhem so that they will never be seen splattered with blood on the evening news.”

His briefings during the 1991 Gulf War were famed for being direct and free of jargon.  It stood to reason.  The Vietnam War, for the likes of Powell, had been lost not only because of unclear goals but because of a failure to control army-media relations.

Through the 1990s, he had a certain pop allure that drew him towards a possible tilt at the White House.  He had mastered military greatness and could now be readied as an Ike-redux.  Under heavy spousal pressure, he gave up his bid for office.  Alma Powell had threatened to leave him in the event of him running, fearing potential assassination from a racist’s bullet.  At the time, Christopher Hitchens recalled those “dinner-parties that turned into unspeakable cafard; the TV and radio chat-shows that went null at the mention of his name.”

Slotting into the role of US Secretary of State in the first administration of George W. Bush, he was billed the voice of sane moderation in a cabinet of hawks, the wounds of September 11, 2001 still bleeding.  The military man could still make his mark, despite pretending to prefer ploughshare to sword.

Prior to him taking the reins at the State Department, he had been mocked by his predecessor, Madeline Albright, who always had a touch of the war monger about her.  “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about,” she chided him with a bloody craving, “if we can’t use it?”  Albright had been a critic of the qualifications suggested by the Powell doctrine, calling it archaic before it even came into practice.  “You know, Gen. Powell wrote a book and one of the problems with writing a book is that it takes a while to get it published.”  She found it “probably ironic that just at the time that this [book] came out, in fact, the limited application of limited force in Bosnia was working.”

Powell would have done his critics proud in abandoning his own doctrine, demonstrating that ideas are there to be vanquished and burned, even by their own creators.  The moment he did so remains dark folklore, a poison of statecraft.  With the Bush administration enthralled by the prospect of war in the Middle East, having marshalled themselves against evidence more counterfeit and conspiratorial than Donald Trump ever could be, Powell played along with gusto. This heralded a conversion from remarks made in February 2001 that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein “has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of destruction.  He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.”

His infamous February 2003 address to the UN Security Council accusing Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction was another effort at public relations but of a very different quality.  It proved to be free of accuracy and unburdened by reality, despite Powell’s own vetting efforts of the evidence.  This was a man fully enrolled in the service of regime change and making the case for it.

Every statement, claimed Powell, was “backed up by sources, solid sources”.  They were “not assertions.  What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.”  The theatrics were ample.  “Let me remind you how ricin works.  Less than a pinch – imagine a pinch of salt – less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food, could cause shock followed by respiratory failure.  Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote.  There is no cure.  It is fatal.”  To the US Senate, he could say that these were “real weapons.  We’re talking about anthrax.  We’re talking about botulinum toxin.  We’re talking about nuclear weapons programmes.”

This was heavy going, given that such solid intelligence had been gathered from the quicksand sources of the Iraqi National Congress, a notorious outfit of exile led by the oleaginous Ahmed Chalabi.  Powell’s chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, noted how many “of these sources sort of tinged and merged back into a single source, and that inevitably that single source seems to be either recommended by, set up by, orchestrated by, introduced by, or whatever, by somebody in the INC.”

The Secretary of State also ran with the al-Qaida-Iraqi connection, another spurious link manufactured in the aftermath of 9/11 linking the terrorist attacks to Baghdad.  “Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with al-Qaida.  These denials are simply not credible.”  His UN speech makes special reference to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that al-Qaida “affiliates based in Baghdad now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies throughout Iraq for his network”.

Powell spent subsequent years calling his presentation “painful”, a “blot” that would “always be part of my record.”  But ever mindful of public relations, he could find other more worthy alibis for his conduct.  Blame could be saddled and pinned down elsewhere – for instance, upon the more nefarious Donald Rumsfeld.  Or the devious Vice President Dick Cheney, whose office authored the speech.

For those keen to confine the scope of Powell’s errors and assessments, it is also worth remembering that the taste for regime change did not stop with the placing of boots in Mesopotamia.  As chair for the Bush’s Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, Powell oversaw the production of a 2004 report advocating various ways the Cuban government might be overthrown.  These were familiar: insinuating market capitalism into the state; introducing multi-party elections; giving Cuban Americans living in the US restitution for losses suffered under the Castro regime.  Accordingly, Washington should “support the Cuban people as they … work to transform themselves” and enable them “to develop a democratic and civic culture … and the values and habits essential to both.”  Such mindful benevolence.

With the imperium in respectful lockstep and sighing deferentially to a departed soldier, Powell’s blemishes can be overlooked by glowing reference to his “service” and patriotism.  But in performing that service, Powell’s legacy will be associated with the murderous, not infrequently incompetent adventurism of US foreign policy and its messianic bent.

*

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]

While we must always hold on to hope, true change can only be achieved through awareness and action. As opposed to the mainstream media’s lies and half-truths, it is the focus and objective of Global Research to ask real questions, seek honest answers, and help people take this knowledge to empower themselves to change the world for the better.

We have already hosted two Global Research Webinars, one in April and another in September. Both were a success, thanks to our authors, contributors and readers for the support. We plan to hold more webinars in the future, while continuing to produce Global Research TV videos, Global Research News Hour radio shows/podcasts, and Global Research Publishers E-books.

