All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The black prison-like fencing that was a mainstay around Capitol Hill during the first half of the year has gone back up ahead of a protest scheduled this weekend, which President Trump has warned is a “setup”.
The fencing has been re-erected in response to the “Justice for J6” rally planned for Saturday at the US Capitol building, which is focused on the 600 defendants being detained for being part of the January 6th incident.
Video of the fencing also reveals that a motion-tracking watchtower has been put into place, presumably fitted with face recognition cameras and whatever other surveillance equipment is at hand to deploy on Americans practising their right to freedom of speech.
Capitol Police have said the fencing will come down again straight away, if the protest is carried out peacefully.
A statement also noted that
“The USCP has asked the Department of Defense for the ability to receive National Guard support should the need arise on September 18.”
“The new protective barrier, even if only temporary, as officials insist, still reinforces public perceptions that Congress is once again walling itself off as fortress on a Hill, above and apart from the people it purports to represent.”
He continues,
“And that perception only further exacerbates the widening gulf of distrust between the government and the governed. Will a new fence be re-installed every time a planned rally threatens potential violence against Congress?”
Meanwhile, President Trump has warned that the event on Saturday could be used as a “setup”.
In an interview with The Federalist, Trump said “On Saturday, that’s a setup,” adding “If people don’t show up they’ll say, ‘Oh, it’s a lack of spirit.’ And if people do show up they’ll be harassed.”
In a further statement, Trump noted
“Our hearts and minds are with the people being persecuted so unfairly relating to the January 6th protest concerning the Rigged Presidential Election.”
He added that
“in addition to everything else, it has proven conclusively that we are a two-tiered system of justice. In the end, however, JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL!”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The European Parliament passed a resolution on Thursday (16 September) making a clear distinction between the Russian people and the regime of President Vladimir Putin, which it described as a “stagnating authoritarian kleptocracy led by a president-for-life surrounded by a circle of oligarchs”.
The resolution, approved by 494 votes to 103, which came on the eve of a three-day vote to elect a new Russian parliament, states that a democratic future for Russia is possible and that the European Council must adopt an EU strategy for this scenario.
“If this week’s parliamentary elections in Russia are recognised as fraudulent, the EU should not recognise the Russian Duma and should ask for the country to be suspended from international parliamentary assemblies, including the one of the Council of Europe,” said Andrius Kubilius, the Lithuanian MEP who drafted the resolution, following the vote.
However, Russia’s ruling party is expected to secure a resounding victory, although the voting conditions may fall short of democratic standards. Lawmakers demanded that the EU be prepared to withhold recognition of the election results if they are conducted in violation of democratic principles and international law.
The Parliament said the EU must establish an alliance with the United States and other like-minded partners to counterbalance the efforts of Russia and China to weaken democracy worldwide and destabilise Europe’s political order. This broad alliance should foresee sanctions, policies to counter illicit financial flows, and support for human rights activists.
On Russia’s aggression and influence on the EU’s eastern neighbourhood, the EU must continue to support ‘Eastern Partnership’ countries like Ukraine and Georgia and to promote European reforms and fundamental freedoms in the region. These efforts should also serve to encourage Russian support for democratic reforms.
The text added that the EU needs to cut its dependency on Russian gas, oil, and other raw materials, at least while Putin is in power. The European Green Deal and the boosting of new resources will play a crucial geopolitical role in achieving this, it said.
MEPs want the EU to build its capacity to expose and stop the flows of dirty money from Russia and to expose the resources and financial assets that autocrats and oligarchs close to the regime have hidden in EU member states.
“[The EU] needs more courage in taking a strong stance vis-a-vis the Kremlin regime when it comes to defending human rights; this is what strategic engagement with the Russian people is all about. It is about ending domestic repression, returning the choice to the people, and freeing all political prisoners,” said Kubilius.
“The Kremlin’s continuous repression of all opposition candidates, free media and NGOs undermines the legitimacy and fairness of these elections. The Russian people must have the right to choose and their choices must be honoured, as in any other democratic country”, he added.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
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 Mark Taliano for bringing this to our attention.
It is obvious to us that another holocaust of greater magnitude is taking place before our eyes. The majority of the world’s populace do not yet realize what is happening, for magnitude of an organized crime such as this is beyond their scope of experience.
The corporate media narrative that unvaccinated people are filling up the hospitals and dying from COVID is quickly falling apart, perhaps faster than they even expected.
Throughout the previous year, governments and corporations have crushed the exercise of our human rights, constitutional rights, and civil liberties on a massive scale. The scope of the violations integral to the assault on people’s rights is now being rapidly extended into the imposition of government-sanctioned vaccine mandates.
It was scandalous and infuriating to hear President Joseph R. Biden argue last week that his so-called vaccine mandates somehow have nothing to do with freedom or personal choice. In saying that, he has rejected our history, our values and the Constitution he swore to uphold.
Nicholas Wansbutter, a criminal defense lawyer and host of Don’t Talk TV, talks about vaccine passports in Canada. According to him, vaccine passports are extremely problematic for two reasons: 1) issue of consent and 2) human rights implications.
Official sources, namely EudraVigilance (EU, EEA, Switzerland), MHRA (UK) and VAERS (USA), have now recorded many more deaths and injuries from the COVID-!9 “vaccine” roll-out than from all previous vaccines combined since records began.
On August 23rd, 2021, the BC government announced they were moving forward with their plan to implement a Biometric identification (ID) and social credit system in B.C. that is tied to peoples’ COVID-19 vaccine status.
If anecdotal reports and statistics showing a positive correlation between midazolam prescriptions and deaths in the over-65s (3) are to be believed, it appears that euthanasia may have already been taking place on an illegal basis, predominantly in care homes.
The twentieth anniversary of 9/11 last Saturday has raised many of the usual issues about what actually happened on that day. Were hijacked airliners actually crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or was the damage in New York City attributable to explosives or even some kind of nuclear device?
It was surely no coincidence, as the Jimmy Carter administration was looking on in horror at “the loss of Iran” in early 1979, that Washington rapidly moved to increase its presence in the Middle East and surrounding regions. A principal area of focus for the Americans was Afghanistan, which shares a 570 mile border with resource rich Iran to the west.
Last week, on September 9, 2021, the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) Commemorated its Twentieth Anniversary.
A Webinar was held under the title Worldwide Resistance against “Covid Fraud” and the Killer mRNA “Vaccine”.
On Saturday September 18, 2021, we will be holding a Second Webinar, this time under the auspices of our French language website www.mondialisation.ca.
The debate and dialogue will be in French.
Among our speakers and invited guests are: Dr. Pascal Sacré, Pierre de la Chaîne Décodeur and Prof. Michel Chossudovsky. The debate will be chaired by Dr. Micheline Ladouceur.
Below are details of the Webinar. Our English speaking and bilingual readers and authors are cordially invited to participate in this event.
***
Webinaire : Crise Covid-19, Fraude scientifique, « Vaccin tueur » et Passe sanitaire
Le samedi 18 septembre 2021 à 19h (Paris) et à 13h (Montréal)
Le site internet du CRM a été créé le 9 septembre 2001, deux jours avant les événements tragiques du 11- Septembre. À peine quelques jours plus tard, notre site internet (bilingue) devenait une source d’information majeure sur le Nouvel Ordre Mondial et la « guerre contre le terrorisme » de Washington.
Pour commémorer notre vingtième anniversaire, nous invitons nos lecteurs et auteurs à participer à un webinaire axé sur la crise actuelle Covid-19.
Les invités au débat :
Dr Pascal Sacré, médecin anesthésiste-réanimateur
Pierre, statisticien, créateur de la chaîne Décoder l’éco.
Michel Chossudovsky, auteur, professeur de sciences économiques,
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The twentieth anniversary of 9/11 last Saturday has raised many of the usual issues about what actually happened on that day. Were hijacked airliners actually crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or was the damage in New York City attributable to explosives or even some kind of nuclear device? These are fundamental questions and the so-called “Truthers” who raise them have been inspired by their reading of the 585 page 9/11 Report, which is most charitably described as incomplete, though many would reasonably call it a government cover-up.
I have long believed that unless one actually sees or experiences something first hand the description of any event is no better than hearsay. The closest I came to “seeing” 9/11 was the panicked evacuation of a CIA office building, where I was working at the time. Another related bit of 9/11 narrative also came from two close friends who were driving into work at the Pentagon when they each independently observed what appeared to be a large plane passing over their cars and striking the building. I consider the sources credible but was it an airplane or a missile? And I was not there to see it with my own eyes, so I am reluctant to claim that my friends actually saw something that in retrospect might have been misconstrued.
Critics of the physical and engineering aspects of the accepted narrative certainly have a great deal of expert evidence that supports their case. The way the towers fell as well as the collapse of Building 7 nearby are suggestive of something other than the impact of an airliner near the top of the structure, but I am no expert in the science of the matter and have avoided expressing a view regarding it.
Apart from what happened, I have always been more intrigued by “Who done it?” I found the 9/11 Report to be conspicuously lacking in its failure to cover possible foreign involvement, to include the Saudis, Pakistanis and the Israelis. Indeed, President Joe Biden has taken steps that have resulted in the declassification and release of 16 pages of the notorious 28-page redaction of documents relating to any possible Saudi role. The document consists of interviews with Saudi student Omar al-Bayoumi, who reportedly helped support several hijackers.
The Saudis are being sued by 9/11 survivors, but it is unlikely that anything really sensitive will ever be exposed, as explained by investigative journalist Jim Bovard. Indeed, the documents released last Saturday did not demonstrate that the Saudi government itself played any direct role in 9/11, though it is clear that wealthy Saudis and even members of the Royal Family had been supporting and funding al-Qaeda. It is also known that that Saudi Embassy and Consulate employees in the U.S. had funded the alleged hijackers.
Friends who were in CIA’s Counterterrorism Center at the time of 9/11 tend to believe that the Saudis were indeed supporting their fellow citizens while in the U.S. but were likely not knowledgeable regarding any terrorist plot. They observed, however, that there was considerable evidence that Israel knew in advance about what was impending and may have even been instrumental in making sure that it succeeded.
The evidence of Israeli involvement is substantial, based on the level of the Jewish state’s espionage operations in the U.S. and also its track record on so-called covert actions simulating terrorist attacks designed to influence political decision making in foreign countries. But, of course, in reporting on the 9/11 tragedy no one in the mainstream media did pick up on the connection, inhibited no doubt by the understanding that there are some things that one just does not write about Israel if one hopes to remain employed. That is true in spite of the fact that the Israeli angle to 9/11 is without a doubt a good story, consigned to the alternative media, where it can be marginalized by critics as a conspiracy theory or the product of anti-Semitism.
In the year 2001 Israel was running a massive spying operation directed against Muslims either resident or traveling in the United States. The operation included the creation of a number of cover companies in New Jersey, Florida and also on the west coast that served as spying mechanisms for Mossad officers. The effort was supported by the Mossad Station in Washington DC and included a large number of volunteers, the so-called “art students” who traveled around the U.S. selling various products at malls and outdoor markets. The FBI was aware of the numerous Israeli students who were routinely overstaying their visas but they were regarded as a minor nuisance and were normally left to the tender mercies of the inspectors at the Bureau of Customs and Immigration.
The Israelis were also running more sophisticated intelligence operations inside the United States, many of which were focused on Washington’s military capabilities and intentions. Some specialized intelligence units concentrated on obtaining military and dual use technology. It was also known that Israeli spies had penetrated the phone systems of the U.S. government, to include those at the White House.
All of that came into focus on September 11, 2001, when a New Jersey housewife saw something from the window of her apartment building, which overlooked the World Trade Center. She watched as the buildings burned and crumbled but also noted something strange. Three young men were kneeling on the roof of a white transit van parked by the water’s edge, making a movie in which they featured themselves high fiving and laughing in front of the catastrophic scene unfolding behind them. The woman wrote down the license plate number of the van and called the police, who responded quickly and soon both the local force and the FBI began looking for the vehicle, which was subsequently seen by other witnesses in various locations along the New Jersey waterfront, its occupants “celebrating and filming.”
The license plate number revealed that the van belonged to a New Jersey registered company called Urban Moving Systems. The van was identified and pulled over. Five men between the ages of 22 and 27 years old emerged to be detained at gunpoint and handcuffed. They were all Israelis. One of them had $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock and another had two foreign passports. Bomb sniffing dogs reacted to the smell of explosives in the van.
According to the initial police report, the driver identified as Sivan Kurzberg, stated “We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.” The five men were detained at the Bergen County jail in New Jersey before being transferred the FBI’s Foreign Counterintelligence Section, which handles allegations of spying.
After the arrest, the FBI obtained a warrant to search Urban Moving System’s Weehawken, NJ, offices. Papers and computers were seized. The company owner Dominick Suter, also an Israeli, answered FBI questions but when a follow-up interview was set up a few days later it was learned that he had fled the country for Israel, putting both his business and home up for sale. It was later learned that Suter has been associated with at least fourteen businesses in the United States, mostly in New Jersey and New York but also in Florida.
The five Israelis were held in Brooklyn, initially on charges relating to visa fraud. FBI interrogators questioned them for more than two months. Several were held in solitary confinement so they could not communicate with each other and two of them were given repeated polygraph exams, which they failed when claiming that they were nothing more than students working summer jobs. The two men that the FBI focused on most intensively were believed to be Mossad staff officers and the other three were volunteers helping with surveillance. Interestingly, photo evidence demonstrated that they had been seen “casing” the area where they were seen celebrating on the day before, indicating that they had prior knowledge of the attack.
A high-quality photo, top, shows the area the dancing Israelis were staged. Credit | Panamza
The Israelis were not exactly cooperative, but the FBI concluded from documents obtained at their office in Weehawken that they had been targeting Arabs in New York and New Jersey. The FBI concluded that there was a distinct possibility that the Israelis had actually monitored the activities of at least two of the alleged 9/11 hijackers while the cover companies and intelligence personnel often intersected with locations frequented by the Saudis.
The dots were apparently never connected by investigators. Police records in New Jersey and New York where the men were held have disappeared and FBI interrogation reports are inaccessible. Media coverage of the case also died, though the five were referred to in the press as the “dancing Israelis” and by some, more disparagingly, as the “dancing Shlomos.”
Inevitably, the George W. Bush White House intervened. After 71 days in detention, the five Israelis were inexplicably released from prison, put on a plane, and deported. One should also recall that when the news of 9/11 reached Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was pleased, saying that “It’s very good. Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.” It will “strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we’ve experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror.” And, of course, it was conveniently attributable to Israel’s enemies.
The possible role of Israel in 9/11 was first explored in book form in 2003 by Antiwar.com editorial director Justin Raimondo in his The Terror Enigma, a short book focusing on Israeli spying and inconsistencies in the narrative that bore the provocative subtitle “9/11 and the Israeli Connection.”
Currently, the twentieth anniversary of 9/11 has inspired some others to take another look at the possible Israeli role. Ron Unz has recently completed an exhaustive examination of the evidence. He observes that 9/11 and its aftermath have shaped “the last two decades, greatly changing the daily lives and liberties of most ordinary Americans.” He asks “What organized group would have been sufficiently powerful and daring to carry off an attack of such vast scale against the central heart of the world’s sole superpower? And how were they possibly able to orchestrate such a massively effective media and political cover-up, even enlisting the participation of the U.S. government itself?”
Ron Unz answers his question, concluding that there is “a strong, perhaps even overwhelming case that the Israeli Mossad together with its American collaborators played the central role” in the attack. His argument is based on the noted inconsistencies in the standard narrative, plus an examination of the history of Israeli false flag and mass terrorism attacks. It also includes new information gleaned from Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman’s recent book Rise and Kill First: the Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations.
To a certain extent, Unz relies on a detailed investigative article written by French journalist Laurent Guyenot in 2018 as well as on an argument made by an ex-Marine and former instructor at the U.S. Army War College Alan Sabrosky in an article where he records how “Many years ago I read a fascinating discussion of the ‘tactics of mistake.’ This essentially entailed using a target’s prejudices and preconceptions to mislead them as to the origin and intent of the attack, entrapping them in a tactical situation that later worked to the attacker’s strategic advantage. This is what unfolded in the 9/11 attacks that led us into the matrix of wars and conflicts, present (Afghanistan and Iraq), planned (Iran and Syria) and projected (Jordan and Egypt), that benefit Israel and no other country — although I concede that many private contractors and politicians are doing very well for themselves out of the death and misery of others. I am also absolutely certain as a strategic analyst that 9/11 itself, from which all else flows, was a classic Mossad-orchestrated operation. But Mossad did not do it alone. They needed local help within America (and perhaps elsewhere) and they had it, principally from some alumni of PNAC (the misnamed Project for a New American Century) and their affiliates within and outside of the U.S. Government (USG), who in the 9/11 attacks got the ‘catalytic event’ they needed and craved to take the U.S. to war on Israel’s behalf…”
Economist and author Paul Craig Roberts has also been motivated by the anniversary to review the evidence and concludes
“Circumstantial evidence suggests that 9/11 was a scheme of George W. Bush regime neoconservative officials allied with vice president Dick Cheney and Israel to create a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ that would generate support on the part of the American people and Washington’s European allies for a Middle Eastern ‘war on terror’ whose real purpose was to destroy Israel’s enemies in the interest of Greater Israel… This is the most plausible explanation, but, if true, it is not one that the U.S. and Israeli governments would ever acknowledge. Consequently, we are stuck with an official explanation long championed by the presstitutes that no one believes.”
Yes, an implausible explanation that no one really believes for the greatest national security disaster in America’s twenty-first century. And Israel gets yet another pass.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.orgaddress is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Throughout the previous year, governments and corporations have crushed the exercise of our human rights, constitutional rights, and civil liberties on a massive scale. The scope of the violations integral to the assault on people’s rights is now being rapidly extended into the imposition of government-sanctioned vaccine mandates. Working people are now being put squarely in the line of fire. They are facing ultimatums from employers that they will lose their jobs if they do not accept the injection into their persons of dangerous medical products.
In the UK, EU and UK, COVID jabs are already confirmed to have injured many millions and, at the very least, to have killed tens of thousands. The real numbers are probably much larger. Studies have pointed to the likelihood that the scale of deaths and disabilities inflicted by the COVID clot shots are far in excess of the officially-reported figures. See this.
The vaccine mandates are targeting legions of blue-collar tradespersons, service providers, and white collar professionals including professors, doctors, and government administrators.
If enforced, vaccine mandates will form the basis of broader systems of vaccine passports meant to govern the movements, interactions, certifications as well as the entry of people into all manner of establishments, domestically and internationally. If realized, this new mechanism would bring about a fundamental remaking of our societies along decidedly authoritarian lines.
Following in the wake of the enormous damage done by the reckless and nonsensical lockdowns, governments have made themselves pushers of dangerous drugs in the form of COVID jabs known to do way more harm than good. See this.
To employ a sports metaphor, let’s assume that the imposition of masking, lockdowns, and social distancing represents a football field of lost territory for the exercise of our fundamental freedoms. The enforcement of vaccine mandates, which make continued employment of workers contingent upon their receiving COVID jabs, expands the scale of the theft of our rights and freedoms by a huge order of magnitude. Imagine losing the equivalent of say about 100 more football fields of exerciseable liberty to the predators seeking to diminish and subordinate us.
Authorities are seeking to impose vaccine mandates on both public sector and private sector workers. Ultimately, however, it is governments that are empowering the leadership of the corporate world to engage in the imposition of injections as a major condition of employment. The same governments that can empower vaccine mandates also retain the imperative to outlaw the practice of forcing workers to take unwanted jabs in order to retain employment.
The forcing of vaccines on people who depend on jobs for their livelihoods amounts to an assault on individual rights unlike anything we have seen to date. It sets many precedents that change the legal framework for all sorts of human relations inside and outside the workplace.
Moreover the adoption of vaccine mandates implies much more than agreeing to take the current set of COVID jabs. Rather it marks the beginning of an agreement to accept cradle-to-grave programs of regular vaccines. The cumulative effect of these programs will basically be to annihilate the natural immunity of those receiving the shots. Their inherited immunity will be replaced by artificial immunity, engineered to generate rich streams of profit that will flow to the indemnified vaccine manufacturers.
The consequences of all this are enormous. For example, what comes next if it is established that governments and corporations have a legitimate legal imperative to coerce people to accept the injection of toxic substances into their bloodstreams? How could it be that activities once seen as basic rights of citizenship could become privileges reserved for those who subordinate themselves to rule of Big Pharma and its vassal states?
If governments and corporations together with their domination of a complicit media can claim the protections of law to force killer vaccines on us, then what else can’t they do? Some of the most oppressive forces in society will have gained vast new powers to invade our most personal space of all, our very bodies. Hence it is that the successful imposition of vaccine mandates would obliterate the legal and political ground supporting many different categories of individual rights.
The billionaires and their banker friends currently pulling the strings of this manufactured viral crisis are being presented with many green lights to advance a wide array of their nefarious schemes to tighten their control over humanity. The attacks on our social fabric include efforts to eliminate the middle class, to reduce the size of the human population and to put the survivors of the murderous culling into a perpetual state of dispossessed servitude.
There is something diabolical about any plan to create a new set of criteria and procedures that cut masses of workers and their dependents off from paychecks and the necessities they buy. In a capitalist society this form of economic punishment has dire consequences. This threat, therefore, ranks near the top level of coercive measures being ushered into place as we enter the autumn of 2021.
The previous nine months have been a time of unprecedented vaccination hucksterism. Deceptive and glitzy advertising campaigns were mounted to cajole citizens into taking the COVID jabs voluntarily in spite of the reality that the process was a medical experiment lacking full regulatory approval. To the ad campaigns were added many gimmicky incentives such as free beers, joints, lap dances, lottery tickets, and money.
Now the stick is replacing the carrot. People are being told that only by taking the vaccine can they retain jobs and participate in society. The forms of prohibited activity for the so-called unvaccinated might include bans on travel, education, as well as the obtaining of various forms of licenses and certification. The prohibited realm reserved solely for the vaccinated might include various forms of sporting, cultural, dining, and recreational events and facilities.
The propaganda machine is now being primed up to prepare the majority population for this outcome. The minds of the vaccinated are being poisoned to hate the “unvaccinated, or, worse yet, the “anti-vaxxers.” The alleged crime of COVID jab resisters is their failure to conduct themselves in a socially responsible fashion. On the basis of this form of psychological warfare, conditions are being created to justify the creation of a new class of lepers and untouchables. The old institution of South African apartheid and the segregationist Jim Crowe laws in the American South are being dusted off and prepared for a new kind of outcast.
Workers and Their Unions Face Off in the Manufactured COVID Crisis
New forms of panic are reverberating through society as people come to the realization that the manufactured COVID crisis is taking on many new and menacing dimensions. Workers are being put in a vice of opposing pressures. Many of them are being instructed that they have to make a choice between being stabbed with potentially lethal and injurious clot shots or they must accept the termination of their jobs and livelihoods.
This awakening of people to heretofore hidden realities is putting a sudden spotlight on the often-compromised leadership of labour unions. In Canada the crisis is also drawing attention to the moribund state of social democracy. Canada’s New Democratic Party has betrayed its founding principles in its drift towards the fascistic tendencies of Blairite neoliberalism.
A former coal miner, Richard Trumka was until recently the leader of the 12 million member strong AFL-CIO, the largest association of organized workers in North America. In June Trumka declared,
For working people getting vaccinated for COVID-19 is a matter of life and death. The battle against Covid-19 cannot be won without working people. And now we have the best possible tool to protect ourselves, to protect our loved ones, and to protect everyone we proudly and successfully serve. And that’s the COVID-19 vaccines. The vaccines are safe and very effective, totally free and widely available……When we get the shot together we show our solidarity. So let’s roll up our sleeves. Let’s get vaccinated. And then let’s get back to healing and rebuilding this country.
A month after he made this video, Trumka died of a heart attack that may have resulted from blood clots engendered by the COVID 19 injections.
There are, of course, many individual workers who disagree with the position of their union leaders on vaccine mandates and related matters. A popular position among union members is that there should be freedom of choice rather than coercion applied in the administration of COVID jabs.
The workers who tend to be most wary of the health effects of the controversial vaccines include police, firefighters, EMS workers and some nurses. Those who are averse to taking COVID shots are starting to join together with a larger array of dissidents who object to vaccine mandates. Many of those who have been vaccinated do not extend their personal choices to granting permission to impose mandatory vaccines.
In Canada the emerging dissident movement of employed people against mandatory injections goes by the name, Frontline Workers for Freedom. Many of those police, firefighters, and EMS workers publicly demonstrating their commitment to freedom of choice do not have the backing of their unions.
While the big nurses’ unions tend to go along with the other big unions, including the teachers’ unions, the nursing profession is full of internal division and even disgust in some circles. The disgust is derived from the ineptitude shown by some health authorities in their handling of the manufactured COVID crisis. A significant nexus for the dissenting nurses is Canadian Frontline Nurses. See this.
The widespread sense among many nurses is that they are being betrayed and demeaned by their employers. The consequential despair of many nurses is causing them to quit in droves. Now looming on the immediate horizon is a further large-scale removal of the remaining nurses if officials carry out their threats to enforce mandatory vaccines.
Much of the growing disarray in health care facilities is being caused by the growing exodus of health care workers combined with the widespread misrepresentation of those who head to hospitals for vaccine injuries. Hospitals often have many available beds but lack sufficient health care workers to fully service the available facilities. Surgeries are often postponed with the false message that everything can be blamed on the irresponsible behavior of the so-called “unvaccinated.”
Almost every professional group and association has been thrown into a chaotic state by the manufactured COVID crisis. Teachers are in crisis. Honest journalists are rebelling against the imposed regime of dishonesty in reporting. Judges and prosecutors are starting to see that all agencies of law enforcement are losing credibility in the eyes of the public. The list goes on and on.
One cannot help wondering if the chaotic breakdown underway isn’t being instigated from above as part of a plan to ruin public services, but especially in the fields of health care and education. Might this ruination be a prelude to the thoroughgoing privatization of anything that remains of government-supported social services? Might the privatization of even fire fighting agencies be on the table?
The unions of university professors have by and large been in lockstep with the position of the AFL-CIO leadership. As an example, let’s consider the position of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, CAUT. CAUT, it seems, is acting pretty much on the basis of the assumption that governments and the mainstream media are acting in good faith to protect the health of the general public.
As a coalition of all the university faculty associations in Canada, CAUT has adopted a very superficial understanding of the manufactured COVID crisis. David Robinson, CAUT’s Executive Director, has stated,
The best available science tells us that vaccines are effective in reducing transmission and the severity of infection, that very high vaccination rates are required to achieve herd immunity, and that the growing community threat from the Delta variant of the virus is best managed by widespread vaccination.
On the shakey basis of these glib assumptions, CAUT officials seem prepared to accept the inherently coercive nature of vaccine mandates. Robinson tries to tiptoe around this issue by stipulating that vaccine mandates are acceptable in universities so long as “human rights accommodations are followed.”
When addressing the human rights of those who quite reasonably refuse to accept COVID jabs, CAUT suggests that “the unvaccinated can be accommodated through masking, physical distancing, or working or studying from home” as long as “all legal privacy issues are fully respected.”
CAUT seems to be playing into the hands of those that envisage some sort of leper colonies for the unvaccinated. No real room is being left for those who seek to express their human rights, safe from the incursions of injections coercively enforced on entire groups of people without their informed consent. Those who are properly informed generally opt against taking part in the huge medical experiment currently running contrary to the legal requirements of the Nuremberg Code. See this.
As it presently stands, therefore, a key requirement to attend many universities is to take the COVID jabs. By doing so, students, faculty members and staff show a willingness to put aside their own critical thought as well as the conclusions they derive from their own independent research. In other words, they must agree to go along with a program of administrative dictate no matter how flawed the reasoning coming from power-serving administrators.
CAUT’s position on vaccine policy is quite consistent with the waning influence and integrity of this ossified organization in decline. CAUT’s compromised position on mandatory vaccines is consistent with its inadequate protection of academic freedom. The responsibility to protect academic freedom constitutes the main reason for CAUT’s existence in the first place. CAUT is duty bound to safeguard academic freedom as its highest priority.
From my own work experience in collaborating with CAUT officials, I can say the organization gives lip service to the goal of protecting academic freedom but it is unwilling to act assertively in controversial cases. CAUT’s failure to do its job is perhaps reflected in the dearth of assertive faculty members at Canadian universities willing to voice controversial positions on the real character of the manufactured COVID crisis
Trade Unions and Prosperity Now and in the Past
What is to be made of the concerted push to institute vaccine mandates, vaccine passports and medical apartheid within the framework of burgeoning surveillance states? This push is creating the basis for much future controversy and division within the realm of trade unionism and labour relations. This development is not surprising. Labour relations have been an area of great contestation throughout major conflicts of many different kinds.
A few snapshots from history might present a small panorama of the historical background of trade unionism as it applies to the current situation. I think of the Ford Motor Company factories in the Detroit area in the 1930s when Henry Ford hired anti-Soviet Ukrainian union busters to keep out organized labour. I think of the decades following World War II when Roosevelt’s New Deal was applied in a way that caused increased wealth and benefits to flow towards unionized workers. Many of them were able to enter the middle class on the basis of good factory jobs.
I think of the last three decades when North American plutocrats undermined trade unionism on this continent by transferring whole industrial complexes to China. The other side of the massive growth in manufacturing in China resulted in a form of deindustrialization throughout North America. Rust belts replaced thriving manufacturing centers.
Millions of jobs were thus ceded away. Domestic workers were ruthlessly deplatformed from well-paid positions leaving whole communities as well as the main elements of the trade union movement seriously crippled. Millions of victims of the process suffered many severe consequences becoming the so-called Deplorables inclined to vote for Donald Trump.
This history has set the framework of the present crisis that exists in large measure because of the propensity of many folks who see themselves as Left Progressives to accept the manufactured COVID crisis at face value. For this constituency, the proclaimed crusade to fight and destroy COVID represents a means of empowering government authorities to act on behalf of what they wrongly assume is the collective good.
In recent times most of the Left is especially guilty of betraying many of its core principles as it sides with Wall Street, Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Media and big corporate networks of many kinds. Those who operate these enterprises from the towering heights of socialism for the very rich have many of their own agendas. The agendas include demolishing the last remnants of the welfare state.
As Todd Gitlin predicted in 1996 in the Twilight of Common Dreams, the Left began to falter when it abandoned its heritage of emphasis on big universal themes like the oppressive orientation of the ruling class towards the working class. In the place of this inclusive approach, the Left became a balkanized realm obsessed with diversity and the splintered perspectives emanating from massive engagements with identity politics. Little by little the conditions evolved to the point that characterizations of any group could only come from members of that group.
Now we are facing an onslaught of booster shots, vaccine mandates and vaccine passports. If these massive initiatives are allowed to go forward, what comes next? Will those who seek to escape the penetration of coercively-injected COVID stabs subsequently find themselves in internment camps for their re-education?
When will those woke individuals who see themselves as Left Progressives actually wake up to what is going on? What would it take for them to say, enough is enough? Can the trade union movement in its diminished state reinvent itself? Can it disentangle itself from the machinations of a ruling class intent on expressing its conquistadorial impulses by ruthlessly exploiting its own manufacturing of the COVID crisis?
*
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. Hall is editor in chief of the American Herald Tribune. He is currently Professor of Globalization Studies at University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada. He has been a teacher in the Canadian university system since 1982. Dr. Hall, has recently finished a big two-volume publishing project at McGill-Queen’s University Press entitled “The Bowl with One Spoon”.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Washington has elected to withdraw its air defense systems from Saudi Arabia.
This leaves the Kingdom out to dry in a moment when Ansar Allah (the Houthis) are ramping up their cross-border attacks by way of drones and missiles.
The Prince Sultan Air Base, a key Saudi-led coalition facility, used to house a high-altitude air defense unit (THAAD) and a missile defense system in addition to Patriot missile batteries.
Today, the pads remain empty, with the Pentagon admitting that “certain assets” were removed. In desperation, Saudi Arabia has even accepted a Patriot anti-aircraft missile battery and a deployment of 120 soldiers to work on the system.
Meanwhile, against this worrisome backdrop from Riyadh, Iran is gradually increasing its arsenal of locally produced unmanned aerial vehicles, which it transfers to its allies in the region.
The removal of the US defense systems is an encouraging sign for Iran. As a result, the supply of attack drones, which are essentially copies of US-made RQ-170 Sentinel to the Houthis is likely to continue and even increase.
This is further substantiated by a statement by the UN Special Envoy for Yemen Hans Grundberg, who assumed the post in August, after the previous envoy Peter Griffiths failed entirely.
On September 10th, Grundberg admitted that Yemen is “stuck in a state of war for an indefinite period”, and it will not be easy to resume negotiations on ending the more than six-year conflict.
On its part, the United States simply said that it would restore aid to the regions under Houthi control, and their terrorist designation would be lifted.
Riyadh is entirely right to feel left out in the open, as not only is Washington removing security assets from the Kingdom, but it is even indirectly supporting the Houthis by providing aid.
What could potentially sway the war further into Ansar Allah’s favor is the battle for Marib city. It is the last major urban center controlled by Yemen’s puppet government, and the area is home to most of the country’s oil and gas reserves.
The expectation is that no negotiations will take place until the Houthis take Marib, as it would be quite a significant leverage. It is an odd goal, as Marib houses nearly 4 million refugees, meaning an incredible number of mouths to feed, while Saudi-backed puppet government is currently providing some form of care for them.
It is essentially another way of funneling resources from Riyadh, in addition to targeting and destroying its military equipment and facilities.
Most recently, Saudi Arabia lost a Chengdu Wing Loong II spy drone, shortly after it lost control over a large area south of Marib city.
Meanwhile, on the southern Taiz front, the Houthis have regained control over the town of al-Kadhah, Maghdar and Ruwai mountains areas, following the withdrawal of Saudi-backed forces due to lack of financial support from the international coalition.
The fight is gaining momentum, and Saudi Arabia, yet again, shows that it is incapable of adequately participating in the chaos.
*
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).
On September 9, President Biden announced he would circumvent the democratic process, ordering the Secretary of the Department of Labor to require employers with over 100 workers to “ensure their workforces are fully vaccinated or show a negative test at least once a week.”
This was essential, as Biden said, “to protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated workers.”
As we have explained, the Secretary of Labor will issue these regulations through OSHA by way of an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). The ETS would allow the Secretary of Labor to issue the vaccine mandate without the normal administrative rulemaking requirements (like notice and public comment periods).
While the Biden Administration tells the public that there’s no time to waste in issuing the mandate, the truth is that OSHA/Labor failed to argue the necessity of a vaccine mandate since the vaccines have been available – a time period approaching one year. Moreover, the Biden Department of Labor is secretly meeting with the US Chamber of Commerce and business lobbyists to gather support for the mandate. As Bloomberg Law reports:
Solicitor of Labor Seema Nanda held a virtual meeting with Neil Bradley, the Chamber’s chief policy officer, and other business lobbyists. The Chamber, the largest business lobbying group in the U.S., has yet to publicly declare a position on the coming Occupational Safety and Health Administration emergency rulemaking.
It was one of at least three briefings the department held Friday for labor union leaders and employer associations—constituencies the White House hopes to forge partnerships with to lift the vaccination rate nationwide. Information from the calls was disclosed to Bloomberg Law by eight sources who took part, all of whom requested anonymity because they didn’t have approval to speak publicly.
Why the Vaccine Mandate is Unconstitutional
As you can imagine, the constitutionality of the vaccine mandate will be litigated as soon as OSHA issues the rules. The media is running interference, telling the public that challenges to the mandate are “unlikely to succeed.”
Do not believe them.
The legality of the vaccine mandate will be assessed under what is called the major rules doctrine (also known as the major questions doctrine). Under this doctrine, the courts look to (1) whether the agency action is a major rule; and (2) whether Congress has clearly authorized the agency action.
As Justice Scalia stated in 2014, “We expect congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance.’”
From here we turn to the first question of the major rules doctrine: there is zero doubt that it is a major rule. It would affect the healthcare decisions – and implicate the personal autonomy – of “some 80 million private sector workers.” It is an action never before taken by OSHA, the Department of Labor, and any other federal agency. It would affect the entire US economy.
In support of my position, we have seen lesser invasive agency rules be determined to be major rules. For example, “rate-regulations” of telephone companies has been held to be a major rule. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 512 U.S. 218 (1994).
From there we get to the second question: whether Congress has clearly authorized the Department of Labor/OSHA to mandate vaccines. The answer is no.
If Congress clearly authorized (not just authorized, but clearly authorized) Labor/OSHA to mandate vaccines, then we would have seen such authority in the OSH Act of 1970. Look for yourself – the language isn’t there. Instead, there are general grants of authority to “set mandatory occupational safety and health standards.”
Looking to the history of OSHA, this authority has been understood to regulate employer actions to provide a safe workplace (Benzene limits) or employee actions at work (operation of heavy equipment). The OSH Act has never been understood historically to include mandatory vaccinations. This is significant because the Supreme Court recently looked to agency history to determine the CDC lacked the authority to issue its latest eviction mandate.
For an example of “clear authority” relating to public health, look to the authority Congress gave HHS to take action in case of “significant outbreaks of infectious diseases.” Going further, to allow the mandate would be to allow OSHA to require vaccination as a condition of employment. The OSH Act contains no such language or authority.
So there we have it. This is a “major rule” and Congress has not “clearly authorized” Labor/OSHA to issue a vaccine mandate. It is an unlawful – and unconstitutional – seizure of authority by the Executive. Expect further challenges on whether the ETS itself (and the finding of “grave danger”) is legal.
We also observe that we by no means concede Congressional authority to mandate vaccines. (In other words, Congress could not give OSHA/Labor this authority because Congress has no such authority to give.) You may have seen some pundits argue that the 1905 case of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts gives this authority. These arguments are misplaced, as that was the Supreme Court over 100 years ago considering state, and not federal, authority.
One Final Point – Why Justice Kavanaugh Matters
Image on the right is from The National Review
In 2017, when Justice Kavanaugh was sitting on the DC Circuit, he wrote a dissent from a denial of rehearing en banc, in which he thoroughly summarized the major rules doctrine. He argued that the FCC’s net neutrality rule was unlawful, in that it was a “major rule” that was not clearly authorized by Congress.
Kavanaugh’s 2017 dissent was one of the most (or perhaps the most) comprehensive discussions of the major rules doctrine ever written in the DC Circuit. Kavanaugh went through a number of Supreme Court cases in support of his position and argued the doctrine essential to uphold the separation of powers. To this author, it reveals Kavanaugh values this doctrine and believes it should be applied with vigor.
We see an example of this in Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in the original application to vacate the stay of the CDC eviction moratorium (June 29, 2021), where Kavanaugh wrote “clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium.”
Whether Kavanaugh has the courage to apply his convictions is another matter.
*
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).
The corporate media narrative that unvaccinated people are filling up the hospitals and dying from COVID is quickly falling apart, perhaps faster than they even expected.
WXYZ TV Channel 7 in Detroit asked their viewers on their Facebook Page last Friday to direct message them if they lost a loved one due to COVID-19 if they refused to get one of the COVID-19 vaccines.
This is a clear indication that they are getting desperate to find these stories, and are having a difficult time finding them.
I don’t know if they got any such stories through direct messaging, but the post on their Facebook Page, as of the time of publication today, had received over 182,000 comments, and they seem to be all comments of those who have lost loved ones after receiving a COVID shot, and comments asking them why they are not covering that story.