In order to support the development of initiatives such as these, with no external corporate or political sponsorship, we rely on financial contributions from our readers. Please help us spread the word far and wide by making a donation or becoming a member today!

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

---

Click to become a member (receive free books!):

Click to view our membership plans

---

Thank you for supporting independent media.

The Global Research Team

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Americans are the most propagandized people on earth. In place of a news media they have a propaganda ministry that is a lie machine. Americans live in a spun narrative of lies.

Few understand the evil intentions of their rulers and the way government is used to enrich the elite. British journalist Richard Medhurst explains how ten years ago US and French elites destroyed an entire country. See this.

The crudely evil Obama and the white bitch Hillary, together with French President Sarkozy, currently a jailbird, destroyed a highly successful country and murdered its leader for their own profit.

The destruction of Libya is one of the many crimes of Western colonialism that has undermined the confidence of Western intellectuals in Western civilization. It is crimes such as the murder of Libya that have resulted in the destruction or removal of statues and monuments and the teaching now institutionalized in schools that white people are racist.

When you think of the destruction of Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, and Palestine, and the attempted destruction of Syria and Iran, just to mention some of the atrocities of our current era, it is possible to comprehend why the West has lost its moral gloss and is increasingly despised by growing numbers of its own citizens in addition to Arabs, Africans, Latin Americans, Russians, and Asians.

Corrupt and evil Western “leaders” have succeeded in marginalizing the West. Every western country now consists of refugees from countries that the West has destroyed and citizens who have lost confidence in their leaders and culture. We ourselves are experiencing the fall of Rome.

*

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

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

There Has Been No Mandatory Vaccination Executive Order

By Renee Parsons, October 20, 2021

With civic guidance and political leadership absent on the heels of multiple national crises, the entire country is now roiled in an era of massive civilian disobedience campaigns as thousands of American workers seek protection from President Biden’s flawed vaccine dictates.

Study by Harvard Researcher Finds Countries with Lowest COVID-19 Vaccination Rates Have Fewer Cases of COVID than Fully Vaccinated Countries

By Brian Shilhavy, October 19, 2021

A new study published in the European Journal of Epidemiology proves what we “conspiracy theorists” have been saying all along about the COVID-19 shots: They cause symptoms leading to COVID-19 diagnoses rather than prevent them.

2 Navy SEALS, 4 Marines, Air Force Major All Sue Biden

By Bob Unruh, October 19, 2021

Liberty Counsel on Friday announced a class action lawsuit on behalf of members of all five branches of the U.S. military – the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard – against President Joe Biden over his orders they take the experimental COVID shots or face dishonorable discharge.

Groundbreaking: Nebraska AG Says Doctors Can Legally Prescribe Ivermectin, HCQ for COVID, Calls Out FDA, CDC, Fauci, Media for ‘Fueling Confusion and Misinformation’

By Megan Redshaw, October 19, 2021

At the request of the Nebraska Department of Health, on Oct. 15, Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson issued a legal opinion that Nebraska healthcare providers can legally prescribe ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID, so long as they obtain informed consent from the patient.

Businesses: $700,000 Fine for Not Complying with Vax Mandate

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, October 19, 2021

Buried in the massive $3.5 trillion “reconciliation” bill is an unconstitutional vaccine enforcement mechanism that threatens to bankrupt businesses unless they force their employees to get a COVID-19 injection.

Colin Powell: Iraqis Will ‘Not Shed Tears’ for 2003 Invasion Architect

By Alex McDonald, October 19, 2021

For millions of Iraqis, Powell will be remembered as the man who presented false intelligence before the United Nations as to the existence and threat of former ruler Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Narrative Traps in India’s Decision-making

By M. K. Bhadrakumar, October 19, 2021

The problem with contrived narratives such as on Doklam in 2017 is that they can lead to situational blindness, whereby you are so focused on one aspect that you fail to notice the bigger picture.

The WHO Recommends Genetic Manipulation and Gene Editing of Humans “To Promote Public Health”

By Jens Bernert, October 19, 2021

Those who warned that Corona “vaccinations“ were the first step towards the genetic manipulation of humans faced harsh attacks from quality media, politicians and activists who denied this and ridiculed the corresponding fears.

The Canadian Government Must Protect Hassan Diab!

By Hassan Diab Support Committee, October 19, 2021

118 members of the legal profession and legal scholars in Canada recently signed an open letter to Justice Minister David Lametti calling on the Minister to take immediate action to protect the rights of Dr. Hassan Diab by (1) giving immediate assurances that Canada will not accept nor accede to a second request for Hassan’s extradition; (2) urging France to put an immediate end to this continuing miscarriage of justice; and (3) suspending the extradition treaty with France.

Free Alex Saab Delegation Attends Meeting of African Bar Association

By John Philpot and Roger D. Harris, October 19, 2021

An international Free Alex Saab delegation attended the annual meeting of the African Bar Association in Niamey, Niger, on Oct. 3-7. Venezuelan diplomat Alex Saab, who has been under arrest in Cabo Verde since June 2020 by orders of the U.S., is fighting extradition to Miami.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

With civic guidance and political leadership absent on the heels of multiple national crises, the entire country is now roiled in an era of massive civilian disobedience campaigns as thousands of American workers seek protection from President Biden’s flawed vaccine dictates.

If you listen to Biden’s recent incoherent statement on vaccine mandates or you are an incurable aficionado of what used to be called mainstream media, you may think there is reason to believe that a formal Presidential Executive Order mandating national Covid vaccinations had been issued.  As with many Democratic initiatives, the truth and reality of Biden’s September 9th announcement are frequently at odds.

There was no mention of an Executive Order despite the widespread public message that a mandatory national vaccination decree was being applied to American businesses and the non-vaccinated public. Leave it to the Democrats to exaggerate their authority as they retain utter control over the lives of Americans; not unlike committed authoritarian gangsters intent on mugging what remains of our Constitutional republic.

Soon after the alleged ‘mandate’ was announced, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered further proof of how little the Democrats care about the American people or its economy when she announced that enforcement of the ‘mandate’ was included in the $3.5 trillion “reconciliation’ bill with a serious infraction costing employers up to $70,000 per violation and up to $700,000 for repeat offenders who dare question vaccine mandates as Un-American.

However, a visit to the White House website on Executive Orders (Federal Register) reveals that the Biden Administration has not, to date, filed any such EO.   It was reported that the object of the EO was to direct the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) to issue a rule mandating vaccinations for employees in America’s top one hundred companies or submit to weekly tests or be fired.

In addition, there appears to be no such EO action at the White House Office of Management and Budget as well as no evidence of OSHA preparation of an in-the-works standard to apply to the aforementioned unvaccinated.

So, while there is great media fanfare as if there is a bona fide national mandatory mandate to take the jab, currently no such legal foundation exists for any American business to force that mandate on its employees – nor is there any foundation, at this point, for any State to initiate a legal challenge against the Federal government.   In fact, there is simply no basis for a legal challenge to a mandated vaccination policy since the entire kerfuffle may be little more than a figment of Biden’s feeble brain and has never been adopted as a formal policy.

One possible explanation is that the actual issuance of an EO would have opened a writhing can of bogus worms which would negatively affect Biden’s sinking poll numbers. On the other hand, announcing a mandate without any actual executive order would provide American companies with the façade of a legal requirement while removing any possible legal action against The State.  In other words, while employees may be forced to get the jab, the government would remain immune from charges of acting in an unconstitutional manner and from exposure to a legitimate legal Court challenge.  Let’s say the State would put itself in a situation of having their cake and eat it too.

Let’s assume for the moment that the Biden EO had actually been promulgated.  The issue is whether a hypothetical Executive Order to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA)  has the constitutional authority to issue a regulation to determine Covid as a ‘grave health concern” to the nation.  A major hurdle to Biden’s agenda is that such an ill-conceived EO would sabotage the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which clearly allows Federal statute precedence over State law. However, the Biden Administration in its euphoria of Building Back Better has failed to grasp that an EO would not be comparable to Federal legislation; and therefore, would lack sufficient force of authority to supersede a state ban on a Federal mandate.   In addition, it can be expected that Red State Attorneys General will vigorously defend their states’ rights under the Tenth Amendment; Blue States not so much.

In other words, an EO is not on a par with Federal statute in that it does not carry the same legislative authority as a Congressional act.  That has not stopped the Biden regime from thoughtlessly abusing its power by unnecessarily manipulating thousands of Americans into an emotionally stressful life and family crisis, fearful of a loss of employment and into a legally untenable situation; all under the guise of a deceptive legal mandate.

Surely, companies that have since announced their compliance with the mandate, such as 3M, Boeing, United, and Southwest Airlines must have legal counsel who advised them that the mandate is not a legal requirement and perhaps only the wishful thinking of a demented President. And yet, Southwest suffered massive turmoil the weekend before last, with thousands of cancellations and delays, and proved how little they care about their own employees when it opposed its own pilots who sought injunctive relief from faux mandatory vaccinations.  To date, Walmart and JP Morgan Chase have not mandated vaccinations.

In direct response to Biden’s chimera,  Florida had already stepped in to protect its citizens from an arbitrary Federal mandatory vaccination requirement as in direct response to Biden. Texas Governor Abbott issued his own Executive Order prohibiting a Federal vaccination mandate.

So here we are left with a fraudulent Democratic Administration who dare to skew public policy, claiming to have been overwhelmingly elected as if the American public supports their Marxist views.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The resultant response to Biden’s mandatory vaccination announcement continues to fail as Americans in all walks of life join together and draw their line as they message  Biden that he is not their President.

*

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 American Thinker.

Renee Parsons served on the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and as president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, staff in the Office of the Colorado State Public Defender, an environmental lobbyist for Friends of the Earth and a staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found at [email protected].

She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is a screenshot from a video

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

 

A new study published in the European Journal of Epidemiology proves what we “conspiracy theorists” have been saying all along about the COVID-19 shots: They cause symptoms leading to COVID-19 diagnoses rather than prevent them.

The study, Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States, was conducted by S. V. Subramanian, who is affiliated with Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, and also the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

The study looked at data from 68 countries and 2947 counties in the U.S.

Vaccines currently are the primary mitigation strategy to combat COVID-19 around the world. For instance, the narrative related to the ongoing surge of new cases in the United States (US) is argued to be driven by areas with low vaccination rates.

A similar narrative also has been observed in countries, such as Germany and the United Kingdom. At the same time, Israel that was hailed for its swift and high rates of vaccination has also seen a substantial resurgence in COVID-19 cases.