I paged through many dozens of the comments, and did not see a single one stating that they lost someone to COVID after refusing a COVID-19 shot.
People who have been silenced and censored on Facebook and other Big Tech platforms took advantage of the opportunity to share their stories instead. It is amazing that Facebook left these up, but after so many had commented, it would probably have been an even bigger story if they had taken down the post and comments.
I wonder what WXYZ will do now? Will they do what most corporate media companies do, fueled by almost unlimited resources from their billionaire Wall Street owners who are almost all connected to the pharmaceutical industry, and just go out and hire actors instead to do the story and make them up?
Here are a few screen shots of the comments that are representative of what people are posting, in case they do take this down.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Chinese hardliners just had their stance justified by the erratic, verging on unhinged, behavior in the United States and by its military.
First the storming of the capitol on Jan 6. Seen from Beijing it looked like a failed coup, a botched but serious attempt to upend US politics. Now, a book by journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa claims US General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called General Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army not once but twice.
First on October 30, 2020, just four days before the election. The second call took place on January 8, two days after Trump supporters stormed the Capitol. Milley sought to assure Li that the United States was stable and not going to attack.
However, he said, if there were to be an attack, he would alert his counterpart ahead of time. Schizophrenic? This places Li in an impossible position. How does he tell his boss, Xi Jinping? He would have to inform the Chinese president that a US general had just said that they won’t attack with nuclear weapons but if they do they will be notified. Can you trust him to let you know? Is it a veiled threat? At the very least you would have to put your forces on alert.
Imagine this in reverse. If a Chinese general had called his US counterpart. The US would say that China is out of control. The response on the Capitol would be apoplectic. Talk shows would be asking viewers if the US should have launched a pre-emptive strike.
Thus ushers in the age of Aukus. This is not a version of Covid. Australia the UK and US have announced a security pact to share advanced defense technologies.
The partnership will enable Australia to build nuclear-powered submarines for the first time.
The pact will also cover artificial intelligence, quantum technologies and cyber space. At least that’s the official version. In reality it is targeting Beijing where it is viewed as a fig leaf to cover the US withdrawing from the Asia-Pacific region. A new military alliance. Just for argument’s sake let’s suppose the PLA Navy was in a stand-off with a UK or Australian naval vessel. Would the US protect its allies or ring Beijing?
US President Joe Biden has even been snubbed by Xi. There was a time, until quite recently, when a summit with a US president was seen as a huge propaganda victory for China. Not any longer. Biden suggested the possibility of a meeting with Xi during a phone call on September 10, but the Chinese president rejected it. Xi hasn’t left China for more than 600 days, ostensibly because of Covid. But the reasons he didn’t want to meet Biden are political rather than health-related; quite simply, nothing to be gained domestically from it.
The Nixon-Mao meetings of the early 1970s introduced a period of mutual-interest politics anchored by greater engagement. For China it was a path to modernization and growth. For the US the meetings offered the prospect of a huge market and the end of a threat of a Cold-War scenario.
This relationship was not derailed by the bloodshed on and near Tiananmen Square in 1989 or China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001 nor its trade surpluses with the US. It survived the US bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999 and occasional White House decision to sell arms to Taiwan or meet with the Dalai Lama. Nor did clashes over censorship and human rights, tapering off in later years, cause too much upheaval. Nixon was the first of 10 US presidents who have managed China relations. Xi is the third Chinese leader since the reforming Deng Xiaoping.
China under Xi is less accommodating, less willing to engage, and less sure of the value of US relations. Its economic success has fuelled a nationalism that the West has never had to deal with before. After all, despite the apparent success of closer ties, a US general has nonetheless suggested that his country could attack China. This will have profound implications.
Trade ties have actually decoupled from political tensions. Official Chinese data show that bilateral trade between the two countries has seen a surge in 2021. Ironically, this bodes ill for future ties. It used to be claimed that closer commercial ties would lead to greater political engagement. This is clearly not the case. China has immense problems, including a slowing economy, pollution and corruption. But despite this, Xi feels China’s time has come. He may even tell Li to put all calls from Washington on hold.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Geopolitical analyst Tom Clifford reporting from Beijing.
September 16th, 2021 by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
“This is not about freedom or personal choice.” — President Joseph R. Biden, Sept. 9, 2021
It was scandalous and infuriating to hear President Joseph R. Biden argue last week that his so-called vaccine mandates somehow have nothing to do with freedom or personal choice. In saying that, he has rejected our history, our values and the Constitution he swore to uphold.
He made his ignorant statement while outlining his plan to have the Department of Labor issue emergency regulations requiring every employer in America of 100 or more persons to compel all its employees to receive a vaccine against COVID-19, or the employer will be fined.
He claims the authority to issue these orders under the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act, or OSHA. Though it has been around for 51 years, OSHA is profoundly unconstitutional, as it purports to authorize federal bureaucrats to regulate private workplace property unavailable to the public.
Congress enacted this legislation relying on its Commerce Clause power in the Constitution. But the Commerce Clause — according to James Madison, who wrote it — only empowers Congress to keep commerce regular; it does not empower Congress to regulate the conditions of production of goods and services intended for commerce.
However, notwithstanding the plain language of the Commerce Clause — “Congress shall have power … to regulate Commerce … among the several States” — the Supreme Court, since the era of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, has given Congress a blank check authorizing it to regulate anything that affects commerce. Congress has used this clause to justify its vast expansions of federal power more than it has used any other clause in the Constitution.
Nevertheless, there is no authority for federal workplace regulation in the Constitution, as it was reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment. That amendment declares that the states kept for themselves that which they did not delegate to the feds.
OSHA has regulated everything from the number of legs on a swivel chair to the brightness of lightbulbs to the number of lobsters that may commercially be drawn from the sea. And the states have supinely accepted those regulations.
It is no surprise that the president, wanting to tell people how to live, would look to OSHA to accomplish his goals. Unfortunately for Biden, the Supreme Court has ruled in Roe v. Wade and elsewhere that personal medical privacy and — with respect to declining medications — absolute bodily autonomy trump governmental interests.
Of course, Biden has ignorantly praised Roe, not for its protection of the inviolability of the human body, but for its wretched authorization of abortion. Roe’s failure to recognize fetal personhood is its catastrophic flaw.
Yet, even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. And on this point — you, not the government, control your body — Roe is correct. Professor Murray N. Rothbard has demonstrated conclusively that we each own our bodies. It follows from this that we each can determine what goes into our bodies.
And the Ninth Amendment underscores that we have many personal rights not enumerated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights and the government is required to respect them. After the right to live, ownership and control of your own body are foremost among those unenumerated rights.
The president, like all of us, is subject to the laws of nature and is obliged to recognize the natural law. It posits that our rights come from our humanity, and not from the government. It was with the natural law in mind that Madison authored the Ninth Amendment and its protection of unenumerated rights.
If self-ownership is not among those rights, then nothing is. If the government owns our bodies, or somehow can trump our personal ownership of them, then we have no rights.
Every state permits a sick person to reject medication. Biden not only rejects that right, but he rejects the right of healthy persons to decline an experimental vaccine.
What’s going on here?
Freedom in America has been milked dry by Leviathan since the Woodrow Wilson years. Leviathan is a continually growing government that recognizes no limitations on its own power. OSHA is but one of hundreds of examples of the do-gooder, nanny-state federal government that has assumed for itself — from nowhere but our complacency — the power to tell us how to live.
Government is essentially the negation of liberty. Liberty is the default position because we are born with our rights. Some liberty should be negated, like the liberty to harm another’s person and property. It should be negated from all — including the government. Government is a thief in the night when it takes — rather than protects — liberty or property.
Does the government work for us, or do we work for the government?
Such a question would have been laughable 100 years ago. But today, the government treats us as if we work for it because we have permitted it to do so. We supinely let the federal government right any wrong, regulate any behavior, tax any event, start any war, kill any foe, seize any property and crush any liberty as if our rights came from it, and as if the Constitution had no meaning or authority.
This is the same government that can’t deliver the mail, fill potholes, stop robocalls, spend within its means, abide by the laws that it has written or follow the Constitution — and Biden wants it to force vaccinate us!
All modern presidents have misunderstood their obligations under the Constitution. From Wilson to Biden, they have argued that their first job is to keep us safe. That obligation is self-assumed. Their first job under the Constitution is to keep us free. Even if the government keeps us safe but unfree, we have the duty to alter or abolish it. The alternative is the twilight of freedom and the coming age of voluntary servitude.
*
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).
A war is coming. I have heard it argued that this war must be avoided; that it is “exactly what the establishment wants.” I disagree. I think globalists like those at the World Economic Forum certainly want enough chaos to provide cover for the implementation of their global “Reset” agenda, but they don’t want a full blown rebellion. They only want events in which the outcome is controllable or predictable – They do not want a massive organized resistance that might surprise them.
Ultimately it doesn’t matter because the war is already at our doorstep. A person has two choices: Fight or be enslaved. There is no third option. There is no walking away. There is no hiding from it and there is no passive solution to it.
Joe Biden’s recent declaration of a federal level nationwide vaccine mandate has all but ensured that conflict is inevitable. Why? Because it is the first major step towards a two-tier society in which the unvaxxed are cut out of the economy. The next step? Forced vaccinations under threat of fines and imprisonment, the threat of confiscation of one’s children, or vaccination at the barrel of a gun. Needless to say, this was not at all surprising to me. In December of last year I published an article titled ‘If You Thought 2020 Was Bad, Watch What Happens In 2021’, stating that:
“There will then be a major push to require medical passports proving a person is not infected to enter into any public place. This means submission to 24/7 contact tracing or getting a new vaccine whenever ordered to. Basically, your life will be under the total control of state or federal governments if you want to have any semblance of returning to your normal life…..New mutations of COVID-19 will be conveniently found every year from now on, meaning the public will have to get new vaccinations constantly, and medical tyranny will never go away unless people take an aggressive stand.”
I have also mentioned often in the past that Biden WOULD institute federal level vaccines mandates and possibly even Level 4 lockdowns. We are not to the point yet of lockdowns by executive order, but the Biden Administration is trying to dive headlong into the control agenda with an executive order stating that all businesses in the US with 100 employees or more must require those employees to provide proof of vaccination or demand employees show a negative covid test weekly (which will be impossible for most people). In other words, the Orwellian rise of vaccine passports has officially begun in the US.
Not only was Biden’s announcement an utter violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it was also condescending and vitriolic towards Americans who refuse to become guinea pigs for the experimental and untested vaccines. Biden suggested that the establishment “Has been patient, but their patience is wearing thin.”
I have to say, Biden is in for a shock if he thinks we care.
I can’t cover every single lie and logical fallacy in Biden’s speech because that is not the purpose of this article. I can only once again point out some very basic logical conclusions and pieces of scientific evidence which debunk most of Biden’s nonsensical blather. Since he seems to be so interested in why we are “hesitant”, let’s go through this ONE MORE TIME, shall we…
1) The median death rate of covid according to almost every single medical study and every official government tally remains at 0.26% of the infected. Given that around 40% of all covid deaths happen among people in nursing homes with preexisting conditions, it is likely that the actual death rate is much lower. But let’s just say that it is in fact 0.26% – Why is there any need to impose draconian medical controls over a virus that 99.7% of people will easily survive? Why not create a support fund for the 0.26% of people that are truly at risk so they can stay home while the rest of us get on with regular life?
2) Throughout the course of the pandemic in the US the largest percentage of hospital ICU beds that have been occupied by covid patients is 17%. That is the PEAK of covid in the ICUs. For the past few months the percentage has been closer to an average of 8% or less. This is according to the government’s own stats, which the CDC now buries instead of posting openly for easy viewing by the public. So, when the corporate media or Biden claims that the ICUs are “overwhelmed” by covid patients, this is a lie
A new nationwide study of electronic hospital records on covid patients also shows nearly half of covid “hospitalizations” are actually people that are asymptomatic, not deathly sick people as the media often portrays.
3) The experimental mRNA covid vaccines have NO long term testing to prove their safety over the long term. At least none that has ever been released to the public. The average vaccine is tested for 10-15 years before it is approved and released for use in humans. The covid vaccines were rolled out in mere months. Again, there is NO PROOF whatsoever that the covid vaccines are safe in the long term, and there are already a number of examples of lack of safety in the short term. Why would we trust an experimental protein spike vax that has nowhere near the same testing history as the majority of other normal vaccines?
4) Multiple studies in nations with high rates of vaccination, including a recent study from Israel, prove that there is no such thing as a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” In fact, 60% of infection cases in Israel are actually fully vaccinated people. Furthermore, Israel has found that vaccinated people are 13-27 times more likely to get infected than people with natural immunity, and they are 8 times more likely to end up in ICU.
These findings reinforce data released a month ago out of Massachusetts, where 5100 covid infections were fully vaccinated people and 80 of them died. In other words, the vaccines don’t work so great, especially when compared to natural immunity.
5) Data from the Public Health England and the NHS shows that the vaccinated and unvaccinated have almost identical rate of infectiousness. In other words, a vaccinated person is almost as likely to give you covid as an unvaxxed person.
Now, let’s present some rational questions in the face of this irrational covid circus of fear:
If the experimental vaccines actually work, then how are unvaccinated people a threat to vaccinated people and why should unvaccinated people be forced to take the jab?
If the vaccines don’t work, then, again, why should ANYONE be forced to take an untested and unreliable vax?
Slow-Joe argues that the vaccinations are “safe and effective” against covid, but only seconds later in the same breath he claims that “unvaxxed people are a threat to vaccinated people.” He promotes the lie that this is a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”, then says the vaccinated are in danger. Even a child could pick up on the inherent contradictions in Biden’s claims.
As always, the issue of “mutations” is brought up in defense of 100% vaccination campaigns. But if “mutations” are the concern, then why isn’t the government addressing the fact that a vaccinated population is just as likely if not more likely to create mutant variants of a virus when compared to unvaccinated people? Why are the unvaxxed being singled out as the supposed menace to society?
The biggest question is – Why should anyone submit to covid mandates at all? Mandates are not laws, they are color of law restrictions without legal merit. The bottom line? Unconstitutional orders are not to be followed. This leads us to the state and local strategies for fighting back against the federal passport mandates. Let’s get into it:
Simply Ignore The Mandates And Carry On With Life As Normal
How does Biden plan to enforce these mandates on businesses? If they refuse to go along to get along, what can he do about it? Who would he send to threaten or punish these businesses? Who would be dumb enough to follow that order? Does he plan to send the IRS, the FBI, the Health Department? Someone has to do it, right? And what happens when a business is threatened and a crowd of conservatives in the community come to its defense? What happens when local and state law enforcement get in the way of federal agencies? What is Biden going to do about that? Answer – Nothing, at least not anything direct.
The Indirect Method Works Both Ways
If Biden is confronted with solid resistance to the passports in communities and states, there is really only one path he has left, which is indirect pressure through economic penalties. Biden WILL attempt to force states to comply by cutting of federal funds and tax dollars. This idea might terrify some people because there is a percentage of the population in every state that relies on federal EBT and other programs for their survival. However, the federal government can be punished in the same way just as easily by the states. Let me explain…
Confiscate Federal Lands And Resources
Any state that is cut off from its rightful share of tax dollars can easily claim domain over federal lands and the resources on them. It is the EPA restrictions on these lands that have been unfairly used to kill numerous industries across the country. With proper management, these resources can be used to revitalize state economies and offset any federal funds lost.
Offer Businesses Federal Tax Exemptions If They Relocate
Red states can also punish the federal government by stopping IRS tax collections within their borders and turning the tables on Biden. Numerous businesses would be itching to escape Biden’s high tax rates and would bring jobs and wealth into red states, leaving the conformist blue states in the dust.
Boot Federal Agencies Out Of The State Or County
Local law enforcement is refusing to enforce mandates in many places, which is a good start, but eventually sheriffs and communities may have to remove federal presence entirely in order to stop violations if civil liberties.
Offer Safe Havens For Military Personnel That Go AWOL To Avoid Forced Vaccination
A large percentage of soldiers say they will not comply with federal vax requirements and this is completely understandable given the evidence I just presented above. It would be to the benefit of red states to offer protection for soldiers that leave the military based on the principle of health autonomy. Perhaps they could even help in forming state militias…
Reduce Restrictions On Medical Treatment Facilities – Start Vax Free Clinics
30% to 40% of medical professional depending on the state say they will not take the experimental vax, and they are willing to lose their jobs in the process. Why not get these people with valuable medical skills to come to red states and counties and let them set up clinics outside of suffocating federal regulations? This may even reduce the prices on medical care in many cases.
Form Trade Relationships With Other Free States
Conservatives and constitutionalists need to organize and unify, and the best way to do this is to start with trade. It is likely that Biden will attempt to interfere with imports and the supply chain when it comes to red states, so they will need to stick together economically in order to prevent disruptions to the availability of goods. We need to rethink how states interact with each other and build more independent production and trade instead of relying on overseas suppliers. We will also need commodity backed banks with commodity backed currencies, because the buying power of the US dollar isn’t going to last much longer anyway.
Unify For Defense
If Biden and the globalists continue to push for medical tyranny in states and counties that do not want it, there will eventually be calls for secession. There will also be attempts by blue states to restrict the travel of people from red states using covid passport checkpoints. We all know this is coming. All conservative counties should be organizing localized security through public militias, and state governments should be thinking along these lines as well. If there’s one thing authoritarians HATE more than anything else it is suffering the existence of free neighbors. They will try to stop us from being free, and we must be ready to answer their violence with our own.
Finally, I would like to speak to Joe Biden directly, since Joe was so keen on personally addressing us:
Joe, let me clarify this in the simplest terms possible so that you can grasp it – You are not important. You are not a lawmaker and you are not a ruler, you are an employee of the American people, that is all your are supposed to be. And though you may wish to be a dictator, that’s not going to happen. We will not allow it. I realize that you are a puppet and that your globalist handlers make most of your decisions and write most of your statements for you, so you can pass this message on to them as well: WE WILL NOT COMPLY. It’s not going to happen. Get used to the idea.
We are peaceful people and always have been. Our tolerance of your trespasses thus far is proof of that. But do not mistake our peacefulness as weakness. If you keep coming after us, you will regret it. We will teach you an important lesson in humility; a lesson you and your elitist friends sorely need and will not enjoy. This is a promise.
*
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).
It was surely no coincidence, as the Jimmy Carter administration was looking on in horror at “the loss of Iran” in early 1979, that Washington rapidly moved to increase its presence in the Middle East and surrounding regions. A principal area of focus for the Americans was Afghanistan, which shares a 570 mile border with resource rich Iran to the west.
The exit of Iran from US auspices, due to a sustained popular revolt, constituted one of the Cold War’s defining episodes; it was a heavy blow to US supremacy and has influenced American foreign policy ever since.
The Iranian revolution was also “a great, unexpected benefit for the Soviets as the United States lost its primary ally in the Persian gulf area”, writes former CIA boss Robert Gates as “A major US ally in a critical region of the world virtually overnight had become an implacable enemy”. The US-backed Shah monarch, having presided over Iran in often brutal fashion for a quarter of a century, was forced to flee the capital Tehran on 16 January 1979.
It was during this time, “at the beginning of 1979” Gates wrote in his 1996 book ‘From the Shadows’, that Carter’s cabinet “began looking at the possibility of covert assistance to the insurgents opposing the pro-Soviet, Marxist government of President Taraki” in Kabul, Afghanistan (1). US plans to intervene covertly in Afghanistan were, therefore, developing almost a year before the December 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. For a long time, it was claimed in official circles and the media that US support for the Afghan mujahideen (militant extremists) commenced in 1980, that is following the Russian military intervention, which is far from the truth.
The Carter White House was deeply concerned, that as Moscow was consolidating its relationship with the Soviet-friendly government in Kabul from late 1978, the Kremlin would thereafter develop ties to the new Islamic Republic of Iran. Revolts could then spread east to neighbouring Pakistan, possibly leading to the fall of the Zia-ul-Haq military dictatorship supported by the Americans.
This would result in further weakening of US power while potentially strengthening the Soviet position, and perhaps even preventing or delaying the USSR’s later collapse. Before long, president Carter was describing Soviet actions regarding Afghanistan as “the greatest threat to world peace since World War II”. (2)
Afghanistan’s communist president Nur Muhammad Taraki, a long-time leader of the People’s Democratic Party (PDPA), assumed office in late April 1978. In doing so Taraki’s PDPA had ousted and liquidated the pro-Western strongman, Mohammed Daoud Khan, who was in power since 1973.
The US Embassy in Kabul acknowledged they could find no evidence of Russian involvement behind Taraki’s rise to power (3). As early as 30 April 1978 Harold Saunders, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, stated in a secret memorandum that “we need to take into account the mix of nationalism and Communism in the new leadership [of Afghanistan], and seek to avoid driving the new regime into a closer embrace with the Soviet Union than it might wish”. (4)
Once the 60-year-old Taraki had claimed the presidency, it was within Moscow’s interests to pursue relations with the Marxist government there, as Afghanistan shared a border with the Soviet states of Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
On 5 December 1978, Taraki and the Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev signed a 20 year friendship and co-operation treaty in the Kremlin (5). This landmark deal involved mutual economic, military and technical aid, tying the two countries irrevocably together. With Soviet influence growing on Afghan soil, the Washington Post reported on 6 December 1978 that American and British planners are “worried about the impact on troubled Iran to the west, as well as on the other Persian Gulf states whose oil is vital to the West”.
US governments had traditionally paid little attention to Afghanistan, until the late 1970s that is. Now everything was changing. In the spring of 1979, the CIA was surveying Afghanistan as a replacement for its essential TACKSMAN signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection facilities (6), which had been located in Iran. These CIA TACKSMAN sites conducted large-scale intelligence operations through interception of radar, weapons systems, communications systems, etc. By using this advanced technology the CIA was able, for example, to secretly monitor Soviet missile test activity.
Gates, who would be the CIA Director under George H. W. Bush, revealed that, “The senior intelligence community leadership, the SCC [Special Co-ordination Committee], and the Congress spent an extraordinary amount of time and effort in the spring of 1979 figuring out how to replace the TACKSMAN sites” (7). The CIA facilities in Iran were unexpectedly lost forever, with the success of that country’s revolution. On 16 April 1979 the CIA Director, Stansfield Turner, said it would take 5 years to completely restore CIA capabilities. (8)
Veteran intelligence analyst Jeffrey T. Richelson observed that “the most important sites operated by the CIA during the Cold War were located in Iran, and known as TACKSMAN I and TACKSMAN II. The first site, a telemetry intercept station, was established in the late 1950s in an ancient hunting castle at Beshahr [a city in northern Iran], on the southeastern corner of the Caspian Sea – with the objective of collecting signals from the Tyuratam test range [in Kazakhstan], which the CIA believed would become a major Soviet test facility”. (9)
The second CIA TACKSMAN site, created in the mid-1960s, was based in north-eastern Iran, just 40 miles away from the country’s second most populous city, Mashhad. At their most proficient, the TACKSMAN centres provided the CIA with around 85% of its entire intelligence data on the Russians’ Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) program.
Richelson continued, “President Jimmy Carter considered the [TACKSMAN] sites sufficiently important that he told his ambassador to Iran, William Sullivan, that intelligence cooperation between the CIA and Iran should continue despite the Shah’s poor human rights record” (10). Panicked by Iran’s sudden independence, the Carter administration’s strategy on Afghanistan was developing at a steady pace.
On 2 February 1979, the Washington Post reported an eyewitness statement outlining that at least 2,000 Afghan militants were undergoing training at former army bases in Pakistan, which shares a 1,640 mile frontier with Afghanistan (11). This training program, clearly aimed against the Afghan communists, was jointly co-ordinated by the CIA and ISI, the latter being Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency.
On 5 March 1979 – nearly 10 months before the Soviet military offensive in Afghanistan had begun – the CIA Director Turner, a retired US Navy Admiral, dispatched several covert action options to the SCC on Afghanistan (12). The SCC was subordinated to the National Security Council (NSC), the principal forum used by the American president on foreign policy and military affairs.
Carter was acquainted with Turner since the mid-1940s, when they were in the same class together at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. Carter appointed Turner as the CIA Director in March 1977.
Again on 5 March 1979, a CIA memorandum sent to Washington stated that “the insurgents had stepped up their activities against the government” in Kabul “and had achieved surprising successes” while “the Soviets were clearly concerned about the setbacks to the Afghan communist regime, and that the Soviet media was accusing the United States, Pakistan and Egypt of supporting the insurgents”. (13)
On 6 March 1979, the SCC convened a meeting in Washington “and requested new options for covert action” on Afghanistan Gates wrote, who spent 26 years with the CIA and National Security Council.
In mid-March 1979, president Taraki was becoming increasingly concerned as an insurgent revolt erupted in western Afghanistan, the so-called Herat uprising, which was suppressed after a few days by communist forces. Yet the violence had left thousands dead. Taraki was facing resistance from many fundamentalist and Orthodox muslims, because of his progressive programs, such as land reform measures and the introduction of education, literacy and equal rights for women. (14)
On 20 March 1979, Taraki requested the Soviet Union to intervene with ground forces in the country (15). The Kremlin refused, seeing no extensive US interference in Afghanistan at this point, though the Soviets did increase clandestine military assistance to Kabul. Soviet prime minister Alexei Kosygin said, “The entry of our troops into Afghanistan would outrage the international community, triggering a string of extremely negative consequences in many different areas”.
In late March 1979 the CIA’s Deputy Director, Frank C. Carlucci, was told by the CIA Directorate of Operations (DO) that Pakistan would likely be interested in aiding the Afghan guerrillas. Pakistan’s anti-communist ruler and US ally General Zia, who had taken power in July 1977, sent a senior Pakistani official to meet up with a CIA officer; whereby assistance was discussed for the Afghan mujahideen, including the provision of light weaponry and ammunition (16). Pakistan’s position was that, should US support be withheld, they would not help the mujahideen for risk of incurring “Soviet wrath” on their own.
The implication is clear: without US involvement in Afghanistan, outside backing for the mujahideen would hardly have taken off the ground. Also at this time in March 1979, a high level delegate from Saudi Arabia raised the possibility of setbacks for the Soviets in Afghanistan, and said that his regime was considering officially proposing that Washington aid the insurgents (17). A CIA memo expounded that the Saudis could be expected to dispense with funding to the mujahideen, and encourage Pakistan to follow suit, all dependent on America pulling the strings.
On 28 March 1979 Arnold Horelick, the US National Intelligence Officer covering the Soviet Union, wrote to CIA Director Turner in Langley, Virginia. Horelick felt that “the Soviets may well be prepared to intervene on behalf of the ruling group” in Afghanistan (18). He went on that should Washington offer aid to the insurgents, America could “turn the tables on the Soviets for their actions in Africa and Southeast Asia” and “encourage a polarization of Muslim and Arab sentiment against the USSR”.
On 30 March 1979 the SCC chaired an “historic” meeting in Washington, Gates noted (19). At this conference Walter Slocombe, a US Department of Defense official, pondered a scenario of “sucking the Soviets into a Vietnam quagmire” in Afghanistan. David D. Newsom, the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, said that it was official US policy to undermine the Soviet presence in Afghanistan; and to show Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and others that Washington was determined to lead the way, in reversing the perceived Soviet advance into US domains of interest.
American author Steve Galster, who spent considerable time in Afghanistan during the 1980s war, wrote that in March 1979, “At the White House, National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski warned President Carter that the Soviet Union, with its hundreds of advisors in Afghanistan to assist in reforms and counterinsurgency operations, had territorial designs on Afghanistan and possibly the whole South Asia region. Brzezinski and others worried that the USSR might take advantage of its presence in Afghanistan – in order to influence events in neighboring Iran or Pakistan, two traditionally pro-American countries that for years had helped safeguard US interests in the region, namely access to oil and the containment of the Soviet Union”. (20)
An Afghan insurgent commander travelling overseas contacted a CIA official, and asked him that the CIA provide some direct aid to the anti-communist militants (21). Turner reported this to Brzezinski, the influential US National Security Advisor.
From April 1979, accusations by the Kremlin and Soviet media were growing that the US, its allies and also China were instigating unrest in Afghanistan. These claims would prove accurate over time. Gates recalled how, “We learned on April 4 [1979] that the Chinese had informed the Afghans that they might supply arms to the Afghan mujahiden” (22). It is worth remembering at this time that there was a notable improvement in Sino-American relations, with president Carter having established full diplomatic ties with China.
On 6 April 1979, US strategy on Afghanistan was taking definite form, as another SCC conference was held in Washington late that morning. The following options were proposed: a limited propaganda campaign highlighting Soviet involvement in Afghanistan; indirect financial assistance to the guerrilla fighters; direct funding to Afghan émigré organisations to bolster their anti-communist activities; nonlethal material aid; weapons support; along with a variety of training and support options. (23)
Elsewhere during April 1979, US advisers were quietly meeting with “rebel representatives” opposed to Taraki’s Marxist government. (24)
Significantly, in May 1979 a CIA officer met with the Afghan mujahideen’s top commander, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a particularly radical figure in following years dubbed “the butcher of Kabul”. This meeting was convened by a Pakistani military member, who said in an interview in 1988 that he had introduced Hekmatyar to the CIA official. Hekmatyar received more US financial aid than any other mujahideen leader (25). Later, the Ronald Reagan administration “collected radical Islamists from around the world” prominent American analyst Noam Chomsky said, including “the most violent, crazed elements they could find – and tried to forge them into a military force in Afghanistan”. (26)
In early June 1979 Carlucci, Deputy Director of the CIA, observed the unstable conditions in Afghanistan which the US could capitalise on; and he outlined, at a morning CIA staff meeting, that covert action proposals on Afghanistan be brought to a swift conclusion (27). Turner replied to Carlucci that the closing decision rested with Brzezinski, upon a final SCC meeting where president Carter would be in attendance.
This conference “was finally held on July 3, 1979” Gates wrote, with Carter officially authorising CIA aid in order “to help the mujahedin covertly” (28). Carter’s directive of 3 July 1979 (Operation Cyclone) included sanctioning US backing for pro-mujahideen propaganda; along with other acts of psychological warfare, like the establishment of CIA radio access through third-country facilities to brainwash the Afghan population; the provision, either directly or indirectly, of support to the mujahideen, of either cash or “nonmilitary supplies”. (29)
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Notes
1 Robert M. Gates, From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider’s Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War (Simon & Schuster, 1st edition, 7 May 1996) p. 143
2 Richard A. Melanson, American Foreign Policy Since the Vietnam War: The Search for Consensus from Nixon to Clinton (Routledge, 3rd edition, 31 Dec. 1999) The Carter Administration
3 Steve Galster, Volume II: Afghanistan: Lessons from the Last War, Afghanistan: the Making of U.S. policy, 1973-1990, The National Security Archive, 9 October 2001
4 Malcolm Byrne, Vladislav Zubok (and assisted by National Security Archive staff), The Intervention in Afghanistan and the Fall of Detente, The National Security Archive
5 Kevin Klose, “Soviets Sign Treaty With Afghanistan”, Washington Post, 6 December 1978
6 Gates, From the Shadows, p. 132
7 Ibid., p. 116
8 Byrne, Zubok, The National Security Archive
9 Jeffrey T. Richelson, The CIA and Signals Intelligence, The National Security Archive, 20 March 2015
10 Ibid.
11 Byrne, Zubok, The National Security Archive
12 Gates, From the Shadows, p. 144
13 Ibid.
14 Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The Second Cold War: Geopolitics and the Strategic Dimensions of the USA (Springer 1st ed., 23 June 2017) p. 401
15 Charles G. Gogan, Partners in Time, The CIA and Afghanistan since 1979, Summer 1993, World Policy Journal, p. 1 of 10, Jstor.org
16 Gates, From the Shadows, p. 144
17 Ibid.
18 Marvin Kalb, Deborah Kalb, Haunting Legacy: Vietnam and the American Presidency from Ford to Obama (Brookings Institution Press; 1st edition, 1 July 2011) p. 76
19 Gates, From the Shadows, p. 144
20 Galster, The National Security Archive, 9 October 2001
21 Gates, From the Shadows, p. 146
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid., pp. 145-146
24 Galster, The National Security Archive, 9 October 2001
25 Michael Crowley, “Our Man in Kabul?” The New Republic, 9 March 2010
26 Noam Chomsky, interviewed by David Barsamian, Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World (Metropolitan Books, 1st edition, 5 October 2005) p. 107
27 Gates, From the Shadows, p. 146
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid.
Featured image: Brzezinski visits Osama bin Laden and other Mujahideen fighters during training.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Recently, the staff at the rest stops along the highways in South Korea are forced by the Ministry of Transportation to wear T-shirts that say “conversation is prohibited” and to tell all visitors that they must wear their masks so as to completely cover their faces.
Buddhist monks are being compelled by each Buddhist sect to be vaccinated if they wish to remain in their temples while high school students are compelled to be vaccinated, or thrown out of school. And restaurants in Seoul are slowly starting to demand proof of vaccination when seating groups of more than three people.
But there is a growing resistance to the COVID19 regime, that has been covered even by mainstream media sources like the network SBS.
For example, Kim Woo-gyeong, a lawyer representing the student Hong Ye-young, filed an emergency request to stop mandatory vaccines for third-year high school students in South Korea on July 19 at the Cheongju local court–where the Disease Control and Prevention Agency (DCPA) is located. The request was but part of a legal effort to block the dangerous implementation of the vaccine regime that is supported an association of parents across the country.
Although the request for an emergency halt required a decision from the government within a few days, the response was delayed for over ten days. Moreover, the court notified Kim by phone, days before the hearing, that the DCPA was not prepared to respond to the emergency request and demanded a further delay.
When a hearing was held on August 12, the presiding judge had been inexplicably changed. The new Judge, Kim Seong-soo, summarily dismissed the request without explanation, and brushed off questions concerning the unreasonable delay as a “misunderstanding.” His attitude suggested that his primary role was to block any action.
Lawyer Kim, sensing that due process had reached a dead end, requested the recusal of the judge in light of his bias. The emergency request for a stop of vaccinations went no further, but the larger law suit against the DCPA continues with greater intensity.
The DCPA has become the default government of South Korea over the last year, working together with corrupt elements in the National Intelligence Service and in the corporate world to force-feed the vaccine regime to the Korean people. In most likelihood, the sudden change of the judge was the result of the use of classified directives within DCPA that make it impossible for the government to reveal the nature of internal governance.
The fight against bio-fascism, and against the vaccine regime in specific, is clearly growing in Korea. Although traditionally Koreans tend to have a high level of trust in the government, as opposed to Americans and Europeans, now that the official numbers of dead as result of vaccines have surpassed 700 (which is just a fraction of the actual number killed) an unspoken unease is creeping into conversations. Whereas friends asked each other whether they had been vaccinated as a new greeting, and donned that cute “I was vaccinated” buttons given out by the government, harsh anti-vaccination postings, and demands for the execution of public officials on the internet are increasing.
You would never guess if you looked at the television news. Half of content is people lining up for vaccines, discussions of the merits of different brands of vaccines, and interviews with happy children who tell us how great they feel after their jabs.
It is only right-wing media sources, like the Epoch Times (run by the Falungong cult), that are permitted to report on the dangers of the vaccines in depth. This odd state of affairs does not represent the high quality of journalism at the Epoch Times, a far-right anti-communist journal funded by a handful of rich patrons in Taiwan and elsewhere, but is rather the product of an intentional political game wherein only the most virulent anti-Chinese media is allowed to report on the danger of vaccines so as to make it appear as if the Moon administration is pro-Chinese because it promotes vaccines. The truth is that President Moon is deeply unpopular in China where he is perceived as an American stooge.
Christian groups have bravely stood up against the vaccine regime. The Christian Daily (Gidok ilbo) ran several important articles critiquing COVID19 policy that were widely read. In addition, the Christian doctor Oh Gyeong-seok, located at the Atlanta University of Health Sciences, has taken the lead in the fight to report on the true dangers of masks and vaccines.
But the Christian opposition to the COVID19 regime also has some wrinkles in it. The willingness of Christians to seek out the truth has been critical, but Christians are being manipulated as a means of drawing attention away from the real players.
For example, the government dispatched officials to churches to block Sunday services and to enforce ridiculous social distancing rules during August COVID19 lockdowns.
These actions were taken at the same time that buses and subways were subject to no restrictions. Yet not a single COVID19 case was reported in the crowded subways or buses.
The bias against churches was obvious. Yet, it made no political sense for the Moon administration to single out churches. Most likely that these actions were forced on Moon by the globalists so that he could be branded as a communist in the media.
The drive to blame everything wrong with COVID19 policy on North Korea and China, rather than multinational corporations, is one of the most popular themes in the conservative media.
Perhaps the most important source for information about the COVID19 scam is “Corona Mystery,” a compact and logically structured book packed with scientific facts. Written by Kim Sang-soo, a doctor practicing traditional Korean homeopathic medicine, “Corona Mystery” is written in an accessible style that made it an underground best seller, especially among young people trying to understand what is going on.
Sadly, many of the high school students who have learned the truth about COVID19 from “Corona Mystery” were nevertheless forced by their parents to take the vaccine. The result has been not only serious health problems, but also despair and suicide.
Dr. Kim Sang-soo is the head of MASGOV (Medical Association to Ensure Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations) a group of ethical doctors who have stepped forward to demand an end to the vaccination regime. They issued a declaration on August 15 in which they stated that there was no scientific justification for facemasks, that social distancing policy must be ended immediately, that schools must be reopened and that vaccination policy must be entirely rethought.
The Seoul National University professor emeritus Lee Wangjae has given numerous lectures for the public about the misinformation on COVID19.
Korea has a few brave bloggers willing to take this criminal operation by the horns, providing in-depth reports for the public that are otherwise unavailable. Shin Jaeno, under his pen name “Truth Musician ZENO,” offers some of the most creative and inspiring work. Shin gave up his musical career, and his social life, to dedicate his days to writing broadcasts on COVID19 and documenting criminal actions in Korea, and around the world, that have resulted. He translated many videos from English to Korean for a general audience.
Image for Truth Musician Zeno” by artist Kim Kido
Shin wrote several important protest songs against the COVID19 regime that have inspired young people to be politically active. Although his postings on YouTube, Daum, Naver, and elsewhere are deleted as quickly as he gets them up, he never gives up.
Shin joined forces last year with Kim Hyung-nam, a former government official and a lawyer, to establish the Pandemic Investigation Committee (PIC). This organization has been central in advocating for science in the medical field and for opposing the mask and the vaccine mandates.
The Pandemic Investigation Committee organizes Saturday protests in Gwanghwa Gate Plaza, in downtown Seoul, at which a group of loyal members deliver speeches, distribute materials about the true nature of the covid pandemic, put on amusing performances, and confront the police and government officials who are sent to disrupt.
Another regular protestor of the Pandemic Investigation Committee is Ri Nayun, a vocal critic of South Korean political oppression and an advocate for closer ties with North Korea. She has delivered some of the most passionate speeches at the protests, and takes the lead in questioning the legal authority of government officials who try to stop the protests. She has been on a hunger strike for the last week demanding an end to vaccinations of children.
Ri Nayun’s hunger strike in Seoul
Han Seong-young, a former member of the Korean Federation of Trade Unions (an organization that was previously central in leftist politics but that is promoting vaccines today) also plays a critical role in the administration of the Pandemic Investigation Committee.
Another musician deeply involved in the protests is Choe Sung-nyon (known also by his nickname “choeREDi”). Choe spent time in jail for his protests of the election fraud that brought Park Geun-hye to power in 2013. He was also active in the protests against the fraudulent 2020 election that gave the Democratic Party a gross advantage.