We investigate the relationship between the percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases across 68 countries and across 2947 counties in the US.

They used COVID-19 data provided by the Our World in Data for cross-country analysis, available as of September 3, 2021.

For the county-level analysis in the US, they utilized the White House COVID-19 Team data, available as of September 2, 2021.

Comparing countries with various rates of percentages of their population fully vaccinated for COVID-19, they found that “countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.”

At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days (Fig. 1).

In fact, the 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.

Notably, Israel with over 60% of their population fully vaccinated had the highest COVID-19 cases per 1 million people in the last 7 days.

The lack of a meaningful association between percentage population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases is further exemplified, for instance, by comparison of Iceland and Portugal. Both countries have over 75% of their population fully vaccinated and have more COVID-19 cases per 1 million people than countries such as Vietnam and South Africa that have around 10% of their population fully vaccinated.

Likewise, in the U.S. the counties with the highest vaccination rates have the highest incidents of COVID-19 cases.

Across the US counties too, the median new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 people in the last 7 days is largely similar across the categories of percent population fully vaccinated (Fig. 2).

Notably there is also substantial county variation in new COVID-19 cases within categories of percentage population fully vaccinated. There also appears to be no significant signaling of COVID-19 cases decreasing with higher percentages of population fully vaccinated (Fig. 3).

Of the top 5 counties that have the highest percentage of population fully vaccinated (99.9–84.3%), the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identifies 4 of them as “High” Transmission counties.

Chattahoochee (Georgia), McKinley (New Mexico), and Arecibo (Puerto Rico) counties have above 90% of their population fully vaccinated with all three being classified as “High” transmission.

Conversely, of the 57 counties that have been classified as “low” transmission counties by the CDC, 26.3% (15) have percentage of population fully vaccinated below 20%.

Read the full study here. You might want to download the .pdf version, as these kind of studies proving Big Pharma and Government health agencies such as the FDA and CDC are lying to people, tend to be “retracted” once they are published.

COVID-19 vaccines not only offer no benefits, they are killing and injuring people, which is why so many dissenting doctors and scientists today call them “bioweapons.”

*

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

Featured image is from HIN

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Open Letter from Legal Professionals in Canada Supporting Dr. Hassan Diab

118 members of the legal profession and legal scholars in Canada recently signed an open letter to Justice Minister David Lametti calling on the Minister to take immediate action to protect the rights of Dr. Hassan Diab by (1) giving immediate assurances that Canada will not accept nor accede to a second request for Hassan’s extradition; (2) urging France to put an immediate end to this continuing miscarriage of justice; and (3) suspending the extradition treaty with France.

Read the open letter and view the list of signatories here.

Neve, Aiken and Champ: Canada’s Next Justice Minister Must Defend Hassan Diab’s Rights

“Will France have the audacity to seek Diab’s extradition a second time? Will it instead opt to try him in absentia, itself a flagrant violation of fair trial rights? Either way, Diab and his family, who have been trapped in a Kafkaesque world of injustice for 14 years, currently face the prospect of several more years of the same. It is intolerable and it must end. That is why we recently joined more than 100 lawyers and legal academics in an open letter to Minister Lametti during the recent election, urging him to convey to French authorities that Canada will not in any way continue to participate in this profound miscarriage of justice.”

Read the full opinion piece by Alex Neve, Sharry Aiken, and Paul Champ in the Ottawa Citizen here.

Should We Really be Handing Them Over?

“Under the current law, a state requesting extradition need only shows up with a summary of the evidence it claims to have. But that summary cannot be challenged or tested, says Robert Currie, a Schulich School of Law professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax. ‘It’s an unfair process.’… Currie says that the Diab case is an egregious example of how the Supreme Court’s intention in Ferras has failed. ‘If Hassan Diab could be committed for extradition, then there’s no meaningful way to challenge it at all,’ he says. ‘The judge just becomes a rubber stamp on the whole thing.’”

Read the full article by Dale Smith in the Canadian Bar Association’s National Magazine here.

Please Send a Letter to Prime Minister Justice Trudeau

We need to keep the pressure on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Canadian government to protect Hassan and end the Kafkaesque injustice he is facing.

Please send a letter to PM Trudeau and the Canadian government. You may write your own letter, or send the online letter at:

If you live in Canada: https://iclmg.ca/diab-letter
(a copy of the letter will be sent to your Member of Parliament)

If you live outside Canada: https://iclmg.ca/diab-letter-intl

Thank you for your continued support!

*

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: Hassan Diab, the Ottawa professor who was extradited to France by the Canadian government as a suspect in a decades-old terror bombing.  (THE CANADIAN PRESS)  

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Liberty Counsel on Friday announced a class action lawsuit on behalf of members of all five branches of the U.S. military – the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard – against President Joe Biden over his orders they take the experimental COVID shots or face dishonorable discharge.

“The Biden administration has no authority to require the COVID shots for the military or for federal employees or civilian contractors,” explained Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel chairman.

“Nor can the Biden administration pretend that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment do not apply to its unlawful mandates. The commander-in-chief must end this shameful treatment and abuse of our brave military heroes. Forcing the COVID shots without consent or consideration for their sincere religious beliefs is illegal.”