Choe had the tenacity to establish a “Khan Communist Party” in violation of the National Security Law and to take on the full power of the corporate state in his political magazine “Mal.” “Mal” (language) was the title of an important intellectual journal that closed down in 2009. Choe uses music and language to carve a new space for expression in a banal modern society.
The Pandemic Investigation Committee shares the same protest space on the Gwanghwa Gate Plaza with right-wing organizations attacking the Moon administration as a communist front and promoting the US-Korea Alliance. Although the leftists in the PIC might be expected to clash with the right-wing protesters, the groups share common ground on the issue of vaccines, and the criminality of the Moon administration, that makes unexpected exchanges possible.
Kim Taepyong, a government official at the provincial court for Chollanamdo Province, led a spirited protest on September 1 in front of the provincial offices in which he held up a banner with a picture of a wolf declaring that the government was lying about vaccines and must stop making fools of the citizens. Mr. Kim explained, “I was a student activist a long time ago and dreamed of creating a better world. When I watched how the lives of citizens running small stores were destroyed by COVID19, I could not stand it any longer. Even it was me alone, I would protest.”
Oddly, although Koreans have not organized the massive protests that we see in Europe and the United States. The police in Korea have not used the same level of brutality to suppress protests and to enforce fines for not wearing a mask. If anything, harassment of protesters is less today than it was a few months ago.
The true Korean wave
Although the promotion of the bogus response to COVID19 in Korea as a symbol of Korea’s rise to the status of global leadership was a clear set-up used to flatter the population into accepting dangerous policies, Korea still has the potential to play a role in the response to this massive criminal action.
Although relatively small in number, Korea has intellectuals and citizens who are deeply committed to exposing the crime and they are increasing in number. Moreover, the police and the military have not been mobilized to violently suppress opposition to the degree found in Europe or Australia.
Most importantly, neighboring North Korea has gone the furthest to oppose the COVID regime of any other nation. If the two Koreas can find reconciliation quickly, there may be a road to freedom to be found on the peninsula.
*
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.
Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.
Featured image: Kim Woo-gyeong addressing supporters (All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated)
I Shall Fear No Evil
Why we need a truly independent candidate for president
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
On September 9, 2021, President Joe Biden publicly issued sweeping statements and demands that make it clear that, whether they like or it, millions more people will have to get vaccinated or risk losing their livelihoods and security.[1] His posture has been described by mainstream media as “aggressive.” Many alternative news and information sources describe Biden’s actions as righteous, arrogant, authoritarian, and incoherent.[2] Biden asserted that choice and freedoms are not the issue. He dismissed both in one breath. One’s right to consent to something was banished in three seconds. Many have also asserted that Biden does not have the legal authority to make and enforce such top-down mandates. Others claim that his White House speech on vaccinations is full of contradictions and disinformation.
Like Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and many other capital-centered ideologues and “leaders,” Biden keeps disinforming the polity with the worn-out dogma that economic recovery is largely dependent on getting everyone vaccinated. We are to believe that the broad and stubborn economic failure confronting everyone today is largely caused by the virus and that once the virus is “under control” through vaccines rush-produced by for-profit companies with a long record of malpractice, the economy will soar and flourish. A variety of mainstream news sources have been desperately reinforcing this disinformation for more than a year; they have no interest in economic science.
However, despite an enormous number of vaccinations issued worldwide, despite a large portion of humanity “taking the jab” already,[3] the economy keeps declining and decaying; many serious economic distortions, problems, and uncertainties persist. Inflation, debt, inequality, homelessness, poverty, under-employment, and environmental destruction, for example, appearing to be growing. More than one million people per month are still filing unemployment claims in the U.S. alone and job “creation” numbers are superficial and unimpressive. In addition, the U.S. labor force participation rate remains historically low and the number of long-term unemployed remains high. On top of all this, millions of employed workers are living pay-check to pay-check, which means that even full-time employment is no guarantee of security and prosperity. Various surveys also show that large majorities are not hopeful about the future and health of the economy.
It is no surprise that euphoric economic growth forecasts made just weeks or months ago by “leaders” and “experts” are already being revised downward—in some cases significantly. The ruling elite is always embracing magical thinking; they are not on good terms with reality.
It is also being said that large numbers of people will end up leaving their jobs—voluntarily or by being fired—rather than compromise their right to conscience and get vaccinated. This could mean even fewer workers taking available jobs and even more retailers, businesses, and services operating in dysfunctional, disruptive, and unreliable ways without employees. Thus, for example, many nurses, teachers, police officers, and other workers are choosing the right to conscience and unemployment over mandated vaccination. Thousands of businesses are already struggling to fill low-paying positions in the context of constantly-rising inflation and an uncertain future. The American Hospital Association said that Biden’s vaccination plan “may result in exacerbating the severe work force shortage problems that currently exist” (See this). Not surprisingly, some organizations have already started to oppose Biden’s vaccination plan.
The economic depression confronting humanity at home and abroad will not be overcome by leaving major owners of capital in power while workers, the people who actually produce the wealth that society depends on, remain marginalized and disempowered. Economic collapse will not be reversed by funneling more socially-produced wealth to different monopolies and oligopolies, while leaving everyone else with less. Fostering policies, agendas, and arrangements that make the rich even richer is a recipe for deeper problems, not a promising path forward. To date, billions of vaccination shots at home and abroad have not stopped or slowed a range of serious economic problems.
Since the start of the never-ending “COVID Pandemic” more wealth has become concentrated in even fewer hands and more people have experienced more psychological, social, and economic problems. Inequality has soared over the past 18 months (See this).
The current economic crisis started long before 2020 and is rooted in the same contradictions that produced big economic problems before 2020. Even if there were no covid virus mutations, the economy would still be declining because economic upheavals are endemic to the capitalist economic system. Depressions and recessions are not caused by external factors. To claim that the economic system is generally sound but runs into problems now and then because of exogenous forces is nothing more than a way to apologize for the outmoded economic system.
Without major changes, without vesting power in workers themselves, economic crises will keep recurring and deepening. The rich and their representatives have shown time and again that they are unable and unwilling to solve economic and health crises, let alone in a human-centered way.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Shawgi Tell, PhD, is author of the book “Charter School Report Card.” His main research interests include charter schools, neoliberal education policy, privatization and political economy. He can be reached at [email protected].
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
This is the way the corrupt agency blames Covid deaths on the unvaccinated.
So far most deaths from the vaccine occur during the first two weeks.To blame these deaths on the lack of vaccination instead of on the vaccine, the CDC rules that you are not actually vaccinated until two weeks after having the second injection.
The CDC defines a “vaccine breakthrough infection” as “the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen in a respiratory specimen collected from a person 14 days after they have completed all recommended doses of the Food and Drug Administration authorized Covid-19 vaccine.”
This is one of the tricks the corrupt “public health agency” uses to scare people about Covid and use fear to drive them to inoculation.
Another trick, already much reported, is to run the PCR Covid test at 40 cycles which guarantees as much as 97% false positives.This deception is the source of the scary number of “Covid cases.”
There have also been many definitional changes for the purpose of hiding the truth about Covid and the vaccine.Read Joseph Mercola’s article.
Some top scientists are concerned that the future will bring many more deaths from the vaccine as the spike protein it releases into the body does its harm. Until this can be proven not to be the case, it is a criminal act akin to murder to inoculate people with mRNA injections.
The question that presstitutes and “public health” officials shield from the public is why are we being systematically lied to and scared into injections that offer death and injury but not protection?
*
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 and Asia-Pacific 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).
After twenty years of direct military engagement and over four decades of destabilization, the United States has left a trail of devastation in Afghanistan.
The crises of food deficits, economic underdevelopment and destroyed towns, villages and urban areas, will require enormous global assistance in preventing widespread famine and further internal conflict.
A recent statement from the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) indicated that four million people in the country are in dire need of nutritional assistance. Many of the people in the greatest need of food reside in the rural areas.
FAO Director of the Office of Emergencies and Resilience has told the Associated Press that 70% of the nearly 40 million people in Afghanistan live in rural areas. 7.3 million of the population are facing drought in 25 out of a total of 34 provinces in the country. The lack of food is compounding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic which has not received adequate attention from the western media.
The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) Director General has warned that if there is not a concerted international effort to support Afghanistan, the consequences will have grave implications: “In an interview with The Associated Press, Filippo Grandi said the world faces a difficult choice. He said it needs to balance the danger that an isolated Afghanistan would descend into violence and chaos against the political minefield supporting a Taliban-led government would present. ‘The international community will have to balance pragmatism, the need to keep Afghanistan stable and viable, and the political considerations that would mean supporting a government led by the Taliban,’ said Grandi.”
On September 14, Acting Foreign Minister of the Islamic Emirates of Afghanistan, Khan Muttaqi, announced during a press conference that the Central Asian state was appealing to the international community to resume humanitarian aid. With the announcement of the U.S. withdrawal by the administration of President Joe Biden, many of the aid agencies halted their work in the country.
“Afghanistan is a war-hit country and it needs the international community’s assistance in different sectors, especially education, health and development,” Amir Khan Muttaqi emphasized to the international press. The newly created Afghanistan government composed of members of the Taliban, has been holding regular media briefings since it marched into the capital of Kabul during the month of August. (See this)
During the course of its occupation in Afghanistan, the country became a de facto neo-colony of Washington. The U.S. employed thousands of its own citizens and residents along with many Afghanistan nationals.
These functionaries of the Pentagon, State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and a host of private consultants and contractors, were paid in U.S. dollars and the local Afghani currency bolstered by the world capitalist monetary system. When the rapid retreat of the U.S. was imminent, the national treasury said to be based on $US10 billion in foreign reserves were frozen by Washington and Wall Street.
At present there is a cash shortage in the country hampering the ability of banks to allow customers to access their money. The Afghanistan government has begun to “nationalize” the accounts of wealthy individuals who were closely allied with the U.S.
“Afghanistan’s Taliban-controlled central bank said it had seized nearly $US12.4 million in cash and gold from former top government officials on Wednesday (September 15), including former vice president Amrullah Saleh, Reuters reported. In a statement, the central bank said the money and gold had been kept in officials’ houses, although it did not yet know for what purpose. In a sign that the Taliban are looking to recoup assets belonging to former government officials, the central bank issued a circular to local banks last week asking them to freeze the accounts of politically exposed individuals linked to the previous government, two commercial bankers said.”
Financial institutions and government officials fear that the lack of currency will fuel inflation making the cost of basic commodities even more expensive. The Pentagon and NATO evacuation of its own nationals, permanent residents and those considered “eligible” for immigration status in western and other countries has resulted in the departure of some of the most educated and skilled personnel in Afghanistan.
Investigation Reveals Drone Attack Killed U.S. Allies
One day prior to the final airlift by the Pentagon, August 29, the U.S. launched a drone attack against a residential location in Kabul. Military officials claimed that the target was being monitored for involvement in another possible bombing directed at the Marines or other soldiers.
Thirteen Pentagon troops were killed in an attack which had been predicted by military intelligence for several days. Thousands of Marines were stationed in and around the Hamid Karzai International Airport in order to process those U.S. citizens, residents and migrants seeking to flee Afghanistan.
Subsequent news reports soon after the attack which killed many civilians, documented that the Afghanistan national targeted had worked with a humanitarian agency based in the U.S. He had been cleared along with other family members to leave Afghanistan during the airlift. The materials he was seen loading into the vehicle by a video camera was in all likelihood personal property and luggage for his family in preparation for travel outside the country on a U.S. military aircraft.
“The Afghan man who was killed in a U.S. drone strike last month was an enthusiastic and beloved longtime employee at an American humanitarian organization, his colleagues say, painting a stark contrast to the Pentagon’s claims that he was an Islamic State group militant about to carry out an attack on American troops. Signs have been mounting that the U.S. military may have targeted the wrong man in the Aug. 29 strike in Kabul, with devastating consequences, killing seven children and two other adults from his family. The Pentagon says it is further investigating the strike, but it has no way to do so on the ground in Afghanistan after the Taliban takeover, severely limiting its ability to gather evidence.”
This cold-blooded murder of Afghanis is not an isolated incident. During the entire course of the occupation beginning in 2001, the Pentagon has launched untold numbers of drone and other attacks against those claimed by Washington to be “terrorists”, while afterwards when investigations were conducted, the victims are often times unconnected to the Taliban, al-Qaeda, ISIS or any other perceived enemy of the U.S.
The People’s Republic of China has already demanded that the U.S. be punished for the wanton murder of Afghan civilians. This announcement was made by the Minister of the Chinese Mission to the UN in Geneva, Jiang Duan. The call came amid a joint statement emanating from the 48th Session of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHCR).
Other nations are seeking to aid Afghanistan in its earliest stage of rebuilding. The Islamic Republic of Iran landed a commercial flight at the Kabul airport on September 15.
Neighboring Pakistan has sent a delegation to Afghanistan while encouraging the world, including the U.S., to engage with the Taliban-led government in Kabul. Moeed Yusuf, the National Security Advisor for Pakistan, urged that Washington should listen to its appeal while the State Department has said it is reassessing its relationship with Islamabad. In addition, Pakistan on September 15 announced it was hosting a visit by the Afghanistan Women’s soccer team.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan held discussions over the telephone on September 14 on the current developments in Afghanistan. Khan urged Putin to maintain close contact with Pakistan in regard to relations with Kabul.
“UN envoy Debora Lyons met the Taliban’s Qatar office deputy head Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanekzai and international partners in Doha and discussed humanitarian needs and the rights of all Afghans, especially women and girls, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan said. ‘They also discussed the importance of an inclusive government to enhance Afghanistan’s ability to respond to the daunting economic and development challenges and to ensure the delivery of much needed humanitarian assistance with international support,’ TOLO news quoted UNAMA as saying.”
Therefore, many nations and multilateral institutions are holding discussions and developing cooperative projects with Afghanistan. This posture contrasts with the official positions of the U.S., Britain and the European Union (EU) where all three centers of imperialist power are attempting to thwart the ability of Kabul to reconstruct its society after decades of interventions.
Role of the Pentagon and NATO After the Defeat in Afghanistan
In excess of $US8 trillion has been squandered since the declaration of the so-called “war on terrorism” by the U.S. and NATO. Capitalist countries are facing profound challenges as the combination of failed military adventures, climate change and the social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has stretched their capacity to respond to such enormous crises.
The appearance of a new alignment militarily against China can only result in yet another catastrophic defeat which will have even deeper effects on the economy and social stability of the U.S. Iran has proclaimed that it will not curtail its own national security and foreign policy imperatives in exchange for improved relations with Washington.
Progressive forces inside the U.S. must guard against any attempts by the current administration of President Joe Biden to provoke a military confrontation with Beijing, Tehran, Pyongyang, Havana, Caracas, or anywhere else. There is no such thing as a justified imperialist bombing, intervention or occupation. The actual enemies of the working and oppressed peoples of the U.S. are to be found among the bourgeoisie which is the only class that profits from the war machine.
*
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: Afghanistan withdrawal by the Pentagon portrayed in Global Times (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).
In our bizarre economy, we hear many things, and ideas are constantly being thrown out to us. This all tends to flow together and help us develop a strategy as to how we should cope with the changing times. One thing we continue to hear is that a war is being waged to eliminate cash. Not only are most people going along with this but many have embraced the notion.
Some people view carrying cash as dangerous or burdensome.This also dovetails with their desire to spend more than they can afford, when using a credit card it is far easier to continue spending money you do not have. All things considered, when asked, is the war on cash a real thing being directed from those on high, sadly we must answer yes. Cash reflects “options for the people” and it appears those in charge of such things want in gone.
Currencies were developed to facilitate and ease transactions between individuals and businesses. The war on cash is simply another way Washington can continue to show its favoritism towards big business. Small businesses often rely more on small cash transactions and often lack the ability to process other forms of payment. It is ironic that while big businesses and companies like Amazon flourish with each move government makes, the small businesses on Main Street are left worse off.
A cashless society where records are made and kept reflecting every transaction we make even down to buying a candy bar also allows the government to monitor our every move. This is something Big Brother-type governments strongly aspire to under the guise it will extend its ability to protect us or tamp down on crime, tax evasion, and corruption. For some reason, they seem to think this will allow them to collect more taxes, yet it comes at the same time they continue to tilt the tax code in favor of massive companies.
The way the government has handled coins during the pandemic is a clear indication of its unconcern over the role cash plays in our economy. When coin shortages developed, little or no effort to straighten out the mess was instituted. Considering the massive number of coins sitting unused in jars and cans across America it is a situation that could easily be resolved. In fact, coinage has yet to return to full use following the pandemic, and claims of coin shortages persist.
Another place this “war on cash” is showing its head is that as of July 1st my bank started to charge a “cash handling fee” of 13 cents per hundred dollars. Simply put, banks want and feel they are in a position to charge customers for the “inconvenience” of having their employees handle cash.
Let me be clear, banks, saving accounts, and other vehicles designed to hold cash are paying little or nothing in the way of interest. With the numbers just out that the CPI is up for the 15th straight month, cash is under assault. this reflects the fourth straight month above 5% on a year-over-year basis.
While this is the first time the month-over-month CPI has come in below expectations since November 2020 that is not something worthy of celebration. The CPI is routinely criticized for understating and not accurately portraying the true rate of inflation. Another issue is this could be merely the Delta variant’s impactcreating the illusion inflation is not rising as rapidly as some people think.
Inflation, currency debasement, and a slew of other problems have always haunted those holding fiat currencies. This does not mean placing your wealth into one of the new cryptocurrencies is the solution. It does not help that in our world where everything seems to be manipulated, central bankers and their ilk all seem to be moving in the same direction. The masses are trapped in a box and the sides are slowly being moved inward.
Because central banks must keep a lot of liquidity in the system in order to keep it functioning, we have the potential of reaching the place where we drown in paper money and inflation soars. This would signify the end of this war on cash and that cash had lost. It is difficult to justify leaving your wealth in cash that is rapidly losing its value. As we stare into the face of rising inflation and possibly lower negative interest rates the reality that all fiat currencies are in trouble and this is just one big Ponzi scheme becomes very apparent.
How fast events unfold is impossible to predict. Just as important is the order in which the four major currencies fail. We have good reason to be concerned about this because it has the potential to strip us of our wealth and cause major disruptions throughout society. Until then, which may be years away, cash has value and plays a very important part in our lives.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All images in this article are from Advancing Time
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
One of the main fears about the Brazilian Amazon is beginning to materialize: logging is starting to move from the periphery of the rainforest toward the core of the biome, groundbreaking new research shows.
Tracking cut trees through satellite mapping data, the research found that logging activities cleared 464,000 hectares (1.15 million acres) of the Brazilian Amazon — an area three times the size of the city of São Paulo — between August 2019 and July 2020. More than half (50.8%) of the logging was reportedly concentrated in the state of Mato Grosso, followed by Amazonas (15.3%) and Rondônia (15%).
“Around 20 years ago, we feared that the forest would be devastated in the so-called ‘deforestation arch’ and the movement would migrate from the peripheral areas toward the central region of the Amazon,” said Marco Lentini, senior project coordinator of Imaflora, a sustainable development NGO involved in the mapping project. “Our map shows this is happening now: logging is going toward the Amazon core.”
He said the logging pattern was that of “frontier migration,” adding, “This is something that terrifies us. We have to stabilize this frontier.”
The largest seizure of illegal timber in Brazil’s history saw police recover 226,000 cubic meters (8 million cubic feet) of wood on the border between the states of Amazonas and Pará in March 2021. Image courtesy of the Federal Police in Amazonas state.
The research, released last week, was developed by the Simex network formed by four Brazilian environmental nonprofits: Imazon, Imaflora, Idesam, and Instituto Centro de Vida (ICV). The institutions say they set up the alliance to map, for the first time, logging in almost all of the Amazon. They managed to map seven of the nine states that make up the Brazilian Amazon — Acre, Amazonas, Amapá, Mato Grosso, Pará, Rondônia and Roraima — which together account for almost 100% of timber production from the rainforest.
Although the mapping was unable to specify the exact amount of trees illegally extracted from untouched forests, mostly of the illegalities were concentrated at the triple border between Mato Grosso, Amazonas and Rondônia, where intense logging activity was detected in an Indigenous reserve and a conservation unit, according to Vinicius Silgueiro, territorial intelligence coordinator at ICV, a nonprofit based in Mato Grosso. “Protected areas in this region show a large presence of logging and low level of fiscalization, with a lot of signs of illegality.”
The Sismex map covers areas where the Federal Police made the largest seizure of illegal timber in Brazil’s history earlier this year, recovering 226,000 cubic meters (8 million cubic feet) of wood on the border between Amazonas and Pará states. This operation triggered the ouster of the controversial minister of environment, Ricardo Salles, in June, after he reportedly asked for the release of the wood.
Ten municipalities accounted for almost 200,000 hectares (494,000 acres) of logging, five of them in Mato Grosso, two in Amazonas and the remaining in Roraima, Acre and Pará. Most logging activity, 78%, reportedly occurred on privately owned properties. Legal permits are often used to mask logging in restricted areas through a process known as tree laundering, according to the findings.
A more detailed study developed by Imazon focused on Pará shows that over half of the logging in the state has not received any governmental authorization. From August 2019 to July 2020, 50,139 hectares (123,896 acres) of forest were reportedly devastated, with 55% without authorization from environmental bodies. This represented a 20% growth over the 12 months before, when non-authorized logging totaled 38%, according to Imazon.
The map developed by the Simex network shows concentrations of logging activity in the state of Mato Grosso, followed by Amazonas and Pará. Image courtesy of Simex.Before the advent of the Simex project, only Pará and Mato Grosso had satellite-based maps identifying areas where logging has occurred. Imazon started monitoring Pará in 2008 and ICV joined the iniciative in 2013 by monitoring Mato Grosso. The institutions say that these states were their initial focus for data transparency due to high logging activities.
Logging for timber doesn’t clear forest area as extensively as deforestation does, and vegetation growth over logging sites can make visualization via satellite harder, according to Vinicius Silgueiro, territorial intelligence coordinator at ICV.
“With logging, different than deforestation, there is still some coverage by vegetation. We can identify scars in the forest made by the roads used to move the logs, as well as clear areas for storage. There is a whole infrastructure around logging that helps us find these areas,” Silgueiro told Mongabay in a phone interview.
In most states, however, he said it’s nearly impossible to verify when the logging activity is illegal, due to lack of transparency or technological barriers. Many times, he added, certificates for legal forestry activities are filed on paper, making it hard to cross-reference the database of certificates with the images. The only two states with digitized databases are Pará and Mato Grosso.
Logging activity in the Brazilian state of Rondônia, with trees already tagged and awaiting transportation. Image courtesy of Vicente Sampaio/Imaflora.
Another challenge is that the certificates allowing forest management give the location coordinates, but not the shape file — the digital map — of the area, which hampers efforts to identify through satellite imagery where illegal logging occurs, according to Lentini.
Despite these challenges, there are cases where it is very clear that the logging taking place is illegal, Lentini said: when it happens in protected areas like Indigenous reserves and conservation units. The study found that 6% of logging in the Amazon, or 28,112 hectares (69,466 acres), was in conservation units during the study period; 5% was in Indigenous reserves, at 24,866 hectares (61,445 acres). “These areas don’t have any kind of authorization for legal logging,” Silgueiro said.
A 2018 report by the Greenpeace, titled “Imaginary trees, real destruction,” highlighted the unreliability of Brazil’s forestry licensing and control systems, which it said makes it harder to tackle fraud.
“A critical flaw in the Amazon states’ forestry governance lies in the weakness of the licensing process for sustainable forest management plans,” the report said. For the most part, no field inspections are conducted before management plans are drawn up, or these inspections are of low quality, according to the report.
“This allows the forest engineers … to overestimate volumes or fraudulently add trees of high commercial value to the area’s forest inventory. State agencies subsequently issue credits for the harvesting and movement of this non-existent timber,” which will be logged from forests on Indigenous lands, protected areas or public lands, according to Greenpeace’s investigation.
Pará state environmental authorities seize illegal timber in an inspection operation in 2021. Image courtesy of Agência Pará.
Silgueiro, from ICV, said legal and illegal logging persist in proportions of around 60:40. “The more legal documentation there is for exploring the forest, the more illegal timber there is,” he said. He added that logging fraud will only stop once the whole process becomes traceable through technologies that help estimate the real volume of timber production and track each tree individually. “Traceability of production is essential,” Silgueiro said. “This technology already exists, but producing states are slow at adopting it.”
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: A truck carries logs cut from the Amazon Rainforest in the state of Rondônia. Image courtesy of Vicente Sampaio/Imaflora.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
It is time for Republicans, Democrats and everyone in between to MEET THE MOMENT right now. The tyrannical top-down approach from President Biden must be met with a strong rebuke from state leaders!
Minnesota Must Become a Health Freedom Sanctuary State:
A permanent banishment of vaccine passports
A banishment of private employer vaccine mandates
A banishment of child masking policies
A permanent ban of emergency lockdowns – without exception
*
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 Minnesota Senate Republican Caucus
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Two decades after 9/11, the US prison at Guantánamo Bay still holds detainees who have been charged with no crime. The crimes of Gitmo must end and the base must be returned to the Cuban republic.
Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn has lost many things over the course of the disastrous US “war on terror.” As one of the thirty-nine remaining detainees in Washington’s extralegal prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, he has lost touch with the outside world for nearly two decades.
Presumably, too, he has lost some sense of well-being, and not merely for the psychological and physical distress that imprisonment provokes by design. He was the first prisoner to be subjected to the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” program at an agency black site, making his legacy distinctly sinister among his cohort.
His case is thus notorious among the 780 men and children who have been held at Guantánamo. He was the first to be waterboarded, subjected to forced nudity, deprived of sleep for days on end, and held in a box no larger than a human coffin for long stretches of time.
The same fate befell countless others, but his case, detailed at length in the 2012 Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on torture, is perhaps especially haunting for the precedent that it set. When al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn entered CIA custody following his capture in a US-Pakistani raid in March 2002 in Faisalabad, Pakistan, he still had his left eye. By the time he was transferred from a black site to Gitmo four years later, he had lost that, too.
Mistaken Identity
At the time of his torture, the CIA believed al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn, whom they referred to as Abu Zubaydah, to be the number-three-top-ranking leader of Al Qaeda. As with so many pretenses and declarations that the US government has conjured since September 11, 2001, the agency was incorrect. Allegations of his connection to Al Qaeda have been discredited by both the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the UN Security Council.
The roots of such claims are likely to be found in his role facilitating the travel of a number of militant Islamic fighters in Afghanistan during the early 1990s, after the guerrilla force known as the Mujahideen had purged the country of Soviet forces. The United States had spent over $2 billion arming the Mujahideen, making Washington and al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn allies of sorts, however opaque the nature of that coalition.
On July 15 of this year, I sat in a conference room at the Pentagon and watched fifteen minutes of his most recent Guantánamo Periodic Review Board (PRB) hearing, which was beamed in live from the base in eastern Cuba. For many years, the PRB referred to him as Abu Zubaydah, but at this hearing they used his legal name in lieu of the wartime moniker. Revealing the simultaneously patronizing and intimate relationship that the national-security state has with its remaining Guantánamo detainees, the board ultimately came to call him by his first name, Zayn.
Zayn is perhaps most physically identifiable for the eyepatch that has for many years covered the space where his left eye used to be. On the day of his hearing, however, the eye patch was absent. There was an elegance to him as he waited in the courtroom, flanked by a government-appointed personal representative on one side and an Arabic-language translator on the other. His white shirt was pressed, his beard and hair trimmed neat. He sat taciturn, gazing downward through a pair of round glasses, passing prayer beads between his thumb and forefinger.
Understandably, he was trying to make the best possible physical impression on the Board, which was convened somewhere in Virginia and composed of officials from the departments of Defense, Justice, State, and Homeland Security, as well as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. At the opening of the unclassified portion of the hearing, which journalists were permitted to observe from the Pentagon, a PRB official reiterated the entity’s primary function.
They were not assembled to determine the “lawfulness of Zayn’s detention,” the official stressed, but rather to decide whether, nineteen years after his capture and total disconnection from the outside world, he still posed a threat to US national security. Should the board consider a detainee a “continuing significant threat to the security of the United States,” his ongoing detention would be deemed necessary.
The hearing’s opening qualification — that the legality of his detention is not up for decision — should hardly be considered startling at this point, however disturbing such tacit acceptance might be. Zayn is one of countless men still held at Guantánamo who has never been charged with a crime.
Legal Limbo
A month to the day after the hearing, images streamed out of Kabul as the Taliban reclaimed the Afghan capital. The “war on terror” was ostensibly drawing to a close, with the seemingly interminable and devastating US intervention in Afghanistan as its longest and perhaps most flagrantly failed instantiation. At least 240,000 Afghans have died in the conflict, a large number of them civilians, and Washington ultimately replaced the Taliban with the Taliban.
Yet even as the forever war meets its nihilistic denouement, the illegal detention at Guantánamo forges on, a bleak national-security plight of Washington’s own making. Barack Obama never made good on his campaign promise and 2009 executive order to close the prison, and while one of the forty men who was being held there when Joe Biden took office has since been transferred to his home country of Morocco, it is unclear how the current administration will contend with the thirty-nine men who remain.
The military commissions war court established at the base to adjudicate the fates of those facing charges is currently handling the cases of twelve men — three facing proposed charges, seven facing active charges, and two who have been convicted. Another ten of the remaining so-called enemy combatants are still held in law-of-war detention without facing charges at all. They are now recommended for transfer to another country, which will oversee the relevant security measures.
The last seventeen neither face charges nor have been recommended for transfer or release. At this point in the prison’s history, this last category may be the most extreme state of legal limbo a Guantánamo detainee could face. It is also the category in which Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn finds himself.
Despite Washington’s flagrant bypassing of international law in the decades after September 11, war is by no means a lawless paradigm. And as scholar Nasser Hussain has argued, Guantánamo is not the lawless place some imagine it to be; rather, it is a space in which emergent laws proliferate to fit the needs of a belligerent government seizing upon a state of exception.
The legal status of the men still held at Gitmo is murky by design, not only because it is unlawful to indefinitely detain a person without charging him with a crime, but because the judicial apparatus at the base seeks to try civilians within the framework of a military court.
Enemies at the Gates
The way that such practices were implemented is itself a vestige of US invasions long past. The United States coercively obtained a lease to the territory on which Guantánamo sits as part of the agreement ending its first military occupation of Cuba in 1902 — another two US military interventions would storm the island before long. The lease had no termination date and could be annulled only with the agreement of both governments. When the agreement was renegotiated in 1934, following a period of tumultuous regime change on the island, it once again cemented a lease of the Cuban territory in perpetuity.
An overseas military presence with no termination date sounds not unlike “forever war,” but the connection is deeper still. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when the Bush administration added Cuba to its “Axis of Evil” list, it began kidnapping and illegally detaining men and boys on territory that it claimed was under Cuban jurisdiction and therefore not subject to US law.
This is more than mere historical rhyme. There is a troubling conclusion to be drawn from the 120 years that the United States has coercively occupied the base at Guantánamo. The potential culmination of Washington’s post-9/11 forever wars hardly marks the end of the propensity for unceasing extraterritorial militarism. Much like the resistance that a long history of US economic, political, and military intervention provoked in Cuba before and after the island’s 1959 revolution, the destabilization and antipathy that US empire sows rarely comes to a peaceable and tidy conclusion.
An empire needs enemies beyond its gates, and Washington has proved exceptionally skilled at making them. As historian Ada Ferrer notes in her new book, Cuba: An American History, Alberto Mora, the Cuban American general counsel for the US Navy, described Guantánamo as one of the greatest causes of US combat deaths in Iraq, “as judged by [its] effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat.”
The US government is remarkably adept at forging the conditions by which it justifies its interventions. In December 2001, US secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld refused a negotiated peace deal with the Taliban. Instead of accepting a settlement with a government that itself hoped to rid Afghanistan of Al Qaeda and was concerned with gaining recognition from Western governments, Washington engaged in twenty years of warfare that caused unimaginable loss of life. This was not because wresting Osama bin Laden from Taliban-ruled Afghanistan by other means was unfeasible. Washington wanted a war.
As recent images of the humanitarian crisis that US intervention wrought in that country have underlined, Washington’s global crusade against terror has certainly not made the world a safer place. The hundreds of thousands of lives lost, the trauma and devastation that do not end when US combat boots leave Iraqi or Afghan soil, constitute America’s legacy for the people it promised to liberate.
Incommunicado
Where does this leave Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn, who never swore allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and whose purported links to Al Qaeda have been debunked by the US government itself? Whatever connections or intelligence he was suspected of possessing at the time of his capture and torture are now, like the war on terror itself, two decades old. He has no network to facilitate and no information from the outside world to withhold.
His representatives believe that the PRB’s decision to categorize al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn as an ongoing national-security threat, and therefore unfit for transfer or release, is a matter of self-preservation. As his attorney wrote in his most recent PRB statement:
The CIA has a great deal of reason to want Abu Zubaydah to be held incommunicado for the rest of his life. That is because the fabrication of the facts used to justify the creation of the torture program would no longer be held incommunicado.
While the UN National Security Council argues that he was never affiliated with Al Qaeda and is unlikely to affiliate with the organization in the future, it is understandable if a man kidnapped, tortured, and illegally imprisoned for almost two decades might harbor some antipathy towards the United States.
Ultimately, Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn is a danger to US interests because his release might allow him to enumerate, in his own words, what the CIA did to him at its black sites all those years ago. If that is a threat to American safety, it is most certainly one of Washington’s own making.
*
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.
Miriam Pensack is a writer, editor, and doctoral candidate in Latin American history at New York University.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Starting today, iconic Yellowstone wolves crossing the boundary of Yellowstone National Park into the state of Montana face slaughter by trophy hunters with high-powered rifles, including within federally-designated Wilderness areas. Wolves living in Glacier National Park face a similar fate when they exit the national park.
Last month, Montana not only eliminated any cap on the number of wolves that can be killed in hunting and trapping zones bordering Yellowstone National Park and Glacier National Park, but individuals can now kill a total of 10 wolves per season. New regulations also allow unethical baiting for wolves statewide, including within federal public lands and Wilderness areas. Night hunting with artificial lights or night vision scopes is also allowed on private lands statewide.
“Despite a groundswell of public opposition from individuals across Montana, the nation, and world, Montana has declared open season on wolves in the state, clearing the way for nearly 50% of the state’s wolf population to be decimated in the upcoming hunting and trapping season,” said Sarah McMillan, the Montana-based conservation director for WildEarth Guardians.
“Yellowstone’s wolves are nationally and internationally famous and the biological role these iconic wolves play within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is priceless. Yet starting today, an individual can slaughter up to ten Yellowstone wolves for just $12,” explained McMillan.
The general wolf hunting season in Montana runs for the next six months, until March 15, 2022, while the wolf trapping and snaring season will start on November 29, 2021 and also run until March 15, 2022.
In response to the on-going slaughter of wolves, in June, WildEarth Guardians and a coalition of fifty conservation groups asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to immediately restore Endangered Species Act protections to gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains. In July, Guardians and allies also petitioned the Biden administration to list the Western North American population of gray wolves as a distinct population segment. Over 120 Tribes have signed “The Wolf: A Treaty of Cultural and Environmental Survival,” and have called on Interior Secretary Haaland to meet with a Tribal delegation regarding the Treaty and to reinstate protections for wolves. So far, the Biden administration has failed to take any steps to protect wolves.
“As we clearly warned would happen, state ‘management’ of wolves essentially amounts to the brutal state-sanctioned eradication of this keystone native species,” said McMillan. “We must not abandon wolf-recovery efforts or allow anti-wolf states, hunters, and trappers to push wolves back to the brink of extinction.”
Montana’s hunting regulation changes come on the heels of the Biden administration doubling down on its commitment to keep all wolves federally delisted, despite the massive public outcry. In August, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service filed a brief in federal court opposing legal efforts from multiple environmental groups—including WildEarth Guardians, Western Environmental Law Center, and Earthjustice—to challenge the federal delisting rule. This case is set for oral arguments in Northern California District Court in November 2021. As the Northern Rocky Mountain population of wolves was delisted by an act of Congress in 2011, the outcome of this litigation will not impact wolves in Montana.
Gray wolves became functionally extinct in the lower 48 states in the 1960s largely due to rampant hunting and trapping, including deliberate extermination efforts carried out by the federal government. Though first listed as endangered in 1967 under a precursor to the Endangered Species Act, gray wolves only began to recover in the West following reintroductions to central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park in the mid-1990s. Scientists estimated a steady population of about 1,150 wolves in Montana between 2012 and 2019. However, hunters and trappers killed 328 wolves in Montana during the 2020-2021 season, and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks now estimates that only 900 to 950 wolves remain in the state. The total wolf-kill quota for the 2021-2022 hunting and trapping season in Montana is 450, meaning that nearly 50% of the wolf population in Montana could be eliminated in the next six 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.
Featured image: Gray wolf photo by Jacob W. Frank/NPS; graphic element added by Gus O’Keefe.
The first overt diplomatic achievement by the United States related to 9/11, was Resolution No. 1368. It was adopted at noontime by the UN Security Council on September 12, 2001. The resolution contained the obligatory statements of condemnation and of solidarity with the 9/11 victims and their families.
In the months leading up to 2020, the earth experienced a series of unprecedented wildfires fires from Australia to the Amazon and from Indonesia to California. In California alone, the wildfire season of 2019 destroyed more than 250,000 acres of land, along with 732 structures.
Brnovich describes the mandate as “one of the greatest infringements upon individual liberties, principles of federalism, and separation of powers ever attempted by an American President.”
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, you’re not counted as fully vaccinated until a full 14 days have passed since your second injection in the case of Pfizer or Moderna, or 14 days after your first dose of Janssen, despite the fact that over 80% of deaths after the vaccines occur in this window. How convenient
A Health Impact News subscriber from Europe reminded us that this database maintained at EudraVigilance is only for countries in Europe who are part of the European Union (EU), which comprises 27 countries.
A woman suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma was a devoted user of Roundup herbicide for decades before she became ill, her son testified Tuesday in a California trial that marks the fourth such trial pitting a cancer victim against Roundup maker Monsanto.
Since children are at less risk from coronavirus than influenza and pose no risk to others, covering their faces not only risks damage to the developing brain from hypoxia, inhibits excretion of carbon dioxide leading to respiratory acidosis, forces them to inhale accumulated bacteria and fungi, and promotes headaches, dermatitis, and tooth decay, but it clearly worsens rather than protects their state of health.
The WHO “Guidelines” for establishing a Worldwide Digital Informations System for issuing so-called “Digital Certificates for Covid-19” are generously funded by the Rockefeller and Bill and Melinda Gates foundations.
Do you know that about 80% of both FDA and WHO budgets come from private entities directly or indirectly linked to big pharma? Do you know that several years ago WHO had changed the definition of a pandemic to exclude mortality as a criterion?
Tickets to the Met Gala are at least $30,000 a pop, though it seems AOC, a young New York City Congresswoman who identifies as a democratic socialist, did not pay for the ticket herself. She was invited and seized the moment to make her protest.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The Black Lives Matter movement has had a major impact in raising awareness about police brutality and the ongoing persecution of Black people in the United States but has been remarkably parochial in evading discussion of U.S. imperialism in Africa and around the world.
While protest signs commemorating George Floyd and calling for defunding of the police have been legion at many of its demonstrations, few if any signs have called for the abolition of AFRICOM or indictment of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for presiding over the overthrow and lynching of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi.
The latter omissions stem in large part from the ignorance of most of the U.S. population—whether Black or white—about Africa and the consequences of U.S. imperialism there.
The major fault for this ignorance lies with U.S. educational institutions and the mass media, which have for decades promoted stereotypes about the continent and its people, and evaded discussion of how it has been adversely impacted by Western colonialism.
Africans are still frequently characterized as “tribal people”—with all the attendant negative perceptions that spring from this word—whose poverty, conflict and disease-ridden countries can only be salvaged under foreign oversight.
Leaders who stand up to the Western powers like Qaddafi are demonized while those who acquiesce to their agenda are presented more favorably.
African voices are meanwhile marginalized—especially those that adopt a Pan-Africanist and anti-imperialist message—and many Blacks come to internalize the message that they are inferior.
Allimadi starts his story with a discussion of European travelogues in the 18th and 19th centuries.
These presented Africans as being “trapped at a level of intellectual, socioeconomic and political development that Europeans had transcended centuries earlier” and helped justify the alleged obligation of Europeans to conquer and colonize Africa.
Sir Samuel Baker—Governor-General of the Equatorial Nile Basin (today South Sudan and Northern Uganda) between 1869 and 1873—set the standard in his 1866 book, The Albert N’Yanza Great Basin of the Nile, in which he wrote that “human nature viewed in its crude state as pictured among African savages is quite on a level with that of the brute, and not to be compared with the noble character of the dog.”
Joseph Conrad’s classic novel Heart of Darkness (1902) similarly depicted Africans as “primitive savages” and warned Europeans of Africa’s propensity to drive normal people insane.
The views cultivated by Conrad and other writers helped fuel support for colonization—which was considered a noble yet hazardous undertaking.
These prejudicial comments ignore the flourishing of great African civilizations like ancient Carthage and the Songhai and Mali empires before the era of the slave trade and European colonization, which weakened and divided the continent.
Tunisia, Carthage in the 3rd century B.C. [Source: history.com]
Tomb of Askia, emperor of the Songhai Empire, at Gao, Mali, West Africa. [Source: history.com]
The Times went on to depict the 1879 Anglo-Zulu War in South Africa as a “contest between a civilized nation with great military and naval power and inexhaustible resources and a primitive and barbaric tribe [the Zulu], however brave and unyielding … Sooner or later the powerful nation was destined to bring the savage tribe into abject submission or demolish it utterly.”
When Italy invaded Eritrea in the 1890s, the Times published a triumphalist account, claiming that the natives “welcomed the Italians as liberators.”
The Times adopted a more somber tone in reporting on Italy’s humiliating defeat at the Battle of Adwa in 1896—one of the greatest African victories against European imperialism—which the Times characterized as “terrible.”
In the 1930s, when Italy’s fascist leader Benito Mussolini reinvaded Ethiopia trying to reinvigorate the Roman Empire, the Times tried to diminish the significance of the Ethiopian victory at Adwa, while playing up the brutality of the “savage black warriors” who had “slaughtered nearly 40,000 Italians.”
Times reporter Herbert L. Matthews’s dispatch read like a press release from the Italian military command.
Known for his sympathetic reports of Fidel Castro’s rebel band in Cuba during the 1950s, Matthews had traveled in the same car as Italian military commander Marshal Pietro Badoglio as he entered Addis Ababa—and never bothered to interview any Ethiopians.
Support for Apartheid
The Times continued its pattern of white supremacy by supporting the odious apartheid system in South Africa from its beginning—and for many years thereafter.
In 1926, the “newspaper of record” published an article by Wyona Dashwood which supported the plan of South African Prime Minister James Barry Munnik Hertzog to segregate and disenfranchise Blacks in the Cape province as a way to deal with “the native factor.”
Dashwood claimed that the new system would help stop tribal fighting and give the “semi-civilized native”—whom she depicted as lazy and prone to theft—the chance to “develop along his own lines” and to begin to adapt some of the more “advanced economic, social and political systems of the white man’s civilization.”
Thirty years after Dashwood’s article, in May 1957, the Times ran a piece by Richard P. Hunt which reported on the perspective of apartheid leaders who had just passed a law empowering the new minister of native affairs, Hendrik Verwoerd, to ban Blacks from churches, clubs, hospitals, schools and other places if they would “cause a nuisance.”
An apartheid regime official was quoted as stating that the new powers were “needed to insure that the relations between black and white were to be those of guardian and ward,” which the article did not dispute.
When reporter Joseph Lelyveld began writing more critically about apartheid in the 1960s, his articles were toned down or distorted by editors, who made the system appear less brutal.
Lelyveld wrote to his editor in January 1983 that “virtually all the original reporting” he had conducted over a one-month period for a piece on the underfunding of Black schools had been omitted; the printed article, he said, was “like a salami sandwich without the salami, just slabs of stale bread.”
Always on the Wrong Side of History
Much like with its support for apartheid, TheNew York Times and other mainstream U.S. media outlets were on the wrong side of history when it came to African decolonization.
New York Times article in the 1950s on Africa adopting the “dark continent” trope, with the light seemingly coming from white Europeans. [Source: nytimes.com]
When Times reporter Leonard Ingalls wrote a letter demanding more sympathetic coverage, the foreign news editor, Emanuel Freedman, shot him down, preferring the traditional narrative in which Africans were depicted as “savages” and buffoons.
The Times’s coverage of the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya adopted a “witch-craft versus civilization narrative.” The Mau Mau were presented as a “secret tribal society whose campaign of murder [has] forced the imposition of martial law.”
No indication was given that the Mau Mau emerged in response to colonial injustice. Nor that the violence of the Mau Mau rebels paled in comparison to that resulting from Great Britain’s scorched-earth military campaign which led to the deaths of thousands of Kenyans and the detention of thousands more in concentration camps.
Cover of a men’s magazine that adopted stereotypical tropes about the Mau Mau similar to TheNew York Times. [Source: reddit.com]
Henry Wallace in Burnt Cork
The Times’s Kenya coverage fit with the pattern of demonization of radical anti-colonial movements, particularly when they were led by left-leaning Pan-Africanists like Dr. Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana—who was voted Africa’s Man of the Millennium at the dawn of the 21st century.
Bigart’s negative association of Nkrumah with Henry Wallace was reflective of a prejudice not only toward Africans but also toward the left-wing and pacifist views which Wallace had embraced.
The comments about primitive bush people meanwhile reinforced deep-seated stereotypes about Africans. And the joke about cannibalism being an antidote to population explosion—a concern reflective of the Western elite’s view of Africans as a threat to be contained—was certainly in poor taste.
Congo
Like Nkrumah, Congolese Pan-African leader Patrice Lumumba was portrayed as a “wild eyed radical.”
Lumumba’s killer, Moïse Tshombe—who led a secessionist drive in the Katanga province backed by Belgian mining interests and white South African mercenaries—was praised in Time magazine by contrast as the “antithesis of the African savage.”
Most admirably, according to Time, Tshombe had “no complexes about being black” and recognized the “brutal side of the African personality, and the phony side of African socialism.”
Pro-Lumumbaist rebels who fought against Tshombe after Lumumba’s assassination were meanwhile depicted by Time as “a rabble of dazed, ignorant savages, used and abused by semi-sophisticated leaders.”
U.S. bombing operations—carried out by right-wing Cuban mercenaries—were hence justifiable, as was U.S. backing of the dictator Joseph Mobutu who was portrayed like Tshombe as a “responsible antidote” to Lumumba-style socialism.
Colonialism Dies Hard
At the end of the Cold War, numerous Western writers took stock of developments in Africa and concluded that the continent should be recolonized.
A characteristic piece from the era by Paul Johnson in The New York TimesMagazine was titled “Colonialism’s Back and Not a Moment Too Soon.”
The article was about the U.S. intervention in Somalia, which Johnson considered “a model for action in other African countries facing similar political collapse.” He concluded in a refrain familiar to Rudyard Kipling that “the civilized world has a mission to go out to these desperate places and govern.”
An ever more apocalyptic and racist article was “The Coming Anarchy” by Robert Kaplan, whose Malthusian doomsday scenario read like a description of Africa from one of the 19th century explorers’ journals.
According to Kaplan, conditions in Africa were so dire, absent the white man’s rule, that Africans no longer resembled human beings.
Wherever Kaplan traveled in a taxi, young men with “restless scanning eyes” surrounded him. He described the men as being “like loose molecules in a very unstable social fluid that was clearly on the verge of igniting.”
Rwanda 1994
Historically, Western writers depicted Africans with alleged European features favorably, while demonizing those with so-called negroid features.
During the Rwanda conflict, Tutsis were adopted by some Western writers as honorary “Europeans” while Hutus were presented as the archetypical Africans.
The Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF)—who happened to be staunch American allies—became the “good guys” by extension, and Rwanda’s national army, comprising mostly of Hutu allied with France, became the bad guys.
One of the earliest articles to use this racist characterization—which helped cultivate support for the RPF—was Alex Shoumatoff’s “Rwanda’s Aristocratic Guerrillas.” It appeared in TheNew York Times Magazine on December 13, 1992—two years after the RPF had illegally invaded Rwanda from Uganda and committed legions of atrocities against civilians.
His article informed readers that the Tutsis were “refined and had European features,” while the Hutus were “stocky and broad nosed.” He continued that, in the 19th century, “early ethnologists had been fascinated by these languidly haughty pastoral aristocrats [Tutsis] whose high foreheads, acquiline noses and thin lips seemed more Caucasian than Negroid, and they classed them as false negroes…. The Tutsis were thought to be highly civilized people, the race of fallen Europeans, whose existence in Central Africa had been rumored for centuries.”
After the RPF seized power, Shoumatoff wrote another piece for The New Yorker, sizing up the ethnic mix between Tutsis and Hutus in Burundi. Shoumatoff described the Tutsi as “tall, slender, with high foreheads, prominent cheekbones, and narrow features,” a different physical type from the Hutus, who were “short and stocky, with flat noses and thick lips.”
Such racist observations reinforced traditional stereotypes about Africans and painted a stark dichotomy that lent validation to the Tutsis genocidal campaign against the Hutu, which extended into the Congo.
In a February 1965 speech in Detroit, Michigan, Malcolm X spoke about the damaging psychological impact of the demonization of Africa on Blacks. He said that
“the colonial powers of Europe, having complete control over Africa, they projected the image of Africa negatively. They projected Africa always in a negative light, savages, cannibals, nothing civilized. Why then naturally was it so negative it was negative to you and me, and you and I began to hate it. We didn’t want anybody to tell us anything about Africa, much less calling us ‘Africans.’ In hating Africa and hating the Africans, we ended up hating ourselves, without even realizing it. Because you can’t hate the roots of a tree and not hate the tree. You can’t hate your origin and not end up hating yourself.”
Thirty years after Malcolm X spoke those words, The Washington Post published a reactionary article by an African-American reporter, Keith Richburg, “A Black Man in Africa.”
Richburg, who had covered the inter-ethnic massacres in Rwanda, described his revulsion at witnessing the “discolored, bloated bodies floating down a river in Rwanda towards Tanzania.”
Richburg wrote that, as he witnessed the bodies, he realized how fortunate he had been; that he too “might have been one of the victims of the Rwanda massacre or he might have met some similarly anonymous fate in any one of the countless ongoing civil wars or tribal clashes on this brutal continent. And so I thank God my ancestor made the voyage [on the slave ship].”
Richburg’s article formed the basis of his 1997 book, Out of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa, which Milton Allimadi calls “Conrad’s Heart of Darkness for the new century.”
According to Allimadi, Richburg offered a classic case of a Black man caught in the psychic pain of what Frantz Fanon called “internal inferiorization.” Under this condition, negative stereotyping results in self-hatred and a desire to be affiliated with the dominant race.
As a youth, Richburg had been taught to believe that he was superior to other Blacks who came from poorer neighborhoods, talked loudly, had darker skin and nappier hair. When he went to the movies with his brother, they would cheer on the British soldiers attacking “Zulu tribesmen” in film.
This exemplifies the disorder Fanon and Malcolm X described. Its impact ultimately has been to neuter and destroy Black radical movements and solidarity. The legacy can be seen today, among other ways, with Black Lives Matter’s silence about Africa—which should be corrected.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
If anecdotal reports (1) (2) and statistics showing a positive correlation between midazolam prescriptions and deaths in the over-65s (3) are to be believed, it appears that euthanasia may have already been taking place on an illegal basis, predominantly in care homes.
Since benzodiazepines are contraindicated in Acute Pulmonary Insufficiency, risking Respiratory Depression, particularly with intravenous administration (4), the increased use of midazolam during 2020/2021 is especially concerning.
Would doctors who have not adequately physically examined patients, thereby satisfying themselves that sedation is appropriate in every case, particularly in situations which include pulmonary symptomatology, and have subsequently not adequately monitored such treatment such that respiratory failure has ensued, be guilty of medical negligence? (5)
In the current environment where ‘Telemedicine’ has disrupted doctor-patient interactions (6) yet continues to be encouraged by politicians as reported, for example, by the Telegraph, rushing into legislation authorising Assisted Dying at this point in time would surely be premature and present many opportunities for abuse.
Palliative Care is clearly vitally important. However, relief of distress, whilst sometimes inevitably leading to death, does not have as its primary intention the ending of life.
“First, Do No Harm”, has never encompassed Playing God; it has been resisted by physicians for many years and for very good reason.
Further undermining the trust of an already terrified population at this stage would surely be a step too far?
*
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.
Janet Menage is GP retired from Wales, UK.
Notes
(1) Fuller A. Care homes accused of using powerful sedatives to make coronavirus victims die more quickly as use rocketed 100%. The Sun 2020 Jul 12.
(2) Interview with Funeral Director, UK: Deaths Jumped 250% When Injections Began: Lindie Naughton Interviews Funeral Director John O’Looney. BitChute 2021 Sep 5.
(3) All cause mortality by age band (65 and over), January 2020 – June 2021, vs National prescriptions issued for midazolam hydrochloride 10 ml/2 mg ampoules for injection, January 2020 – March 2021
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Brnovich describes the mandate as “one of the greatest infringements upon individual liberties, principles of federalism, and separation of powers ever attempted by an American President.”
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich announced he is suing the Biden administration over the COVID vaccine mandate on federal employees and businesses with over 100 employees.
Brnovich describes the mandate as “one of the greatest infringements upon individual liberties, principles of federalism, and separation of powers ever attempted by an American President.”
I promised Arizonans that we would not stand for the Biden Administration's egregious federal overreach on vaccine mandates.
Today, we have filed the first lawsuit in the nation against the unconstitutional mandates. Arizona will not tolerate this assault on our sovereignty. pic.twitter.com/1eHAUX8GYs
“The federal government cannot force people to get the COVID-19 vaccine. The Biden Administration is once again flouting our laws and precedents to push their radical agenda. There can be no serious or scientific discussion about containing the spread of COVID-19 that doesn’t begin at our southern border.”
The administration has not written or clarified the mandate’s rules. Brnovich said his “lawsuit is valid because it seeks to declare that the federal government doesn’t have the authority to create such rules.”
A reporter asked about Brnovich’s office recognizing federal safety regulations regarding hard hats at construction sites. The AG told the reporter, “Stay tuned for the next lawsuit.”
Um, hard hats don’t inject a substance into your body. But don’t get me started on federal safety regulations because a libertarian could go on forever about them.
Let’s get to the brief.
Brnovich cites the Equal Protection Clause in his brief due to the Biden administration exempting illegal aliens from the vaccine mandate.
The Equal Protection Clause falls under the 14th Amendment, Section 1: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
7. Although the precise contours of the federal vaccination mandates are not yet clear, the violation of the Equal Protection Clause is already evident and egregious. In a nutshell: unauthorized aliens will not be subject to any vaccination requirements even when released directly into the United States (where most will remain), while roughly a hundred million U.S. citizens will be subject to unprecedented vaccination requirements. This reflects an unmistakable and unconstitutional—brand of favoritism in favor of unauthorized aliens.
8. This discrimination in favor of unauthorized aliens violates the Equal Protection Clause. Notably, alienage is a suspect class that triggers strict scrutiny. More typically (and almost invariably previously), this discrimination was against aliens rather than for them. See, e.g., Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 371, 375-376 (1971); Application of Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717, 721 1973). But the same principle applies to favoritism against U.S. citizens in favor of aliens. Defendants’ actions could never conceivably pass strict scrutiny.
“Because Defendants’ respect for individual rights vis-à-vis vaccination mandates appears to extend only to unauthorized aliens, and not U.S. citizens, their actions violate the Equal Protection Clause and should be invalidated,” continues Brnovich. “American citizens should be entitled to treatment at least as favorable as what Defendants afford to unauthorized aliens. This Court should accordingly declare this preferential treatment unlawful and enjoin actions taken pursuant to it.”
Remember when Biden’s Chief of Staff Ronald Klein retweeted this?
Lawyers said the retweet would cause problems for Biden. Well, it has because Brnovich brings it up in the complaint:
13. Recognizing that the Federal Government lacks the authority to directly impose a mandate, even the President’s own Chief of Staff retweeted that what the administration was planning for citizens (but not unauthorized aliens) would be the “ultimate work-around.”
14. The inadvertent admission in the preceding paragraph makes all of the administration’s actions constitutionally suspect. These other violations will be the subject of future challenges. Courts will have an opportunity to review and invalidate those forthcoming mandates as to private employers, federal contractors, federal employees, and health care workers. But this particular component—i.e., the unconstitutional discrimination against U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and aliens lawfully residing and working in the U.S.—is ripe for judicial review and invalidation now.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, you’re not counted as fully vaccinated until a full 14 days have passed since your second injection in the case of Pfizer or Moderna, or 14 days after your first dose of Janssen, despite the fact that over 80% of deaths after the vaccines occur in this window. How convenient
Anyone who dies within the first 14 days post-injection is counted as an unvaccinated death. Not only does this inaccurately inflate the unvaccinated death toll, but it also hides the real dangers of the COVID shots, as the vast majority of deaths from these shots occur within the first two weeks
The CDC also has two different sets of testing guidelines — one for vaccinated patients and another for the unvaccinated. If you’re unvaccinated, CDC guidance says to use a cycle threshold (CT) of 40, known to result in false positives. If you’re vaccinated, they recommend using a CT of 28 or less, which minimizes the risk of false positives
The CDC also hides vaccine failures and props up the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” narrative by only counting breakthrough cases that result in hospitalization or death
Hospitals are still also reporting non-COVID related illnesses as COVID-19
*
While public health officials and mainstream media claim the COVID-19 pandemic is now “a pandemic of the unvaccinated,”1 we now know this claim is based on highly misleading statistics.
In a July 16, 2021, White House press briefing,2 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky claimed that “over 97% of people who are entering the hospital right now are unvaccinated.” A few weeks later, in an August 5, 2021, statement, she inadvertently revealed how that statistic actually came about.3
As it turns out, the CDC was looking at hospitalization and mortality data from January through June 2021 — a timeframe during which the vast majority of the U.S. population were still unvaccinated.4
But that’s not the case at all now. The CDC is also playing with statistics in other ways to create the false and inaccurate impression that unvaccinated people make up the bulk of infections, hospitalizations and deaths. For example, we now find out the agency is counting anyone who died within the first 14 days post-injection as unvaccinated.
Not only does this inaccurately inflate the unvaccinated death toll, but it also hides the real dangers of the COVID shots, as the vast majority of deaths from these shots occur within the first two weeks.5 Now their deaths are counted as unvaccinated deaths rather than being counted as deaths due to vaccine injury or COVID-19 breakthrough infections!
How CDC Counts Breakthrough Cases
According to the CDC,6 you’re not counted as fully vaccinated until a full 14 days have passed since your second injection in the case of Pfizer or Moderna, or 14 days after your first dose of Janssen. This is how the CDC defines a vaccine breakthrough case:
“… a vaccine breakthrough infection is defined as the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen in a respiratory specimen collected from a person ≥14 days after they have completed all recommended doses of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized COVID-19 vaccine.”
In other words, if you’ve received one dose of Pfizer or Moderna and develop symptomatic COVID-19, get admitted to the hospital and/or die from COVID, you’re counted as an unvaccinated case. If you’ve received two doses and get ill within 14 days, you’re still counted as an unvaccinated case.
The problem with this is that over 80% of hospitalizations and deaths appear to be occurring among those who have received the jabs, but this reality is hidden by the way cases are defined and counted. A really clever and common strategy of the CDC during the pandemic has been to change the definitions and goalposts so it supports their nefarious narrative.
For example, the CDC has quietly changed the definition of “vaccine,” apparently in an attempt to validate calling the COVID mRNA gene therapies vaccines. In an August 26, 2021, archived version7of vaccine, the CDC defines it as a “product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”
But a few days later, a new definition appeared on the CDC’s website,8 which now says a vaccine is a “preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” The differences in the definitions are subtle but distinct: The first one defined a vaccine as something that will “produce immunity.”
But, since the COVID-19 vaccines are not designed to stop infection but, rather, to only lessen the degree of infection, it becomes obvious that the new definition was created to cover the COVID vaccines.
Different Testing Guidelines for Vaxxed and Unvaxxed
It’s not just the CDC’s definition of a breakthrough case that skews the data. Even more egregious and illogical is the fact that the CDC even has two different sets of testing guidelines — one for vaccinated patients and another for the unvaccinated.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, the CDC has recommended a PCR test cycle threshold (CT) of 40.9 This flies in the face of scientific consensus, which has long been that a CT over 35 will produce 97% false positives,10 essentially rendering the test useless.11,12,13
In mid-May 2021, the CDC finally lowered its recommended CT count, but only for patients who have received one or more COVID shots.14 So, if you have received a COVID injection, the CDC’s guidelines call for your PCR test to be run at a CT of 28 or less. If you are unvaccinated, your PCR test is to be run at a CT of 40, which grossly overestimates the true prevalence of infection.
The end result is that unvaccinated individuals who get tested are FAR more prone to get false positives, while those who have received the jab are more likely to get an accurate diagnosis of infection.
Only Hospitalization and Death Count if You’re COVID Jabbed
Even that’s not all. The CDC also hides vaccine failures and props up the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” narrative by only counting breakthrough cases that result in hospitalization or death.
In other words, if you got your second COVID shot more than 14 days ago and you develop symptoms, you do not count as a breakthrough case unless you’re admitted to the hospital and/or die from COVID-19 in the hospital, even if you test positive. So, to summarize, COVID breakthrough cases count only if all of the following apply:
The patient received the second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna shot at least 14 days ago (or one dose in case of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose injection)
The patient tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 using a CT of 28 or less, which avoids false positives
The patient is admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 and/or dies in the hospital
Vaccinated Probably Make Up Bulk of Hospitalizations
If vaccinated and unvaccinated were not treated with such varying standards, we’d probably find that the vaccinated now make up the bulk of hospitalizations, making the COVID pandemic one of the vaccinated. An August 30, 2021, exposé by The Epoch Times reveals what’s really happening on the front lines:15
“After a battery of testing, my friend was diagnosed with pancreatitis. But it was easier for the hospital bureaucracy to register the admission as a COVID case … The mainstream media is reporting that severe COVID cases are mainly among unvaccinated people … Is that what’s really going on?
It’s certainly not the case in Israel, the first country to fully vaccinate a majority of its citizens against the virus. Now it has one of the highest daily infection rates and the majority of people catching the virus (77 percent to 83 percent, depending on age) are already vaccinated, according to data collected by the Israeli government …
After admission, I spoke to the nurse on the COVID ward … The nurse told me that she had gotten both vaccines but she was feeling worried: ‘Two thirds of my patients are fully vaccinated,’ she said. How can there be such a disconnect between what the COVID ward nurse told me and the mainstream media reports?”
The heart of the problem is that the U.S. is not even trying to achieve an accurate count. As noted by The Epoch Times, “the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have publicly acknowledged that they do not have accurate data.”
So, when you hear that cases are rising, and that most of them are unvaccinated, you need to ask: “Are these people who have had one vaccine and gotten sick, two vaccines and gotten sick, or no vaccines at all? Without more details, it is impossible to know what is really going on,” The Epoch Times says.16
All we do know, according to one doctor who spoke with The Epoch Times, is “the vaccines are not as effective as public health officials told us they would be. ‘This is a product that’s not doing what it’s supposed to do. It’s supposed to stop transmission of this virus and it’s not doing that.’”
Counting Non-COVID Illness as COVID Cases
On top of all of that, hospitals are still also reporting non-COVID related illnesses as COVID. As reported by The Epoch Times:17
“Health authorities around the world have been doing this since the beginning of the COVID crisis. For example, a young man in Orange County, Florida who died in a motorcycle crash last summer was originally considered a COVID death by state health officials …
And a middle-aged construction worker fell off a ladder in Croatia and was also counted as a death from COVID … To muddy the waters further, even people who test negative for COVID are sometimes counted as COVID deaths.
Consider the case of 26-year-old Matthew Irvin, a father of three from Yamhill County, Oregon. As reported by KGW8 News, Irvin went to the ER with stomach pain, nausea, and diarrhea on July 5, 2020. But instead of admitting him to the hospital, the doctors sent him home.
Five days later, on July 10, 2020, Irvin died. Though his COVID test came back negative two days after his death and his family told reporters and public health officials that no one Irvin had been around had any COVID symptoms, the medical examiner allegedly told the family that an autopsy was not necessary, listing his death as a coronavirus case. It took the Oregon Health Authority two and a half months to correct the mistake.
In an even more striking example of overcounting COVID deaths, a nursing home in New Jersey that only has 90 beds was wrongly reported as having 753 deaths from COVID. According to a spokesman, they had fewer than twenty deaths. In other words, the number of deaths was over-reported by 3,700 percent.”
No Need to Fear the Delta Variant if You’re Unvaccinated
In a June 29, 2021, interview,18 Fauci called the Delta variant “a game-changer” for unvaccinated people, warning it will devastate the unvaccinated population while vaccinated individuals are protected against it. Alas, in the real world, the converse is turning out to be true, as the Delta variant is running wild primarily among those who got the COVID jab.
In a June 30, 2021, appearance on Fox News (video above), epidemiologist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough pointed out that “It is very clear from the U.K. Technical Briefing19 that was published June 18 that the vaccine provides no protection against the Delta variant.”20
The reason for this is because the Delta variant contains three different mutations, all in the spike protein. This allows this variant to evade the immune responses in those who have received the COVID jabs, but not those who have natural immunity, which is much broader.
Even so, the Delta variant is far milder than previous variants, according to the U.K.’s June 18, 2021, Technical Briefing.21 In it, they present data showing the Delta variant is more contagious but far less deadly and easier to treat. As McCullough told Fox News:
“Whether you get the vaccine or not, patients will get some very mild symptoms like a cold and they can be easily managed … Patients who have severe symptoms or at high risk, we can use simple drug combinations at home and get them through the illness. So, there’s no reason now to push vaccinations.”
Contrast that with the following statement made by President Biden during a CNN town hall meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio, in late July 2021:22
“We have a pandemic for those who haven’t gotten a vaccination. It’s that basic, that simple. If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, not going to the ICU unit, and not going to die. You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.”
However, Dr. Leana Wen, an emergency doctor and visiting professor of health policy and management at George Washington University’s Milken School of Public Health in Washington, D.C., contradicted the president, saying he had led the American astray by telling them you don’t need a mask if you’re vaccinated, or that you can’t get it or transmit it. As reported by CNN Health:23
“In particular, Wen took issue with Biden’s incorrect claims that you cannot contract Covid-19 or the Delta variant if you are vaccinated. ‘I was actually disappointed,’ Wen said. ‘I actually thought he was answering questions as if it were a month ago. He’s not really meeting the realities of what’s happening on the ground. I think he may have led people astray.’”
CNN added that Wen had told their political commentator Anderson Cooper that “many unknown answers remain related to Covid-19, and that it is still not known how well protected vaccinated individuals are from mild illness … [or] if you’re vaccinated, could you still be contagious to other people.”
Vaccinated Patients Flood Hospitals Around the World
The U.K. data showing the Delta variant is far milder than previous SARS-CoV-2 viruses deflates the claim that avoiding severe illness is a sign that the shots are working. Since the Delta variant typically doesn’t cause severe illness in the first place, it doesn’t make sense to attribute milder illness to the shot.
But if Delta is the mildest coronavirus variant yet, why are so many “vaccinated” people ending up in the hospital? While we still do not have clear confirmation, this could be a sign that antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) is at work. Alternatively, it could be that vaccine injuries are being misreported as breakthrough cases.
Whatever the case may be, real-world data from areas with high COVID jab rates show a disturbing trend. For example, August 1, 2021, the director of Israel’s Public Health Services, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, announced half of all COVID-19 infections were among the fully vaccinated.24 Signs of more serious disease among fully vaccinated are also emerging, she said, particularly in those over the age of 60.
A few days later, August 5, 2021, Dr. Kobi Haviv, director of the Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, appeared on Channel 13 News, reporting that 95% of severely ill COVID-19 patients are fully vaccinated, and that they make up 85% to 90% of COVID-related hospitalizations overall.25
In Scotland, official data on hospitalizations and deaths show 87% of those who have died from COVID-19 in the third wave that began in early July were vaccinated.26
In Gibraltar, which has a 99% COVID jab compliance rate, COVID cases have risen by 2,500% since June 1, 2021,27 and in Iceland, where over 82% have received the shots, 77% of new COVID cases are among the fully vaccinated.28
Data from the U.K. show a similar trend among those over the age of 50. In this age group, partially and fully “vaccinated” people account for 68% of hospitalizations and 70% of COVID deaths.29
A CDC investigation of an outbreak in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, between July 6, 2021, through July 25, 2021, found 74% of those who received a diagnosis of COVID19, and 80% of hospitalizations, were among the fully vaccinated.30,31 Most, but not all, had the Delta variant.
The CDC also found that fully vaccinated individuals who contract the infection have as high a viral load in their nasal passages as unvaccinated individuals who get infected.32 The same was found in a British study, a preprint of which was posted mid-August 2021.33,34 This means the vaccinated are just as infectious as the unvaccinated.
Interestingly, a Lancet preprint study35 that examined breakthrough infections in health care workers in Vietnam who received the AstraZeneca COVID shot found the “viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020.”
What’s more, they found no correlation between vaccine-induced neutralizing antibody levels and viral loads or the development of symptoms. According to the authors:
“Breakthrough Delta variant infections are associated with high viral loads, prolonged PCR positivity, and low levels of vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies, explaining the transmission between the vaccinated people.”
Not All Vaccinated Are Confirmed Vaccinated
As if all of that weren’t enough, there’s yet one more confounder. Just because you got the COVID shot does not mean you’ve been confirmed as having gotten the shot. You’re only confirmed “vaccinated” if your COVID injection is added to your medical record, and this sometimes doesn’t happen if you’re going to a temporary vaccination clinic, a drive-through or pharmacy, for example. As reported by CNN:36
“If you are among the countless people who didn’t get the doses at a primary care doctor’s office, there may not be any record of the vaccination on file with your doctor.”
To actually count as a “confirmed vaccinated” individual, you must send your vaccination card to your primary care physician’s office and have them add it to your electronic medical record. If you got the shot at a pharmacy, you’ll need to verify that they forwarded your proof of vaccination to your doctor. Primary care offices are then responsible for sharing their patients’ immunization data with the state’s immunization information system.
Patient-recorded proof of vaccination is only accepted for influenza and pneumococcal vaccines, not COVID-19 injections.37 What this all means is that, say you got the shot several weeks ago at a drive-through vaccination clinic and get admitted to the hospital with COVID symptoms. Unless your COVID shot status has actually been added into the medical system, you will not count as “vaccinated.”
This too can skew the statistics, because we know the CDC ascertains vaccination status by matching SARS-CoV-2 case surveillance and CAIR2 data using person-level identifiers and algorithms.38
As noted by John Zurlo, division director of infectious disease at Thomas Jefferson University, “the lack of reliable vaccine records complicates efforts to precisely understand vaccine effectiveness and determine how many local hospitalizations and deaths are resulting from COVID-19 breakthrough infections.”39
We’re in the Largest Clinical Trial in Medical History
In closing, it’s worth remembering that the COVID injection campaign is part and parcel of a clinical trial. As noted Dr. Lidiya Angelova in a recent Genuine Prospect article:40
“Many people are unaware that they are participating in the largest clinical trial test of our times. It is because World Health Organization, healthcare authorities, politicians, celebrities, and journalists promote the experimental medical treatments (wrongly called COVID-19 vaccines) as safe and efficient while in fact these treatments are in early clinical research stage.
It means that there is not enough data for such claims and that the people who participate are test subject.”
As shown in a graph on Genuine Prospect, under normal circumstances, clinical research follows a strict protocol that begins with tests on cell cultures. After that comes tests on animals, then limited human testing in four phases. In Phase 1 of human testing, up to 100 people are included and followed anywhere from one week to several months.
Phase 2 typically includes several hundred participants and lasts up to two years. In Phase 3, several hundred to 3,000 participants are tested upon for one to four years. Phase 4 typically includes several thousand individuals who are followed for at least one year or longer. After each phase, the data is examined to assess effectiveness and adverse reactions.
The timelines for these stages and phases were not followed for the COVID “vaccines.” Most Phase 3 trials concluded by the end of 2020, and everyone who got the shots since their rollout under emergency use authorization is part of a Phase 4 clinical trial, whether they realize it or not.41 And since the trials are not completed, you simply cannot make definitive claims about safety, especially long-term safety. As noted by Angelova:42
“When I worked at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) … I went to the course Ethical and Regulatory Aspects of Clinical Research … The first rule we learnt was ‘Clinical research must be ethical’ … All ethical aspects of clinical research are dismissed with the COVID-19 vaccines.
People should know that nobody can require such to participate in everyday activities like using public transportation, shopping, going to school and even hospital. People should know that they should not be punished for refusing to take the experimental medical treatments.
COVID-19 vaccines mass use and COVID-19 measures are an infringe[ment] of the Articles 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20, 25, 27, 28 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).”
*
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).
The fall of Kabul to the Taliban, pre-negotiated with the US in Doha, Qatar, has launched yet another fruitless enterprise, as fruitless as the US effort to keep Afghanistan under its own control: all sorts of IR scholars, pundits, and journalists, in all sorts of specialized and unspecialized publications in the US and Europe, are trying to prove that the 2021 version of the Taliban has not changed in comparison to the version of the Taliban which seized control of Afghanistan in 1996 and that they will again make Afghanistan a cradle for all kinds of terrorists. If they use facts rather than hollow phrases, they commonly seek a confirmation of this thesis in the names of the 2021 Taliban leaders appointed to the interim government, the names which are not particularly different from those of the Taliban who governed the country from 1996.
Yet, all these would-be experts have somehow failed to notice that the times have changed, and so has the geopolitical environment in which the whole overturn took place. Indeed, how can the Taliban remain the same, if the entire world has changed so profoundly, comparing the year of 2001, when the Taliban were overthrown by the US forces, with the year of 2021, when the US forces withdrew before the Taliban’s advance? No matter how rigid they are in their faith as a religious movement, the Taliban as a political organization had no choice but to adapt to the tide of change, if they wanted to seize and exercise power in a changed geopolitical context.
There are many symbolic signs of this new context which are directly linked to the second arrival of the Taliban.
First, both the Taliban and the US sat down to negotiate the withdrawal of the US forces and transfer of power to the Taliban, which signals that the US is no longer the same hegemonic power that refuse to ‘negotiate with the terrorists’, as the Taliban were characterized by the US diplomacy for so many years.
Second, the Taliban have adopted a different political philosophy, which gives precedence to diplomatic – rather than military – means, whenever the former proves more efficient.
Third, the negotiations took place in Qatar, a country that used to be the most isolated among the Arab countries due to its alliance with Iran, which shows that the Americans have accepted not only Qataris, but also Iranians, as mediators and potential partners.
Fourth, despite their ambiguous relations and deep ideological differences, Iranians have also accepted the Taliban as a potential partner, which is also mirrored in the fact that their only Arab ally, Qatar, played the role of the mediator and host to the US-Taliban negotiations.
Fifth, China, Russia, Iran, and Pakistan did not close their diplomatic missions in Kabul after its takeover by the Taliban, which demonstrates that two global and two regional powers intend to cooperate with the Taliban-led government; moreover, that these four powers asses that they can benefit from such cooperation and accept the Taliban as a relevant regional partner of potential strategic significance. Therefore, at the very least, the Taliban are not going to be so isolated as they were during their first incarnation, which will certainly open them up, for the first time, to various foreign policy options.
However, there is one important question that is rarely posed by those who pretend to write and speak about the Taliban. This question is the most basic one: who are, in fact, the Taliban and who actually created them?
In an interview, the (late) National Security Advisor to US President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, proudly admitted that the US intelligence agencies inserted a number of Islamist fighters’ cells into Afghanistan by the end of the 1970s, with the task to penetrate the territory of the then Soviet Union and perform military actions, so as to provoke the Soviet regime to invade Afghanistan.
The idea was to turn Afghanistan into the Soviet Union’s Vietnam-like catastrophe and thus bring the communist empire to a collapse. As we all know, the Soviets had fallen into that trap and the rest is history: they were eventually defeated and expelled by the well-organized Islamist fighters, better prepared for a guerrilla war than the Soviet army.
However, no matter how Brzezinski prided himself for this idea, it is well-known that its execution and implementation were in more than 90% left to a non-American agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan, the country that was the most faithful British and American ally at the time. In an exceptional analysis Forever Friends? Pakistan and the Taliban Still Need Each Other, written by Zahid Shahab Ahmed and published in the National Interest, we can see it clearly:
After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, Washington approached Islamabad to become its frontline ally in a proxy war against the Soviets. During the Afghan-Soviet War (1979-1989), thousands of mujahideen were recruited from around the world and trained in Pakistan, and then deployed into Afghanistan. In addition to receiving billions in economic and military assistance from the United States, Pakistan expanded its influence in Afghanistan through close relations with the Afghan mujahideen as they later united into the Taliban in the 1990s. In 1994, Mullah Mohammed Omar founded the Taliban with fifty students in Kandahar. By 1995, the group’s control increased to twelve provinces and its size to 25,000 fighters. Due to its quick territorial gains, the Taliban managed to seize control of most of the country and established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in 1996. To date, their first takeover of Kabul is attributed to Pakistan’s strong backing.
Therefore, the Taliban’s recruitment from among the Afghani and Pakistani Pashtuns and their military training for guerrilla warfare and religious indoctrination with the mixture of Pakistani Deobandi and Saudi Wahhabi Islam are to be treated as a special intelligence operation conducted by the ISI, and the same may be applied to their military victory.
Of course, this operation would not have been viable without adequate coverage by the American CIA and British MI6, and assistance by Saudi Arabia’s GID (General Intelligence Directorate). Thus the Taliban and their hybrid ideology were created for a particular purpose and their heavy-handed policies upon the seizure of power also served a particular geopolitical agenda. It would go beyond the scope of this article to analyse in detail what this agenda was or might have been. Let us only notice that the Taliban in those times prepared the ground, both ideologically and literally, to legitimize the future American ‘War on Terror’, which has brought 20 years of continuous instability to the central part of Eurasia. In other words, there is no reason to look at the Taliban as a genuine occurrence – they had been created as a proxy and were left with no option but to remain a proxy. Whose proxy, that is the only question.