The action in U.S. District Court in Florida is on behalf of two Navy SEALs, a Navy EOD Officer, a Navy Senior Chief Petty Officer, a Navy Chaplain, two Marine Lt. Colonels, two Marine Lance Corporals, an Air Force Major, an Air Force Technical Sergeant, an Army National Guardsman, an Army Colonel, and a Coast Guard Lieutenant.

It seeks a temporary restraining order preventing Biden and his appointees from “enforcing, threatening to enforce, attempting to enforce, or otherwise requiring compliance with the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate…”

Other defendants are Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas.

Liberty Counsel said the non-military plaintiffs include a Department of Defense contractor who has conducted Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance quantitative and qualitative assessments and studies, whose assessments are briefed to DOD senior leadership to inform decisions on future employment, allocation, and procurement; a federal civilian engineer employed by a large military defense contractor that provides LCD screens used in United States Armed Forces aircraft; a federal civilian contractor employer whose company develops and supports military weapons systems, including current and next generation land vehicles for the Army and next generation Navy vessels; a federal nuclear contractor employee who is a young woman opposed to abortion and who desires to have children of her own one day; and a Department of Energy Civilian Nuclear Tech who works at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

The individuals for whom the case was filed are not named, but in a sworn statement on Navy chaplain explained, “I personally observed (and the Sailors told me in the course of counseling about) tremendous amounts of coercion, bullying, censorship, and intimidation being brought forth by the command to bear against the personnel who expressed objections of any kind to the COVID shot mandates, including religious objections…And clearly, the military has lost more lives to the increase in suicide from 2020-2021 (at least 1,012) than to all of COVID in 2 years (~52), but suicide has not been a focus.”

It was Austin who dispatched on August 24 the “Mandatory Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination of Department of Defense Service Members.”

But Matthew Oster, who is on Biden’s COVID task force, admitted the shots are “causing myocarditis” in “young men,” and the Journal of the American Medical Association Cardiology confirmed, “Myocarditis Following Immunization with mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Members of the U.S. Military.”

Then on Sept. 9 Biden issued a similar order for federal workers.

The case charges that under the federal Emergency Use Authorization law none of the vaccines has gotten full Food and Drug Administration Approval, so they cannot be mandated.

“Under the above statute, there is no legal basis on which the president may waive the EUA in order to mandate the COVID-19 vaccines for the military. Indeed, he has not done so because he has no statutory authority under the law,” Liberty Counsel explained.

Further, the mandates violate the constitutionally protected right to religion.

“The plaintiffs all hold sincere religious beliefs against the COVID shots on the basis that their body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and to defile it is a sin against God. In addition, the plaintiffs do not want to participate directly or indirectly or otherwise be associated with the destruction of human life through abortion by injecting a product that contains or was tested or developed with aborted fetal cell lines,” Liberty Counsel said.

But the military is telling the plaintiffs “there are NO RELIGIOUS exemptions, and merely submitting such a request will subject them to dishonorable discharge.”

Liberty Counsel said it also is representing clients on behalf of the 3.7 million employees under federal government contracts and two million federal employees who are under the Biden administration’s COVID shot mandate.

*

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

Featured image: Hospital Corpsman 2nd Caine Collins instructs recruits on the importance of their COVID vaccination card before receiving their COVID-19 vaccine in Pacific Fleet Drill Hall at Recruit Training Command at Great Lakes, Illinois, May 26, 2021. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Spencer Fling)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

At the request of the Nebraska Department of Health, on Oct. 15, Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson issued a legal opinion that Nebraska healthcare providers can legally prescribe ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID, so long as they obtain informed consent from the patient.

Few subjects have been more controversial than ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine — two long-established, inexpensive medications widely and successfully used in many parts of the world for the prevention and treatment of COVID.

By contrast, the use of both medications against COVID has been largely suppressed in the U.S, where doctors have been threatened and punished for prescribing them.

On Oct. 15, Nebraska Attorney General (AG) Doug Peterson issued a legal opinion that Nebraska healthcare providers can legally prescribe off-label medications like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID, so long as they obtain informed consent from the patient.

However, if they did neglect to obtain consent, deceive, prescribe excessively high doses or other misconduct, they could be subject to discipline, Peterson wrote.

The AG’s office emphasized it was not recommending any specific treatment for COVID.

“That is not our role,” Peterson wrote. “Rather, we address only the off-label early treatment options discussed in this opinion and conclude that the available evidence suggests they might work for some people.”

Peterson said allowing physicians to consider early treatments will free them to evaluate additional tools that could save lives, keep patients out of the hospital and provide relief for our already strained healthcare system.

The opinion, based on an assessment of relevant scientific literature, was rendered in response to a request by Dannette Smith, CEO of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services.

Smith asked the AG’s office to look into whether doctors could face discipline or legal action under Nebraska’s Uniform Credential Act (UCA) — meant to protect public health, safety and welfare — if they prescribed ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.

“After receiving your question and conducting our investigation, we have found significant controversy and suspect information about potential COVID-19 treatments,” Peterson wrote.

For example, a paper published in the Lancet — one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world — denounced hydroxychloroquine as dangerous, yet the statistics were flawed and the authors refused to provide analyzed data.

The paper was retracted, but not before countries stopped using the drug and trials were cancelled or interrupted.

“The Lancet’s own editor-in-chief admitted that the paper was a ‘fabrication,’ a ‘monumental fraud’ and a ‘shocking example of research misconduct’ in the middle of a global health emergency,” Peterson wrote in the opinion.

A recently published paper on COVID recognized that “for reasons that are yet to be clarified,” early treatment has not been emphasized despite numerous U.S. healthcare providers advocating for early treatment and “scores of treating and academic physicians” — who have published papers in well respected journals — urging early interventions.

Peterson cited numerous studies showing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine reduced mortality by up to 75% or more when used as a preventative or prophylaxis for COVID, suggesting hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved had the drugs been widely used in America.

“Every citizen — Democrat or Republican — should be grateful for Doug Peterson’s thoughtful and courageous counteroffensive against the efforts of Big Pharma, its captive federal regulators, and its media and social media allies to silence doctors and deny Americans life-saving treatments,” Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairman of Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender via email.

“We finally have a leader who puts constitutional rights, peer-reviewed science and human health above industry profits. Doug Peterson is uncowed and unbowed — a genuine hero on horseback for all Americans.” Kennedy said.

Children’s Health Defense President Mary Holland agreed.

“This Nebraska AG opinion lets doctors get back to being doctors — without being second-guessed by government, pharmacists and others interfering in the crucial doctor-patient relationship,” Holland said.

Although the AG’s office did not rule out the possibility that other off-label drugs might show promise — either now or in the future — as a prophylaxis or treatment against COVID, it confined its opinion to ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for the sake of brevity.

Nebraska AG highlights science on ivermectin

In his legal opinion, Peterson concluded evidence showed ivermectin demonstrated striking effectiveness in preventing and treating COVID, and any side effects were primarily minor and transient.

“Thus, the UCA does not preclude physicians from considering ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID,” Peterson wrote.

In the decade leading up to the COVID pandemic, Peterson found numerous studies showing ivermectin’s antiviral acti­vity against several RNA viruses by blocking the nuclear trafficking of viral proteins, adding to 50 years of research confirming ivermectin’s antiviral effects.

In addition, safety data for ivermectin showed side effects were “vanishingly small.” The latest statistics available through VigiAccess reported only 5,674 adverse drug reac­tions to ivermectin between 1992 and October 13, 2021, an “incredibly low” number given that 3.7 billion doses have been administered since the 1980s, Peterson wrote.

Peterson cited several studies showing ivermectin led to improvement of COVID outcomes when used in early treatment or as a prophylaxis, while noting many studies with negative findings about ivermectin “excluded most available evidence,” cherry picked data within studies, misreported data, made unsupported assertions of adverse reactions to ivermectin and had “conclusions that did follow from evidence.”

Peterson also found that epidemiological evidence for ivermectin’s effectiveness, derived by analyzing COVID-related data from various states, countries or regions is instructive in the context of a global pandemic.

In one instance, a group of scholars analyzed data comparing COVID rates of countries that routinely administer ivermectin as a prophylaxis and countries that did not. The research showed “countries with routine mass drug administration of pro­phylactic … ivermectin have a significantly lower incidence of COVID-19.”

“This ‘highly significant’ correlation manifests itself not only ‘in a worldwide context’ but also when comparing African countries that regularly administer prophylactic ‘ivermectin against parasitic infections’ and African countries that do not,” Peterson wrote. “Based on these results, the researchers surmised that these results may be connected to ivermectin’s ability to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication, which likely leads to lower infection rates.”

Nebraska AG calls out FDA, Fauci on hypocrisy on ivermectin

Many U.S. health agencies have now addressed the use of ivermectin for COVID. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has adopted a neutral position, choosing not to recommend for or against the use of ivermectin — a change from its position in January 2021 where it discouraged use of the drug for treatment of COVID.

Peterson wrote:

“The reason for the change is the NIH recognized several randomized trials and retrospective cohort studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have been published in peer-reviewed journals. And some of those studies reported positive outcomes, including shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations that were attributed to COVID-19, greater reduction in inflammatory marker levels, shorter time to viral clearance, [and] lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo.”

Yet, on Aug. 29, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases within the NIH, went on CNN and announced “there is no clinical evidence” that ivermectin works for the prevention or treatment of COVID. Fauci went on to reiterate that “there is no evidence whatsoever” that it works.

“This definitive claim directly contradicts the NIH’s recognition that ‘several randomized trials … published in peer-reviewed journals’ have reported data indicating that ivermectin is effective as a COVI D-19 treatment,” Peterson wrote.

In March 2021, the FDA posted a webpage, “Why You Should Not Use lvermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19.”

“Although the FDA’s concern was stories of some people using the animal form of ivermectin or excessive doses of the human form, the title broadly condemned any use of ivermectin in connection with COVID-19,” Peterson wrote. “Yet, there was no basis for its sweeping condemnation.”

Peterson wrote:

“Indeed, the FDA itself acknowledged on that very webpage (and continued to do so until the page changed on September 3, 2021) that the agency had not even ‘reviewed data to support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or to prevent COVID-19.’ But without reviewing the available data, which had long since been available and accumulating, it is unclear what basis the FDA had for denouncing ivermectin as a treatment or prophylaxis for COVID-19.