There is no doubt that the second arrival of the Taliban has been prepared and backed, again, by the ISI and Pakistan. On the operative level, the Taliban have clearly remained Pakistan’s proxy. However, in the meantime, Pakistan has totally changed its geopolitical orientation and switched loyalties. Initially created by the British Empire through religious partition of the post-colonial India to enable continuous Anglo-American control of the heart of Eurasia, Pakistan found itself abandoned and cornered by its former sponsors and allies, when they invested their capital and geopolitical weight in the strengthening and rise of its archenemy, Hindu-controlled India. Of course, this was not the first time that the British-American axis supported India against Pakistan, just as they were supporting Pakistan against India.
However, this time it happened in the context of the rise of the most extreme form of religious nationalism promoted by the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, designed to eliminate Muslims as a constituent part of the Indian nation for good, which would force Pakistan to enter yet another conflict with India over a definite line of Muslim-Hindu separation.
Ostensibly, it was a rational calculation by the British and Americans, to support instant economic rise of India and foster a redesign of Indian policy towards extreme, religiously based nationalism, so as to make India capable and willing to confront China, as India’s old and their new geopolitical adversary. However, such a tricky game has only pushed Pakistan to turn towards China as a potential ally and geopolitical patron. Thus the British and Americans have eventually pushed Pakistan away and lost their most faithful ally, and China has been delivered an entirely new leverage to fundamentally change the geopolitical balance in Eurasia.
With Pakistan under the US-UK patronage and Afghanistan under American control, China had a huge problem to secure its most important strategic project, the Belt and Road Initiative, in particular its China/Pakistan and China/Central Asia/West Asia Corridors. Also, the direct access of the Anglo-American intelligence agencies to the very borderland of China, through their stronghold in Afghanistan and the porous borders of the post-Soviet Central Asian republics, made it possible to instigate China’s own ‘Muslim problem’ in the form of the Islamist radicalization of Uighurs in Xinjiang. This, predictably, provoked the Chinese regime to respond in an extremely oppressive manner, which almost put in question its relations with the entire Islamic world, especially the countries of Central Asia, thereby undermining the prospects for their participation in the Belt and Road Initiative. As this problem proved to be too difficult to solve on the internal level, China’s imperative was to take Afghanistan out of the American control and reverse this trend that gravely threatened Chinese strategic interests. In these circumstances, Pakistan’s well-known proxy, the Taliban, appeared on the horizon as the best suited instrument for that purpose. In this context, it is not difficult to imagine why the Taliban were so quickly and efficiently restored by the ISI and why they suddenly became so politically pragmatic and militarily strong.
So, the Taliban’s 2021 takeover was also decisively supported by Pakistan, as it had been the one in 1996. However, this time it has all happened in a totally different geopolitical environment, with Pakistan under China’s geopolitical umbrella, which implies a totally different geopolitical orientation on Pakistan’s, as well as the Taliban’s, part.
Instead of serving the goals of Halford Mackinder’s doctrine of permanent destabilization of Eurasia, so as to secure British-American control over the world’s sea-trade routes, now Pakistan and its proxies have become open to promoting the opposite geopolitical agenda, the Chinese doctrine of building Eurasian land-trade infrastructure as an alternative to the Anglo-American hegemony over sea-trade routes. Such a doctrine, embodied in the Belt and Road Initiative, requires a long-lasting stabilization of the Eurasian geopolitical space, and Afghanistan occupies a strategic place within this constellation.
Of course, most the Chinese officials could do in their public activities was to keep the embassy in Kabul open, recognize the Taliban, and send their Minister of Foreign Affairs, Wang Yi, to meet the Taliban delegation in Tianjin.
On their part, the Taliban described China as a ‘friendly country’ and invited it to participate in reconstruction and development of Afghanistan, guaranteeing the safety of Chinese investments.
However, there is no need to make vain guesses about whether the new version of the Taliban will really prevent various Islamist militant groups to penetrate China’s territory [on behalf of the US], as well as the territory of the post-Soviet Central Asian republics: this time, the Taliban have been resurrected and installed as a watchdog, to serve no other than this very purpose, so as to eventually make Afghanistan a part of a potential strategic alliance of China, Pakistan, and Iran. All in accordance with the Chinese strategic vision to make the Eurasian land-mass stable for transcontinental development of infrastructure, trade, and industry, designed to lead to economic, and eventually political, unification of the Eurasian continent.
*
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. Zlatko Hadžidedić is the founder and director of the Center for Nationalism Studies, in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina (www.nationalismstudies.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).
The European Union database of suspected drug reaction reports is EudraVigilance, and they are now reporting 24,526 fatalities, and 2,317,495 injuries, following COVID-19 injections.
A Health Impact News subscriber from Europe reminded us that this database maintained at EudraVigilance is only for countries in Europe who are part of the European Union (EU), which comprises 27 countries.
The total number of countries in Europe is much higher, almost twice as many, numbering around 50. (There are some differences of opinion as to which countries are technically part of Europe.)
So as high as these numbers are, they do NOT reflect all of Europe. The actual number in Europe who are reported dead or injured following COVID-19 shots would be much higher than what we are reporting here.
The EudraVigilance database reports that through September 11, 2021 there are 24,526 deaths and 2,317,495 injuries reported following injections of four experimental COVID-19 shots:
From the total of injuries recorded, almost half of them (1,126,869) are serious injuries.
“Seriousness provides information on the suspected undesirable effect; it can be classified as ‘serious’ if it corresponds to a medical occurrence that results in death, is life-threatening, requires inpatient hospitalisation, results in another medically important condition, or prolongation of existing hospitalisation, results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly/birth defect.”
A Health Impact News subscriber in Europe ran the reports for each of the four COVID-19 shots we are including here. It is a lot of work to tabulate each reaction with injuries and fatalities, since there is no place on the EudraVigilance system we have found that tabulates all the results.
Since we have started publishing this, others from Europe have also calculated the numbers and confirmed the totals.*
Here is the summary data through September 11, 2021.
Total reactions for the mRNA vaccine Tozinameran (code BNT162b2,Comirnaty) from BioNTech/ Pfizer – 11,711 deaths and 980,474 injuries to 11/09/2021
26,634 Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 156 deaths
26,940 Cardiac disorders incl. 1,745 deaths
253 Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 21 deaths
257,766 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 1,278 deaths
831 Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 51 deaths
3,987 Immune system disorders incl. 23 deaths
24,674 Infections and infestations incl. 330 deaths
11,183 Injury poisoning and procedural complications incl. 141 deaths
21,578 Investigations incl. 121 deaths
11,626 Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 73 deaths
148,195 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 74 deaths
510 Neoplasms benign malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 16 deaths
204,423 Nervous system disorders incl. 840 deaths
439 Pregnancy puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 11 deaths
158 Product issues incl. 1 death
18,501 Psychiatric disorders incl. 47 deaths
3,639 Renal and urinary disorders incl. 48 deaths
12,993 Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 2 deaths
34,557 Respiratory thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 629 deaths
45,140 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 36 deaths
1,291 Social circumstances incl. 6 deaths
1,142 Surgical and medical procedures incl. 22 deaths
24,083 Vascular disorders incl. 379 deaths
Total reactions for the COVID-19 vaccine JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S) from Johnson & Johnson: 1,203 deaths and 74,607 injuries to 11/09/2021
690 Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 31 deaths
1,201 Cardiac disorders incl. 120 deaths
25 Congenital, familial and genetic disorders
560 Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 1 death
42 Endocrine disorders incl. 1 death
1,006 Eye disorders incl. 5 deaths
6,822 Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 56 deaths
19,539 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 303 deaths
96 Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 9 deaths
302 Immune system disorders incl. 7 deaths
1,679 Infections and infestations incl. 66 deaths
694 Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 16 deaths
3,861 Investigations incl. 72 deaths
431 Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 26 deaths
11,861 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 30 deaths
31 Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 2 deaths
15,493 Nervous system disorders incl. 142 deaths
26 Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 1 death
20 Product issues
988 Psychiatric disorders incl. 11 deaths
280 Renal and urinary disorders incl. 11 deaths
863 Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 4 deaths
2,629 Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 136 deaths
2,296 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 5 deaths
212 Social circumstances incl. 4 deaths
546 Surgical and medical procedures incl. 38 deaths
2,414 Vascular disorders incl. 106 deaths
Professor of Ethics in Canada for 20 Years is Fired for Refusing Mandatory COVID-19 Shot
Dr. Julie Ponesse, Professor of Ethics at Huron College of the University of Western Ontario, one of the largest universities in Canada, goes online to give her last lesson on medical ethics to her students, discussing the ethics of mandating a vaccination as a requirement for employment. Within 11 hours after posting this video, the University terminated her employment after 20 years of faithful service.
*
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).
In a paper published Sept. 9, Nina Pierpoint, M.D., Ph.D., analyzed studies published in August 2021 which she said prove the Delta variant is evading the available COVID vaccines, leading her to conclude herd immunity to COVID cannot be achieved through vaccination.
Based on what we know about COVID vaccines, mandating them for the public is a “potentially harmful, damaging act,” according to New York physician Nina Pierpont, M.D., Ph.D.
In a paper published Sept. 9, Pierpoint analyzed studies published in August 2021 which she said prove the Delta variant is evading the available COVID vaccines, leading her to conclude herd immunity to COVID cannot be achieved through vaccination.
Pierpont, a graduate of Yale University with a Ph.D. from Princeton University and an M.D. from the John Hopkins University School of Medicine, cites three studies whose findings and data support her conclusions.
The studies include:
One published Aug. 6 in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.”
A third study published Aug. 24, which was funded by the UK Department for Health and Social CareIn her paper, Pierpont states that new research in multiple settings shows Delta produces very high viral loads (meaning, the density of virus on a nasopharyngeal swab as interpreted from PCR cycle threshold numbers), and that viral loads are much higher in people infected with Delta than they were in people infected with Alpha.
Research also shows viral loads with Delta are equally high whether the person has been vaccinated or not. The more virus one has in the nose and mouth, Pierpont writes, the more likely it is to be in this individual’s respiratory droplets and secretions, and to spread to others.
According to Pierpont, due to evolution of the virus itself, all the currently licensed vaccines — all based on the original Wuhan strain spike protein sequence — have lost their ability to accomplish the purpose of a vaccine, which is to prevent infection and transmission.
As a result, vaccine mandates are “stripped of their justification,” since to vaccinate an individual no longer stops or even slows his ability to acquire and transmit the virus to others.
Pierpont also cites data in the studies that show, under Delta, natural immunity is much more protective than vaccination.
“All severities of COVID-19 illness produce healthy levels of natural immunity,” she concludes.
*
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).
Ein Artikel in „The Guardian“ vom 13. September „Starker Anstieg der akutmedizinischen Betten, die von Kindern belegt werden, die sonst nirgendwo unterkommen“ sollte nicht nur Eltern alarmieren. „Uncut-news.ch“ veröffentlichte den Artikel. Ich zitiere:
„Ein Drittel der Intensivbetten in England ist mit Kindern belegt, die aufgrund ihrer Krankheit nirgendwo anders hingehen können. Mitten in der COVID-19-Pandemie leiden diese Kinder unter psychischen und neurologischen Problemen. Einige zeigen gewalttätiges oder selbstverletzendes Verhalten, andere haben schwere neurologische Entwicklungsstörungen. Wieder andere sind aufgrund einer Essstörung dort. Doch trotz ihrer individuellen Bedürfnisse haben viele von ihnen keine spezifische psychiatrische Diagnose. Und ohne Diagnose haben sie keinen Anspruch auf ein Bett in einer echten psychiatrischen Abteilung, selbst wenn sie so gewalttätig sind, dass sie nicht nur eine Gefahr für sich selbst, sondern auch für ihre Umgebung darstellen. Das bedeutet, dass diese Kinder schließlich in einem normalen Krankenhaus leben, manchmal monatelang. Noch besorgniserregender ist, dass seit Beginn der Pandemie die Zahl der Kinder in diesen Betten dramatisch gestiegen ist. In den USA berichten Kinderkrankenhäuser im ganzen Land, dass die Zahl der Kinder, die psychiatrische Hilfe benötigen, ‚explodiert‘ ist, so CNN. ‚Mehrere Kinderkrankenhäuser gaben an, dass das Angebot an stationären psychiatrischen Betten so knapp war, dass sie Kinder in ihren Notaufnahmen unterbringen mussten – manchmal wochenlang.‘“(1)
Screenshot from The Guardian
Bereits im vergangenen März forderte ich in einem Kommentar „‘Lockdown Kinderrechte‘: Wir töten die Seelen unserer Kinder“, der in verschiedenen unabhängigen Internet-Plattforen veröffentlicht wurde: „Wenn wir gegen diesen Lockdown-Wahnsinn nicht sofort aufstehen, machen wir uns mitschuldig am Seelenmord unserer Kinder!“
Doch der Großteil der Eltern und Erzieherinnen und Erzieher in Kindergärten und Schulen steht nicht auf, sondern nimmt stillschweigend hin, dass korrupte Regierungen ihre Kinder in den Wahnsinn oder gar Suizid treiben und damit unser aller Zukunft strangulieren.
Natürlich ahnen alle vernunftbegabten Erwachsene seit über eineinhalb Jahren, dass es bei den politischen Wahnsinns-Maßnahmen nicht um den Gesundheitsschutz der Bevölkerung geht, sondern allein um ein weltweites politisches Großexperiment, mit dessen Hilfe diabolische Herrscher versuchen, ihren Willen durchzusetzen. Aber diese Erwachsenen bringen nicht den Mut auf, die Regierenden dazu zu zwingen, diesen Wahnsinn sofort zu beenden.
Im Gegenteil: Durch den direkten und indirekten Impfzwang mit einem „Killer-Impfstoff“ – auch von Kindern und Säuglingen – verschärfte sich die weltweite Situation für die Menschen im letzten halben Jahr noch einmal entscheidend. Sogar Kirchen werden inzwischen zu Impfzentren umfunktioniert. Und die Tatsache, dass „COVID 19“ in Wahlkämpfen – wie zum Beispiel in Deutschland – keine Rolle spielt, ist ein untrügliches Zeichen dafür, dass es um ganz andere Ziele als den Gesundheitsschutz geht.
Wer ist in der Lage, Eltern und Erziehern so ins Gewissen zu reden, dass sie endlich aufstehen und NEIN sagen? Unsere Kinder sind in großer Not und unsere Zukunft ist in Gefahr.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Rudolf Hänsel ist Vater, Großvater, Erziehungswissenschaftler und Diplom-Psychologe.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The title of an unputdownable 1980 classic by Peter Hopkirk comes to mind even as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation are preparing to hold back-to-back summit meetings at Dushanbe, Tajikistan, on September 17.
Foreign Devils on the Silk Road: The Search for the Lost Treasures of Central Asia tells the breathtaking story of the intrepid men who made long-range archaeological raids in far west China looking for the lost cities of the Taklamakan Desert before they were gradually swallowed by the shifting waves of sand (and weren’t rediscovered until the early 19th century.)
Central Asia has been beyond the tour itineraries of External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar. But this time around, he is making a great exception to attend the forthcoming SCO event in Dushanbe in person and possibly catch up on the CSTO summit from the sidelines.
This is an exceptional circumstance as the Taliban’s seizure of power in Afghanistan following the defeat of the US in the 20-year war is expected to be the main topic of discussion. The SCO and CSTO summits are expected to inject some transparency into the prospects, if any, for an anti-Taliban resistance at the regional level backed by a ‘coalition of the willing’ from among the member states of the two security organisations.
The West is not directly represented in the summit meetings but then, India’s presence makes up for it. Delhi also happens to be the flag carrier of the Quad, which is also holding its maiden summit in Washington on September 24 presided over by President Joe Biden in the ‘post-Afghanistan’ setting.
The regional reaction to the events in Afghanistan is not on an even keel. At one end stand Pakistan, Iran and China, which advocate an engagement with the Taliban so as to ‘guide and urge’ its policies in a positive direction in regard of an inclusive government and commitment to rooting out terrorist groups based in Afghanistan. They seem reasonably certain about Taliban’s receptiveness.
On the other extreme stands Tajikistan which refuses to accept a radical Islamist government next-door under any circumstance. In between stand two weathercocks — Russia and Uzbekistan.
So far, no regional state has advocated resistance to the Taliban government, although Russian propaganda apparatus has become patently unfriendly in a U-turn on orders of the Kremlin from Moscow’s effusive praise of the movement as a legitimate indispensable Afghan entity to President Putin’s own arrogant description of the Taliban as not being ‘civilised’ enough for company.
Iran has serious issues with the non-representation of non-Pashtun ethnic groups in the Afghan government. Indeed, Iran has ethnic affinities with the (Sunni) Tajiks and the Hazara Shias of Afghanistan who together account for some 45% of the population. Iran is unlikely to compromise on this issue. In a curious way, Iran is promoting the democratisation of Afghanistan. Which is a good thing.
But Iran has also taken on board the Taliban’s assurances that it will not allow Saudi-Israeli-Emirati backed terror groups to operate from Afghanistan. Fundamentally, Iran feels satisfied that the Taliban has successfully ended the US occupation.
Iran and Russia have not liked the sort of perceived dominance that Pakistan has achieved in Afghanistan. That does not, however, turn into a zero-sum mindset or an urge to be ‘spoiler’, given their high stakes in the overall stability of Afghanistan, especially in border security. Iran has had a serious problem with cross-border terrorism and narcotics trafficking during the 20 years of US occupation.
For Russia too, border security is crucial. For a start, just about 100 kms from the Afghan border in Nurak (Gorno-Badakhshan region Tajikistan ), Russia has its space surveillance system for detecting objects in outer space, the only one of its kind possible for it in the entire post-Soviet space — in the clear sky zone in the Pamir Mountains. The station is fully automated and has the ability to operate without human intervention and gather information on space objects and monitor objects in space, including those in geostationary orbit, at a distance of 120 to 40,000 km. It is an irreplaceable strategic asset for Russia.
But concentrations of terrorist groups have been reported on the Afghan side in the Gorno-Badakhshan region, especially Jamaat Ansarullah, the Central Asian group fighting alongside the Taliban, founded in 2010 by the former Tajik warlord Amriddin Tabarov.
India has common interest with China, Iran and Russia in regard of counterterrorism as but their threat perceptions and approaches vary. India’s main worry is that Pakistan-supported terrorist groups may set up sanctuaries in Afghanistan.
Again, India and Russia have restive Muslim populations that feel suppressed and Delhi and Moscow worry about their ‘radicalisation’. The Taliban’s triumph in Kabul has worried the current Chechen leader, Ramzan Kadyrov, a Kremlin appointee, who is nervous that this is ‘an American project’ against Russia.
However, Kadyrov’s own advisor on religious affairs, Adam Shakhidov, has praised the Taliban’s successes in an Instagram comment, attributing them, somewhat cryptically, to its Maturidi-Hanafi creed! The Taliban’s sweep to power in Afghanistan clearly boosted the morale of the North Caucasus militants. The most enthusiastic reaction to the Taliban’s return to power came from the Caucasus Emirate, the pan-Caucasus militant group whose Chechen wing congratulated “the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Mujahideen and all Muslims of Afghanistan on a great, historic victory.”
The Kremlin seems worried. President Putin has reportedly directed that no CSTO member country should have anything to do with the American evacuation plans without his express approval. (Russia has a visa-free regime with the Central Asian countries.)
Clearly, Russia empathises with India’s concerns, which brought the top Kremlin official Nikolay Patrushev to Delhi for consultations. However, Russia also worries about the ISIS waiting in the wings to exploit any chaos. Unlike India, which is a junior partner of the US, Russia is haunted by the spectre of Washington using the ISIS as a geopolitical tool against it. Sections of the Russian security establishment also suspect a tacit US-Pakistan understanding regarding the Taliban.
Can this dense paradigm transform as a common Iran-Russia-India enterprise for the armed overthrow of the Taliban government in Kabul? Certainly not. Each has specific interests and none has an alternative to the Taliban government.
Besides, the circumstances are very different today. India helped the anti-Taliban resistance in the 1990s as a revenge act against Pakistan’s support of terrorism in India. In turn, Taliban hit back at the time of the Kandahar hijacking of an Indian civilian plane. Iran’s support for the resistance also led to a Taliban retaliation in the ghastly killing of 11 Iranian diplomats assigned to its consulate in Mazai-i-Sharif in 1998. Taliban hit back at Russia by recognising the rebel government in Chechnya.
Uzbekistan, the most important Central Asian state, offers a case in study. Tashkent is genuinely worried about the type of government Afghanistan will organise itself and whether the Taliban will succeed in peacefully co-existing with different ethnic groups and political forces. Ideally, Tashkent would prefer an inclusive government in Kabul.
But life is real. Succinctly put, Tashkent is not going to rigidly lock itself into only supporting a coalition government for Afghanistan but is willing to accept any outcome and avoid taking one side over another in a civil war. Tashkent focuses on beefing up its military so that it remains strong and ready to handle any threat. Uzbekistan will not countenance any refugee flow from Afghanistan.
Tashkent will continue to cherrypick security assistance from Moscow, but there’s always a red line to ward off Russian hegemony and preserve its strategic autonomy. Indeed, Tashkent also is the main gateway for Afghanistan to the Central Asian region and will look forward to participation in the Afghan reconstruction.
Overall, Uzbekistan is finessing the same policy approach it took in 1996 when the Taliban seized power in Kabul. Of course, compared to the 1990s, it has become more savvy, self-confident and composed and skilful in diplomacy. Tashkent even became a venue for mainstreaming the Taliban!
Prima facie, it is Tajikistan which may seem closest to the Indian security establishment. But Delhi must also understand President Emomali Rahmon’s, calculus, which has 5 vectors: One, he is syncwith the public opinion which has memories of the violent civil war in the 1990s and abhors radical Islamists.
Like any old fashioned dictator, Rahmon’s number one concern is his domestic politics. The emergent situation is conducive for Rahmon to advance his son Rustam’s prospects as his successor. He has increasingly positioned himself as the protector of Afghanistan’s Tajik community, which also plays well in the domestic gallery.
Rahmon’s government has been lately stoking nationalist sentiments, which may help distract people from the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Ironically, however, the people of Tajikistan do not want to get entangled in any conflict in Afghanistan, a much poorer country and a failed state, which has been known as the graveyard of empires!
Two, Russia does not have a great track record as ‘provider of security’ in Central Asia. It supplies weapons and holds military exercises, but when the crunch time comes, it may prefer to stand in the sidelines. Yet, Rahmon has gone out on a limb on Taliban. It is inconceivable he didn’t consult Putin. Are they playing ‘good cop, bad cop’? Such theatrics are endemic to Central Asian politics and Russiais a seasoned actor.
Three, without doubt, Rahmon’s antipathy toward the role of Islam in politics is authentic. He evicted the Islamists from his coalition government as recently as in 2015 on trumped up charges of an attempted coup, and any traces of co-habitation with an even more patently radical islamist group like the Taliban risks generating blowback in Tajik domestic politics.
Four, an estimated one third of the Tajikistani economy comes from drug trade, much of it controlled by corrupt officials. Tajikistan will want to ensure that this lucrative commodity continues to flow north (to Russia and Europe.) But Taliban has repeatedly stated that it would not allow the production of opium or other narcotics in Afghanistan. Interestingly, Tajik officials have met the Taliban in Kabul to assure them that Dushanbe will not retract on the bilateral agreement on electricity supply. The border crossings also remain open.
Finally, in Rahmon’s calculus, it pays to take a strident stance against the Taliban government. Such a positioning of the country as a key actor vis-à-vis Afghanistan helps Tajikistan receive much-needed financial support from the West. In fact, he is scheduling a visit to Paris and Brussels in October, accepting invitations from President Macron and the president of the EU Council Charles Michel.
All in all, if the Taliban government quickly consolidates power and other regional states opt to develop direct ties Kabul, Rahmon may face pressure to switch course. Tajik intelligence agencies have deep connections inside Afghanistan, including with the Taliban. A policy change in Dushanbe is all but certain to follow if the Taliban pacifies Panjshir.
Hopefully, these events in Dushanbe will be a wake-up call for all those who fantasise about anti-Taliban resistance — at least. Unless Taliban goofs up in a big way, which seems highly unlikely, given the pragmatism there are showing on women’s education and so on, we are looking at a regime that will be around for quite a long while and present a level of governance that the puppets of the richest and most advanced countries failed to provide.
History would have the last laugh if the Taliban becomes the role model for the democratisation of Central Asia and the oligarchies of West Asia — or, everywhere else in the region, especially South Asia where human rights and justice are denied and state repression is a fact of life.
These ‘foreign devils’ gathering at Dushanbe on Thursday don’t realise what they are getting into. A small footnote here will help restore a sense of proportions: Actually, it was following an official Indian Government report in 1875 describing the treasures of those lost ruins of the Taklamakan Desert that a race to excavate began from all corners of the world. And, inevitably, each ran into their own set of problems and interesting circumstances.
*
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: Trade caravan on the Silk Road, Central Asia (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).
The US urge to dominate the World is still looking for a way.
Not that the US can – but that doesn’t mean the Neocons won’t attempt.
Neocons no longer identify themselves as such, but that also doesn’t mean that they have gone away – or that they have changed. Democrat Neocons, btw, never self-identified by this term, and as one observer rightly mentioned 20 years ago – Neocons span both the US parties.
The Al Jazeera article erroneously seems to indicate that Neocons are all Republicans. Only a few to list, and that the term Neocon is “outdated” or that they have “changed”. So let’s have a look.
Republican Party – Neocons
Rightly, Al Jazeera points out, that Republican Neocons seem to have assembled in a group which can be called “Never-Trumpers” – like Liz Cheney. The RINOs. A rather small group, actually.
And here we should add, that US Democrats and their media loooove and idealize these “Never-Trumpers” as “true” Republicans – just like they (including the Obamas) now idealize Bush II.
Republicans – with MAGA in charge – are now distinctly not-Neocon. Donald Trump Jr. strongly denounced Liz Cheney as a “Neocon warmaker” at a Conservative meeting a few months ago. Neocons to Republicans are now outcast, marginalized, or converts. Liz Cheney is outcast. Mitch McConnel is marginalized. And Lindsey Graham is a convert. Even Fox News is against “forever wars” nowadays.
Trump praises the US Military – but NO longer the lousy generals. Good. But the troops, who with their families and base-towns are big voters. The US Military has become a social pillar – one of the few employers of stable jobs left for ordinary Americans. This is what Trump senses. Pragmatically, Trump takes the Military not for fighting wars, but for keeping workers employed and …safe. Of course, Trump liked the US Military to press somebody, but not for starting wars. Not risking war for Europe, meaning not against Russia. US ordinary militaries want a job – not to die. US ordinary soldiers lack self-respect, therefore Trump praises them and their Military as an institution. They just don’t want to die, so Trump winds down US wars and talks big instead. That is better.
Trump made a peace-deal even with Taliban – to get Americans safely out of Afghanistan. Trump’s successor just botched it. And as Trump newly mentioned, the Middle East is quicksand. So Trump did NOT start a war with Iran, even after several hot incidents: Iran had shot down a US drone. Iran attacked a US base in Iraq in response to the US assassination of their Qassem Soleimani. Iran was behind a historic drone-attack on Saudi Arabia’s big refinery. Iran is still in Syria and Lebanon. And Iran sabotaged ships in UAE harbor. Talking “big”, Trump told the World that he has a “big button”, Trump then met with his counterpart in North Korea, declared “victory” – and went home. Trump cares more about realism (war with North Korea is un-winnable) than about Liberal / Neocon criticism. Excellently done, actually.
So Neocons are out of power in the Republican party. And as Trump remains relevant until 2024, (probably until 2030) and China grows fast, the Neocons have small chances of ever regaining the Republican party. The few remaining Republican Neocons will morph – probably into something unpleasant, but for now they are sidelined and cut-down.
Democrat Party – Neocons
Different is the picture with the Democrats.
Many US Democrats calling themselves “progressives” are against US foreign wars. Long ago, I noted that the critique of US imperial wars of choice was common among a lot of people both “progressive” Democrats and non-Neocon Republicans.
But war-critical Democrats have no say in the Democrat party’s foreign policy.
Democrat foreign policy is run by types like Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Victoria Nuland who supported Nazis in Ukraine. Feminist extremism. Democrat foreign policy is also run by male war hawks like Joe Biden – and probably Barrack Obama. The New York Times silences it.
Biden’s trick is that Biden stuffed the mouths of “progressives” with false money promises: Welfare galore like Sweden – stimulus – climate – “good paying jobs” for all – union safety – health care safety.
Biden promises 30 years of Cold War on China and “welfare”. Happy Christmas. All year. Right now.
Biden made the Devil’s promise to the Left: “You can have everything” – as long as the Left shuts up and keeps hands-off foreign policy. Because there will be lots of Military and Interventionism too!
These Devil’s promises are sold by Democrat Neocons like Biden to the US Left with the Big Lie that economic reality doesn’t exist. Supported by a Voodoo effort from “progressive” economists called “New Monetary Theory” – that you can just print trillions more money, then ALL get rich!
In other words – Biden promises that the US society can afford BOTH war AND welfare like never before. And not to build up in decades, like China did. No, it’s Magic. Wand waving money-printing.
In just 3 years until 2024. Only fools believe that – but they are millions.
Food prices increased 2.9% in August 2021 (seasonal adjusted, PPI p.14, 3rd row). That is 40% a year.
To pay trillions for war and Big Government – Biden with inflation makes poor Americans poorer.
The Democrat party has a Trifecta of US power – President – Senate – House of Representatives.
Democrats are in US politics the seat of Neocons.
Striving for US World domination.
*
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.
Karsten Riise is a Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has a university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from Copenhagen University. He is the former Senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
A woman suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma was a devoted user of Roundup herbicide for decades before she became ill, her son testified Tuesday in a California trial that marks the fourth such trial pitting a cancer victim against Roundup maker Monsanto.
Under questioning by a lawyer representing plaintiff Donetta Stephens, her son David Stephens recalled his mother’s frequent use of Roundup in the yard and her tendency to wear sleeveless shirts and shorts when outside spraying the weed killer. He described recalling her use when he was a child and that use continuing when he was an adult and had his own children.
Stephens also testified about a family gathering in which his mother broke the news of her cancer to the family, the lengthy series of medical treatments that followed, his mother’s memory loss and other treatment-related problems, and a period in which his mother was hospitalized multiple times and nearly died.
Stephens is one of tens of thousands of plaintiffs who filed lawsuits against Monsanto after the World Health Organization’s cancer experts in 2015 classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen with an association to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup and other weed killing brands.
Bayer AG bought Monsanto in June 2018 just as the first trial was getting underway.
Three previous trials held to date were all found in favor of the plaintiffs. Jurors in those trials agreed with claims that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based weed killers, such as Roundup, cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and that Monsanto spent decades covering up the risks and failing to warn users.
The Stephens case is being tried in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County in California under the oversight of Judge Gilbert Ochoa. Though the trial started in person, Judge Ochoa ordered the proceedings shifted to a Zoom trial due to concerns about the spread of Covid-19 virus.
In testimony Tuesday, David Stephens broke down, emotionally describing a time when it appeared his mother was near death, and speaking of a photo he took of her that he thought at the time would be the last.
“I took that picture because when you think that your mother is going to die and that could be the last picture…,” Stephens said haltingly. “I wanted to take that picture so I could remember…”
Donnetta Stephens is now in remission from cancer but has been left debilitated, her son testified.
Former Monsanto scientist Donna Farmer will be called to testify next week, according to Stephens’ lawyer Fletch Trammell.
Technical trouble
The trial has been plagued by technical issues since the transition to a virtual setting through Zoom. There have been multiple times proceedings have been halted because a lawyer or juror loses an audio or video connection or experiences other difficulties. The virtual format has also proven problematic at times for the presentation of certain exhibits.
A courtroom attendant has been assigned to monitor jurors to determine if they are paying attention, and to alert the judge to lost connections or other problems.
In Tuesday’s testimony, as Monsanto lawyer Manuel Cachan was attempting to cross examine Stephens, questioning the reliability of his memory regarding his mother’s use of Roundup, the technical trouble kicked in again.
“I’m sorry for the interruption, juror number 13 is having issues, just starting to quote unquote glitch out,” the courtroom attendant interjected.
Minutes later: “Pardon me… juror number 11 has just disconnected,” the courtroom attendant interrupted again.
Some legal observers have speculated that the losing party in the trial will have an easy avenue for appeal given the persistent interruptions and difficulties.
Trial overlap
A fifth Roundup trial was starting jury selection this week in a case involving a boy with non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
The child, Ezra Clark, is the subject of a trial beginning this week in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Clark was “directly exposed” to Roundup many times as he accompanied his mother while she sprayed Roundup to kill weeds around the property where the family lived, according to court documents. Ezra sometimes played in freshly sprayed areas, according to the court filings.
Ezra was diagnosed in 2016, at the age of 4, with Burkitt’s lymphoma, a form of NHL that has a high tendency to spread to the central nervous system, and can also involve the liver, spleen and bone marrow, according to the court filings.
Ezra’s mother, Destiny Clark, is the plaintiff in the case, filing on behalf of Ezra.
Opening statements in the Clark trial are scheduled to begin Wednesday morning.
Bayer denies any cancer connection
Bayer has earmarked more than $14 billion to try to settle the litigation and has announced it will stop selling glyphosate-based herbicides to consumers by 2023. But the company still insists that the herbicides it inherited from Monsanto do not cause cancer.
The move is widely seen as Bayer’s best hope for putting an end to claims that exposure to Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides, such as the popular Roundup brand, cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and the company failed to warn users of the risks.
During the month-long trial in 2019, lawyers for plaintiff Edwin Hardeman presented jurors with a range of scientific research showing cancer connections to Monsanto’s herbicides as well as evidence of many Monsanto strategies aimed at suppressing the scientific information about the risks of its products. Internal Monsanto documents showed the company’s scientists had engaged in secretly ghost-writing scientific papers that the company then used to help convince regulators of product safety.
*
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).
Returning from a trip away, I was disturbed to witness the haunting sight of a tiny, five year old boy in school uniform, standing silently and still, his face encased in a black mask. Only his frightened and traumatised eyes were visible.
Since children are at less risk from coronavirus than influenza (1) and pose no risk to others (2), covering their faces not only risks damage to the developing brain from hypoxia (3), inhibits excretion of carbon dioxide leading to respiratory acidosis (4), forces them to inhale accumulated bacteria and fungi (5), and promotes headaches, dermatitis (6), and tooth decay (7), but it clearly worsens rather than protects their state of health (8).
Not only is physical health harmed but also the psychological and emotional development of the child is inevitably affected by inhibiting normal communication via speech and facial expression (9), risking mental health problems and underdeveloped social skills, including empathy (10).
Those individuals who mandate or enforce such irrational and harmful policies are guilty of nothing less than Institutional Child Abuse. Anyone in a position of responsibility is legally obliged to prevent harm to those in their care and failure to do so represents a dereliction of duty (11).
So, when is the Medical Profession going to speak out and take action to prevent harm to child patients?
In the absence of medical ethics, let us hope that parents can find the courage to protect their offspring from those who continue to undermine the younger generation by means of reckless and unjustifiable policies.
Failure to do so renders the future a very bleak place indeed.
*
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).
Indigenous peoples in North America have helped block tar sands mines, oil pipelines, and LNG export terminals. Their successes against the fossil fuel industry have kept enormous volumes of carbon pollution out of the atmosphere.
The efforts of Indigenous peoples in North America have helped block or delay a long list of major fossil fuel projects over the past decade, successfully leading to the avoidance of a massive amount of greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new report.
“The numbers don’t lie. Indigenous peoples have long led the fight to protect Mother Earth and the only way forward is to center Indigenous knowledge and keep fossil fuels in the ground,” Dallas Goldtooth, a Keep It In The Ground organizer for Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), said in a statement. The report was coauthored by IEN and Oil Change International, a research and advocacy organization focused on transitioning away from fossil fuels.
Indigenous resistance has been key in blocking at least eight major projects, including the Keystone XL pipeline, the C$20 billion Teck Frontier tar sands mine in Alberta, the Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in Oregon, and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to name a few. Taken together, those delayed and canceled projects would have been responsible for nearly 800 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent, or about 12 percent of the total emissions of the U.S. and Canada in 2019.
Another half-dozen projects are currently contested, including the Line 3 pipeline in Minnesota, the Coastal GasLink pipeline in British Columbia, and the Rio Grande LNG project in Texas, for example. These projects representanother 12 percent of total U.S. and Canadian emissions, which, if opponents have their way, would bring the total carbon pollution avoided due to Indigenous resistance to 1.6 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent. That’s roughly equal to the pollution from 400 new coal-fired power plants or 345 million passenger vehicles.
As the report notes, this is likely an underestimate because it only includes 17 of the largest and most iconic fossil fuel projects in recent years.
“Indigenous peoples continue to exert social and moral authority to protect their homelands from oil and gas development,” the report stated. “Coupling these expressions with the legal authority of Indigenous Rights, frontline communities, and Tribal Nations have made tangible progress stemming fossil fuel expansion.”
Over the past decade, Indigenous lands in the U.S. and Canada have been targeted by dozens of large-scale fossil fuel projects, as the aggressive expansion of fracking and tar sands extraction subsequently led to a pipeline buildout across the continent.
“I spend a lot of my life fighting stupid projects. It’s like one unbelievably bad idea after another,” Winona LaDuke, program director of the Honor the Earth, an Indigenous environmental organization, told DeSmog. Over many years she has fought to protect both the White Earth reservation in northern Minnesota, where she lives, and other Native American communities from a slew of dirty projects, including coal mines, coal-fired power plants, incinerators and nuclear waste facilities. LaDuke is currently one of the most prominent leaders in the fight against the Line 3 pipeline in northern Minnesota.
“We don’t have another place to go. This is where we live,” she said.
Fossil fuel projects on Native lands often violate the principles of Free, Prior, and Informed consent, a concept that not only necessitates consultation with Indigenous peoples regarding projects on their territory, but requires their consent. That principle lies at the heart of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), a global resolution adopted by 144 nations in 2007.
Only four countries opposed the declaration: Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the United States.
Years later, all four holdouts changed their position and announced their support for UNDRIP, but the support has been mostly rhetorical, lacking the force of law at the national level. Decision-making for large fossil fuel projects on Indigenous lands still often takes the form of merely consultation, a check-the-box procedure that governments impose on Indigenous communities rather than conducting a process that would require their affirmative consent before moving forward.
“Free, Prior, and Informed Consent constitutes a much more rigorous standard than consultation, and it is a bare minimum standard needed to uphold the rights of Indigenous Peoples,” the IEN report noted.
More recently, Canada moved to codify UNDRIP in June 2021, but it remains to be seen how it is applied to extractive industries on Indigenous lands.
One of the most infamous examples of the disconnect between professed support for UNDRIP and how decisions are made in practice is the Dakota Access pipeline, which crossed treaty territories of the Oceti Sakowin people. In 2015, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe passed a resolution opposing the pipeline project due to the oil pipeline’s threat to water, treaty rights, and sacred cultural sites, including areas in what is now North Dakota. A broader resistance movement gained further momentum a year later.
Despite Indigenous opposition, the U.S. government approved the project in July 2016, and state police in North Dakota and private security contracts hired by the pipeline’s owner, Energy Transfer Partners, violently suppressed water protectors opposing the project in the months that followed.
“The tribe was denied access to information and excluded from consultations at the planning stage of the project and environmental assessments failed to disclose the presence and proximity of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation,” Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, the UN special rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples, said in 2016 when she called on the U.S. to halt construction of the pipeline.
As DeSmog previously reported, Energy Transfer’s decision to plow ahead with the project despite concerns of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe cost the company billions of dollars.
According to the recent IEN report, “what happened in Standing Rock should not be seen as an anomalous incident, but rather a disturbing commonality across Indigenous resistance efforts worldwide.”
It is important to note that the poor treatment of Indigenous peoples has occurred under governments from across the political spectrum, including both Conservative and Liberal governments in Canada, and Republican and Democratic administrations in the United States.
For example, the construction of the Line 3 pipeline in Minnesota continues under the Biden administration, which has said very little about the project despite loud and repeated protest by Anishinaabe peoples and their allies.
On August 25, 2021, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) sent a letter to the U.S. government regarding the violations of human rights of the Anishinaabe. The letter notes the allegations that the permit approval of Line 3 “has been conducted without adequate consultation with and without obtaining free, prior and informed consent,” and also that the pipeline presents threats to lands, food, and sacred sites of Indigenous peoples. CERD requested information and a response from the U.S. government.
“It’s like a bunch of old cronies up here acting like they own the world,” LaDuke told DeSmog, referring to both Enbridge, the pipeline’s owner, and state officials. “And there’s a bunch of us saying ‘no you don’t.’ And we’re going to keep fighting you guys.”
Both the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have argued that a rapid phaseout of fossil fuels is necessary to avoid catastrophic warming of global temperatures. New fossil fuel projects should therefore be off the table.
The IEN report argues that Indigenous resistance not only goes hand-in-hand with climate action, but it has been an effective strategy of blunting the fossil fuel onslaught. “Indigenous resistance to carbon is both an opportunity and an offering — now is the time to codify the need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, to safeguard both the climate and Indigenous Rights,” the report said.
For Winona LaDuke, there are obvious lessons to be learned from the victories against major oil, gas, and coal projects. “One, we are pretty resilient. Two, support us,” she said, referring to funders and other allies in the climate fight. “We’ve got one percent of the resources of the big NGOs, and we’ve got people all over.”
On September 3, several progressive members of Congress, including Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Cori Bush (D-MO), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), traveled to northern Minnesota to call on the Biden administration to shut down construction of the Line 3 pipeline.
A day later, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz was headlining a public event for the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (a state-level affiliate of the Democratic Party), where he was interrupted by activists opposing Line 3. Flustered, he tried to tamp down the outburst, but ultimately ended the event and left in a motorcade while protestors chanted: “Governor Walz, you can’t hide. Line 3 is genocide!”
On September 7, President Joe Biden visited New York to highlight the destructive damage of the recent floods that ravaged the northeast, where he drew connections to the climate crisis. “They all tell us this is code red,” Biden said. “The nation and the world are in peril. And that’s not hyperbole. That is a fact.”
While President Biden spoke passionately about the climate crisis in New York, his administration has been silent on Line 3, allowing construction to proceed. Enbridge has said that it is in the final stages of construction and oil could soon be flowing through the pipeline.
But when asked if she feels hopeful, LaDuke quickly responded: “Oh my God. I have all kinds of hope.” She pointed to the convergence of recent racial justice movements, growing climate concerns, and strengthening Indigenous movements.
LaDuke also sees the oil industry in its own state of crisis, citing the array of major oil companies that have abandoned the Canadian tar sands amid financial troubles and an increasingly bleak future as the world moves on from fossil fuels. Canada’s tar sands are some of the dirtiest forms of oil production on the planet. ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips have sold off assets in Alberta and reduced their presence in the country. Insurance companies, pension funds, private equity, and major lenders have also cut off financial support for Canada’s tar sands.
“Line 3 is the most expensive tar sands pipeline in history. And the last. Nobody’s going to build another tar sands pipeline. It’s the end of the party,” she said. “The new Green revolution is here and the Tribes are pushing it. It’s just the damn state [of Minnesota] that is so backwards. And the Feds.”
She added: “My experience in fighting these guys … the longer you fight them, the better chance you have. So, I’m still in. We’re all in. None of us are backing down.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Nick Cunningham is an independent journalist covering the oil and gas industry, climate change and international politics. He has been featured in Oilprice.com, The Fuse, YaleE360 and NACLA.
Featured image: Treaty People Walk for Water demonstration at Minnesota Capitol, August 25, 2021. Credit: Peg Hunter(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).
Attached is a letter that I have recently sent to my high school classmates. This is a group with a shared experience spanning more than 50 years. We know each other since our adolescence – all having attended an elite residential school1) for six years. Ever since, contacts have been maintained with and within the group.
I sent the letter after realizing that they have excluded me from the next reunion, the decision having been taken behind my back. Historically I have rarely participated in such events. But this time, I have been expressing my interest to attend – primary because the planned reunion location is close to where my mother lives.
I have edited the original version of the letter a bit to provide some context for readers outside of the original recipient group. I have also added a few reference links.
At this stage in my life, time is precious, and life is good. Why then bother with such unpleasant matter? For two reasons. First, this incidence is a microcosm of what is happening in the larger society. It reveals how our entire social fabric is being torn apart. And the second one is the memory of pastor Martin Niemöller.2Today, a significant majority of Americans consider any questioning of the narrative coming from the government and the legacy media as heresy, even if the questioning is supported by factual arguments. What happens next is generally as follows:
Instead of trying to understand the questions, or having a civil discussion, the majority immediately assigns certain labels to the questioner – conspiracy theorist, XYZ-denier, Trump supporter, Querdenker, etc.
If the questioning is done on social media, then those questions arcensored, ultimately leading to deplatforming of the questioner
If it is done within a physical social group (friends, neighbors, colleagues, even family) then, here too, there is rarely a factual discussion, and the outcome is the same. But the process is different. It all starts rather innocuously enough. There is a quick exchange of glances, a faint smile or subtle turn of the eyes shared among the other members of the group, acknowledging that something is not quite right with the questioner. If the questioner persists, it only goes downhill from there …. all the way to an exclusion from the group.
In my specific case, it all begun about 9 months ago when I had started raising questions about inconsistency and illogic of many things about the Covid-19 pandemic that were being told by the government, health authorities and the legacy media. I did so within a closed WhatsApp group for our classmates only. I have no social media presence. I also put up a blog on my personal website listing the inconsistencies. Back then, at the earlier stage of the pandemic, I was mostly guided by gut feel, coupled with scientific rationale, and some initial scientific data. BTW, when I review the earlier post today, I am amazed how correct my gut feel was!
Anyway, back then I had concluded that considering the incomplete nature of the available safety and efficacy data, and my risk profile, it would be wiser for me to wait with vaccination until confirmed data become available. Although my conclusion included a clear proviso that what is right for me may not be right for everyone, my conclusion did not sit well with my classmates. Remember, at that time, vaccine promotion by the government, the health authorities, and the legacy media was already in full swing. On further questioning on my part, I was accused of “confirmation bias” but was provided no examples. At that point I left the WhatsApp group but kept in touch with them by other means.
Then came the preparation for a reunion. This is the genesis of the letter to my classmates ….
***
Dear classmates,
I found out that I have been excluded from the upcoming reunion. Fine – I haven’t attended many of them anyway. Annually wallowing in memories of adolescent mischiefs is not my cup of tea anyway. But as the subgroup was making the decision behind my back, (yes, there always is such a subgroup), I wish that at least one person from that subgroup had the decency to inform me. There goes six years of education at our elite high school1) down the drain….
I assume that I was excluded from the event to protect other attendees from Covid-19. What stupidity! Obviously, you continue to uncritically consume misinformation, half-truths and lies spread by the government and the legacy media. I know you are shocked by my strong statement. After all, none of them have ever lied, right?
If you were not blinded by the propaganda, then you’d realize that your greatest risk of getting infected with SARS-Cov-2 comes not from an unvaccinated person but from a symptomatic person – irrespective of that person’s vaccination status (see here3) and here44)). Interestingly, a recent study finds that some “vaccinated” persons can carry a delta variant viral load that is more than 200 times higher (than that of an unvaccinated person) before becoming symptomatic. If that is true, then maybe you should keep your distance from “vaccinated” persons instead?
Or is it that you are trying to protect me? That, of course, is none of your business. As long I don’t endanger others (see last paragraph), then please leave it up to me to decide what risks I take in life. This holds true for every adult. But if you are still in the business of protecting responsible adults (on their behalf), then how about excluding those with multiple comorbidities and/or a weakened immune system?
If you could think clearly, then the proper plan at the reunion would be to (a) primarily do outdoor activities, (b) have good ventilation by opening doors and windows, when you have indoor activities, (c) check everyone’s symptoms regularly, (d) wash hands frequently, etc.
BTW, I have been jabbed once, which is obviously not good enough. Just curious what your requirement will be for the next group event. 1 booster or 2? And for the subsequent one? 3 or 4 boosters? Or will it be an IV drip constantly pumping the “vaccine” in your body? When something doesn’t work as promised, do you always double down on it? Do you really think that the more the better, especially for an experimental drug based on an unproven technology?
But I am not so naïve to think that protecting me/you was the primary reason for my exclusion. If that were so, then at least one of the powerful decision-makers would have asked me about my vaccination status, and possibly asked about my willingness to take a second one. No, my crime was much more serious – that of Thought Crime. I question the truthfulness of government and legacy media. I also do not blindly trust unsubstantiated claims by big pharma, like Pfizer, which was recently fined almost $3B for fraudulent claims. Such crimes are inexcusable.
Now let’s consider a few examples that demonstrate your immense capacity to be gullible. Despite what you are told ….
Strictly speaking, the jabs are not vaccines – these are experimental gene therapies made with experimental technologies. That’s why the quotation marks around these “vaccines”. The relevant technologies were developed for cancer treatment but were abandoned due to clinical failure. None of the “vaccines” have completed clinical study. Pfizer will be the first one to complete it in 2023! All of them have skipped animal study and therefore, none of them have toxicokinetic data.
The “vaccines” have questionable efficacy. The originally claimed 90+% referred to relative efficacy and not the more relevant absolute efficacy. Besides, proper efficacy could not have been determined anyway because of the extremely shortened study protocol. See how they have now moved the goal post to claim “reduced severity of symptoms”? Reduced symptoms is not a bad thing – but what else are they making up as they go along? A lot, which you’d recognize if you did not have blinders on.
Covid-19 is not an exceptionally fatal disease. Its infection fatality rate in most countries is between 0.1% and 0.5% (the higher number applies to the elderly, institutionalized patients). Neither is it an untreatable disease – provided you don’t follow FDA guideline to wait at home until it gets so bad that you have to go the ER. Long Covid is also not a unique Covid-19 phenomena. Other viral infections have similar issues.
None of the current “vaccines” can stop the infection chain because none provides sterile immunity. Neither do they provide immunity (from getting sick). The only immunity that is iron clad is that of the “vaccine” manufacturers from getting sued for any harm caused by their experimental gene therapy products.
Dangerous mutants are more likely to be caused by those who have taken the current “vaccines“ vs. by the unvaccinated. You can understand this by drawing an analogy with antibiotics resistant bacteria. They emerge when incomplete and uncontrolled use of antibiotics leave behind some of the bacteria alive. These then become resistant to antibiotics (remember, what doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger). Similarly, the current “vaccines“ kill only some of the viruses but leave others alive. These surviving viruses mutate to more resistant strains. There is a scientific term for this phenomenon – escape mutation (That’s why a golden rule of epidemiology is to vaccinate before, instead of during a pandemic). Just as it is laughable to blame antibiotics resistant bacteria on those who have never used antibiotics, it is laughable to blame the more resistant Covid mutations on those who have not been “vaccinated“. This doesn’t change even if Fauci says otherwise. He used to be a scientist but has long turned into a politician.
The Pfizer “vaccine” has not been recently approved by the FDA5). Instead, FDA has issued two simultaneous letters – in one of them the EUA of the current Pfizer vaccine was extended, and in the other, a vaccine called “Comirnaty” was approved. Both are from BioNTech, and are manufactured and marketed by Pfizer. The approved “vaccine” Comirnaty is not yet available in the USA.
Naturally obtained immunity is much stronger and longer lasting than one obtained by getting one of the currently available “vaccines”. That’s because the former relies on additional mechanisms than just antibodi
The PCR test can determine neither infection, nor infectiousness. The test method has neither been standardized, nor validated. It certainly cannot determine a “Covid case” because it has never been approved as a diagnostic device, and because only a clinician can determine a “case” (with the help of some diagnostic test, if needed). And yet, PCR test positives are being misrepresented as “cases” – primarily to scare people with large “case” numbers to justify unjustifiable and harmful blunt pandemic measures
I could go on with more examples but will stop here. I had considered most of you to be smart enough to recognize so many inconsistencies, even without my help. But either I was wrong about you, or Mark Twain was right when he said, “It is easier to fool people than to make them concede that they have been fooled”.
But I digress. In case your mind is drifting towards the response I typically on similar discussions, then here are a few hints: I am not a Trump supporter, I am not a Covid denier, and I am not an antivaxxer. Just last month I got my Pneumovax 23 against pneumonia.
Going back to our health authorities, do you know that about 80% of both FDA and WHO budgets come from private entities directly or indirectly linked to big pharma? Do you know that several years ago WHO had changed the definition of a pandemic to exclude mortality as a criterion6)? Do you know that late 2020, WHO had changed its statement on herd immunity to remove the role of natural immunity (version from June 20207) vs. version from Dec. 20208))? Do you know that pharma and health products groups together are by far the largest lobby group in the USA.? Unfortunately, many peer reviewed medical journals are increasingly financially dependent on big pharma as well because preprints make a huge chunk of their revenue. These are not direct evidence of collusion – but let us not be naïve about human nature.
Then there is the issue of medical experimentation on humans. Administration of an experimental drug (which all three “vaccines” are) without Informed Consent violates both Nuremberg Code (1947) and the Declaration of Helsinki (1964). Both were instituted to prevent horrors committed by the Nazi regime on prisoners – think Dr. Mengele. When you got your shot, did any doctor tell you that clinical studies for the vaccine are not complete yet? Did he explain the known and possible adverse effects? If not, then you have been subjects of human experimentation!
I am not a legal expert. But I have many years of professional experience in developing medical products and devices that required clinical studies. In every case, we had to strictly abide by the above two conventions – even for the simplest, and apparently most benign, human clinical studies.
BTW, If Covid-19 is such a dangerous disease, don’t you find it odd that even after 18 months, the health authorities haven’t come up with any early treatment or prophylaxis recommendations? Does resting at home, drinking a lot of water, taking aspirin as needed, checking temperature, etc., and going to the ER if symptoms become severe look like sound advice to you for such a dangerous disease? And while many clinicians are claiming that they can reduce Covid-19 complications and hospitalization by 80+% by using existing safe medications, FDA ia doing everything in its power to shut such voices down.
I am not partial to any individual early treatment medication for Covid-19 because any severe disease requires a regimen of therapeutics. But I will give an example with Ivermectin to show FDA’s shameful and deceptive, if not criminal, behavior. FDA’s website9) suggests that dumb people are overdosing themselves with a horse medicine, thanks to misinformation from some clinicians. First of all, Ivermectin, like many many other human medicines, is also produced for animal treatment. Ivermectin has been in use for almost 40 years to treat humans – in fact, so successfully that two of its inventors were awarded the Medicine Nobel Prize in 2015. A medicine Nobel prize for a horse medicine, right? Not a single proponent of Ivermectin has ever suggested that anyone takes the animal version of the medication. So, what FDA is spreading on its website is a perfect example of someone pointing finger at another person while three fingers are pointed at himself! Then the only reason why some people are overdosing themselves with an animal version of Ivermectin is that FDA has made it extremely difficult for physicians to prescribe, and pharmacies to sell Ivermectin. BTW, Ivermectin is one of the safest medicines, based on a track record of almost 4 billion doses prescribed.
On its website FDA also mentions that it has not yet reviewed clinical data that many clinician groups have been providing for review since more than a year now. Why not? I’ll provide you with some additional dots beyond the ones I have already mentioned earlier: emergency use authorization (EUA) for the “vaccines” would not have been possible if there were any treatment available for the disease; Pfizer’s revenue from its Covid-19 “vaccine” already exceeds $30B+; all vaccine companies have been given complete immunity from any lawsuit concerning harms from these “vaccines”; etc. Now you may choose to connect the dots or not.
Do you remember how within months of the pandemic we were told that we can go back to normal only after sufficient number of the population will be vaccinated – with a vaccine that was not even available? Do you know that until then it took 8-10 years for any vaccine to be developed? From the very beginning, the pandemic measures have in reality been vaccination measures. There is a big difference between the two. As a result, there has been no overall cost benefit analysis. – as if huge costs related to the economy, collateral health and psychological damages, disruption of the civil society, children’s education, etc. simply do not exist. Our friend Khand**r’s health situation is just one example.
Yes, there may be benefits of taking these “vaccines” – for some. I made sure that my mother gets one of the “vaccines”. But there is absolutely no medical, rational, ethical, and legal ground either for vaccine mandate or vaccine pass.
Just a few more things. Have you noticed how in 18 months, a two-week lockdown (to flatten the curve) has morphed into “show your papers”? Today F**k Checkers of unknown credential and technical competence decide what eminent scientific and clinical experts, including Nobel laureates, are allowed to share in the public. This is akin to killing science. Science, especially in a developing area, never has one single answer. Asking questions, proposing alternative hypotheses, creating and sharing new data to support or refute the hypotheses are the ways science advances – not by any edict from the Ministry of Truth. Yet, that’s exactly what is happening. The Ministry of Truth has outsourced the job to private media corporations. Therefore, good science is one of many victims of this pandemic. If you question the official narrative then you get censored, banned, deplatformed or excluded from a reunion.
It is amazing how otherwise intelligent people are not only fine with all these irrational and harmful measures and policies, but they are even clamoring for more. As if they want to prove both Sheldon Wolin right on his prediction of Inverted Totalitarianism, and George Orwell’s vision of the future: “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever”.
Life is too short and enjoyable to dwell much on such unpleasant experience. But I had to pen this because my exclusion reminded me of Martin Niemöller, “First they came for the communists….”
Wake the f**k up!
*
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).
The Left is currently dividing very publicly over a viral clip on social media of AOC – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – arriving on Monday night at an exclusive gala event in New York in a slinky, white satin, off-the shoulder, Marilyn Monroe-style gown with large red writing across the back demanding: “Tax the Rich.”
Maybe “divided” isn’t quite the right word. As with most left politics nowadays, the two sides seem to be talking across each other. It is as if they speak two entirely different languages.
Tickets to the Met Gala are at least $30,000 a pop, though it seems AOC, a young New York City Congresswoman who identifies as a democratic socialist, did not pay for the ticket herself. She was invited and seized the moment to make her protest.
In an Instagram post, she wrote that she was helping “to kick open the doors at the Met. The time is now for childcare, healthcare, and climate action for all. Tax the Rich.”
Predictably, the right instantly leapt on her “hypocrisy”. Former President Donald Trump led the charge, calling her a “fraud”.
But some on the left were unhappy too. They dismissed her attendance as a performative stunt – another clever move by AOC to build her brand on Instagram as a rebellious truth-teller safely ensconced in the big-business-friendly Democratic party.
Ever the politician, they noted, she was desperate to get herself noticed. Could this be another salvo in her shot for an AOC presidential run in 2024 or 2028?
But with Trump on the attack, liberals lost no time rushing to her side, labelling critics on the left as curmudgeons. They argued she had brought an uncomfortable message for the rich right into their midst. She had taken the fight to the elite. And, given the media attention she invariably attracts, that message has now reached many millions. That could only be a good thing.
All the gotchas are like “but she’s at an event for rich people”
But there is, I think, a deeper reason why this clip makes parts of the left – rather than the rich – uncomfortable.
Watch the video above with the sound off, and it is hard not to notice that AOC is enjoying herself – enjoying the glamour and that very expensive, very chic dress – just a little too much to qualify as any kind of class-struggle warrior.
The impression that this is faux-protest derives, however, from more than AOC’s pleasure at playing a mildly subversive Marilyn Monroe.
Far from “kicking open” the door of the Met, she appears to have been welcomed with a warm embrace. Certainly, she did not appear to be rustling too many feathers among her fellow, wealthy guests.
Turn the sound on, and the interviewers gushing over her and her dress simply confirm that this was a protest that posed no threat to anyone. It was a designer protest at a designer event. She fitted right in with the $30,000-a-head crowd.
If you want to see what happens when a real protest takes place at an elite gala event, watch this clip from two years ago in the UK.
In it, Mark Field, an MP from the ruling Conservative party, assaults a peaceful and well-dressed woman, who like AOC has a ticket, at an expensive dinner in the City of London. To the apparent approval of other guests, Field grabs the woman by the throat – she is wearing a sash highlighting the City’s role in promoting the impending climate catastrophe – and frogmarches her out of the hall.
(I wrote a post at the time, arguing – as I could also here – that media debates around that assault missed the deeper political significance of what was going on and were chiefly intended to polarise opinion in more marginal, tribal terms centred on identity politics.)
My latest: The media have gleefully turned Mark Field's attack on a climate protester into a polarised public debate precisely to drown out far deeper, more urgent issues this episode should have dragged into plain sight https://t.co/XRBxWGQbYZ
The more disturbing point about AOC’s protest – at least for the serious left – is that, rather than taking the fight to the rich, she appears to have become their willing mascot. Her protest is very much part of the bread and circuses provided by the rich as a sop to the poor. And at some level, as her coquettish smile indicates, she understands that. She is openly conspiring in her role as an entertainer, as a distraction.
Watching AOC twirl for the camera, to show us her designer-messaged derriere, I was reminded of the media frenzy at the weekend over Britain’s new tennis star, Emma Raducanu.
After winning the US Open on Saturday, she was encouraged to put on makeup and a similarly chic, if in her case black, dinner dress and lovingly kiss her trophy for the cameras. According to experts, she is about to become Britain’s most bankable sportsperson in decades.
Raducanu kisses US Open trophy after changing into black dress to celebrate win https://t.co/ktNxTaycKB
But Raducanu’s job is to entertain us. That is why she is in the headlines. She is being rewarded for her ability to amaze us, move us, distract us, even titillate us. Is that what AOC’s job is too?
That’s certainly how it looks.
Those who invited her to the gala event and those who spent the evening rubbing shoulders with her do not seem to have been overly troubled by her message of “Tax the rich.” And that is not because they actually want to pay more taxes. It is because they understand that nothing she is doing – including her gown protest – will lead to them paying more tax. In fact, she may even assist them in forestalling efforts to tax them fairly.
By having AOC at their event, New York’s liberal elite look open-minded and socially progressive. They want to present an image of social concern, of being reform-minded, even as they hoard their wealth and fritter it away on a seat at an exclusive gala dinner whose price could support a poor family for an entire year.
If AOC’s protest was a threat, the attendees would not be giggling with her. She played her role perfectly, asking a question – but most certainly not answering it – about “what it means to be a working class woman of color at the Met”.
Well, what does it mean – apart from as entertainment value? How exactly does her attendance advance social justice issues, apart from in flaccid, strait-jacketed, identity-obsessed terms that now pass for meaningful political action?
“We really started having a conversation about what it means to be a working class woman of color at the Met … we can’t just play along, but we need to break the fourth wall.”pic.twitter.com/UZj22DjMl3
Having AOC at the Met Gala is the New York elite’s equivalent of billionaire Bill Gates flaunting his philanthropy, even as that same philanthropy actually helps Gates to grow his fortune even further. AOC is the New York elite’s version of a tax write-off.
But it’s worse than that.
AOC’s protest isn’t just toothless. It’s fully aligned with her evolution as yet another Democratic machine politician, even if one whose distinctive marketing campaign is premised on her being some kind of rebel.
AOC’s invitation to the Met Gala, and her acceptance, is just another stage in her cooptation by the elite. The brashly outspoken rookie politician of a few years ago has been gradually tamed into the more “responsible” politician looking to claw her way up the Democratic party career ladder.
She is becoming a parody of her old self. The rhetoric of political protest on the campaign trail in the 14th congressional district has – once put to the test – morphed into the empty spectacle of protest by a Congresswoman increasingly comfortable hobnobbing with the rich and famous.
She is becoming part of the very elite she supposedly disdains. She is a celebrity politician, just as Raducanu is a now celebrity tennis player. She plays to the camera because there is nothing more to her actions than performance and pageantry. And in these, at least, she can excel.
The point here isn’t primarily to apportion blame. AOC is playing the role she needs to fill to survive politically, a game Jeremy Corbyn failed to play when he was unexpectedly – and accidentally – thrust onto centre stage on the other side of the Atlantic. British elites, liberal and conservative alike, hurriedly joined together to destroy Corbyn through the manipulation of popular political discourse, presenting him as a national security threat and an antisemite.
If they have to, US elites can and will do the same to AOC. But they are increasingly confident that they won’t need to.
Rather, focusing on AOC helps to clarify how our corporate-controlled political systems work; how protest in the mainstream must take the form of hollow spectacles and gestures; and how even the most principled politicians have to make grave compromises, accepting their role as entertainers rather than agents of meaningful change.
The gradual process of cooptation of AOC – her “maturing” as a politician – is already evident.
She has learnt that the political cost of pursuing a vitally important cause like Medicare for all she once espoused so passionately is too high. When she and the small group of democratic socialists in Congress had a once-in-a-lifetime chance to force a vote on Medicare in January, a move that would have put the donor-dependent leadership of the Democratic party in an impossibly difficult bind, they lost their nerve and crumpled. Their passionate campaign commitments turned into so much hot air.
Why would any of us imagine that, having fallen at that early hurdle, she will be ready to jump even bigger obstacles as she pursues a high-flying political career within the Democratic party.
For some on the left, none of that seems to matter. They think AOC deserves support precisely because she is so expert at spectacle, at sounding committed even as she sells out her principles. If they cannot get action, they will settle for performance.
As she justified her attendance at the Met Gala on Monday, AOC argued that “the message is the medium”. But really it was the spectacle that was her message. She was having fun, joshing with the rich as though she was now firmly one of them. And they loved it.
Which was the real point. She will need them to bankroll her political aspirations, and the billionaire media to play softball with her, when she leaves behind her New York congressional district.
A few years hence, the woman whose gown said “Tax the rich” will be all the more credible, and useful to the elite, when she subtly changes tune and demands it is time to “Stop the attacks on the rich”.
She may be more flamboyant and more publicity-savvy than her political rivals, but AOC is no less susceptible to the pressures of a political system systemically corrupt and designed to maintain the privileges of a wealth elite.
With that Met Gala gown, she read the room well. She is on her way up.
*
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.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am a Public Interest Advocate. I have extensive training, clinical and professional practice experience supporting individuals in exercising their civil and human rights to Informed Consent, and accessing social justice in health care settings in B.C.
In this article I present the following information:
Definitions of Biometric Identification (ID)
BC’s Biometric ID: The BC Vaccine Card, aka “Proof of Vaccination” App & QR Code
Bioethical, Socio-Economic, and Social Justice Analysis
How BC’s Biometric ID Will Work
Places the vaccine card will be required for entry in BC
Cybersecurity Threats from Biometric ID, Vaccine Apps and Potential Risk Mitigation Strategies (including some tips for parents to decrease potential risks and threats to their kids)
Introduction
On August 23rd, 2021, the BC government announced they were moving forward with their plan to implement a Biometric identification (ID) and social credit system in B.C. that is tied to peoples’ COVID-19 vaccine status. This is euphemistically being referred to as, “Proof of Vaccination” (POV) and the “BC Vaccine Card.” These terms are code for Biometric ID.
This creates a convergence, or fusion, of ones’ biological, digital, and physiological identity, vaccination and social status. Vaccine passports create social credit, or status, based on ones’ vaccination status. BC’s system is building upon, and adopting the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) government’s vaccine status and social credit systems of state control, coercion, and surveillance tied to biometric data and ID. Under the BCNDP government, the ability to participate in BC society will rely upon whether one is up-to-date with what the state tells citizens is their vaccination status. This formalizes governmental, institutional, and state definitions of who is considered an “insider,” “desirable,” or “worthy person,” and who must be considered an “outsider,” an “undesirable” or “unworthy” person in BC.
There are also strong indicators the vaccines wane within several months. The World Health Organization (WHO) states that “booster shots” have no scientific data to support them. However, some nations, most notably Israel, have already been administering third doses of COVID-19 vaccines. They are also already considering administering four doses in the first year that these experimental vaccines have been administered around the world.
Trudeau has publicly stated he has ordered “booster” doses, or “second generation” vaccines up to 2024. People will be required to take the state-sponsored and required number of vaccines, which will change over time. If they do not take them, their status in their passport/Biometric ID will show they are “unvaccinated.” Their social credit and status will change. They will be socially and physically banned and excluded from all of the settings the B.C. government has decided will require this proof. That list will grow as the months go by.
What is Biometric Identification (ID)
Biometrics is defined as: the measurement and analysis of unique physical or behavioral characteristics (such as fingerprint or voice patterns) especially as a means of verifying personal identity (Merriam-Webster).
Biometrics are physical or behavioral human characteristics to that can be used to digitally identify a person to grant access to systems, devices or data (Korolov, 2019).
Biometric identification (ID): Biometric identification consists of determining the identity of a person. The aim is to capture an item of biometric data from this person. It can be a photo of their face, a record of their voice, or an image of their fingerprint (Thales, 2021).
Biometric ID now includes COVID-19 vaccination status. Over time, this information will potentially increase to include other biomedical personal information, which will confer social status and credit, and the ability to access services, and participate in ones’ community.
Proof of Vaccination ID & Biometric Vaccination Status in the BC Vaccine Card
BC Biometric ID: “Proof of Vaccination” App & QR Code
BC Government: “Starting September 13, you need proof of vaccination to access some events, services and businesses. The easiest way to show proof is using the BC Vaccine Card.”
On Sept. 7th more details about the BCNDP & #BCgovernment’s implementation of their Biometric ID and social credit system via the “BC Vaccine Card” were released. Details are provided below. The picture above is what your vaccine status will look like in the BC COVID-19 vaccine app.
Bioethical, Socio-Economic, and Social Justice Analysis
BC Vaccine Passport: “Proof of Vaccination” is the coercive collection, use, and forced disclosure of personal health information and biometric data via BC vaccine passports. This represents a substantive violation of health-related ethics, bioethics, civil and human rights, and a variety of provincial, federal, and international laws, including the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights(2005). The background and mandate of this international declaration states: “At its 32nd session in October 2003, the General Conference considered that it was “opportune and desirable to set universal standards in the field of bioethics with due regard for human dignity and human rights and freedoms, in the spirit of cultural pluralism inherent in bioethics” (32 C/Res. 24).
Social Exclusion, Marginalization and Barriers to Participating in Society: Many individuals and classes of people will be banned and further marginalized from participating in society through the BC government’s implementation of their social credit system. The BCNDP government is increasing barriers, creating institutional barriers, and excluding more and more people who they have decided are “unworthy” of being included in their communities, and BC society. This includes: poor and soci-economically disadvantaged people; people who have no PHN, no smartphones, and no access to the internet. People with inaccurate, or wrong ID. Seniors who may not know how to use technology, or how to navigate complex systems to access their biometric ID. People with disabilities and health conditions which prevent them from getting COVID-19 vaccines, and people who object to getting these vaccines for religious reasons, or conscientious objections will all be considered to have no social status in BC.
No “Do Over” – If/once you choose to download the BC Vaccine passport you will never again have autonomy, freedom, or liberty, or self-determination over your personal or health sovereignty. The state will own you, your biometric data, & your body forever. The state will also decide what health interventions you will be required to have in the future to maintain your social credit and status in BC (and later, in Canada). Once you give your own personal and health sovereignty, bodily autonomy and integrity away you will remain enslaved for the rest of your life, or you will become a non-status person.
In the case of COVID-19 vaccines: If you do not keep getting boosters when your COVID-19 vaccine has “expired” you will no longer have social status, or “social credit.” You will be considered “unvaccinated.” This means you will be banned from accessing the settings the province has decided you will be excluded from. This list will grow over time. They’re rolling out all of the plans incrementally.
There are NO EXEMPTIONS: This includes no exemptions even if you/a loved one has medical, or religious reasons for not receiving a vaccine (now it’s just COVID-19 ones, but new vaccines will roll out later that you will be required to take). This means if you had 1 dose and had a bad reaction, and can’t get a second dose (or third, fourth, fifth…), you will be considered unvaccinated and banned from participating in society.
Adrian Dix: “A major B.C. media outlet referred to him as a “dour Stalinist” after he became NDP leader last April. “[Josef] Stalin was a mass murderer . a totalitarian leader of the 1930s,” he said, exasperated.” (Todd, D. (2017). Vancouver Sun).
BC Definition of “Unvaccinated”: “No dose or <3 weeks since receipt of 1st dose.”
How BC’s Biometric ID Will Work
Downloading the App: To download the app you need your Personal Health Number (PHN); your date of birth; and the date of your 1st or 2nd vaccine dose. If you do not have a PHN, or smartphone, obviously you will be unable to use this app.
After inputting your biometric data: You will receive a BC vaccine card with a QR code that shows how many doses of the vaccine you’ve received.
You will need to show your QR code—either digital or paper—along with photo ID before entering specific events and settings.
Businesses will use a phone app to verify customers’ vaccination statuses. This means BC businesses and other settings will now be collecting customers’ Biometric & personal health information. Details about how, where, and what country/ies this data and information will be stored in, and whether third parties can access this data, and share it are not known at this time.
Permissions and Informed Consent: If you are going to download the BC Biometric app, ensure you have carefully read the Permissions and Consents that are required. These should tell you how, where, what country and whether third party access to your biometric and personal health information will be used. Permissions should also tell you if third parties can also share your personal health/biometric data, and for what purposes.
Exempted businesses and settings: Settings that have been designated as “Essential; “Fast food” restaurants, food courts, drive-thrus, and cafeterias are not included in the program.
Cybersecurity Threats from Biometric ID, Vaccine Apps and Potential Risk Mitigation Strategies
IT Security and privacy experts have already reported that COVID-related apps are highly targeted for hacking and cybersecurity breaches by cyber-criminals. This is because the information contained in these apps is probably enough to steal a person’s identity and commit other crimes in their name, specifically financial crimes.
Protecting Your Biometric Data and Personal Information:Consider getting an IT security assessment of your phone, and existing permissions from other apps and the phone manufacturer.
Additional Cybersecurity On Your Phone: Consider getting expert advice about adding additional layers of cybersecurity on your smartphone if you plan to download the app. Biometric ID and apps likely come with ongoing and chronic cybersecurity risks for you, and your personal health and biometric data.
Unknown Risks and Threats to Children & Youth: Because all of this is being implemented so quickly, with many parts unknown, and so many kids have smartphones, it is unclear to me what steps parents will be able to take to protect and decrease risks and threats from predators and cyber-criminals who will try to access the biometric and personal health information of their kids.
Suggestions for Parents: Not allow their kids to download the Biometric ID’s onto their phones until more is known about the risks and threats. Ensure that parents are present and aware of the permissions and consents if the app is downloaded. Try to do an IT cybersecurity assessment and install cybersecurity protections on their kids’ phones.
Dr. Bonnie Henry, March 31, 2020
Places your vaccine card is required for entry in BC
By order of the Provincial Health Officer (PHO), proof of vaccination is required to access some events, services and businesses. Starting September 13, you must have at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. By October 24, you must be fully vaccinated. The requirement is in place until January 31, 2022 and could be extended.
The requirement applies to all people born in 2009 or earlier (12+) and covers:
Indoor ticketed sporting events
Indoor concerts, theatre, dance and symphony events
Licensed restaurants and restaurants that offer table service (indoor and patio dining)
Pubs, bars and lounges (indoor and patio dining)
Nightclubs, casinos and movie theatres
Gyms, exercise facilities/studios, pools and recreation facilities
Businesses offering indoor group exercise
Indoor adult group and team sports for people 22 years old or older
Indoor organized events with 50 or more people. For example: Wedding receptions, organized parties, conferences and workshops
Indoor organized group recreational classes and activities like pottery, art and choir
Post-secondary on-campus student housing
*
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).
“If a state overextends itself strategically—by, say, the conquest of extensive territories or the waging of costly wars—it runs the risk that the potential benefits from external expansion may be outweighed by the great expense of it all.” Paul Kennedy (1945- ), British historian, (in ‘The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers’, 1987)
“As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize—or do not want to recognize—that the United States dominates the world through its military power. Due to government secrecy, our citizens are often ignorant of the fact that our garrisons encircle the planet. This vast network of American bases on every continent except Antarctica actually constitutes a new form of empire—an empire of bases with its own geography not likely to be taught in any high school geography class.” Chalmers Johnson (1931-2010), American author and professor of political science, (in an article in TomDispatch, ‘America’s Empire of Bases’, Jan. 15, 2004).
“The task facing American statesmen over the next decades, therefore, is to recognize that broad trends are under way, and that there is a need to “manage” affairs so that the relative erosion of the United States’ position takes place slowly and smoothly, and is not accelerated by policies which bring merely short-term advantage but longer-term disadvantage.” Paul Kennedy (1945- ) British historian, (in ‘The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers’, 1987).
In 1987, British historian Paul Kennedy (1945- ) wrote a geopolitical book about how great powers rise and fall, in which he studied how economic and military factors can accompany or cause previously dominant nations to lose their great power status. His main conclusion is that sooner or later a great hegemonic power will become overextended and its economy will struggle to keep its big military machine going. Indeed, an empire can increase its resources by launching wars abroad, at least for a while. However, sooner or later, a situation of permanent war and the military occupation of foreign lands result in more costs than benefits.
There are 193 countries that are members of the United Nations. But one country, the United States, operates an extended network of hundreds of military bases around the world, by far more than all the other countries taken together. Professor David Vine, in his 2020 book “The United States of War” established the total number of American military bases overseas to be close to 800 bases in more than 70 countries. This is enough to place the United States as the first truly global military empire in the history of the world.
Such a widespread collection of foreign military bases has two main consequences. First, it makes sure that the United States is likely to get involved in many foreign conflicts. And, second, it requires an important chunk of the U.S. public budget to be allocated to maintaining such a large military apparatus.
As a matter of fact, in the proposed total 2021-2022 U.S. budget ($6.8 trillion, of which $3.0 trillion or 44% is a deficit), $740 billion is allocated to the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). However, U.S. military expenditures are much higher than those allocated to the Pentagon. For instance, the 2021 proposed budget for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) amounts to $243 billion. One must also add the nearly $100 billion that the U.S. Department of the Treasury spends on pensions for retired military personnel. Then there is the C.I.A. budget, which was $85.8 billion in 2020 and might possibly be higher in 2021. This amounts to $1,168.8 billion of military-related expenditures, or more than 17% of the total U.S. budget for 2021-2022.
The overload of the office of American president
For many people, the American debacle in Afghanistan would seem to be proof that President Joe Biden is inept and incompetent, and that his advisers are clueless when it comes to making good decisions and to properly assessing a situation. This is a somewhat unfair appreciation of the circumstances. They are neither imbecile nor incompetent, but they could be overworked and distracted.
In fact, a case can be made that the function of American president has increasingly become way too complex and demanding for a single individual to handle, especially since the United States has assumed a global military role. The U.S. president has only twenty-four hours in his day like anybody else.
Indeed, the American head of state is obliged to manage a huge bureaucracy; he must tackle important domestic issues (pandemic, budget, Congress, etc.); and, as if this were not enough, he must also play the role of an emperor on the international scene and deal with Iran, China, Taiwan, Russia, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Israel, when not with North Korea, Somalia or Ukraine, etc. At the same time, the few trusted advisers who assist him are called upon to tackle many issues simultaneously. The president and his advisers can easily get distracted by the multitude of international problems that confront their administration.