“On that same webpage, the FDA also declared that ‘[i]vermectin is not an anti-viral (a drug for treating viruses).’ It did so while another one of its webpages simultaneously cited a study in Antiviral Research that identified ivermectin as a medicine ‘previously shown to have broad-spectrum anti-viral activity.’”

“It is telling that the FDA deleted the line about ivermectin not being ‘anti-viral’ when it amended the first webpage on September 3, 2021,” Peterson noted.

Peterson said the FDA’s most controversial statement on ivermectin was made on Aug. 21, when it posted a link on Twitter to its “Why You Should Not Use lvermectin” webpage with this statement: “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”

“This message is troubling not only because it makes light of a serious matter but also because it inaccurately implies that ivermectin is only for horses or cows,” Peterson wrote.

Peterson said the FDA has assailed ivermectin’s safety while ignoring the fact that physicians routinely prescribe medications for off-label use and that ivermectin is a “particularly well-tolerated medicine with an established safety record.”

Peterson added the FDA is ignoring several randomized controlled trials and at least one meta­analysis suggesting ivermectin is effective against COVID. He pointed out the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention has adopted a similar stance — unsupported by scientific evidence — and the media has fueled confusion and misinformation on the drug.

Peterson questions professional associations’ stance on ivermectin

Professional associations in the U.S. and internationally have adopted conflicting positions on ivermectin and COVID. The American Medical Association (AMA), American Pharmacists Association (APhA) and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) issued a statement in September strongly opposing the ordering, prescribing or dispensing of ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID outside of a clinical trial.

But their statement relied solely on the FDA’s and CDC’s suspect positions.

The AMA, APhA and ASHP also mentioned a statement by Merck — the original patent-holder — opposing the use of ivermectin for COVID because of a “concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.”

“But Merck, of all sources, knows that ivermectin is exceedingly safe, so the absence of safety data in recent studies should not be concerning to the company,” Peterson wrote.

Peterson called into question the objectivity of Merck in providing an opinion on ivermectin that U.S. health agencies are relying upon. “Why would ivermectin’s original patent holder go out of its way to question this medicine by creating the impression that it might not be safe?” Peterson asked. “There are at least two plausible reasons.”

Peterson explained:

“First, ivermectin is no longer under patent, so Merck does not profit from it anymore. That likely explains why Merck declined to ‘conduct clinical trials’ on ivermectin and COVID-19 when given the chance.

“Second, Merck has a significant financial interest in the medical profession rejecting ivermectin as an early treatment for COVID-19. [T]he U.S. government has agreed to pay [Merck] about $1.2 billion for 1.7 million courses of its experimental COVID-19 treatment, if it is proven to work in an ongoing large trial and authorized by U.S. regulators.”

Merck’s treatment is known as “molnupiravir,” and aims to stop COVID from progressing when given early in the course of disease. When Merck announced Oct. 1, that preliminary studies indicated molnupiravir reduced hospitalizations and deaths by half, the drug maker’s stock price immediately jumped to 12.3%.

“Thus, if low-cost ivermectin works better than, or even the same as molnupiravir, that could cost Merck billions of dollars,” Peterson wrote.

Pharma giant Merck is facing accusations of price gouging after it charged the U.S. more than $700 per patient for a taxpayer-funded coronavirus treatment that, according to research, costs just $17.74 to produce.https://t.co/BSYYnPmRBl

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) October 8, 2021

Peterson takes on science of hydroxychloroquine

Peterson said based on his review of the evidence, his office did not find clear and convin­cing evidence that would warrant disciplining physicians who prescribe hydroxychloroquine for the prevention or early treatment of COVID after first obtaining informed patient consent.

Peterson pointed to similar findings with hydroxychloroquine — a less toxic derivative of a medicine named chloroquine — widely used since it was approved by the FDA in 1955 for treatment of malaria.

Peterson noted that as early as 2004, a lab study revealed chloroquine was “an effective inhibitor of the replication of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in vitro” and should “be considered for immediate use in the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV infections.”

In 2005, another study showed chloroquine had strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection and was effective in preventing the spread of SARS-CoV in cell cultures.

Other studies showed hydroxychloroquine exhibited antiviral properties that can inhibit SARS-CoV-2 virus entry, transmission and replication, and contains anti-inflammatory properties that help regulate pro-inflammatory cytokines.

Peterson wrote,

“many large observational studies suggest that hydroxychloroquine significantly reduces the risk of hospitalization and death when administered to ­particularly high-risk outpatients as part of early COVID-19 treatment.”

Peterson said the drug is considered to be so safe it can be prescribed for pregnant women, yet during the pandemic, the FDA raised questions about hydroxychloroquine and adverse cardiac events.

These concerns prompted one group of researchers to conduct a systematic review of the hydroxychloroquine safety literature pre-COVID. Their review indicated people taking hydroxychloroquine in appropriate doses “are at very low risk of experiencing cardiac [adverse events], particularly with short-term administration” of the drug.

Researchers noted COVID itself can cause cardiac problems, and there was no reason “to think the medication itself had changed after 70 years of widespread use,” Peterson wrote.

Peterson said one piece of key flawed data had substantially contributed to safety concerns surrounding the drug — the admittedly fraudulent Lancet study that falsely claimed hydroxychloroquine increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID.