The United States and the fall of Saigon in 1975 and of Kabul in 2021
It may be informative to compare two important American military failures, in 1975 and in 2021.
The fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975
The first instance when a major military expedition turned into a genuine fiasco for the United States occurred in 1975, with the fall of Saigon, capital of South Vietnam. The city could no longer benefit from the protection offered by the US Air Force, since an agreement to withdraw American forces had been concluded two years earlier. The date of April 30, 1975, marks the hasty and chaotic withdrawal of the last 6,000 Americans to leave SouthVietnam along with 50,000 Vietnamese, after Saigon fell to the North Vietnamese army.
Indeed, it’s very important to underline that in Paris, on January 27, 1973, the American Secretary of State Henry Kissinger signed an armistice treaty, called the Paris Peace Agreement. This agreement was concluded between the United States and South Vietnam, on the one hand, and the northern Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) and the Viet Cong, on the other hand. The agreement called for “an immediate cease-fire, the withdrawal of American military personnel within two months, the release of American prisoners, the end of the bombardments and the reunification of Vietnam by peaceful means.”
The goal was to allow the United States to extricate itself “with honor” from the Vietnamese quagmire. However, it was nothing more than a soft surrender on the part of the United States. The “peaceful reunification” clause between the North and South Vietnams was untenable. It was, in fact, not respected by the DRV and its allies, even if it was paramount to the Nixon administration.
The fall of Kabul on August 15, 2021
The parallel between the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975, and the fall of Kabul on August 15, 2021, is troubling. In both cases, the U.S. government had previously entered into an agreement with the enemy to withdraw its armed forces from the country, leaving the government in place without military air protection. Similarly, in both cases, the withdrawal of American civilians and local allies took place in an atmosphere of haste and chaos.
The difference between the two is that in the case of Afghanistan, Donald Trump’s administration left the Afghan government—and even NATO allies—outside of the negotiation process. The Trump administration signed an Accord of armistice with the Taliban, on February 29, 2020, in Doha, Qatar. The so-called “deal” was signed between American Special peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad (under the supervision of U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo) and the Taliban leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar.
The glaring absence of the Afghan government at the negotiating table greatly undermined its credibility. The fateful date of February 29, 2020, also marks the beginning of the demoralization and disintegration of the Afghan army, which felt abandoned and which could henceforth anticipate losing US military air cover and assistance in their fight against the Taliban.
The Feb. 2020 Trump-Taliban agreement called for the United States to reduce its forces from 13,000 to 8,600 over the next three to four months, with the remaining U.S. forces to be withdrawn in the following 14 months, or by May 1, 2021.
For their part, the Taliban pledged to put an end to attacks against American and coalition forces ❲but not against the Afghan army❳, prevent terrorism, including the obligation to renounce al-Qaida and “prevent this group or others from using Afghan soil to prepare attacks against the United States or its allies.”
Trump’s former Security adviser, Gen. H.R. McMaster, has since called Trump’s “deal” with the Taliban a “capitulation deal”, because it was clearly paving the way for the Taliban to regain power in Kabul. As McMaster put it, “The Taliban didn’t defeat us. We defeated ourselves!”
A joint responsibility Trump-Biden for the 2020-2021 Afghan disaster
Initiated in October 2001, by Republican George W. Bush, both incumbent Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump wanted to end the U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, without paying too much attention to the consequences. They believed that a military withdrawal without conditions could be done smoothly, and they counted on the collaboration of the Taliban to do so. —This was largely wishful thinking.
President Joe Biden was anxious to focus more on the current frictions that the United States has with Iran, China and Russia, and he endorsed the agreement reached by Donald Trump’s government in February 2020, for a complete and definitive withdrawal of the American military forces from Afghanistan, no later than May 1, 2021.
He announced his decision on April 14, 2021. i.e. that the U.S. and NATO troops were going “to be out of Afghanistan before we mark the 20th anniversary of that heinous attack on September 11th”, and that he was pushing back the final date for a complete withdrawal to August 31, 2021.
The option of extending the presence of a reduced U.S. military mission in Afghanistan until the country was truly stabilized and that there would be no possibility for a resurgence of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS)—and above all the Islamic State group in Khorasan (ISIS-K), as suggested by former American officials—was not retained.
Let’s add that the Biden administration left behind billions of dollars of military equipment recuperated by the Taliban!
Neither Trump nor Biden figured out that this would betray twenty years of a direct American commitment in Afghanistan, and that a complete and precipitous military exit would leave many thousands of Afghans who had worked for the U.S. government in clear danger for their lives. Similarly, they didn’t seem to have considered the worst-case scenario: that the Taliban would rapidly overthrow the pro-American government in Kabul and that total chaos would ensue. (N.B.: The C.I.A., for one, had predicted the collapse of the Afghan government and a quick Taliban victory if all American troops were to withdraw from the country.)
Nevertheless, even though both Trump and Biden were involved in planning the U.S. military exit from Afghanistan, it was the Democratic president who made the final decisions that led to the—preventable—August 2021 fiasco. This is why despite Biden’s denial, it’s likely that it will be the Democrats who will suffer an electoral backlash for his crisis mismanagement, in the 2022 and 2024 elections. It remains to be seen how important such setbacks will be.
Conclusion
The experience of the last fifty years has shown that the idea that prevailed after World War II, that the United States could count on its military supremacy to impose democracy and capitalism on other countries, is past due. No country, whatever its military might, can impose its will on other countries forever. This was an imperial idea that American neocon thinkers resurrected after the fall of the Soviet Empire (USSR) in December 1991, but nothing good came of it.
Since Bill Clinton’s administration (1993-2001), successive U.S. governments have abandoned the United Nations and its peacekeeping mechanisms. They replaced U.N. operations with those of NATO, which are more flexible, for sure, but also much less legitimate. — This was a mistake. — A return to the legitimacy of a reformed United Nations Organization would seem to be the road to follow in the coming years, if the world is going to avoid falling back into destructive conflicts.
*
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 author’s blog site, Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay.
Comments Off on Disorderly Retreat from Afghanistan: The U.S. Has Become an Overextended Military Empire Posing a Serious Threat to Its Long-term Security
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
An article in “The Guardian” of 13 September “Sharp rise in acute medical beds occupied by children with nowhere else to go” should not only alarm parents. “Uncut-news.ch” published the article. Quote:
“A third of intensive care beds in England are occupied by children who have nowhere else to go because of their illness. In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, these children are suffering from mental and neurological problems. Some exhibit violent or self-injurious behaviour, others have severe neurodevelopmental disorders. Still others are there because of an eating disorder. But despite their individual needs, many of them do not have a specific psychiatric diagnosis. And without a diagnosis, they are not entitled to a bed in a real psychiatric ward, even if they are so violent that they are a danger not only to themselves but also to those around them. This means that these children end up living in a normal hospital, sometimes for months. Even more worrying is that since the pandemic began, the number of children in these beds has increased dramatically. In the US, children’s hospitals across the country are reporting that the number of children needing psychiatric help has ‘exploded’, according to CNN. ‘Several children’s hospitals said they were running so low on inpatient psychiatric beds that they were having to house children in their emergency rooms – sometimes for weeks at a time.’“ (1)
Screenshot from The Guardian
As early as last March, in a commentary “‘Lockdown Children’s Rights’: We’re Killing Our Children’s Souls” posted on various independent internet platforms, I demanded,
“If we don’t stand up against this lockdown madness right now, we are complicit in the soul murder of our children!”
Yet the majority of parents and educators in kindergartens and schools do not stand up, but silently accept that corrupt governments are driving their children into madness or even suicide and thus strangling the future of all of us.
Of course, all rational adults have suspected for over a year and a half that the political madness measures are not about protecting the health of the population, but solely about a worldwide political grand experiment with the help of which diabolical rulers are trying to impose their will. But these adults do not have the courage to force the rulers to stop this madness immediately.
On the contrary: due to the direct and indirect compulsory vaccination with a “killer vaccine” – even of children and infants – the worldwide situation for people has once again become decisively worse in the last six months. Even churches are now being turned into vaccination centres. And the fact that “COVID 19” does not play a role in election campaigns – for example in Germany – is an unmistakable sign that it is about quite different goals than health protection.
Who is able to speak into the conscience of parents and educators so that they finally stand up and say NO? Our children are in great need and our future is indanger.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr Rudolf Hänsel is an educationalist and qualified psychologist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
On September 18, 2001, a week after September 11, the United States Congress unanimously approved Public Law 107-40 which stated: “The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons that he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
The Law, which gave Republican President George W. Bush full war powers, was drafted by Democratic Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Commission.
President Bush was thus authorized by Congress, in the name of the “war on terror”, to use military force not only against organizations or people but entire nations, whose guilt was decreed by the President himself, who passed the sentence without trial nor the possibility of appeal and ordered immediate execution by means of war. The only ones who have long called for the cancellation of this law are two senators, Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican Christopher Young, but their attempt has so far been unsuccessful.
The Law of September 18, 2001, still in force, was used after Republican President Bush by the Democrat Barack Obama, the Republican Donald Trump and the Democrat Biden (former Vice-president in the Obama Administration). It is estimated that it has been used by presidential order to “legitimize” in the last twenty years military operations carried out by the US armed forces in 19 countries around the world, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Tunisia, Kenya, Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, Cameroon, Niger.
Three weeks after the passing of the law, President Bush ordered to attack and invade Afghanistan, officially to hunt down Bin Laden protected by the Taliban; three months later, he ordered the opening of the Guantanamo prison camp, where alleged terrorists from various parts of the world were secretly deported and tortured; a year and a half later – prompted by a bipartisan resolution of 77 senators, promoted by Joe Biden – President Bush ordered to attack and invade Iraq with the accusation (later proved false) that it possessed weapons of mass destruction. The order was to use the knuckle duster to crush the resistance: this was confirmed by the images of the tortures in Abu Ghraib prison, which came to light in 2004.
Always on the basis of the 2001 law which authorized him to “use all necessary and appropriate force”, President Obama, ten years later, authorized the CIA to carry out covert operations in Libya in preparation for the NATO war that would demolish the Libyan State. According to the same “legal” procedure – the New York Times documented on May 29, 2012 – during the Obama administration the “kill list” was established, updated weekly, including people from all over the world secretly sentenced to death with the accusation of terrorism, who were eliminated for the most part with drone-killers after the President’s approval. The same procedure was followed in January 2020 by President Trump, who ordered the elimination of the Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, killed by a US drone at Baghdad airport. Similar attacks by US drones have been “legally” authorized in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.
Based on the authorization of President Biden, the most recent drone-killer attack was the one that hit a car suspected of carrying an ISIS bomb on August 29 in Kabul. An investigation by the New York Times (September 10) found that the car (followed for a long time by the drone pilot sitting thousands of kilometers away) was not carrying explosives but water tanks. A “Hellfire” missile was fired at this car in a densely populated neighborhood, killing ten civilians including seven children.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.
Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Featured image: Vice President Joe Biden, Austin, and Command Sergeant Major Earl Rice, at an event marking the award of the Iraq Commitment Medal in December 2011
Civil liberties are under attack in Canada and worldwide. On the basis of public health acts and infectious disease laws, limitations to constitutional rights are imposed through emergency orders by Canada’s medical officers of health and by unelected bureaucrats elsewhere.
The reported suspected side effects for the four Covid vaccines, which have only been conditionally approved in the EU, are record-breaking after just 8 months. Serious side effects have been reported.
In a “deeply disturbing” speech last week, President Biden exhorted medical coercion of an experimental gene therapy for a virus with a 99% survival rate for a large portion of the population, and for which no one bears financial liability in cases where injuries or deaths occur.
This man-made world is by definition a pater-arché one, a ‘creation’ of so-called human fathers instead of human mothers together with Mother Nature. During the time to reach this patriarchal utopia, which is several thousands of years old, much violence has already been applied.
Let there be no mistake. What is happening today, before our very eyes, is what happened with human medical experiments during the Second World War. These experiments were without informed consent. Many prisoners were vaccinated with experimental drugs.
The West has been literally swamped by a non-stop propaganda offensive about Uyghur forced labor camps – thoroughly debunked, for instance, here. Now let’s examine the other – Western – side of the story.
Just as many predicted over a year ago, the rollout of the vaccine for Covid-19 and its implementation has introduced intense polarization and social segregation through the implementation of mandatory vaccinations for employees and vaccine passports.
This is the story of Korea in the latter half of the 19th century. China, Japan and Russia came and they fought to swallow Korea. Korea was important to them. Russia needed Korea for ice-free ports; China wanted to keep Korea as a vassal country and a buffer zone between Japan and China; Japan badly needed to have Korea as an expressway to China to conquer.
Today, the Canadian political landscape is being remoulded by a nest of technocratic ideologues who aim to lead the nation into a post-nation state Great Reset.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
A delegation from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), a 15-member regional grouping made up of heads of governments, visited the capital of Conakry, Guinea on September 10, just two days after a decision was made at an extraordinary virtual meeting to suspend the military junta from participation in the organs and functions of the organization.
On September 5, the Guinean Special Forces led by Lt. Col. Mamady Doumbouya launched an attack on the institutions of authority in Conakry later arresting President Alpha Conde and announcing to the world over national television that a National Committee for Reconciliation and Development (CNRD) had taken charge of the country.
ECOWAS and the 55-member states African Union (AU) are obligated to oppose and sanction any military seizure of power. Both ECOWAS and the AU can break relations with a coup regime in addition to imposing sanctions and other measures.
In efforts to fulfill its obligations, ECOWAS deployed its representatives to Conakry for discussions with Doumbouya and his cohorts. Issues surrounding the return to civilian rule, the release of ousted President Conde and the restoration of the constitution, were high on the agenda.
Inquiries regarding the health status of the overthrown Conde indicated that the ECOWAS delegation had met with the former president and described him as being in good health, although no specific details were forthcoming. The ECOWAS officials also said that the CNRD relayed to them that the former president would be released from detention soon.
Conde had drawn the ire of many people within Guinea when he altered the national constitution to seek a third term of office during 2020. There were widespread protests against the revision of the constitution when dozens of people were killed and hundreds more detained. Several leading figures in the protests of 2020 have been released from detention by the CNRD.
After winning another term of office which saw the opposition parties refusing to participate, discontent obviously grew within the mineral rich country. Conde had pledged to expand the mining operations of the bauxite and iron ore firms. Guinea has the largest known deposits of these valuable mineral resources. Yet the people remain impoverished and underdeveloped indicating that there is widespread corruption within the government and its economic partners.
Although ECOWAS and the AU have suspended the memberships of Guinea, there has not been any announcements that sanctions would be imposed. The effectiveness of such sanctions may be questionable based upon the actual structural orientation of the national economy which receives revenue from the contracts and mining operations of the foreign firms which dominate the extractive sectors.
The western region of the country lies on the Atlantic Coast allowing trade to continue with external states and interests. Three of the major rivers in West Africa, the Gambia, Niger and Senegal rise in Guinea. The land mass borders Guinea-Bissau in the northwest, Senegal to the north, Mali in the northeast, Ivory Coast to the southeast and Liberia and Sierra Leone in the south, making the enforcement of sanctions extremely difficult considering the military and economic resources available to ECOWAS and the AU.
Some observers have pointed to the contradictory posture of ECOWAS and the AU noting the failure of both institutions to raise criticisms, let alone suspensions or sanctions, against Conde and his Rally of the Guinean People (RPG) ruling party, when they arranged for the extension of the tenure of the ousted president in 2020. A similar situation occurred in Ivory Coast when the French-installed (2011) President Alassane Ouattara arranged to seek office for another period determined by the leader and his party in 2020. Unrest in Ivory Coast in opposition to Ouattara never prompted ECOWAS and the AU to suspend the country from membership.
In an interview by Al Jazeera with Adama Gaye, the former information director for ECOWAS, the official emphasized that:
“They have been sleeping on the wheels of the organization instead of really being proactive in addressing the challenges inside its member states. Its 15 member states have been really complacent with those that have been breaking the law within their countries from Conde to Ouattara … all of the problems at the end of the day they lead to the current situation we are seeing in Guinea, and somehow ECOWAS is coming like [the] doctor after death.”
CNRD Proposes National Conference to Form Another Government
Obviously in response to the suspension by ECOWAS and the AU, the CNRD military junta announced on September 14 that it was convening a four-day national conference involving opposition parties, civil society organizations and mining interests to discuss the political future of the country. Reports from various news agencies covering events in Conakry say that several opposition leaders have voiced support for the coup makers claiming that the putsch was justified due to the ousted president’s policies and behavior.
The political parties represented at the heavily guarded People’s Palace on September 14 blamed the fate of the ousted president on his refusal to relinquish power in 2020. This public show of support for the CNRD may not be enough to persuade the international community including ECOWAS, AU and the United Nations to accept the rule of military leaders as a legitimate government inside the country.
Members of Conde’s RPG party were quoted as saying they were deliberating over whether to participate in the conference organized by the CNRD. Other parties cited in the media, and there are many, have not taken a position against the concept of military rule, particularly within a state whose government has maintained close links with the imperialist countries since the advent of the first military coup by Col. Lansana Conte after the death of the founding President Ahmed Sekou Toure in 1984.
“Sidya Toure, leader of the Union of Republican Forces party, said conditions already appear to have improved since the military takeover. He recalled how security forces had ‘tried to kidnap me in my home’ during Conde’s regime. We can see it all around the town in Conakry, absolutely the change amongst the military and policemen,’ he said. ‘I think we are going in the right way for the moment.’”
The Role of Imperialism in Military Coups in the Recent Period
All of the states that have experienced military coups from 2012 to the present in Mali, Chad and Guinea have maintained close ties with the United States Pentagon and the French Ministry of the Armed Forces. Doumbouya was a long-time member of the French Foreign Legion and has participated in operations alongside the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).
On the day of the September 5 military seizure of power, there were AFRICOM troops reportedly seen in the capital of Conakry. Al Jazeera in an article published on September 10 verified these claims.
According to the article:
“The United States embassy in Conakry on Friday (September 10) stated that Guinea should ‘immediately restore democracy’. On Thursday (September 9), the U.S. denied involvement after a video emerged of U.S. soldiers in a crowd of jubilant Guineans as the coup unfolded on Sunday (September 5). The U.S. State Department said a small U.S. team had been involved in a joint military training exercise outside Conakry. ‘Given the changing security situation, it was decided that the team would be relocated to the U.S. embassy in Conakry. Guinean security forces provided an escort to Conakry to ensure the safe passage of the team,’ the department said.”
This same situation holds true for Mali and Chad as it relates to the defense training by AFRICOM and France. Both imperialist states conduct routine military maneuvers known as Operation Flintlock along with Operation Barkhane organized by Washington and Paris respectively. Ostensibly the U.S. and France are in Africa to support governments in their struggles against Islamist insurgencies.
However, the U.S. and France have extensive economic interests in West Africa and this factor cannot be ignored when assessing their military presence within the ECOWAS region and the continent as a whole. Even with the interventions by France and the U.S., the overall security situation in West Africa has worsened over the last decade. The deteriorating economies marked by the unequal distribution of wealth and social instability in African nations are clearly illustrated by events in Guinea, Mali, Chad, Ivory Coast and other states which are aligned with world capitalism.
The questions of national and regional security cannot be separated from the political orientation of the state. As long as the western-influenced political parties and mass organizations remain dominant, there cannot be the necessary latitude to exert genuine independence from the legacies of colonialism, imperialism and neo-colonialism.
*
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: Guinea coup leaders and AFRICOM forces (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).
The 20 years since those terrible attacks have been marked by endless wars, harsh immigration crackdowns, and expanded federal law enforcement powers that have cost us our privacy and targeted entire communities based on nothing more than race, religion, or ethnicity.
Those policies have also come at a tremendous monetary cost — and a dangerous neglect of domestic investment.
In a new report I co-authored with my colleagues at the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, we found that the federal government has spent $21 trillion on war and militarization both inside the U.S. and around the world over the past 20 years. That’s roughly the size of the entire U.S. economy.
Even while politicians have written blank checks for militarism year after year, they’ve said we can’t afford to address our most urgent issues. No wonder these past 20 years have been rough on U.S. families and communities.
After strong growth from 1970 to 2000, household incomes have stagnated for 20 years as Americans struggled through two recessions in the years leading up to the pandemic. As pandemic eviction moratoriums end, millions are at risk of homelessness.
Our public health systems have also been chronically underfunded, leaving the U.S. helpless to enact the testing, tracing, and quarantining that helped other countries limit the pandemic’s damage. Over 650,000 Americans have died from COVID-19 — the equivalent of a 9/11 every day for over seven months. The opioid epidemic claims another 50,000 lives a year.
Meanwhile extreme weather events like wildfires, hurricanes, and floods have grown in frequency over the past 20 years. The U.S. hasn’t invested nearly enough in either renewable energy or climate resiliency to deal with the increasing effects climate change has on our communities.
In the face of all this suffering, it’s clear that $21 trillion in spending hasn’t made us any safer.
Instead, the human costs have been staggering. Around the world, the forever wars have cost 900,000 lives and left 38 million homeless — and as the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan has shown us, they were a massive failure.
Our militarized spending has helped deport 5 million people over the past 20 years, often taking parents from their children. The majority of those deported hadn’t committed any crime except for being here.
Fortunately, there’s a silver lining: We’ve found that for just a fraction of what we’ve spent on militarization these last 20 years, we could start to make life much better.
For $4.5 trillion, we could build a renewable, upgraded energy grid for the whole country. For $2.3 trillion, we could create 5 million $15-an-hour jobs with benefits — for 10 years. For just $25 billion, we could vaccinate low-income countries against COVID-19, saving lives and stopping the march of new and more threatening virus variants.
We could do all that and more for less than half of what we’ve spent on wars and militarization in the last 20 years. With communities across the country in dire need of investment, the case for avoiding more pointless, deadly wars couldn’t be clearer.
The best time for those investments would have been during the past 20 years. The next best time is now.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Lindsay Koshgarian directs the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. She’s the lead author of the new report State of Insecurity: The Cost of Militarization Since 9/11. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.
Featured image: An excerpt from the cover of “State of Insecurity.” Art by Sarah Gertler.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Today, the Canadian political landscape is being remoulded by a nest of technocratic ideologues who aim to lead the nation into a post-nation state Great Reset.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was among the earliest public figures who celebrated this new age stating in 2015 that Canada is “the world’s first post-national state”. Once the COVID pandemic had been used to justify the shutdown of the world economy, the same Trudeau stated in November 2020 that
“this pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset. This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to reimagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality, and climate change.”
As Canada moves into an election on September 20, 2021 with the Liberal government of Chrystia Freeland seeking a majority rule (and un-challengeable authority), the question remains: How did this all happen? How did a party which was once renowned during WW2 and the two ensuing post-war decades as a champion of progress led by such figures as C.D. Howe and Prime Minister St. Laurent to become a party devoted to technocratic management of a post-industrial/post-truth world order?
This 1957-1963 destruction of the once pro-development spirit of the Liberal Party of Canada was replaced by a Fabian Society/Rhodes Scholar-run instrument of technocratic fascism culminating in the 1968-72 revolution in cybernetic affairs early on in the mandate of Pierre Elliot Trudeau. This federal “Quiet Revolution” put a complete halt to scientific and technological progress and ushered in a replacement of a formerly pro-development orientation that had hitherto dominated top down policy making and mass popular consciousness in Canada and replaced it with a new oligarchical system of control in government based on Trudeau’s commitment to Cybernetics and Systems Analysis. In real terms this meant “ecosystems management” at home and third world debt enslavement abroad with the guise of protecting nature from selfish humans.
The world was now become a process which could only be observed and interfaced with via a filter of “closed systems” driven by computer models and supposed “natural states” of homeostasis. Anything which disturbed said natural states of equilibrium (like hydroelectric dams or other forms of technological progress) would be thus defined as “un-natural”, destructive and hence “bad”.
Ushering in this new overhaul of the federal government, Pierre Trudeau delivered a speech in Hamilton Ontario stating: “We are aware that the many techniques of cybernetics, by transforming the control function and the manipulation of information, will transform our whole society. With this knowledge, we are wide awake, alert, capable of action; no longer are we blind, inert powers of fate.”
In fact, as Julian Huxley outlined over 20 years earlier, Cybernetics and Systems Analysis-thinking would be the tools selected to repackage “Eugenics” and “Malthusianism” under new names.
Gordon’s Thinkers Conference: 1960 Kingston
The original conference that brought this new Liberal makeover scheme together was known as the Kingston “Thinkers” Conference of 1960, led by agents of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs (CIIA) Walter Gordon, Maurice Lamontagne, Lester B. Pearson, Lionel Chevrier, Tom Kent, Keith Davey and other social engineers who were obsessed with cleaning out the political landscape of all forces committed to scientific and technological progress and continental cooperation with the pro-development America of John F. Kennedy[1].
Under the chairmanship of Gordon, the participants of the “Thinkers” conference created the Committee to Restructure the Liberal Party Organization which set itself to work to counter the challenge the brilliant young President John F. Kennedy was launching against the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy[2]. Under Kennedy’s leadership, Canada was in danger of slipping away from the hands of the oligarchy’s influence as a bold vision of new frontiers called forth the pioneering spirit of Canadian citizens and policy-makers.
Although the C.D. Howe Liberals and Diefenbaker Conservatives differed in their methods, both were fundamentally committed to achieving progress and increasing the productive powers of the nation through scientific and technological progress. Diefenbaker himself had attempted to found a new Canadian nationalism upon a bold vision for Arctic development which represented a grave threat to the oligarchy and had to be undermined at all cost.
C.D. Howe, Canada’s great continentalist “Minister of Everything” here ushering in a U.S.-Canada pipeline which was one of his many nation building initiatives. The Liberal Party was purged of most of his collaborators after his 1957 death through the intervention of Walter Gordon
In response to this danger, the Liberal party was wiped clean of C.D. Howe Liberals in what Henry Erskine Kidd, General Secretary for the Liberal Party, called “a palace revolution” run directly by Walter Gordon, while Gordon himself led in the destruction of Diefenbaker[3]. C.D. Howe himself, now nearing his last days watched the Thinkers conference with sadness when he wrote: “I am afraid that Mike [Pearson] is being advised by the wrong type of officers. The meeting of the Thinkers Club certainly didn’t help him politically”[4].
On top of this, a new Fabian-inspired centralized-socialist planning structure was adopted to provide social incentives for Canadians to remain complacent and controlled, a new national anthem and flag were adopted to promote the mythology that Canada had been freed from its British mother to become a sovereign country, and a new technocratic structure of bureaucracy and systems planning was adopted. The blueprint that was designed to implement this reform was led by Gordon’s partner at Clarkson-Gordon John Grant Glassco, who ran the Royal Commission on Government Organization in 1962 and Gordon’s protégé Maurice Lamontagne, who ran the Senate Commission on Science Policy from 1968-1972. Both Gordon and Lamontagne served as Presidents of the Privy Council consecutively.
To understand this structural overhaul which began to bring in a vast compartmentalized bureaucracy run by technocratic social scientists and accountants, it is worth noting that this 1960 conference was itself modelled on a yet earlier precedent that had occurred 27 years prior named the Port Hope Conference under the guidance of Gordon’s CIIA collaborator Vincent Massey. Both Gordon and Massey are credited as the fathers of Canada’s post 1963 “New Nationalism”. Key founding blueprints for this ‘New [anti-American] Nationalism’ were laid out in Gordon’s powerful Royal Commission on Economic Prospects for Canada from 1955-1957 which followed Massey’s 1949-1952 Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences.
Massey’s Conference: 1933 Port Hope
The 1933 Port Hope conference was sponsored by CIIA/Round Table leader Vincent Massey. The danger for the Canadian-British oligarchy represented by Massey even then was that pro-nationalist forces had dominated the Liberal Party throughout the 1920s in the form of the “Laurier Liberals” of O.D. Skelton, Chubby Power and Ernest Lapointe, all three of whom exerted enormous influence on the leader of the Liberal Party, William Lyon Mackenzie King, who became Prime Minister once again in 1935 after the party had fallen from power in 1930.
Then serving as President of the Liberal Party, Vincent Massey, a student of Lord Alfred Milner[5], noted that the 1933 Conference marked the transformation of the Liberal Party “from the laissez-faire traditions of the party to a new, more technocratic and interventionist view of government”[6]. Just as would occur 27 years later in Kingston, the challenge for the oligarchy involved 1) keeping Canada complacent by encouraging a technocratic managerial class and 2) blocking greater cooperation with an anti-Imperial America led by the great Franklin Delano Roosevelt. This conference was designed to coincide with the 1933 London Economic Conference that had brought together 66 nations to deal with the global depression by the establishment of a globalized standard of balanced budgets, and currency controls under the dictatorship of the Bank of England.
Fortunately in 1933, the London Economic Conference of 1933 was sabotaged by Roosevelt who refused to attend and decided not to sacrifice American sovereignty on the Wall Street altar of a globally extended bankers dictatorship. It was FDR’s sabotage of this conference that put a final nail in the coffin of the imperial League of Nations. Fabian Society eugenicist H.G. Welles blamed the rise of global fascism on FDR’s nationalist sabotage of this conference.
Canada 2020 and the Kingston Conference of the 21st Century
In the modern period, the 1933 Massey Port Hope Conference and 1960 Gordon Kingston Conference took the form of a June 2006 conference in Mont Tremblant, Quebec hosted by a London-run think tank known as Canada 2020.
The two-day conference which saw a young Justin walking around barefoot was sponsored by this new think tank and was keynoted by none other than Al Gore, who was brought in by high level members of the Queen’s elite Privy Council such as John Manley, Bob Rae and Anne McLellan, in order to reform the policy structures of the federal government, the Liberal Party and the Canadian culture itself after the controlled demolition of Prime Minister Paul Martin in February 2006.
The Liberal Party of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, which had been in power from 1993-2006, distinguished itself as being the last major federal party to resist, even in some small form, aspects of the Anglo-Dutch Empire’s global program in the form of their rejection of Canada’s participation in the Iraq war and the failed 1997 attempt to consolidate the “big 5” banks into the “big 3”. Battles between Chretien and such pro-British establishment figures as Lord Conrad Black expressed this lack of British control over its Canadian dominion to a large degree. Such lack of control of an important dominion within the British Commonwealth had to be reined in and a more virulent form of Canadian nationalism more conducive to globally extended empire had to be weaved in its place.
An important decision made during the conference of 2006 was to groom a young Justin Trudeau to become the spokesperson of the new Liberal party. Prize assets of Power Corporation, the World Wildlife Fund and the Canadian International Council (CIC)[7] were subsequently deployed to manage this new cult of “Justin” in preparation for the 2015 elections with CIC President Bill Graham playing a key role in the event. Both Al Gore and Larry Summers represent leading spokesmen of the Canada 2020 policy orientation on the economy and the environment.
Among the many interesting characters running this think tank was none other than Mark Carney’s Oxford-trained wife Diana Carney who was Canada 2020’s Vice President of Research from 2009-2013. Carney’s own intention to take the helm of Canada’s ship of state after the upcoming COP27 UK summit is no secret.
The Case of Axworthy and Manley
A vital player in this process is none other than former Principal Secretary to Pierre Trudeau, Thomas Axworthy. By the end of the 2006 conference, Axworthy had been made responsible for chairing the Liberal Party Renewal Commission in which he oversaw 36 task forces which examined each aspect of the party. The outcome of Axworthy’s 36 task forces resulted in the current Cass Sunstein-modelled behaviorist design now being adopted to brainwash the population to support the Great Reset.
Not only is Axworthy the President of the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation, Senior Fellow at Massey College, former Executive Director of the Charles Bronfman Foundation, but has gotten his start in social engineering working as research assistant directly under Walter Gordon on the 1967 “Task Force on the Structure of the Canadian Economy” (aka: Gordon Task Force). Axworthy was joined by Walter Gordon’s other surviving protégé Keith Davey, who also helped co-found Canada 2020 and who participated in the Gordon 1960 Thinkers Conference.
It is also noteworthy that both Thomas Axworthy and the 2006 Conference co-chair John Manley were both members of the Independent Task Force on North America to integrate the North American Economies under a European Union-modelled zone called the “North American Union”.
Although it is frightening for some to state this fact aloud in polite society, the ugly truth behind the Great Reset and the thing masquerading as a global pandemic is an intention to cataclyze a complete reform of human civilization under a Great Reset. The forms this reset has taken involve the creation of a new global caste system of subhuman unvaxxed deplorables on the one hand and well behaved citizens who only need to think the right thoughts and have the right behavior in order to access their universal basic income payments to feed themselves and their families as members of a new useless class.
The green energy reset that aims to cut global carbon emissions under a Green New Deal boondoggle as outlined by Mark Carney’s Climate Task Forces and upcoming COP27 summit is just a cover for depopulation under a new technocratic feudalism where the majority of the people on earth “will own nothing and be happy”.
The only way to stop this green zero-growth program from being acted upon is the immediate restoration of Glass-Steagall to break up the bankrupt Too Big to Fail system and the re-enactment of national banking measures to produce the productive credit necessary to finance those projects which can increase society’s ability to sustain itself.
Among the many such projects that could bring western states into harmony with the pro-development/anti-Malthusian dynamic shaping the Great Eurasian Partnership are NAWAPA, asteroid defence, the Bering Strait tunnel, Arctic development and industrialization of the Moon with the mining of Helium-3 for a fusion-based economy as outlined by Chinese space scientists. This means picking up the torch which was dropped with the demise of C.D. Howe, the Kennedy brothers, de Gaulle, W.A.C. Bennett and Quebec’s great statesman Daniel Johnson Sr.
*
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 J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Notes
[1] It is important to note that Pearson was not terribly respected by these “new reformers” led by Gordon, and was largely used as their Nobel Prize winning instrument. When Pearson became too easily influenced by the pro-C.D. Howe Liberals remaining in his party such as Robert Winters and Mitchell Sharp, as well as JFK himself, Pearson was scrapped for a more effective replacement in the form of Pierre Trudeau in 1968.
[2] For the full story of Kennedy’s battle to liberate the world from the British Empire, visit http://www.larouchepac.com/jfk
[3] As Diefenbaker himself wrote in his autobiography “One of the ironies of recent Canadian history is that Walter Gordon, a man whom I only met for a few minutes when he delivered to me his Royal Commission Report, has stated that he decided to do everything in his power to make Mr. Pearson Prime Minister because he hated me and feared that my policies would wreck Canada”, Diefenbaker Memoirs, p.202. Rhodes Scholar Governor of the Bank of Canada, James Coyne, and two Rhodes scholars embedded in Diefenbaker’s own cabinet (J.M. Mcdonald, and Davie Fulton) played a key role in Diefenbaker’s final 1963 downfall and failure of his Northern Vision.
[4] Stephen Azzi, Walter Gordon and the Rise of Canadian Nationalism, McGill-Queens Press, 1999, p.80
[5] The young Massey, then on the cusp of inheriting the fortunes of his family’s farm equipment dynasty, had helped install a Round Table chapter in Ontario in 1910 and was rewarded for his services by being sent off to Oxford to study under the Round Table’s founder and controller, the eugenics obsessed “race patriot” Lord Alfred Milner in 1911.
[6] Vincent Massey is quoted from Richard Blake’s From Rights to Needs: A History of Family Allowances in Canada, UBC Press, p.33
[7] The Canadian International Council became the new name for the Canadian institute for International Affairs (CIIA) in 2007. The CIIA had been the new name for the Round Table Movement, formed in London by Lord Milner in 1910 and run by the Rhodes Trust network of Oxford scholars in order to advance Cecil Rhodes’ design to recapture America as a lost colony and form the rebirth of a new globally extended British Empire. For more on how this hive has mis-shaped the 21st century, see “British Dictatorship or American System part I and II” (2013) by this author in the Canadian Patriot #7 and 8, downloadable on http://www.canadianpatriot.org
Il 18 settembre 2001, una settimana dopo l’11 Settembre, il Congresso degli Stati Uniti approvava con unanime voto bipartisan la Legge Pubblica 107-40 che stabiliva: «Il Presidente è autorizzato a usare tutta la forza necessaria e appropriata contro quelle nazioni, organizzazioni o persone che egli ritiene abbiano pianificato, autorizzato, commesso o aiutato gli attacchi terroristici avvenuti l’11 Settembre 2001, o ha dato rifugio a tali organizzazioni o persone, al fine di prevenire qualsiasi futuro atto di terrorismo internazionale contro gli Stati Uniti da parte di tali nazioni, organizzazioni o persone». pdf qui
La legge, che conferiva al presidente repubblicano George W. Bush pieni poteri di guerra, era stata redatta dal senatore democratico Joe Biden, presidente della Commissione per le relazioni estere.
Il presidente Bush veniva così autorizzato dal Congresso, in nome della «guerra al terrore», a usare la forza militare non solo contro organizzazioni o persone ma intere nazioni, la cui colpevolezza veniva decretata dal presidente stesso, che emetteva la sentenza senza processo né possibilità di appello e ne ordinava l’immediata esecuzione per mezzo della guerra. Gli unici che da tempo chiedono la cancellazione di questa legge sono due senatori, il democratico Kaine e il repubblicano Young, ma il loro tentativo non ha finora avuto esito.
La legge del 18 Settembre 2001, tuttora in vigore, è stata usata, dopo il presidente repubblicano Bush, dal democratico Obama, dal repubblicano Trump e dal democratico Biden (già vice-presidente dell’Amministrazione Obama). Si calcola che sia stata usata per «legittimare», negli ultimi vent’anni, operazioni militari effettuate dalle forze armate statunitensi, per ordine presidenziale, in 19 paesi del mondo, tra cui Afghanistan, Iraq, Libia, Siria, Yemen, Tunisia, Kenya, Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, Camerun, Niger.
Tre settimane dopo il varo delle legge, il presidente Bush ordinava di attaccare e invadere l’Afghanistan, ufficialmente per dare la caccia a Bin Laden protetto dai talebani; tre mesi dopo, ordinava l’apertura del campo di prigionia di Guantanamo, dove venivano segretamente deportati e torturati presunti terroristi di varie parti del mondo; un anno e mezzo dopo – sollecitato da una risoluzione bipartisan di 77 senatori, promossa da Joe Biden – il presidente Bush ordinava di attaccare e invadere l’Iraq, con l’accusa (poi dimostratasi falsa) che esso possedeva armi di distruzione di massa. L’ordine era di usare il pugno di ferro per schiacciare la resistenza: lo confermavano le immagini delle torture nel carcere di Abu Ghraib, venute alla luce nel 2004.
Sempre in base alla legge del 2001 che lo autorizzava a «usare tutta la forza necessaria e appropriata», il presidente Obama, dieci anni dopo, autorizzava la Cia a compiere operazioni segrete in Libia in preparazione della guerra Nato che avrebbe demolito lo Stato libico. Secondo la stessa procedura «legale» – documentava il New Tork Times (29 maggio 2012) – durante l’Amministrazione Obama venne istituita la «kill list», aggiornata settimanalmente, comprendente persone di tutto il mondo condannate segretamente a morte con l’accusa di terrorismo, le quali, dopo l’approvazione del Presidente, venivano eliminate per la maggior parte con droni-killer.
La stessa procedura veniva seguita nel gennaio 2020 dal presidente Trump, che ordinava l’eliminazione del generale iraniano Soleimani, ucciso da un drone Usa nell’aeroporto di Baghdad. Attacchi analoghi di droni Usa sono stati «legalmente» autorizzati in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libia, Pakistan, Somalia, Siria e Yemen.
Il più recente attacco di un drone-killer è quello che, in base all’autorizzazione del presidente Biden, ha colpito il 29 agosto a Kabul un’auto sospettata di trasportare una bomba dell’Isis. Una inchiesta del New York Times (10 settembre scorso) ha appurato che l’auto (seguita a lungo dal pilota del drone, a migliaia di km di distanza) non trasportava esplosivi ma taniche d’acqua. Contro quest’auto, in un quartiere densamente abitato, è stato lanciato un missile «Fuoco infernale», che ha ucciso dieci civili, tra cui sette bambini.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Why do people not want to know about the violence that is committed against Mother Earth?
Is it a taboo to reveal a secret? For instance, Dr Rosalie Bertell’s research about geoengineering has to this day still not been properly debated in public. Not only the powers that be, but also the social movements of today have not allowed this to happen. Very often, people reject radical new thoughts right away because they are too shocking for them. A first reaction typically consists of ignoring them instead of trying to learn and do something about these perilous matters. Most people simply deny the possibility that something like ‘military geoengineering’ may even exist. In an effort to avoid confronting these uneasy truths, they repeat the term prepared by those in power who want to do away with this sort of ‘evil knowledge’ and call it a ‘conspiracy theory’.
But we do need to confront the facts about the system we live in, which in itself is based on different forms of direct and structural violence against life itself, against nature and against human beings. This truth is a secret and thus it has become a taboo to speak about it. Whenever this taboo is violated, there is always a prompt and often violent reaction to stop any further discussion.
Of course, we know what the violence of our system – our ‘modern civilization’ – is based on. It is rooted in ‘patriarchy’, as I name it in my critical theory approach. The intention of patriarchy is to change all of life, nature and humanity, in fact the entire world into a ‘man-made’, artificial one, that is not allowing life to exist any longer in its organic, natural and motherly ways on Planet Earth.
This man-made world is by definition a pater-arché one, a ‘creation’ of so-called human fathers instead of human mothers together with Mother Nature. During the time to reach this patriarchal utopia, which is several thousands of years old, much violence has already been applied. This violence has turned into trauma, but at the same time, it is considered ‘forbidden knowledge’ and is suppressed. It has been hidden on all levels and cannot be addressed openly. And as long as this patriarchal ‘civilization’ has not totally succeeded in transforming life, nature, humans, the whole world – and the Planet itself – into a completely man-made world, more violence will continuously be applied as a necessary means of achieving its dangerous end goals.
This paradox is the secret of patriarchy. Because the patriarchal narrative tells us that there is no violence in the transformation process from the natural to the artificial – the machine – we are also always told that the result will be superior. It is called progress! But the secret we must reveal tells us that violence does not lead to the better and improved worlds we are promised, but to what it actually produces: destruction!
Destruction is the overall outcome of this ‘alchemical’ – as I call it – transformation process through violence. This is its logic, but nobody is allowed to name it. This is the ‘evil’ knowledge, the forbidden one, the forgotten one, the knowledge driven into the underground and thus made subconscious. I call it ‘the collective subconscious’.
Understanding this makes it clear how difficult it is to acknowledge what Rosalie Bertell is teaching us. She teaches us that patriarchy in the form of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), has started to destroy our living conditions and the Planet itself. I believe we are forced to do something against this, if we want to continue living on this earth. This means that we have to address patriarchy and its systemic, direct and structural violence, running the risk of becoming the ones who break the taboo.
My personal experience with breaking the taboo of this syndrome of avoidance and fear that we can see repeated today in the case of the worldwide Coronavirus Crisis, has led me to found the Planetary Movement for Mother Earth (PMME) in 2010.
This is how it happened: after an interview for a newspaper about the necessity to do research into a possible crime, namely the eventual participation of military geoengineering, mentioned by the Venezuelan president, the Russian Duma and others, that had led to the death of a quarter of a million people – the Haitian earthquake in 2010. Just for quoting those sources I was immediately called a ‘conspiracy theorist’. As a result I was publicly ‘murdered’ and discredited, robbed of my good reputation as an academic, an activist, a person and a woman. I was threatened by the Deep State and the Institute of Political Science at the University of Innsbruck where I had worked for more than 20 years. The official Austrian media threatened me – being instructed from above, as I was informed by a whistleblower. I lost many of my friends, even very old ones, from the left wing, the green and other alternative movements, even from matriarchy groups in Germany and Austria, with whom I had been working for many years. I lost publishers I used to work with, and I was never again invited for interviews or talks in the mainstream and even most of the alternative press.
This is an indication of the deep hatred of the patriarchal system against life and truth, the real knowledge that is now emerging everywhere. It shows patriarchy’s need to cover up the truth, as quickly and as brutally as possible, by using its paid defenders. This experience changed my life, as I did not run away or go into hiding to atone for my alleged sins. On the contrary, I then started my own research on geoengineering which had not been an issue for me until then.
The Haitian case had put me on the road to Rosalie Bertell´s knowledge that was completely unknown to me. With the help of her research I learned how to explain what might have really occurred in Haiti – and not only that, but much more. I wished that I had been wrong, but I wasn´t.
During these experiences of change in my life, I became ill. When I emerged from the hell Rosalie had opened for me, I had to decide what to do: either stopping to do anything at all, or starting anew – and with exactly those issues the social environment around me tried to suppress. I decided to do the latter. Otherwise, we would not celebrate the tenth birthday of the Planetary Movement for Mother Earth in 2020.
I chose this option because there was no alternative. I had felt the same tremors in my body as Mother Earth must have felt in her body during the earthquake. It was as if She was calling me, and loudly so. She said: “Yes, you are the one. You have to stand up for me, as you now know what it feels like what is being done to me! Someone has to do it! This is the moment …”
Knowing already what this decision of mine meant, I began my new life. I informed my friends overseas who – contrary to those in Europe – were full of solidarity and support. They started a campaign for me that passed through many parts of the world, as I had done research in earlier years in different places and had many colleagues from social movements in many countries. It was wonderful and it gave me strength so that I could move on. The people of Haiti, however, probably never knew about this debate that began after their disastrous experience. Even the NGOs kept it away from them.
At a large women´s congress in Germany in May 2010, I spoke about Rosalie Bertell’s book Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War which deals with geoengineering and proposed founding the PMME in order to distribute her knowledge. Hundreds of women applauded in agreement, and we began organising this movement from Austria.
The first and most important task was to translate Bertell’s book into German and publish it. We found a good translator, we got enough donations to pay for this work, and Rosalie sent us the new texts she had written after the first publication of her book in 2000. However, we could not find a publisher! It felt like a boycott on all levels. When we finally found one and succeeded in publishing Bertell’s work in German, at the end of 2011, there was a second wave of hatred, discrimination and defamation occurring that appeared to me as if some people wanted to take revenge for being unable to prevent us from publishing Bertell’s research. So I had to stand up to this new wave of insulting personal and fierce political attacks.
In amazing ways, however, we then gained new friends all over the world. Ever more people and groups became active in relation to geoengineering issues. Rosalie considered it an obligation for all of us to fight for Mother Earth as we are her children. Where did she gain her power and energy from to do this work by herself? Her ‘dynamo’ surely was her immense and deep love for Mother Earth, our beautiful fantastic planet that gives us everything we need. So, things were very clear for her. And things should be very clear for us, as well.
Rosalie Bertell had developed early on what I call a ‘planetary consciousness’. My experience in these difficult last ten years with the PMME taught me the same. I learned to love the Earth much more than I could have imagined, I learned about her as a huge cosmic living being, I learned to listen to her, to trust her, and to accept her power as mine as well. Because, the power to go on with this struggle stems from Her – not from patriarchy, of course.
Over these years, I learned that if we want it, we can establish a real relationship with the earth and ask her: “What can we do? What should we do? Please tell us what to do and what not to do?” For example, what should we give up?
I strongly believe this is the answer to the panic, anxiety and fear that reaches us when we start to speak about the systemic violence of patriarchy. The time has come to stop this destructive way of life. The time has come to change from the patriarchal hatred of life to the love of life again – which is the natural attitude of human beings. We have to re-awaken this love, so we become aware and develop a planetary consciousness.
Love should be the ‘virus’, the ‘dis – ease’ that ‘contaminates’ us all – to be open to the power of love for, from, and with our Mother Earth! What else can we do? There is no alternative!
If we look around, we see always more weaponry – not CO2! – threatening the earth, her climate, the ozone layer, her cycles and all life. Together with a ‘weaponization’ through mind control and neuroscience, 5G, artificial intelligence, digitisation, nano- and biotechnologies, geoengineering belongs to the fourth Industrial Revolution that has been proclaimed to build our future – or our no-future – in the twenty-first century. These technologies are already producing ‘lock-downs’ from above, from space, as well as from below. They are meant to use our bodies and brains, and I don’t think all of us are supposed to survive this process of becoming the ‘bio’-part of what I call the megamachine – the new global form of totalitarianism.
The problems we are confronting are all related to each other. The laissez-faire attitude towards the question of technology being welcomed as progress has to stop. There is a need to really look at patriarchy, the intentional destruction of the world including us humans. The vaccines against COVID-19 intending to turn us into genetically modified zombies with implanted chips and nanobots, are in the process of application right now. They are intended to lead us towards ‘transhumanism’, the end of mothers and of humanity.
This is my Call!
*
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. Claudia von Werlhof is Prof. Emerita of Political Science and Women’s Studies at the University of Innsbruck in Austria. She is the author of many books and has worked hard to make Rosalie Bertell’s important book Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War on Geoengineering available in German, Spanish, Italian, French and English again. Claudia was the founder of the Planetary Movement for Mother Earth (PMME) in 2010.
She is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Sources
Bertell, Rosalie. 1985. No Immediate Danger: Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth. London: The Women’s Press
_____ 2011, 2013, 2016, 20^18, 2020: Kriegswaffe Planet Erde, 5 editions, Gelnhausen, J. K. Fischer Verlag
_____2020. Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War. Enhanced edition, Dublin: Talma Studios International.
Forschungsinstitut für Patriarchatskritik und alternative Zivilisationen. < www.fipaz.at >
Planetare Bewegung für Mutter Erde.
von Werlhof, Claudia. 2011. The Failure of Modern Civilization and the Struggle for a ‘Deep’ Alternative. On ‘Critical Theory of Patriarchy’ as a New Paradigm. Frankfurt/New York, Peter Lang.
_______ 2011: Die Verkehrung. Das Projekt des Patriarchats und das Gender-Dilemma, Wien, Promedia
_______ 2012: Der unerkannte Kern der Krise. Die Moderne als Er-Schöpfung der Welt, Uhlstädt-Kirchhasel, Arun
_______ 2015: Madre Tierra o Muerte. Reflexiones para una Teoría Crítica del Patriarcado, Oaxaca, Cooperativa El Rebozo, México
_______ 2014: Nell´ Etá del Boomerang. Contributi alla Teoria critica del patriarcato, Milano, Unicopli
_______ 2021: Väter des Nichts. Zum Wahn einer Neuschöpfung der Welt, 2 Bde, Höhr-Grenzhausen, zeitgeist, forthcoming.
_______(Ed.). 2021. Global Warning! Geoengineering is Wrecking our Planet. Dublin: Talma Studios International, forthcoming.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
As the European Parliament resumed on Monday September 13 2021, with their first order of business a debate over health and disease prevention to be followed by a vote on Tuesday, a letter of Notice of Liability for harm and death from COVID-19 vaccines was served on all members of the European Parliament, and sent to the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency.
The notice was a accompanied by a summary of the latest scientific evidence regarding vaccine-immune interactions, and a letter from Holocaust survivors demanding a halt to the vaccination program and an end to unlawful medical coercion. The notice read:
“The rush to vaccinate first and research later has left you in a position whereby COVID-19 vaccination policy is now entirely divorced from the relevant evidence-base.”
The full notice with supporting documentation, and pdf download, is below.
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).
After the atomic bombing of Japan, the U.S. dropped powerful, more sophisticated deadly bombs.
It is 20 years since the criminal attack on the Twin Towers in New York and the world’s mass media remember those unique and unthinkable acts with justified pain and dismay.
However, while they forget and gloss over the horrendous crimes of the U.S. empire throughout history, they beat their chests. It is as if the innocent deaths of other nations do not have the same value as the citizens of the United States of America (USA).
Let us also remember from the most recent history, the countries bombed by the USA, after the abhorrent attack with atomic bombs against the civilian population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945. Thus ended the Second World War and provoked the surrender of Japan.
These powerful bombings, never before or since carried out by any power, were ordered by Harry S. Truman, President of the United States. It is estimated that around 150 to 200 thousand people were killed.
Tens of thousands more were burned by radiation and seriously injured, suffering from terminal illnesses such as cancer. The entire Japanese citizenry was traumatized by this barbaric imperial act, unprecedented in the history of mankind.
After the atomic bombing of Japan, the USA dropped powerful, more sophisticated but deadly bombs on this list of countries, causing millions of deaths and injuries.
No exact official figures are known, but in Vietnam and Iraq alone it is estimated that more than a million people died, mostly defenseless people and civilians.
More than 30 nations have been bombed by the U.S. between 1950 and 2021:
Korea and China- 1950 to 1953
Guatemala-1954
Indonesia- 1958
Cuba 1959-1961
Guatemala- 1960
Congo- 1964
Laos 1964 to 1973
Vietnam-1961 to 1973
Cambodia-1969 and 1970
Guatemala- 1967 and 1969
Grenada- 1983
Lebanon- 1983 and 1984
Libya- 1986
El Salvador- 1980
Nicaragua- 1980
Iran- 1987
Panama- 1989
Iraq- 1991 (Persian Gulf)
Kuwait- 1991
Somalia- 1993
Bosnia- 1994 and 1995
Sudan- 1998
Afghanistan- 1998
Yugoslavia- 1999
Yemen- 2002
Iraq- 1991 to 2003
Iraq- 2003 to 2015
Pakistan- 2007 to 2015
Somalia- 2007 to 2011
Yemen- 2009 to 2011
Libya- 2011 to 2015
Syria- 2014 to 2016
Afghanistan-2001-2021
The lives of all human beings have the same value and imperial barbarism has a first and last name. Nature has also suffered the onslaught of the US military-industrial-financial complex.
In truth, it is a disgusting business that has left more than a trillion dollars in profits in Afghanistan alone.
Let us not be fooled by the crocodile tears of rulers manipulated by big capital. They have no morals to accuse anyone when they are the main cause of the pain and suffering of millions of people, innocent victims of their wars.
*
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).
COVID19/11: Narratives Intertwined is OffG’s new series of short interviews with prominent voices in the alternate media, vocal Covid sceptics and leading figures in the 9/11 truth movement.
The series is intended to both mark the 20th anniversary of the World Trade Center collapse, and discuss how that event helped shape the modern world and, in turn, set the stage for the Covid “pandemic”.
*
Episode Six of Narratives Intertwined features Elizabeth Woodworth, author and former chief medical librarian for British Colombia.
Elizabeth is author of several articles and books, including 9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation (with Dr David Ray Griffin) and Unprecedented Crime: Climate Change Denial and Game Changers for Survival (with Dr Peter Carter).
In her interview she discusses how she woke up to the reality of 9/11 and how potential treatments for Covid19 were discredited in order to force through the emergency use authorization of the Covid mRNA “vaccines”.
You can follow Elizabeth on twitter here and read her article on hyrdoxychloroquine here. Her book 9/11 Unmasked was reviewed by several of our authors [1–2–3] and became the subject of a censorship campaign from Amazon.
*
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).
The reported suspected side effects for the four Covid vaccines, which have only been conditionally approved in the EU, are record-breaking after just 8 months. Serious side effects have been reported.
The European Medicines Agency EMA currently lists 904 534 personal suspected cases with a total of 3 478 979 individual side effects for the Covid vaccines (as of September 3, 2021). Almost a third of them are categorized as serious. Thus 262 383 of the 904 534 the cases are severe.
The four Covid vaccines have only received limited approval and the final evaluation reports are not expected until the end of 2022 or 2023.
In the EMA EudraVigilance database, the data for the following vaccines are listed:
The total number of all suspected cases reported to the EMA increased by over 80 percent in the period May 29, 2021 to September 3, 2021. Contrary to some rumours, the majority of the reports are submitted by personnel from the health sector such as clinics or medical practices. With Biontech it is around 46 percent that are reported by EU medical practices or clinics.
This speaks for a solid database. Added to this are the control and monitoring mechanisms of the EMA, which have been tried and tested over many years, in order to secure the best possible data sets.
The reports are usually first sent to the national competent authorities (Germany PEI). These cases are often filtered and then reported to the EMA.
What proportion do the reported suspected cases of Covid vaccinations make up in the EMA database?
If one follows the information in the 2020 annual report, the 904 534 suspected Covid vaccination cases in the period of just 8 months from 2021 account for almost exactly 50 percent of the 1 821 211 suspected side effects of all 5 042 substances listed for drugs as well as vaccinations in 2020.
That is incredibly high.
France singles out Janssen’s product as a problem
A “significant number” of injuries as a result of Janssen’s Covid-19 vaccine, which works with a single dose, has been noted in France, said the Medicines Agency (ANSM) on Monday, which said it would be carrying out more investigations.
“A large number of cases of failure of the Janssen vaccine has been reported, with in particular serious forms (death, resuscitation) as well as an over-representation of patients vaccinated by Janssen in intensive care” in Marseille and Tours, noted the ANSM in its periodic vaccine surveillance report.
Since April, around one million injections of this vaccine (the only one to be administered with a single dose) have been carried out in France. Among all these people vaccinated with Janssen, 32 cases of Covid-19 infection have so far been reported (a rate of 3,78 per 100 000).
Of these 32 cases, 29 were serious and 4 deaths were recorded (people aged 73 to 87). For the 17 cases of infection where the variant was known, it was the Delta variant in each case.
Hospitalized in intensive care despite vaccination
In addition, two hospitals reported an unusually high number of patients vaccinated with Janssen among people hospitalized in intensive care despite vaccination.
In Marseille, out of 7 patients who were fully vaccinated but still admitted to the ICU (that is to say seriously affected), 4 had been jabbed with Janssen. In Tours, this proportion was 50 percent.
All these elements justify “additional investigations” to check whether the failures are more important with Janssen than with the other vaccines available in France.
On August 24, the French National Authority for Health (HAS) recommended that people vaccinated with Janssen receive a booster dose with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer or Moderna) from four weeks after their vaccination.
Several real-life studies have indeed shown that the first dose of Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccine provided insufficient protection. No data on this point is available for Janssen, but the HAS considered it likely that this is also the case.
The risk/reward ratio of Covid-19 vaccines is appalling
As the graph in this tweet shows, there are no valid reasons for pursuing mass vaccination against Covid-19.
Regardless of the reported efficacy of vaccines, the data from the most vaccinated nations on Earth indicates that vaccinating nearly all adults will not prevent seasonal waves of infection:
Every one of these nations had dramatically more cases in Aug 2021 than in Aug 2020: pic.twitter.com/LdJaQICT6L
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).
Critics of the foreign and national security policies of the Joe Biden regime were quick to note that the American soldiers being pulled out of Afghanistan were no doubt a resource that will be committed to a new adventure somewhere else. There was considerable speculation that the new model army, fully vaccinated, glorious in all its gender and racial diversity and purged of extremists in the ranks, might be destined to put down potentially rebellious supremacists in unenlightened parts of the United States. But even given an increasingly totalitarian White House, that civil war type option must have seemed a bridge too far for an administration plagued by plummeting approval ratings, so the old hands in Washington apparently turned to what has always been a winner: pick a suitable foreign enemy and stick it to him.
It is of course generally known that when Joe Biden was running for president, he committed himself to making an attempt to reenter the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) of 2015 which placed limits on the Iranian nuclear program and also established an intrusive inspection routine. In turn, the Iranians were to receive relief from sanctions related to the program. In 2018 President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement based on the false argument that Iran was cheating on the arrangement and was secretly engaged in developing a weapon. Trump’s neocon supporters on the issue also argued without any evidence that Iran was intending to use the agreement as cover for its efforts to accumulate enriched uranium, guaranteeing that they would be able develop a weapon quickly when the inspection regime expires in 2025.
The Trump move was, of course, backed by the Israel Lobby and it was widely seen as deferring to Israeli interests at a time when the agreement was actually good for the United States as it blocked an unfriendly country’s possible nuclear proliferation. Unfortunately, a US government’s bowing to Israel is not exactly unusual and the withdrawal was subject to only limited criticism in the mainstream media.
Joe Biden, who has described himself as a Zionist, is no less prone to pandering to Israel than is Trump. When he raised the issue of JCPOA during his campaign in a bid to appeal to his party’s progressives, he also caveated the move by indicating that the agreement would have to be updated and improved. The talks in Vienna, which Iran and the US are indirectly engaged in, have been stalled for several months due to Iranian elections and over Washington’s insistence that Iran include in the agreement restrictions on the country’s ballistic missile program while also ceasing its alleged interference in the political turmoil in the region. The interference charge relates to Iranian support of the completely legitimate Syrian and Lebanese governments as well as of the Houthi rebels in Yemen who have been on the receiving end of Saudi Arabian aggression supported by Washington.
As Iran insists that any return to status quo ante be based on the existing agreement without any additions, to include relief from sanctions which Washington has rebuffed, it has been clear from the beginning that there is nowhere to go. Recently it has been argued in neocon and media circles (essentially the same thing) that the new conservative president of Iran Ebrahim Raisi means that no arrangement with Iran can be trusted and they point to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports that suggest that Iran has started to enrich admittedly small amounts of uranium. To add to the confusion, there have been some reports suggesting that Israel deliberately targeted and destroyed IAEA monitoring equipment in a June raid to make clear assessments of nuclear developments more difficult to obtain.
To finish the charade, which was not expected to result in anything, Secretary of State Tony Blinken, traveling Germany to mend fences over the Afghanistan debacle, has now warned that the US is getting “closer” to giving up on renegotiating the Iran nuclear deal. Blinken declared to reporters that “I’m not going to put a date on it but we are getting closer to the point at which a strict return to compliance with the JCPOA does not reproduce the benefits that that agreement achieved.”
When Blinken refers to benefits he is now of course meaning the full package of demands being made by Washington, which, as noted above, go far beyond the original intention of the agreement. As Iran has repeatedly insisted that it is only willing to discuss the original formulation which would provide for them some sanctions relief, something that Blinken certainly knows, he evades the issue of Washington being the spoiler in the Vienna talks.
Now that Afghanistan has fallen with considerable blowback to the fortunes of the Biden Administration, the situation with Iran becomes potentially more important, even while recognizing the Iran does not threaten the United States or its actual interests in any way. Biden-Blinken are clearly interested in sustaining a purported vital interest in the Middle East so troop levels throughout the region can be maintained. There is a commitment with Baghdad to remove all US “combat troops,” however that will be defined, by year’s end, but there are also American soldiers in Syria fighting a war and large military bases in Kuwait, Doha, and Bahrain. The US also maintains a skeleton presence of air force personnel in Israel as well as large arms supply depots.
To justify all that an enemy is essential and Iran fits the bill. And it should surprise no one that steps are now being taken to confront the evil Persians in their home waters. The United States Navy’s Bahrain-based 5th Fleet announced last week that it will create a special new task force that will incorporate airborne, sailing and underwater drones to confront Iran. In the announcement the spokesmen revealed that in coming months drone capabilities would be expanded to cover a number of chokepoints critical to the movement both of global energy supplies and worldwide shipping, to include the crucial Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of all oil passes. It also will presumably include the Red Sea approaches to the Suez Canal as well as the Bab el-Mandeb Strait off Yemen.
The systems being deployed by what has been dubbed the 5th Fleet Task Force 59 will include some recently developed innovative technologies, to include underwater, long range, and special surveillance drones. Armed drones will use the same platforms and some of the drones will be small enough to be fired from submarines, which will confuse points of origin and permit plausible denial by Washington if they should be used to deter or intimidate the Iranians.
So, the fall of Afghanistan might be seen as welcome after all these years of mayhem, but it may have opened the door to heightened tension in the nearby Persian Gulf. Washington-Biden-Blinken are intent on proving to the world that in spite of Afghanistan the United States is nobody’s patsy. Unfortunately, putting the screws to Iran yet again is no solution to Washington’s inability to perceive its proper role in the world. The lesson that might have been learned in Afghanistan and also Iraq apparently has already been forgotten.
*
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 by The Unz Review.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Civil liberties are under attack in Canada and worldwide. On the basis of public health acts and infectious disease laws, limitations to constitutional rights are imposed through emergency orders by Canada’s medical officers of health and by unelected bureaucrats elsewhere.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was written specifically to limit government overreach. In a crisis such as this, it is more important than ever to uphold Charter rights. Whether the COVID-19 mandates and restrictions represent reasonable and necessary limitations has yet to be seen.
Members of the newly formed group Canadian Academics for Covid Ethics and other independent scholars address these questions in a letter to our public health officials. The authors summarize the many uncertainties around the severity of the pandemic, reliance on problematic testing procedures and erratic modeling, ineffective non-pharmaceutical interventions, suppression of alternative treatments, disregard for natural immunity, and the destructive focus on vaccines as the only solution.
The Open Letter has been sent directly to the federal, provincial and Ontario regional Public Health Officers, to ensure that they receive it, and to politicians and the media.
Open Letter to Public Health Officers
After months of fear, misinformation, lockdowns, mandates, and broken trust, Canadians are starting to wake up in disbelief:
What have you done?!
You have convinced and continue to attempt convincing the public that we are in the midst of a major health crisis, and thrust our country into chaos. Meanwhile, all-cause mortality in Canada is in-line with trends from the past several years and indicates no such crisis. You have instilled fear in the general public of COVID-19 by publishing egregious data (such as daily cases and ICU numbers) without putting those numbers into context. How serious are those ‘cases’? How many were asymptomatic? What would similar case numbers be in any past years for other illness such as the flu? How does ICU occupancy compare to previous years? You are misleading the public and priming us for unwarranted future restrictions.
What have you done?!
You have not been transparent about the favourable survival rates from COVID. Instead, you convinced us that a positive test result is a death sentence, when in reality the virus overwhelmingly affects elderly people and those with specific vulnerabilities. COVID remains relatively harmless for the majority of the population.
What have you done?!
You have driven up case numbers by relying on the PCR test, deemed to be inappropriate as a diagnostic tool by its inventor and known to yield too many false positives at the cycle thresholds that have been used. In fact, the WHO recommended, on June 25 of this year, that ‘widespread screening of asymptomatic individuals is not a recommended strategy’. And yet, you insist on driving up the case numbers by mass testing of healthy, asymptomatic individuals. You have made Canadians irrationally fearful of one another, convincing us that asymptomatic transmission is a driver of infections, while multiple studies demonstrate that this is false. Yet, you fail to update the public on the changing science.
What have you done?!
You have coerced an entire population to wear masks, despite the fact that their ability to prevent transmission of COVID-19 has been seriously called into question by recent systematic reviews of the medical literature. This is also readily observed by comparing regions with and without mask mandates. Cloth masks and most mass-produced face masks are not approved medical devices, rather their real purpose appears to be the creation of heightened public anxiety, isolating the wearers, and posturing visual compliance to unfounded public health diktats. This insidious form of psychological control has immeasurable health, social and psychological consequences, especially for children, which you fail to acknowledge.
What have you done?!
You have utilized lockdowns as a sledgehammer to bring down COVID cases, while neglecting the resulting collateral damage from lost livelihoods, stalled cancer and transplant surgeries, and increased rates of depression, drug overdose, and suicide. You have failed to take a holistic approach, and your “cure” is proving far worse than the disease. There are multiple studies demonstrating the ineffectiveness of lockdowns, easily seen by simple comparison of jurisdictions that locked down with those that didn’t. You are failing us by failing to understand the evolution of knowledge. We learn by and through mistakes. The ethical principle is to own up to mistakes. Without that first step, ignorance flourishes.
What have you done?!
You have provided madcap computer model predictions to justify lockdowns, proclaiming the lockdowns as successful, when the predictions did not materialize. This is not proof. This is manipulation. Computer models have provided too many nonsensical predictions and should have been ignored. After decades of model refinement, we still cannot accurately predict the weather, even a day in advance. Yet, you present COVID model results as if they are accurate over the span of months.
What have you done?!
You have not provided any solid scientific evidence that any of the measures you have imposed on the public are either necessary or effective. You have ignored a body of scientific literature that does not support your measures, and you have not engaged with experts who have raised concerns or evaluated the same evidence in a way that does not align with your views. You have not allowed public scientific debate on these issues, choosing rather to ignore, censor or smear those brave enough to bring them to the public.
What have you done?!
You have ignored early treatment protocols for safe, effective, and inexpensive treatments of COVID 19 with multidrug therapies, despite the massive evidence both from front-line doctors and meta-analysis of the medical literature, with published studies showing their efficacy around the world. Instead, you have convinced citizens that COVID-19 is a death sentence and that only vaccination, indeed vaccine mandates, will save us. You have withheld important information from the public and from frontline doctors, and more shockingly, you have intimidated, demonized, and threatened with loss of license doctors who have had the courage to prescribe lifesaving treatment to their patients. What a waste of lives!
What have you done?!
You are now relentlessly pushing experimental vaccines on the general population as ‘safe’. Nothing could be further from the truth, as shown by almost 14,000 deaths reported in the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Since December of 2020, the number of reported covid vaccine-related deaths are already more than one-and-a-half times the number of deaths reported in conjunction with all other vaccines combined since the implementation of the system in 1990. Furthermore, there is a lack of long-term safety data. These genetic-based therapies only received emergency interim authorization, and have not undergone the same type of review as fully approved products. You are not providing the public with the information they need to be able to give informed consent.
What have you done?!
You forced family and emergency doctors to abandon their Hippocratic oaths to “first do no harm.” You have destroyed the science surrounding COVID and replaced it with baseless behavioural prescriptions. You have divided citizen from citizen, parent from child, brother from sister. Overall, you have participated in destroying a country that was once prosperous, strong and free.
What should you do?
Publicly admit that your recommendations and orders are both harmful and baseless. Retract all of your recommendations and orders immediately. Stop vaccine mandates. Apologize to Canadians and resign.
Anton de Ruiter, PhD
Jan Vrbik, PhD
John Zwaagstra, PhD
Claudia Chaufan, MD, PhD
Maximilian Forte, PhD
Denis Rancourt, PhD
Angela Durante, PhD
Valentina Capurri, PhD
Alexander Andree, PhD
Janice Fiamengo, PhD
Laurent Leduc, PhD
Jens Zimmermann, PhD
*
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).
In a “deeply disturbing” speech last week, President Biden exhorted medical coercion of an experimental gene therapy for a virus with a 99% survival rate for a large portion of the population, and for which no one bears financial liability in cases where injuries or deaths occur.
President Biden’s speech last week was stunning. As the Associated Press aptly reported, the president pivoted from a war on the coronavirus to a war on the “unvaccinated.”
Coercing the “unvaccinated” was the president’s first and foremost point — the only way back to normal is through vaccination, testing and masks, he said.
But the president went much further — he vilified the unvaccinated. They are not “doing the right thing.” They are “keeping us from turning the corner.” They are “blocking public health.”
“The refusal [of the unvaccinated] has cost all of us,” Biden said.
Addressing the 80 million refusers, the president said, as if speaking to unruly children, “our patience is wearing thin.”
He went further still, empathizing with the anger and anxiety of those who’ve been vaccinated and thus presumably protected. He threatened, “We cannot let the unvaccinated undo this progress,” although he muddled the words in delivery.
Biden also took a potshot at dissenting doctors, suggesting they are “conspiracy theorists,” not “real doctors.” His comments echoed the calls of others, including the Federation of State Medical Boards, to take away the medical licenses of doctors who dare to raise questions about vaccine safety.
Furthermore, Biden misled the public on vaccine approval. He suggested that because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine on Aug. 23, there’s nothing more for the unvaccinated to “wait for.”
However, the FDA has not licensed the Moderna, Johnson & Johnson (marketed as Janssen) and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, and the licensed Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine is largely unavailable in the U.S.
Here's my latest with @NassMeryl… Buried in fine print of Monday's approval by FDA of Pfizer Comirnaty COVID vaccine are 2 critical facts that affect whether vaccine can be mandated + whether Pfizer can be held liable for injuries.https://t.co/QtpHufCKDI
The president’s speech announced the full weight of the federal government against those who lawfully reject an unwanted, experimental medical intervention. Worse still, he sought to enlist the vaccinated in this divisive and dangerous campaign.
No president should seek to demonize citizens exercising the fundamental human right to informed consent. No president should play doctor and demand 100% vaccination rates.
Medical decision-making must be individual and individualized, and occur in the context of the doctor-patient relationship. No medical intervention can be safe and effective for all, as the president suggested. Science does not support dividing people by vaccination status and discriminating on that basis, as the president purported — nor do law or ethics support damaging discrimination.
The president failed to respect the individual rights to informed consent. The Nuremberg Code, which the U.S. promulgated and has expanded over time, says it best: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”
Suggesting the “large majority of Americans” may demonize and marginalize a minority for rejecting experimental medicine is abhorrent.
But what did President Biden really mean when he talked about the “unvaccinated?” Are people who refuse COVID shots actually unvaccinated?
No. The vast majority have had many vaccines during their lifetimes: polio, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, influenza and a battery of other ones. They simply have chosen not to take experimental COVID shots that have not yet finished phase 3 clinical trials (Moderna’s trials go to 2022, Pfizer’s until 2023) and that have blanket liability protection for manufacturers, healthcare providers and government officials.
They have decided it’s not right for them. Whether it’s because they object to all vaccination, or this one, whether it’s for scientific, religious or medical reasons, whether it’s because they’ve already been injured by a vaccine which puts them at increased risk, or whether they’ve acquired natural immunity because they’ve already had the virus, it’s their right.
Suggesting the government or the majority is entitled to marginalize the minority on COVID vaccination grounds is shocking.
Yet “unvaccinated” is likely to soon mean anyone who’s missing the latest booster dose. By late September, “unvaccinated” or “not fully vaccinated” likely will mean anyone who’s not had two or three doses of a COVID shot, depending on which brand the person took initially. Who knows how many more boosters are in store?
The president’s final blessing to those “on the front lines of this pandemic” and to “our troops” was particularly painful, because it is precisely these people with deep knowledge of the disease and the vaccines who are refusing the shots in large numbers, and who now are at risk of their livelihoods.
These people who put their lives on the line during the pandemic are being asked to lose everything if they exercise their right to refuse this medical treatment.
What can we do?
Understand that you are the unvaccinated, no matter how many vaccines you’ve had. The administration is looking for scapegoats because COVID is still here, and it’s likely to be here for awhile. The “unvaccinated” term is likely to be a moving target, perpetually ratcheting up what it means to be “fully vaccinated” and “unvaccinated.”
Get educated.Sign up for Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) The Defender. It’s free. Tell your friends.
Speak up! If you think mandatory medicine with experimental products is not a good idea, now is the time to speak out. Let your elected officials know, call the White House, go to your school board meetings. Remember Pastor Martin Niemöller’s poem, “First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a communist.”
Act on your conscience. Consider participating in Walk Out Week starting today, Sept. 13. Stay away from medically coercive schools and jobs.
Demonstrate. Show your support for health freedom at peaceful rallies across the country.
Don’t quit your job. If your workplace is mandating vaccination, explore lawful exemptions. If your exemption is denied, force your employer to go through the steps of terminating you. While unpleasant, termination is the only way you can preserve your rights. Lawyers across the country are already bringing lawsuits based on discrimination, the Americans with Disabilities Act, constitutional grounds and others. You may be able to receive back pay and reinstatement if lawsuits succeed. If you resign, you will not be able to vindicate any rights — your departure will be considered voluntary, even if it was not.
Vote your conscience. If you have the opportunity to vote in November, vote your conscience. If your elected officials are not honoring your most precious rights, vote them out!
Based on President Biden’s speech, the next few months may be challenging. Here’s what you can count on from CHD:
We will keep fighting in court against medical tyranny. We will continue lawsuits against the FDA’s faux licensure, against federal censorship and against mandates for vaccines, masks and testing. We will continue to fight for the right to religious and medical exemptions and the right to free and informed consent, unfettered by government diktats.
And foremost we will fight for our future, our children.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Mary Holland is President and General Counsel of Children’s Health Defense. She has been writing and advocating for better vaccine law and policy for many years, including while she served on the faculty at NYU School of Law from 2002-19. She is co-author of two books on vaccines, Vaccine Epidemic and The HPV Vaccine on Trial, as well as several law review articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Unaware that he was on a hot mic and being broadcast live on a TV station, Israeli health minister Nitzan Horowitz admitted that vaccine passports were primarily about coercing skeptical people to get the vaccine.
“Imposing “green pass” rules on certain venues is needed only to pressure members of the public to get vaccinated, and not for medical reasons, Israeli Health Minister Nitzan Horowitz said on Sunday, ahead of the weekly Cabinet meeting,” reports Jewish News Syndicate.
Unaware that his words were being broadcast live to the nation on Channel 12, Horowitz told Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked that not only should the green pass be removed as a requirement to dine at outdoor restaurants, but also, “For swimming pools, too, not just in restaurants.”
“Epidemiologically, it’s true,” said Horowitz, adding, “The thing is, I’m telling you, our problem is people who don’t get vaccinated. We need [to influence] them a bit; otherwise, we won’t get out of this [pandemic situation].”
The health minister went on to acknowledge that the system wasn’t even being enforced in most venues.
NEW – Israeli Ministry of Health (right) recorded saying to the Minister of Interior (left) "there is no medical or epidemiological justification for the Covid passport, it is only intended to pressure the unvaccinated to vaccinate".pic.twitter.com/c3oAOpZdEE
“There is a kind of universality to the ‘green pass’ system, other than at malls, where I think it should be imposed, [because] now it’s clear that it applies nowhere,” he said.
Israel was once lauded for its successful vaccine rollout and the speed with which it introduced vaccine passports.
The green pass was heralded as an “early vision of how we leave lockdown.” However, the country recently reported its highest ever number of daily COVID cases, with nearly 11,000 infections being recorded.
Although the early threat that the unvaccinated would be banned from entering numerous public venues convinced many younger people to get the vaccine, once it rolled out, the ‘green pass’ system was rarely even enforced and was subsequently scrapped at the end of May.
But once cases started rising again later that summer, Israel’s vaccine passport system was reintroduced and expanded.
Meanwhile, Sweden, which never imposed a hard lockdown, recently banned travelers arriving from Israel from entering the country.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Los Angeles School Board Mandates Covid Vaccination for 600,000 kids 12 years old and up.
Many will have serious health problems and many will die.It is all for nothing as healthy kids are essentially at zero risk from Covid.
It is a known fact that the Vaccine is a greater danger to the young than the Covid virus.Why are the kids being forced to be vaccinated?The most plausible answer is that the School Board is utterly corrupt and has been bought by Big Pharma.
Many of the sheeple parents who tolerate this will have dead and injured kids on their hands.
*
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.
![Forbes Africa on Twitter: "[NEW EDITION] @PaulKagame, Rwandan president & Chair of the AU, graces the December/January issue of our #ForbesAfrica magazine. In an exclusive interview he speaks to our editor @METHILRENUKA](https://i1.wp.com/covertactionmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/forbes-africa-on-twitter-andquotnew-edition-pau.jpeg?resize=581%2C735&ssl=1)