The findings were so startling that major drug trials involving hydroxychloroquine “were immediately halted” and the World Health Organization pressured countries like Indonesia that were widely using hydroxychloroquine to ban it. Some countries, including France, Italy and Belgium, stopped using it for COVID altogether.

Peterson wrote:

“The problem, however, is that the study was based on false data from a company named Surgisphere, whose founder and CEO Sapan Desai was a co-author on the published paper.

“The data were so obviously flawed that journalists and outside researchers began raising concerns within days of the paper’s publication. Even the Lancet’s editor in chief, Dr. Richard Horton, admitted that the paper was a fabrication, a monumental fraud and a shocking example of research misconduct in the middle of a global health emergency.”

Despite calls for the Lancet to provide a full expansion of what happened, the publication declined to provide details for the retraction.

As with ivermectin, the FDA and NIH adopted positions against the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID — making assertions that were unsupported by data. The AMA, APhA and ASHP, which opposed ivermectin, also resisted hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID.

By contrast, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and other physician groups, support the use of both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as an early treatment option for COVID. Peterson cited an article co-authored by more than 50 doctors in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine who advocated an early treatment protocol that includes hydroxychloroquine as a key component.

Governing law allows physicians to prescribe ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, AG says

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 38-179 generally defines unprofessional conduct as a “departure from or failure to conform to the standards of acceptable and prevailing practice of a profession or the ethics of the profession, regardless of whether a person, consumer or entity is injured, or conduct that is likely to deceive or defraud the public or is detrimental to the public interest.”

The regulation governing physicians states that unprofessional conduct includes:

“[c]onduct or practice outside the normal standard of care in the State of Nebraska which is or might be harmful or dangerous to the health of the patient or the public, not to include a single act of ordinary negligence.”

Peterson said healthcare providers do not violate the standard of care when they choose between two reasonable approaches to medicine.

“Regulations also indicate that physicians may utilize reasonable investigative or unproven therapies that reflect a reasonable approach to medicine so long as physicians obtain written informed patient consent,” Peterson wrote.

“Informed consent concerns a doctor’s duty to inform his or her patient, and it includes telling patients about the nature of the pertinent ailment or condition, the risks of the proposed treatment or procedure and the risks of any alternative methods of treatment, including the risks of failing to undergo any treatment at all.”

Peterson said this applies to prescribing medicine for purposes other than uses approved by the FDA, and that doing so falls within the standard of care repeatedly recognized by the courts.

Peterson said the U.S. Supreme Court has also affirmed that “off-label usage of medical devices” is an “accepted and necessary” practice, and the FDA has held the position for decades that “a physician may prescribe [a drug] for uses or in treatment regimens or patient populations that are not included in approved labeling.”

Peterson said the FDA has stated “healthcare providers generally may prescribe [a] drug for an unapproved use when they judge that it is medically appropriate for their patient, and nothing in the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) limit[s] the manner in which a physician may use an approved drug.”

In a statement to KETV NewsWatch 7, Nebraska’s Department of Health and Human Services said:

“The Department of Health and Human Services appreciates the AG’s office delivering an opinion on this matter. The document is posted and available to medical providers as they determine appropriate course of treatment for their patients.”

*

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

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Featured image is from CHD

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Latest UK PHE Vaccine Surveillance Report figures on Covid cases show that doubly vaccinated 40-70 year olds have lost 40% of their immune system capability compared to unvaccinated people. Their immune systems are deteriorating at around 5% per week (between 2.7% and 8.7%). If this continues then 30-50 year olds will have 100% immune system degradation, zero viral defence by Christmas and all doubly vaccinated people over 30 will have lost their immune systems by March next year.

The 5 PHE tables below from their excellent Vaccine Surveillance Report, separated by 4 weeks, clearly show the progressive damage that the vaccines are doing to the immune system’s response.

People aged 40-69 have already lost 40% of their immune system capability and are losing it progressively at 3.3% to 6.4% per week.

Weekly Decline in doubly vaccinated immune system performance compared to unvaccinated people…

Everybody over 30 will have lost 100% of their entire immune capability (for viruses and certain cancers) within 6 months.
30-50 year olds will have lost it by Christmas. These people will then effectively have full blown acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and destroy the NHS.

The vaccine booster shots have to be the same as the vaccines themselves, because it takes forever to do clinical trials and get approval for something different. So if you take a booster shot, these figures show that you are giving yourself an even faster progressive form of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (after a couple of months of effectiveness).

Table 2. COVID-19 cases by vaccination status…

Cases reported by specimen date between week 32 and week 35 2021 – see this.

Cases reported by specimen date between week 33 and week 36 2021 – see this.

Cases reported by specimen date between week 34 and week 37 2021 – see this.

Cases reported by specimen date between week 35 and week 38 2021 – see this.

Cases reported by specimen date between week 36 and week 39 2021 – see this.

Pfizer originally claimed a 95% efficiency for their vaccine (calculated as in the last column above). The figures above indicate that their figures may well have been correct immediately after vaccination (the younger age groups have had the vaccine for the shortest time).

But the figures above also show that the vaccines do NOT merely lose efficiency over time down to zero efficiency, they progressively damage the immune system until a negative efficiency is realised. They presently leave anybody over 30 in a worse position than they were before vaccination  For more see here.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense