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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

With the recent pledge by China, Russia, Iran and Pakistan for renewed defense of Afghanistan’s sovereignty and right to develop, many have jumped the gun to celebrate a little prematurely.

While watching a hegemonic wanna-be global overlord choke on humble pie is certainly satisfying, and while Afghanistan unquestionably has a renewed hope to recapture its ancient role as a pearl on the Silk Road uniting all cultures of the globe, something darker is also afoot. A process reminiscent of the events of 1979 when Zbigniew Brzezinski, then leading a trilateral Commission takeover of the USA using a dim-witted puppet president, managed to launch a program known as “Operation Cyclone”.

This clandestine operation was premised on the lies of Zbigniew’s Team B analysis of Soviet ambitions to supposedly dominate the world and which thence justified a program that utilized billions of dollars in tax payer money to fund the growth of Mujahedeen terrorist cells and narcotics in a bid to light a fire under Russia’s soft underbelly and suck the unsuspecting soviets into a bloodletting that would be sold to an incredulous western population as “Russia’s Vietnam.”

Over forty years later, the results of Zbigniew’s duplicitous proxy war are well known.

The Soviet Union was certainly bled, leading to its ultimate dissolution under Gorbachev and the world was given the gift Islamic terrorism- funded, armed and trained generously by CIA, MI6 and ISI operatives.

Additionally, organized crime syndicates of the world also grew their influence in leaps and bounds as the world center of opium production was moved from its former zones of Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, and Myanmar to more fertile soil in Afghanistan, providing both the funding needed to light the region on fire for decades while also amplifying a new opium war against ALL of civilization. The conspicuous integration of the DEA and CIA during this period which coincided with the heroin boom and also the flooding of crack cocaine into the ghettos of the USA under CIA director George Bush Sr (also a defender of Zbigniew’s Team B takeover of U.S. intelligence estimates) cannot be ignored.

Signs of Darkness

Signs of the re-activation of this old script with a modern twist are already visible on numerous levels, not the least of those signs being witnessed in the strange decision to demolish the CIA torture annex in Kabul in response to the August 26 attack by the mysterious ISIS-K on the Kabul airport which killed 170 civilians and 13 U.S. soldiers. Why was it the case that U.S. and British intelligence agencies issued warnings of an attack at that location and time long before it occurred and yet did less than nothing, other than shooting civilians and bombing three households after it happened?

Why would the U.S. military deem it wise to destroy a CIA base which has been a strategic central point of command of all clandestine activities in the region for the past two decades in response to this completely foreseeable event?

Recently a Lebanese analyst, commenting on the observations of the leader of Hezbollah wrote that “the U.S. have been using helicopters to save ISIS terrorists from complete annihilation in Iraq and transporting them to Afghanistan to keep them as insurgents in Central Asia against Russia, China and Iran”.

This observation is not unique to Nasrallah, but has been echoed at various times over the past three years by the Russian government, Syrian state media and leading officials in Iran including former Foreign Minister Javad Zarif who noted as early as March 2018 that “this time, it wasn’t unmarked helicopters. They were American helicopters, taking Daesh out of Haska prison. Where did they take them? Now, we don’t know where they took them, but we see the outcome. We see more and more violence in Pakistan, more and more violence in Afghanistan, taking a sectarian flavor.”

Zarif’s words echoed those of Iranian Chief of Staff Major General Mohammad Baqeri who said: “After witnessing ISIS and other organized terrorist groups losing their ground in Iraq and Syria, they are now relocating them to Afghanistan.”

Additionally, U.S. mainstream media has been preparing the western zeitgeist with strange interviews with leaders of Al Qaeda and ISIS-K in recent weeks. First the state-funded PBS broadcasted a suspicious interview with Hayat Tahrir Al Sham (aka: Al Nusra aka: Al Qaeda) leader Abu Mohammad al-Jolani who was repackaged in a business suite and sold as a “moderate resistance fighter” in Syria. Then just days before the August 26 Kabul attack, CNN’s Clarissa Ward interviewed an ISIS-K commander in a silhouetted frame to protect his identity. When asked if he would continue the campaign of international terror, the unnamed terrorist stated “instead of currently operating, we have turned to recruiting only, to utilize the opportunity to do our recruitment. But when the foreigners and people of the world leave Afghanistan, we can restart our operations.”

To top things off, the incredibly talented Bulgarian researcher Dilyana Gaytandzhieva noted on June 22 that the U.S. Army contracted four companies to purchase $350 million worth of weapons made by eight companies located in Serbia, Bulgaria and Croatia which are destined to flood into Syria as part of a program called Task Force Smoking Gun. This 2017 program was part of a U.S. Special Operations Command Unit Task force which carried out the Syrian ‘train and equip program’ designed to overthrow the Assad regime using Al Qaeda affiliates as freedom fighters. In her report, Gaytandzhieva wrote:

“According to the U.S. Federal Procurement Data System, the eight companies have already received orders with an estimated value of $25 million each or $200 million combined under the 5 year-long Pentagon program for non-U.S. standard weapons supplies. These are foreign weapons which are not compatible with the U.S. military standard, hence cannot be used by the U.S. army and will be delivered as military aid to third parties.”

China Will Fill the Vacuum?

It is 100% certain that China has great hopes to invest in Afghanistan’s bountiful rare earth, copper and iron deposits, as well as rail, roads, fibre optics, energy plants and communications bringing Afghanistan into the evolving Belt and Road Initiative. However, the expanded presence of Chinese engineers in the region will put China at risk of asymmetric attacks.

Over the past 15 years, projects like the 2007 Mes Aynak copper mining operation and 2011 Faryab and Sar-i-pul oil development deals have stalled due to the frequent occurrence of U.S.-backed terrorist attacks on Chinese engineers and workers.

Just this summer, 9 Chinese engineers were killed in Pakistan when an explosive device detonated sending a busload of workers off a cliff. These workers were en-route to work on the large Dasu hydroelectric dam that is part of the CPEC.

China is additionally concerned that the East Turkestan Islamic Movement which has cut its teeth fighting alongside its Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan may also spring to new life. It was only in November 2020 that Secretary of State Pompeo removed the group from the U.S. list of terrorist groups despite the fact that the United Nations Security Council had released a report in May 2020 stating that the ETIM “has a transnational agenda to target Xinjiang, China, and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, as well as Chitral, Pakistan, which poses a threat to China, Pakistan and other regional States.”

The refutation of China’s anti-Muslim genocide myth promoted by western MSM was laid out in a recent interview by this author here:

Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen has attempted to allay China’s fears saying: “Those who are intending to carry out sabotage activities in other countries or have their foreign agenda would not be able to remain in the country.”

However, it is still too early to validate such claims as the ETIM alongside ISIS cells certainly abound in the mountainous northeast regions enjoying support from western clandestine operations and parallel networks still active in Pakistan such as Lashkar-e-Islam and Tehrik-e-Taliban as outlined in the aforementioned UN report.

The need to cut off all Al Qaeda operations are vital at this time and thus the convergence of the “big four” nations of Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan are so vital. With Iran having been inducted into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as of September 17 joining both Pakistan and India as full members, it is understood by all relevant parties that a new security doctrine is needed in the region premised on win-win cooperation.

This is most apparent when one considers that the living force for the multipolar alliance’s long-term success is hinged upon the continued success of China’s 130 nation strong Belt and Road Initiative whose four of the six primary networks pass through Xinjiang and the region which Brzezinski lit on fire four decades ago to keep the “world island” divided and weak.

The Chinese and their growing array of partners have come to the fundamental insight that the only way to destroy terrorism is not by bombing nations to smithereens, but rather by providing the means of improving the lives of people. This is the true meaning of “civilization” that not merely builds infrastructure for the sake of shareholder value, but uplifts and ennobles the hearts and minds of a people who have been caught too long in the darkness of ignorance, despair, war and poverty. This is the only antidote for global terrorism, the plague of drugs that have ravaged countless lives, and even the poisonous misanthropy underlying the decaying “Rules-Based International Order”.

*

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

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research

Multiple lawsuits are pending in the United States against Syngenta alleging the weedkilling chemical paraquat causes Parkinson’s disease.

A notice of settlement was filed June 18, 2021 for several paraquat cases. See this documentBut more than 100 lawsuits remain pending.

.

.

The lawsuits name Syngenta as well as Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. and Growmark Inc. as defendants.

Chevron distributed and sold Gramoxone paraquat product in the United States in an agreement with a Syngenta predecessor called Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), which introduced paraquat-based Gramoxone in 1962. Under a license agreement, Chevron had the right to to manufacture, use, and sell paraquat formulations in the U.S.

Lawyers around the United States are advertising for plaintiffs, seeking to draw in thousands of people who’ve been exposed to paraquat and now suffer from Parkinson’s.

Here is a list of actions pending through Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings (JCCP) as of Aug. 2, 2021

  • Harker v. Syngenta, et al. Case No. CGC-21-589755 (San Francisco Superior Court) (coordinated June 11, 2021)
  • De La Vega v. Syngenta, et al. Case No. C21-01057. (Contra Costa Superior Court) (coordinated July 19, 2021)
  • Louis Lombardo v. Syngenta et al., Alameda County Superior Court; Case No. RG21100757, filed on May 26, 2021 (coordinated July 19, 2021)
  • Lonnie Owens et al. v. Syngenta et al., Contra Costa Superior Court; Case No. C21-01187, filed on June 4, 2021 (coordinated July 19, 2021)
  • Borrelli v. Syngenta AG, et al. (Case No. MSC21-01217), filed June 24, 2021 in Contra Costa County Superior Court (coordinated July 23, 2021)
  • Isaak v. Syngenta AG, et al., San Francisco Superior Court; Case No. CGC-21591254 (coordinated August 2, 2021)
  • Rubino v. Syngenta, et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. C2101422 (coordinated August 2, 2021)
  • Aguiar v. Syngenta, et al. Case No. C21-01373. (Contra Costa Superior Court) (coordinated August 2, 2021)

Multidistrict litigation

On April 7, 2021, the Fears Nachawati Texas-based law firm filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in Washington, D.C., asking that pending paraquat lawsuits be consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of California, the same federal court where Roundup litigation was consolidated. The case with the judicial panel is MDL No. 3004. The panel hearing on the matter was May 27 and on June 7, the panel approved the formation of the paraquat multidistrict litigation, assigning it to Judge  Nancy J. Rosenstengel in the Southern District of Illinois.

Additionally, a class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Iowa on May 3. The suit seeks “equitable relief in the form of medical monitoring, including, but not limited to, the costs of diagnostic testing” for farmers and others exposed to paraquat who are allegedly at “increased risk” for Parkinson’s, according to the legal filing.

At least 86 lawsuits were pending within the MDL as of September 10, 2021.

Science

Several scientific studies have linked paraquat to Parkinson’s, including a large study of U.S. farmers jointly overseen by multiple U.S. government agencies.  Farmers use paraquat in the production of many crops, including corn, soy and cotton. The Agricultural Health Study (AHS) said it found that “exposure to agricultural pesticides may increase a person’s risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.” In 2011, AHS researchers reported that “participants who used paraquat or rotenone were twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s disease as people who didn’t use these chemicals.”

A more recent paper from AHS researchers stated that “Extensive literature suggests an association between general pesticide use and Parkinson’s disease (PD). However, with few exceptions, little is known about associations between specific pesticides and PD.”

Parkinson’s is an incurable progressive nervous system disorder that limits a person’s ability to control movement, causing tremors, loss of balance and eventually often leaving victims bedridden and/or bound to a wheelchair. The disease is not necessarily fatal but typically becomes severely debilitating.

Dutch neurologist Bastiaan Bloem, who recently authored a book about Parkinson’s, blames widespread exposure to herbicides such as paraquat, along with other toxic chemicals used in agriculture and manufacturing, for the spread of the disease.

Acutely Toxic 

Along with fears about links between paraquat and Parkinson’s, paraquat is also known to be an extremely acutely toxic chemical that can quickly kill people who ingest very small amounts. In Europe, the sale of paraquat has been banned since 2007, but in the United States the pesticide is sold as a “Restricted Use Pesticide” due to “acute toxicity.”

As part of discovery in the Parkinson’s litigation, lawyers have obtained internal records from Syngenta and its predecessor corporate entities dating back to the 1960s. Many of these documents are sealed, but some have started to come to light.

Those unsealed discovery documents, which include copies of letters, minutes of meetings, study summaries, and emails, are being made available on this page.

Most of the documents unsealed to date deal with corporate discussions about how to keep paraquat herbicides on the market despite its deadliness, through measures designed to reduce accidental poisonings. Specifically, many of the documents detail an internal corporate struggle over the addition of an emetic, a vomit-inducing agent, to paraquat products.  Today, all Syngenta paraquat-containing products include an emetic called “PP796.”  Liquid paraquat-containing formulations from Syngenta also include a stenching agent to produce a foul odor, and a blue dye to differentiate the dark-colored herbicide from tea or cola or other beverages.

EPA Review 

Paraquat recently underwent the EPA’s registration review process,  and on August 2, 2021 the agency said paraquat would remain on the market with new safety measures aimed at reducing farmworker exposures. That followed the Oct. 23, 2020 release of a proposed interim decision (PID) for paraquat.  The interim decision proposed mitigation measures to reduce human health and ecological risks identified in the agency’s 2019 draft human health and ecological risk assessments.

The EPA had indicated it would likely ban most aerial spraying of paraquat, but after industry lobbying efforts, the agency said it would allow such use with restrictions around residential areas.

The EPA said that through collaboration with the National Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the agency completed a “thorough review” of the scientific information on paraquat and Parkinson’s Disease and concluded that the weight of evidence was insufficient to link paraquat to Parkinson’s disease. The agency published this “Systematic Review of the Literature to Evaluate the Relationship between Paraquat Dichloride Exposure and Parkinson’s Disease.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on More than 100 US Lawsuits Alleging Weed-killing Chemical Paraquat causes Parkinson’s Disease.

What I Know and Don’t Know about SARS-CoV-2 Virus

September 27th, 2021 by Edward Curtin

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.***

Incisive article by Edward Curtin first published on June 19, 2021

***

After fifteen months of assiduous reading, study, observation, and research, I have come to some conclusions about what is called COVID-19. 

I would like to emphasize that I have done this work obsessively since it seemed so important.  I have consulted information and arguments across all media, corporate and alternative, academic, medical, books, etc. 

I have consulted with researchers around the world. I have read the websites of the CDC, the World Health Organization, and government and non-government health organizations.  In other words, I have left no stone unturned, despite the overt or covert political leanings of the sources.  I have done this as a sociologist and writer, not as a medical doctor, although many of my sources have been medical doctors and medical studies.

My succinct conclusions follow without links to sources since I am not trying to persuade anyone of anything but just stating for the public record what I have concluded.  Life is short.  I am going to say it now.

  • I know that vast numbers of people have been hypnotized by fear, threats, and bribes to accept the corporate mainstream media’s version of COVID-19. I have concluded that many millions are moving in a trance state and do not know this. They have been induced into this state by a well-organized, very sophisticated propaganda campaign that has drawn on the human fear of death and disease.  Those behind this have no doubt studied the high incidence of hypochondriasis in the general population and the fear of an invisible “virus” in societies where belief in God and the spiritual invisible has been replaced by faith in science.  Knowing their audience well, they have concocted a campaign of fear and confusion to induce obedience.
  • I do not know but suspect that those who have been so hypnotized tend to be mainly members of the middle to the upper classes, those who have invested so much belief in the system. This includes the highly schooled.
  • I know that to lockdown hundreds of millions of healthy people, to insist they wear useless masks, to tell them to avoid human contacts, to destroy the economic lives of regular people have created vast suffering that was meant to teach people a lesson about who was in control and that they better revise their understanding of human relations to adjust to the new digital unreality that the producers of this masquerade are trying to put in place of flesh and blood, face to face human reality.
  • I know that the PCR test invented by Kary Mullis cannot test for the alleged virus or any virus and therefore all the numbers of cases and deaths are based on nothing. They are conjured out of thin air in a massive act of magic. I know that the belief that it can so test began with the unscientific PCR Corona protocol created by Christian Drosten in Germany in January 2020 that became the standard method for testing for SARS-CoV-2 worldwide.  I am sure this was preplanned and part of a high-level conspiracy.  This protocol set the cycle threshold (amplification) at 45 which could only result in false positive results.  These were then called cases: An act of fraud on a massive scale.
  • I do not know if the alleged virus has ever been isolated in the sense of being purified or detached from everything else aside from being cultured in a lab. Therefore I do not know if the virus exists.
  • I know that the experimental mRNA “vaccines” that are being pushed on everyone are not traditional vaccines but dangerous experiments whose long-term consequences are unknown. And I know that Moderna says its messenger RNA (mRNA) non-vaccine “vaccine” functions “like an operating system on a computer” and that Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, says that the lipid nanoparticles from the injections travel throughout the body and settle in large quantities in multiple organs where the spike protein, being biologically active, can cause massive damage and that the FDA has known this. Additionally, I know that tens of thousands of people have suffered adverse effects from these injections and many thousands have died from them and that these figures are greatly underestimated due to the reporting systems.  I know that with this number of casualties in the past these experimental shots would have been stopped long ago or never started.  That they have not, therefore, convinces me that a radically evil agenda is under way whose goal is harm not health because those in charge know what I know and much more.
  • I do not know where this alleged virus originated, if it exists.
  • I know that from the start of this crisis, there was a concerted effort across the world to deny access to proven effective treatments such as hydroxychloroquine, steroids, ivermectin in a planned effort to vaccinate as many people as possible. This alone reveals an agenda centered not on health but on getting as many people as possible to submit to being vaccinated and controlled. Social control is the name of this deadly game.
  • I know that those pushing these vaccines – The World Economic Forum, the World Health Organization, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, etc. – have a long history of wanting to drastically reduce the world’s population and that their promotion of eugenics under various names is very well known. I am convinced that the totally untested mRNA-type “gene therapy” is the key to their plan for population reduction.
  • I do not know if they will succeed.
  • I know they must be resisted.
  • I do not know why so many good people cannot see through this evil. I can only attribute it to having been seduced by a massive hypnotic propaganda campaign that has appealed to their deepest fears and will result in those fears being realized because they thought they were free. It is a great tragedy.
  • I know that all the statistics about cases and deaths “from” COVID-19 have been manipulated to create a fake pandemic. One of the most obvious proofs of this is the alleged disappearance of the flu and deaths from influenza. Only someone in a trance could fail to understand the absurd logic in the argument that this was the result of mask wearing when at the same time the air-born COVID-19 spread like wildfire until that stopped precipitously in January 2021 when a tiny number of people had been vaccinated.
  • I know there has been barely any excess mortality throughout all this.
  • I do not know where it will all end but hope against hope the growing opposition to this fraud will grow and defeat it despite the organized censorship that is underway against dissenting opinions. I know that when organized censorship on this scale takes place those behind it are afraid of the revelation of the truth. A simple understanding of history confirms this.
  • I know that the temporary reprieve the authorities have granted to their subjects will be followed by further restrictions on fundamental freedoms, the corona virus lockdowns will likely return, “vaccine” boosters will be promoted, and the World Economic Forum’s push for a Great Reset with a Fourth Industrial Revolution will lead to the marriage of artificial intelligence, cyborgs, digital technology, and biology with the USA and other countries continuing to slip into a new form of fascist control unless people across the world stand up and resist in great numbers. I am heartened by signs that this resistance is growing.
  • Finally, I know if the authoritarian forces win the immediate battle, someone will write a book with a title like that of Milton Mayer’s classic, They Thought They Were Free. It will be censored. Perhaps it will first be shared via samizdat.  But in the end, after much suffering and death, the truth about this evil agenda will prevail and there will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth.
  • We are in a spiritual war for the soul of the world.

*

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

Edward Curtin is a prominent author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts. 

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

***

He is the author of Seeking the Truth in a Country of Lies

To order his book click the cover page.

“Seeking Truth in a Country of Lies is a dazzling journey into the heart of many issues — political, philosophical, and personal — that should concern us all.  Ed Curtin has the touch of the poet and the eye of an eagle.” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

“Edward Curtin puts our propaganda-stuffed heads in a guillotine, then in a flash takes us on a redemptive walk in the woods — from inferno to paradiso.  Walk with Ed and his friends — Daniel Berrigan, Albert Camus, George Orwell, and many others — through the darkest, most-firefly-filled woods on this earth.” James W. Douglass, author, JFK and the Unspeakable

“A powerful exposé of the CIA and our secret state… Curtin is a passionate long-time reform advocate; his stories will rouse your heart.” Oliver Stone, filmmaker, writer, and director

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Incisive article first publish on March 18, 2021.

 

The Setup

In March 2020,  former President Trump declared a national emergency and the White House announced a 15-day plan to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

Governments around the world either preceded the U.S. or soon followed with similar pronouncements. The upsurge in totalitarianism since these edicts were installed is mind-boggling.

Staying home, social distancing, and hand washing were the first steps in the slippery slope towards medical martial law.

Then came the lockdowns and mandatory face mask policies.

These were soon followed by pressure to take a COVID-19 test, contact tracing, and quarantines.

Next were vaccines that were rushed to production, given only “emergency use authorization” by the FDA and still deemed experimental, having completely skipped long-term safety studies.

Now, the threat of vaccine passports/certificates represents the next step towards complete tyranny and subjugation of the people.

All of these draconian measures have served as social engineering tools to get people used to having “experts” and government officials tell them what to do. In fact, you could argue that all of humanity (outside those in authority) has been slowly tortured over the past year. With staggering numbers of suicides and rising rates of substance abuse, many decided to just check out. The remaining masses have been subjected to classical conditioning like Pavlov’s dogs. During this “plandemic”, most people have been retrained to depend on authorities to tell them when they can go to work, visit loved ones, travel, go to church, hug someone or even shake their hand.

The path to totalitarian control always starts with something simple and seemingly reasonable. It’s also usually accompanied by a promise of peace and safety in exchange for surrendering one’s rights.


– Jesse Smith, Mask Up! The Con Game to Destroy Your Freedom

Loving Your Oppressors. The Stockholm Syndrome

There is a sickness going around that’s much worse than any coronavirus. It’s called “Stockholm Syndrome” and it infects those who are too ignorant, trusting, and fearful to question those in authority and hold them accountable.

Infected people lap up every word people like Dr. Anthony Fauci say, no matter how many times he’s contradicted himself or even been caught lying.

They fully agree with taking a vaccine rolled out at warp speed with completely new technology that’s never before been tested on human beings. They yell at people in stores who refuse to wear face masks.

They call anyone with facts contradicting the mainstream narrative a conspiracy theorist.

They cheer when people who disagree with them get censored, deplatformed, and even lose their jobs. They don’t balk when authorities extend or issue new state of emergency rules restricting their freedom.

They don’t even get angry when hypocritical officials are caught violating their own rules. But they are quick to attack anyone challenging their beloved rulers and attempting to restore liberty such as when Texas Governor Greg Abbott reopened the state and lifted mask mandates (well, sort of).

We all know someone infected with this syndrome.

It might be a family member, close friend, co-worker or neighbor. They have been conditioned to love their despotic overlords. In turn they’ve learned to love their slavery and cheer when authorities clamp down and then “allow” them to do what was once normal and considered basic rights. It’s because of people like this that greater restrictions and oppression await us all.

One Passport to Rule Us All 

The engineers of the “plandemic” recognized that new technology is often resisted by the masses, but could be adopted quickly due to a public health crisis. What better way to coerce people into using technology that has long been planned to enslave humanity than by holding them hostage to a “deadly” virus causing people to fear for their lives?
– Jesse Smith, Dystopia Now! – Surveillance Through Vaccine Certificates, Digital IDs, and Biometric Data

Vaccine or “immunity” passports represent the final nail in the coffin of freedom. If the following headlines don’t get you angry, then you must be among those with Stockholm Syndrome who are unassumingly helping the elites erect a digital prison planet that will be extremely difficult to escape. 

The passports are already being used in Israel to “allow” vaccinated citizens to resume visiting places such as gyms, hotels, and sporting venues.

The Israeli “Green Pass” has created a de facto medical apartheid state with those who refuse vaccination (for whatever reason) being treated like second class citizens. In February, vaccinated Israelis got the opportunity to enjoy an outdoor concert, while the country’s unvaccinated social pariahs were barred from attending.

Vaccinated Israelis Get ‘Green Pass’ to Normal Life

Vaccinated Israelis Get ‘Green Pass’ to Normal Life

Israeli Health Minister Yuli Edelstein warned that if citizens violate the Green Pass scheme, he would not hesitate to close the economy again, stating:

We will close the economy just as fast as we are now opening.

To top it off, Israel has also issued “Freedom Bracelets” to be worn by those entering the country from abroad. The bracelets will take the place of a mandatory two-week quarantine in a special facility. So, when traveling into Israel, your choices are to wear a monitoring device like a convicted felon or face a two-week quarantine in a military administered hotel. The bracelets were developed by SuperCom, a company specializing in offender tracking devices. While discussing the Israeli government contract for the quarantine bracelets, SuperCom CEO and president Ordan Trabelsi, stated:

We call it a ‘freedom bracelet’ because we are not locking anybody up, but rather giving them the opportunity to go home.

Does this sound like freedom to you?

Israel’s new “Freedom Bracelet.” Image credit: SuperCom

Ilana Rachel Daniel, a health advisor and information officer for the Rappeh political party in Jerusalem, has shined the light on Israel’s attempts to deny informed consent and negate bodily autonomy. In the following interview she tackles a “journalist” head on, pointing out that the COVID-1984 vaccines have not received full FDA approval among several other salient points.

In an audio recording, Daniel sounded the alarm about the drastic measures the government was installing, saying:

They’re making this green passport where half the population cannot get into theaters or malls or all sorts of things unless you have taken the vaccination. They are creating a medical Apartheid. 

They’re making people wear an ankle bracelet, a security bracelet when they come back from travelling. It’s absolutely insane.

Check Point Software Technologies Ltd., an Israeli cybersecurity company, has implemented the vaccine apartheid system for its employees. If you are fully vaccinated, you get to enjoy company perks such as hair salon treatments, access to the on-site gym and play in game rooms that your unvaccinated peers can’t access. Without proof of vaccination or a negative COVID-19 test, you can’t even eat with your co-workers, but must remain isolated at your desk. By April, those who can’t demonstrate vaccination proof will not even be allowed to enter the building!

Regarding the policies, company spokesman Gil Messing said:

We’re not shaming anyone. We’re not pointing fingers. We are just saying, ‘This will be our policy.’ If you get the vaccination, you get benefits that others do not.

 To top it all off, Yuli Edelstein further warned,

Whoever doesn’t vaccinate will only go out to supermarkets or pharmacies, while the vaccinated will go to stadiums and gyms.

After recognizing that these statements presented a legal nightmare, health officials acknowledged that those with negative tests from the previous 48 hours would also be allowed entry. However, officials want to make getting tested more difficult by restricting locations and increasing prices so that more people opt for vaccines instead.

To add insult to injury, Israel’s parliament joined action taken previously by the Spanish government in approving a law to create a registry of people who choose not to be vaccinated against the coronavirus. The personal information of vaccine refusers will be shared with local and national authorities for at least the next three months.

Though the Green Pass initiative is only supposed to last for six months, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is in talks with Pfizer and Moderna to deliver extra vaccines to allow for a second dose for all later this year. This would mean that the current passports would have to be renewed all over again for those receiving the second vaccination.

Through international coalitions like GAVI and COVAX, governments and Big Pharma have morphed into a singular medical gestapo cajoling all to take their vaccines through propaganda, extreme coercion tactics, and hiding factual information. Governments have completely sold out their populations to the larger agenda I spelled out clearly in Beware the Vaccine Pt. 5. Pfizer has even demanded that countries purchasing its vaccine surrender military bases, embassy buildings, and other sovereign assets as collateral against expected vaccine injury lawsuits.

It’s Not Just Israel

The UK and many European countries are also seriously considering implementing the passport scheme. The European Commission recently announced draft legislation to create a “Digital Green Pass.”

India has joined the list, adding a QR code certificate version.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that China has also launched their own version called the International Travel Health Certificate available from its WeChat mobile app.

For Americans, please don’t rest on your laurels thinking that this is something only happening abroad. The U.S. is also firmly on board with the vaccine passport scheme. Currently, the state of New York is testing its own vaccine passport called the “Excelsior Pass.” The official announcement states:

“Developed in partnership with IBM, the Excelsior Pass will use proven, secure technology to confirm an individual’s vaccination or a recent negative COVID-19 test through a confidential data transfer to help fast-track the reopening of theaters, stadiums and other businesses in accordance with New York State guidelines…The Excelsior Pass will play a critical role in getting information to venues and sites in a secure and streamlined way, allowing us to fast-track the reopening of these businesses and getting us one step closer to reaching a new normal.”

Airlines are also major peddlers of the passport hustle. The president of Airlines for America (A4A) is pressuring Congress on behalf of airlines such as American, Delta, JetBlue, Southwest, United, and Alaska Airlines to strongly consider going against WHO’s current recommendation of not making vaccine passports mandatory for air travel.

The Los Angeles school district has partnered with Microsoft to launch the ‘Daily Pass’ app. The app’s software will be used to schedule and track district-managed coronavirus tests and vaccinations. Students and faculty must gain app clearance before being allowed into schools once they open.

Recently, Arthur Kaplan, an NYU medical ethics professor, went on CNN to espouse the idea of these Naziesque “yellow badge” vaccine passports, stating:

If you promise people more mobility, more ability to get a job, more ability to get travel, that’s a very powerful incentive to actually achieve fuller vaccination. 

Vaccine passports do require access; it’s hard to impose anything unless you are pretty sure that somebody can get a vaccine. So I think it’ll be a little while before we see this, let’s say within the U.S. 

But there are going to be communities and areas of the country where it starts to make sense due to high availability of the vaccine to say, ‘you wanna come back to work in person? Gotta show me a vaccine certificate. You wanna go in a bar, a restaurant? Gotta show me a vaccine certificate.

It’s All Part of the Global Agenda

The “debate” over whether to implement vaccine passports is happening all over the world. No matter what these passport apps are called, they will likely all be underpinned by a common software or framework that will enable them to “talk to each other” despite the country of origin. The leading developers of this technology include AOK Pass, Common Pass, the Vaccination Credential Initiative, Good Health Pass Collaborative, and the IATA Travel Pass.

What all of these companies, organizations, and initiatives have in common are their ties to the World Economic Forum, the digital transformation of society, and global governance. If you haven’t seen the documentary Decoding Davos: The Global Endgame, I suggest you do so soon. It provides a clear understanding of how this global think tank is manipulating the world into a “Great Reset” that promises strict control of all human life under new digital technology such as vaccine passports.

With President Biden marching in lockstep with these global plans, recently threatening to “reinstate restrictions” if sufficient progress in fighting the virus isn’t made, I wonder how long Americans will continue to be lulled to sleep thinking that freedom and normalcy is just around the corner?

The authoritarian overlords installing this new medical martial law regime will demand total compliance before all is said and done. If you decide for whatever reason to refuse the coronavirus vaccine, prepare to be treated like an outcast and possibly deemed a criminal as this “Minority Report” dystopia marches on. Now is the time to do whatever you can to free yourself from dependence on the systems currently in place and those the global cabal are planning to make the new normal in the near future.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Truth Unmuted.

Jesse Smith is an independent journalist who operates the Truth Unmuted website. Truth Unmuted is dedicated to exposing the lies, motives, and methods of the global cabal trying to force humanity into a new world order. The website covers issues such as technocracy, globalism, transhumanism, politics, health, and other relevant topics that tie into global agendas. 

Featured image is from Truth Unmuted

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Vaccine Passports, “Medical Martial Law” and the “Stockholm Syndrome”
  • Tags:

Italy Orders Companies Not to Pay Unvaccinated Workers

September 27th, 2021 by Paul Joseph Watson

The Italian government has passed a decree applying to both the private and public sector ordering companies to withhold pay from workers who refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine.

The decree mandates that all employees get the vaccine ‘green pass’, which led to questions about what would happen to the millions of Italians who remain unvaccinated.

.

.

The government is attempting to avoid potential legal action by directing companies not to fire the unvaccinated, but simply to not pay them while telling employees not to show up to work under threat of being fined if they do so.

“Instead, they should be considered to be on an unjustified absence and have their wages or salaries withheld,” writes Ken Macon.

“Those found to be working without a vaccine passport could be punished with fines of up to €1,500. Additionally, the government said it would not cater for the test costs for those who would prefer not to take the vaccine.”

Even those who have had the virus, recovered and developed anti-bodies will still have to get at least one dose of the vaccine, presumably just as a performative show of compliance.

Italy extended its vaccine passport scheme to schools and universities on September 1st.

Teachers were told they faced being fired if they didn’t take it and students were mandated to take it to attend classes.

The unvaccinated were also banned from using long distance public transport, meaning that holidays, travel for work and visiting relatives has become impossible for many.

Venues such as museums, stadiums, theaters gyms, and indoor seating spaces at bars and restaurants all require vaccine identification and businesses can be fined thousands of euros for not enforcing the rules.

The ‘green pass’ in Italy also tracks an individual’s location, once again emphasizing how it’s a digital ID card on steroids.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Italy Orders Companies Not to Pay Unvaccinated Workers

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention disregarded the advice of the agency’s vaccine advisory committee, clearing the way for healthcare workers, teachers, and residents of long-term care facilities, homeless shelters and prisons to get a third Pfizer COVID shot.

Instead, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky aligned with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) authorization of a third dose of Pfizer’s vaccine for a broader population, including healthcare workers, teachers and others whose jobs put them at “high risk” of infections, plus residents of prisons and homeless shelters.

President Biden today acted on the news, announcing his administration will begin to deliver booster shots this week, Politico reported.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on Thursday voted unanimously to approve Pfizer’s booster shot for people 65 and older, long-term care facility residents and certain people with underlying conditions, with the third shot to be administered at least six months after the second dose.

But the ACIP panel voted against recommending a booster dose for people whose jobs or situations put them at high risk of vaccine breakthrough infection.

In a similar scenario, the FDA on Wednesday granted Pfizer extended Emergency Use Authorization for boosters for people 65 and older and those at higher risk of severe disease and death, as well as frontline workers at higher risk of breakthrough infections — even though last week, the agency’s safety panel had rejected, in a 16 – 2 vote, Pfizer’s application for boosters for the general population.

In opposing Pfizer’s application, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee cited a lack of long-term data and said the vaccine’s risks did not outweigh the benefits for the broader population.

The broad nature of the FDA’s authorization of Pfizer’s third shot did not sit well with several members of the CDC’s ACIP. According to Reuters, the ACIP gave the thumbs down for new additional doses for groups — including healthcare workers, teachers and residents of homeless shelters and prisons — in part because of the difficulty of implementing such a proposal.

ACIP member Lynn Bahta, a nurse who works with the Minnesota Department of Health, voted against that measure. Bahta said the data does not support boosters in that group yet.

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and professor of pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said he believed the CDC adviserswere worried recommending boosters based on employment would allow overly broad use, especially in younger people for whom the health benefits of a booster shot are still unclear.

“That was a hole that you could drive a truck through, that essentially what we were doing was basically what the (Biden) administration initially asked — to just have a vaccine for the general population, because obviously the pharmacists aren’t going to figure out whether you’re working in a grocery store or hospital,” Offit said.

The CDC now says people 65 years and older and residents in long-term care settings should get a booster and so should people 50 to 64 years old who have an underlying medical condition.

Those 18 to 49 with underlying medical conditions, and those 18 to 64 who are at an increased risk because of an occupational or institutional setting “may” get a shot, the CDC said.

Last month, President Biden and top health officials, including Walensky, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and acting FDA Commissioner Dr. Janet Woodcock, publicly announced a booster shot program would begin the week of Sept. 20, well before the FDA and CDC examined the evidence.

At the time, numerous scientists expressed skepticism over the need for COVID boosters, including two FDA officials who resigned over the issue.Megan Redshaw

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Killer Vaccine: CDC Director Overrules Agency’s Own Vaccine Safety Committee, Sides With FDA to Approve Boosters for ‘High-Risk’ Workers

One of our readers contacted me this week with information that the Australian government collects on vaccine injuries on their Department of Health website. Like many countries, Australia maintains a database of adverse reactions for drugs.

The Australian government database for adverse reactions tracks 78 different vaccines for the past 20 years, with a total of 47 deaths following vaccination during the years 2000 through 2020.

In 2021 for just the 3 COVID-19 vaccines, there have already been a total of 524 deaths recorded following the COVID-19 shots, more than 10X the total for the past 20 years.

 

And now the Australian government is doing everything they can to lock down the citizens of their country and force them to be injected with one of the COVID-19 shots as a condition for participating in society.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Australia Records 10X More Deaths Following COVID-19 Shots than Recorded Deaths Following ALL Vaccines for Past 20 Years 

 The UK Medicine Regulator has responded to a Freedom of Information request demanding to know how many deaths have occurred in the past 20 years due to all vaccines, and their response has revealed that there have been four times as many deaths in just eight months due to the Covid-19 injections.

The request was made via email to the Medicine and Healthcare product Regulatory Agency (MHRA) on the 6th August 2021 in which a Mr Anderson asked the MHRA the following questions –
.
  • How many Deaths have there been from all Covid-19 vaccines?
  • Are there any other reporting AI system monitoring systems like the Yellow Card scheme?
  • Are Covid-19 Vaccines still in trials?
  • How many deaths has there been in last 20 years by previous Vaccines without Covid-19 Vaccines?
  • What happens if a there is a new vaccine or new drug? What process and monitoring do they go through?
  • What cut off point will the MHRA say a vaccine or drug is unsafe for humans?
The MHRA of course responded with the usual “we do not hold this information” as seen time and time again from Government departments, especially Public Health England who claim they do not hold the information for the number of people to have died within 28 days of having a Covid-19 vaccine when Public Health Scotland have been perfectly capable of publishing the figures.

However, they did confirm that they are using other epidemiological studies, anonymised GP-based electronic healthcare records and international experience to proactively monitor safety alongside the spontaneous reports received via the Yellow Card scheme.The MHRA also confirmed that the current Covid-19 vaccines on offer in the United Kingdom are only under a temporary authorisation and that these authorisations do not constitute a marketing authorisation.

In answer to the question asked on the number of deaths due to all other vaccines in the past twenty years the MHRA provided the usual robotic response about how great the Covid-19 vaccines are and how they are the “single most effective treatment for preventing serious illness due to Covid-19” but what they did not do is say that they “do not hold this information”.Instead they revealed that they had received a total of 404 reported adverse reactions to all available vaccines (excluding the Covid-19 injections) associated with a fatal outcome between the 1st January 2001 and the 25th August 2021 – a time frame of 20 years and 8 months.

But how does that fare against the number of reported adverse reactions to all temporarily authorised Covid-19 vaccines associated with a fatal outcome? Well, since the Pfizer jab was rolled out in December 2020 there have been 534 reported deaths, meaning that in just 8 months, this “vaccine” alone outnumbers the deaths due to all other vaccines in the past 20 years

However, the AstraZeneca viral vector injection has fared much worse with 1,083 deaths being reported to the MHRA since January 2020, more than twice as many than what have been reported due to all other vaccines in the past 20 years.

There have also been 17 reported deaths due to the Moderna jab since it was first administered in June 2021, and 28 deaths where the brand of Covid-19 vaccine was not specified in the report.

Therefore, up to the 15th September 2021 there have been a grand total of 1,662 deaths reported to the MHRA as adverse reactions to all available Covid-19 vaccines in the United Kingdom since the beginning of the year.

Meaning there have been four times as many deaths in just 8 months due to the Covid-19 vaccines than there have been due to every other available vaccine since the year 2001, and now they are administering this experimental treatment to children who are at zero risk of even suffering serious disease due to the Covid-19 virus.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UK Medicine Regulator: Four Times as many Deaths Attributable to Covid-19 Vaccines in 8 months than Deaths Due to all other Vaccines combined in 20 years

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

James Burnham describes how it is necessary that the masses believe the revolution to be beneficial to them, when in reality it is just to transition from one ruling class to the other.

[James Burnham is] the real intellectual founder of the neoconservative movement and the original proselytizer, in America, of the theory of ‘totalitarianism.’” – Christopher Hitchens, “For the Sake of Argument: Essay and Minority Reports

In the first part of this two part series, I went over how the roots for the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset can very clearly be traced back to 80 years ago, when an American, former high-level Trotskyist who later went on to become the intellectual founding father of neo-conservatism, James Burnham, wrote a book on his vision for “The Managerial Revolution.” And that it was in fact, these ideologies of Burnham that triggered Orwell to write his “1984”.

Burnham’s Recruitment into Allen Dulles’ OPC

“Burnham was a consultant to OPC on virtually every subject of interest to our organization. … He had extensive contacts in Europe and, by virtue of his Trotskyite background, was something of an authority on domestic and foreign Communist parties and front organizations.” E. Howard Hunt’s Memoirs (Watergate ‘plumber’ and famous CIA dirty trickster)

It is understandably the source of some confusion as to how a former high level Trotskyist became the founder of the neo-conservative movement; with the Trotskyists calling him a traitor to his kind, and the neo-conservatives describing it as an almost road to Damascus conversion in ideology.

However, the truth of the matter is that it is neither.

That is, James Burnham never changed his beliefs and convictions at any point during his journey through Trotskyism, OSS/CIA intelligence to neo-conservatism, although he may have back-stabbed many along the way, and this two-part series will go through why this is the case.

As I discussed in part one, Burnham had by May 21, 1940 officially resigned from the “‘philosophy of Marxism,’ dialectical materialism,” and by 1941 achieved fame and fortune with his book “The Managerial Revolution.

Burnham, made clear in this book, that he was not only very ready to accept the outcome of a victorious Nazi Germany (this was his conclusion at the time), but that this was both a natural and an inevitable course that the entire world would have no choice but to follow. Burnham made no qualms that Nazi Germany was considered by himself as the most superior form of his concept of a “managerial society.”

He would go on to state in his “The Managerial Revolution” that the Russian Revolution, WWI and its aftermath, the Versailles Treaty gave final proof that capitalist world politics could no longer work and had come to an end. He described WWI as the last war of the capitalists and WWII as the first, but not last war, of the managerial society. And, that many more wars would have to be fought after WWII before a managerial society could finally fully take hold.

This ongoing war would lead to the destruction of sovereign nation states, such that only a small number of great nations would survive, culminating into the nuclei of three “super-states”, which Burnham predicted would be centered around the United States, Germany and Japan. He goes on to predict that these super-states will never be able to conquer the other and will be engaged in permanent war until some unforeseeable time.

He predicted that Russia would be broken in two, with the west being incorporated into the German sphere and the east into the Japanese sphere. (Note that this book was published in 1941, such that Burnham was clearly of the view that Nazi Germany and fascist Japan would be the victors of WWII.) Burnham states that “sovereignty will be restricted to the few super-states.”

This future of “forever wars” amongst a few super-states has obvious remnant influences from Trotsky’s “Permanent Revolution” militant ideology.

This was also just the kind of thing Allen Dulles was talent searching for.

During the 1920s and 1930s both Dulles brothers acted as significant players in the “Rearming of Germany by Night,” largely organised through their law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, which operated as the center of an intricate international network of banks, investment firms, and industrial conglomerates that helped rebuild Germany after WWI.

The German representative of the Dulles brothers’ law firm was Dr. Gerhardt Alois Westrick, who acted simultaneously as a financial agent for Hitler and an Abwehr spymaster in the United States. In January 1940 Westrick was given the title of Wehrwirtschaftsführer for his contributions to the war effort. He was then assigned by von Ribbentrop to undertake a mission to the United States to meet American business leaders and gain their support for Germany. (1)

Allen Dulles was also a director of the J. Henry Schroder bank, whose German chairman, SS General Baron Kurt von Schroder, was one of the main assistants to Schacht in organizing the fund that financed Hitler’s 1933 rise to power. Allen Dulles remained on the board of the Schroder Bank until 1944, well after he had taken his post as chief of the OSS in Switzerland.

Allen Dulles also worked very closely with Thomas McKittrick, an old Wall Street friend who was president of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). Five of its directors would later be charged with war crimes, including Hermann Schmitz, one of the many Dulles’ law clients involved with BIS. Schmitz was the CEO of IG Farben the chemical conglomerate that became notorious for its production of Zyklon B, the gas used in Hitler’s death camps, and for its extensive use of slave labour during the war. (2)

David Talbot writes in his “The Devil’s Chessboard”:

“The secretive BIS became a crucial financial partner for the Nazis. Emil Puhl – vice president of Hitler’s Reichsbank and a close associate of McKittrick – once called BIS the Reichsbank’s only ‘foreign branch.’ BIS laundered hundreds of millions of dollars in Nazi gold looted from the treasuries of occupied countries.”

Allen Dulles was first recruited into the OSS (Office of Strategic Services) in October 1941, a forerunner of sorts of the CIA. During most of his work with the OSS he was stationed in Bern, Switzerland, where he was later found to be implicated in a number of incredibly suspect activities that would raise concern that his allegiance and loyalty was really with Nazi Germany.

Such activities included sabotaging the success of operations by American intelligence and engaging in secret negotiations on behalf of individuals directly or indirectly affiliated with the Nazi Party, one of the most well-known incidents of this is Dulles’ curious conduct during Operation Sunrise, aka the Bern incident, in favour of SS Gen. Kurt Wolff.

[In a previous three-part series paper I go through further details of the fascist roots of the CIA, and how Allen Dulles, and his brother Foster Dulles, play instrumental roles in all of this.]

The Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) was created as a department of the CIA in 1948, but operated as a rogue operation until Oct. 1950. Many of the agency’s recruits were “ex” Nazis. (3)

OPC was preceded by the Special Procedures Group (SPG), whose creation in March 1948 had been authorized in December 1947 with President Harry Truman’s approval of the top-secret policy paper NSC 4-A.

NSC 4-A was a new directive to cover “clandestine paramilitary operations, as well as political and economic warfare,” this provided the authorization for the intervention of the CIA in the Italian elections of April 1948 (in favour of Italy’s Christian Democrats, which hid thousands of fascists in its ranks, over what would have been the election of the Communist Party of Italy, who were admired for leading the fight against Mussolini). This success in tampering with the Italian elections demonstrated that psychological/political warfare could be the key to “winning” the Cold War.

When OPC was created, it inherited all of SPG’s resources.

On June 18, 1948, NSC 4-A was replaced by NSC 10/2, creating the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC). NSC 10/2 was the first presidential document which specified a mechanism to approve and manage covert operations, and also the first in which the term “covert operations” was defined.

George F. Kennan, (left)  the director of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, was the key figure behind the OPC’s creation. (4) Frank Wisner, who worked as a Wall Street lawyer for the law firm Carter, Ledyard & Milburn, was former OSS and very close to Allen Dulles. He would be called in from the State Department as OPC’s first director.

From 1948-1950 the OPC, though technically a department within the CIA was not under the CIA’s control, it was a renegade operation run by Allen Dulles and Frank Wisner. OPC was brought under CIA control in October 1950, when Walter Bedell Smith became Director of Central Intelligence, and it was renamed the Directorate of Plans (for more on this refer to my paper).

During the period of 1948-1950, Dulles and Wisner were essentially operating their own private spy agency, likely with the special blessing of George F. Kennan, as the OPC was actually more beholden to the State Department then the CIA during this period. (5)

During WWII, Burnham would leave his teaching post at NYU to work for the OSS and carried on to work for the CIA when the OSS was disbanded in Sept. 1945. He would later be recommended by George F. Kennan to lead the semi-autonomous “Psychological Strategy Board” (PSB) division of the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC). (6)

This is hardly a coincidence, as American author Naomi Wiener Cohen states in her book “Jacob H. Schiff: A Study in American Jewish Leadership” concerning the disastrous effects to Russia of the British-inspired Russo-Japanese war (Feb 1904-Sept 1905), which provoked the 1905 Russian ‘revolution’ that lasted until 1907. That revolution paved the way for the overthrow of the Tsar and the coming to power of the Bolsheviks in the October revolution of 1917:

“The Russo-Japanese war allied Schiff with George Kennan in a venture to spread revolutionary propaganda among Russian prisoners of war held by Japan (Kennan had access to these). The operation was a carefully guarded secret and not until the revolution of March 1917 was it publicly disclosed by Kennan. He then told how he had secured Japanese permission to visit the camps and how the prisoners had asked him for something to read. Arranging for the ‘Friends of Russian Freedom’ to ship over a ton of revolutionary material, he secured Schiff’s financial backing. As Kennan told it, fifty thousand officers and men returned to Russia [as] ardent revolutionists. There they became fifty thousand “seeds of liberty” in one hundred regiments that contributed to the overthrow of the Tsar.”

Thus one can make a good case that George Kennan brought Burnham in, specifically due to his history as an experienced high-level former Trotskyist with “the right stuff,” for his, as Orwell puts it, readiness to worship the power of the moment and his agreement that ultimate power could only be achieved through a “permanent revolution.”

George Kennan was also not an ideological socialist, best known as the author of the Cold War strategy of “containment,” he adamantly opposed FDR’s recognition of the Soviet Union, refused to support the United States working with the Soviets in defeating Hitler, accusing Stalin of being just as bad…or perhaps he preferred Hitler’s succession to power?

Kennan writes in his Memoirs:

“We should have no relationship at all with them [the Soviets]…Never- neither then nor at any later date- did I consider the Soviet Union a fit ally or associate, actual or potential, for this country.”

Kennan made it clear he was no fan of Stalin’s Soviet Union, but he certainly thought differently about the uses of “former” militant Trotskyists, possibly it was this branch of the Bolsheviks he truly wished to see succeed? Perhaps they were to play a similar role for subversion from within in the United States as they did in Russia?

[In a future installment I will discuss how “former” Trotskyists infiltrated the RAND Corporation, the Pentagon, and the CIA (as part of the second purge of American intelligence). For part of the story you can refer here.]

As Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould put it in their excellent article “How the CIA Created a Fake Western Reality for Unconventional Warfare”:

“Burnham functioned as a critical connection between Wisner’s office and the intelligentsia moving from the extreme left to the extreme right with ease. Burnham found the congress to be a place to inveigh not just against Communism but against the non-communist left as well and left many wondering whether his views weren’t as dangerous to liberal democracy as Communism.

 According to Frances Stoner Saunders [author of the acclaimed book ‘The Cultural Cold War’], members of the British delegation found the rhetoric coming out of the congress to be a deeply troubling sign of things to come… ‘I felt, well, these are the same people who seven years ago were probably baying in the same way to similar German denunciations of Communism coming from Dr. Goebbels in the Sports Palast. And I felt, well, what sort of people are we identifying with? That was the greatest shock to me. There was a moment during the Congress when I felt that we were being invited to summon up Beelzebub in order to defeat Stalin.’

The Congress for Cultural Freedom didn’t need Beelzebub. It already had him in the form of Burnham, [Sidney] Hook and Wisner, and by 1952, the party was just getting started… In 1953 Burnham was called upon again by Wisner to reach beyond Communism to help overthrow the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in Tehran, Iran…His book, “The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom,” would become the CIA’s manual for displacing Western culture with an alternative doctrine for endless conflict in a world of oligarchs.” [emphasis added]

The Machiavellians: Burnham’s “Managerial” Defenders of Freedom

The modern state … is an engine of propaganda, alternately manufacturing crises and claiming to be the only instrument that can effectively deal with them. This propaganda, in order to be successful, demands the cooperation of writers, teachers, and artists not as paid propagandists or state-censored time-servers but as ‘free’ intellectuals capable of policing their own jurisdictions and of enforcing acceptable standards of responsibility within the various intellectual professions.” – Christopher Lasch “The Agony of the American Left”, author of “Britain’s Secret Propaganda War”

In Burnham’s “The Managerial Revolution,” he writes:

“Most of these intellectuals are not in the least aware that the net social effect of the ideologies which they elaborate contributes to the power and privilege of the managers and to the building of a new structure of class rule in society. As in the past, the intellectuals believe that they are speaking in the name of truth and for the interests of all humanity…Indeed, the intellectual, without usually being aware of it, elaborate the new ideologies from the point of view of the position of the managers.”

What this means is that the intellectuals themselves do not understand who in fact will benefit in the end by the philosophies and theories they support and defend, they are mere instruments for the propagation of a new ruling class and hold no true power. Aldous Huxley’s, who also promoted a managerial ruling class in his “Brave New World,” speech to naïve Berkeley students, titled “The Ultimate Revolution” comes to mind…

As Huxley put it:

“There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it.”

As already stated, Burnham had been recommended by George F. Kennan to lead the semi-autonomous “Psychological Strategy Board” (PSB) division of the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC). The PSB D-33/2, created on May 5, 1953, laid out the strategy for how “free intellectuals” could be manipulated against their own interests to facilitate a CIA dictated transformation of Western culture. In fact, as Frances Stoner Saunder’s makes the point in “The Cultural Cold War,” it is likely Burnham himself was the one to draft PSB D-33/2.

Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould write in “The Final Stage of the Machiavellian Elite’s Takeover of America”:

“PSB D-33/2 foretells of a ‘long-term intellectual movement, to: break down world-wide doctrinaire thought patterns’ while ‘creating confusion, doubt and loss of confidence’ in order to ‘weaken objectively the intellectual appeal of neutralism and to predispose its adherents towards the spirit of the West.’ The goal was to ‘predispose local elites to the philosophy held by the planners,’ while employing local elites ‘would help to disguise the American origin of the effort so that it appears to be a native development.’

While declaring itself as an antidote to Communist totalitarianism, one internal critic of the program, PSB officer Charles Burton Marshall, viewed PSB D-33/2 itself as frighteningly totalitarian, interposing ‘a wide doctrinal system’ that ‘accepts uniformity as a substitute for diversity,’ embracing ‘all fields of human thought — all fields of intellectual interests, from anthropology and artistic creations to sociology and scientific methodology.’ He concluded: ‘That is just about as totalitarian as one can get.’

With ‘The Machiavellians’ Burnham had composed the manual that forged the old Trotskyist left together with a right-wing Anglo/American elite. The political offspring of that volatile union would be called neoconservatism, whose overt mission would be to roll back Russian/Soviet influence everywhere. Its covert mission would be to reassert a British cultural dominance over the emerging Anglo/American Empire and maintain it through propaganda.” [emphasis added]

As already discussed in part one, Burnham describes how it is necessary that the masses believe the revolution to be beneficial to them, when in reality it is just to transition from one ruling class to the other. The promise of some form of socialism free from the oppression of capitalism is offered, but the masses are told that true socialism will need time and can only be achieved further in the future, in the meantime, a managerial class is put in place.

Burnham writes:

“The ideology must ostensibly speak in the name of ‘humanity,’ ‘the people,’ ‘the race,’ ‘the future,’ ‘God,’ ‘destiny,’ and so on. Furthermore, in spite of the opinion of many present-day cynics, not just any ideology is capable of appealing to the sentiments of the masses. It is more than a problem of skilful propaganda technique. A successful ideology has got to seem to the masses, in however confused a way, actually to express some of their own interests.

…At the present time, the ideologies that can have a powerful impact, that can make a real headway, are, naturally, the managerial ideologies, since it is these that alone correspond with the actual direction of events…In place of the ‘individual,’ the stress turns to the ‘state,’ the people, the folk, the race…In place of private enterprise, ‘socialism’ [only by name] or ‘collectivism.’ In place of ‘freedom’ and ‘free initiative,’ planning. Less talk about ‘rights’ and ‘natural rights’; more about ‘duties’ and ‘order’ and ‘discipline.’ Less about ‘opportunity’ and more about ‘jobs’.”

He goes on to discuss the need to change the meaning of words such “destiny,” “the future,” “sacrifice,” “power,” from the old ideologies of capitalism to suit the new ideologies of managerialism.

George Orwell would address this in his “1984,” where Burnham’s “The Managerial Revolution” appears pseudonymously as “The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism.”

Burnham continues:

“There will be no the managerial ideology any more than there was a the capitalist ideology. The several managerial ideologies will, however, revolve around a common axis, as the capitalist ideologies revolved around a common and different axis…In this country, Technocracy and the much more important New Dealism are embryonic and less-developed types of primitive, native-American managerial ideologies.”

Burnham’s reference to New Dealism as a managerial policy may be troubling to some, however, Burnham only looks at the mechanics of a social situation and its potential uses in a managerial society, it does not mean that the thing he is talking about as it is currently functioning is a form of oppression on the people. As Burnham states in his book, Roosevelt’s New Dealism is not what was intended on paper so to speak.

Burnham writes:

“The firmest representatives of the New Deal are not Roosevelt or the other conspicuous ‘New Deal politicians,’ but the younger group of administrators, experts, technicians, bureaucrats who have been finding places throughout the state apparatus…in short, managers.”

Keynes’ vision for New Dealism opposed that of Roosevelt. Burnham expresses frustration that a man that had nothing to do with the creation of an idea was now pulling the strings, for more on this refer here. One example of the sort of New Dealism Burnham is referencing, fit for his vision of a managerial society, can be found in the Green New Deal, or the anti-BRI Build Back Better for the World (aka: B3W).

These are the sorts of ideologies we are told will be universally beneficial, when in reality they are meant to benefit a select ruling class, in this case a managerial class, with the intention to maximize global control to the detriment of the majority.

As Orwell put it in his essay “Second Thoughts on Burnham”:

“It will be seen that Burnham’s theory is not, strictly speaking, a new one. Many earlier writers have foreseen the emergence of a new kind of society, neither capitalist nor Socialist, and probably based upon slavery…”

The Great Reset: Oligarchical Collectivism

What you radicals, and we who hold opposing views differ about, is not so much the end as the means, not so much what should be brought about, as how it should, and can, be brought about.” – Otto H. Kahn (speaking to the League of Industrial Democracy in New York Dec 30th1924), partner of Jacob Schiff and Felix Warburg’s Kuhn, Loeb & Co. and director of American International Corp.

Burnham concludes in his “The Managerial Revolution”:

“The new world political system based on a small number of super-states will still leave problems-more, perhaps, than a unified single world-state; but it will be enough of a ‘solution’ for society to keep going. Nor is there any sufficient reason to believe that these problems of the managerial world system, including the managerial wars, will ‘destroy civilization.’ It is almost inconceivable even what it could mean for civilization – to be literally destroyed. Once again: what is being destroyed is our civilization, not civilization.”

The World Economic Forum and the Club of Rome

For the destruction of our civilization, this is precisely the intent of the World Economic Forum and its Club of Rome/Henry Kissinger affiliations, and it is their intention that the very people who will be enslaved by such a ruling class, will ironically be the ones who passionately fight to see it through.

The masses themselves will be the ones willing to sacrifice and defend at all costs a growing power structure that intends to bring about their very own destruction.

There are perhaps even those who know this and believe in such a cause nonetheless, after all, if they agree that “the real enemy is humanity itself” as concluded by the Club of Rome on solving the problems of mankind, then the destruction of our civilization is not only justified, it is also our duty to bring it about.

But if such an ideology proves to be a sham, a fairy-tale meant to benefit a select ruling class, its believers will be complicit in bringing about the most atrocious crimes ever committed upon humanity in our entire history of existence.

We are now standing on that precipice…

Orwell concludes in his “Second Thoughts on Burnham”:

“It is curious that in all his talk about the struggle for power, Burnham never stops to ask why people want power. He seems to assume that power hunger, although only dominant in comparatively few people, is a natural instinct that does not have to be explained, like the desire for food. He also assumes that the division of society into classes serves the same purpose in all ages. This is practically to ignore the history of hundreds of years…The question that he ought to ask, and never does ask, is: Why does the lust for naked power become a major human motive exactly now, when the dominion of man over man is ceasing to be necessary? As for the claim that ‘human nature’, or ‘inexorable laws’ of this and that, make Socialism impossible, is simply a projection of the past into the future. In effect, Burnham argues that because a society of free and equal human beings has never existed, it never can exist. By the same argument one could have demonstrated the impossibility of aeroplanes in 1900, or of motor cars in 1850.

…so long as they [the Nazis] were winning, Burnham seems to have seen nothing wrong with the methods of the Nazis…This implies that literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it…That a man of Burnham’s gifts should have been able for a while to think of Nazism as something rather admirable, something that could and probably would build up a workable and durable social order shows, what damage is done to the sense of reality by the cultivation of what is now called ‘realism’.”

*

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

Cynthia Chung is a lecturer, writer and co-founder and editor of the Rising Tide Foundation (Montreal, Canada). The author can be reached at https://cynthiachung.substack.com/

Notes

(1) Bloomenkranz, Sol (2012-07-06). Charles Bedaux – Deciphering an Enigma. iUniverse. ISBN 978-1-4759-2637-8.

(2) David Talbot “The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government

(3) Ibid., pg 128

(4) Corke, Sarah-Jane (1 May 2006). “George Kennan and the Inauguration of Political Warfare”. Journal of Conflict Studies. 26 (1). ISSN 1715-5673

(5) Miscamble, Wilson D. (1992). George F. Kennan and the Making of American Foreign Policy, 1947-1950. Princeton University Press. p. 199. ISBN 0691024839.

(6) Kimball, Roger (September 2002). “The power of James Burnham”. The New Criterion. Archived from the original on 2019-10-14. Retrieved 2020-06-03

Featured image is from Flickr/Levan Ramishvili

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on History of Neo-Conservatism: From Burnham’s “Managerial Revolution” to the WEF’s “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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The former ambassador of Canada in Belgrade, James Bissett, spoke sharply about the NATO aggression on the then FR Yugoslavia in 1999 and most directly accused the then world leadership. The Canadian diplomat stated that the bombing of Serbia in 1999 was a historic mistake.

It was planned before the bombing. The Americans planned everything months in advance. After the bombing, tens of thousands of Serbs were expelled from Kosmet. Hundreds of churches and monasteries in Kosovo were destroyed. Since then, Kosovo has been a hotbed of corruption and crime, Bisset said.

Ambassador Bissett also warned that a large part of the drug trade takes place through the territory of Kosovo.

On the other hand, Canadian professor of economics from the University of Ottawa, Prof. Michel Chossudovsky reminded us that all three so-called Prime Ministers of Kosovo have criminal records.

“All of them are on the Interpol list and are related to drug trafficking. The world public is deceived that this is a legitimate process of independence. This is a piece of the state of Serbia and the handover of power to bandits. The real bandits are high-ranking EU, US, and NATO officials.” said Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

*

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

Featured image is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0

Afghanistan: Before and After US Intervention

September 26th, 2021 by Prof. John Ryan

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

I was fortunate enough to be in Afghanistan in November of 1978, six months after a progressive socialist government came to power. I travelled from the city of Peshawar in Pakistan through the Khyber Pass to Kabul. I then spent a couple of weeks in the city and the surrounding rural area.  At that time I was on a sabbatical leave as a professor from the University of Winnipeg. Prior to this, I had been in Asia for 7 months on an agricultural research project, conducting documentary case studies of farms — 70 studies in 12 countries, starting in Japan and ending with 4 farms in Afghanistan.

What I find astounding is that the Western media never mention that for a brief period of time Afghanistan once had a progressive secular government, with broad popular support.

This government had enacted progressive reforms and gave equal rights to women. It was in the process of dragging the country into the 20th century. In fact, British political scientist Fred Halliday stated in May 1979 that probably more had changed in the countryside over the previous year than in the two centuries since the state was established. Indeed, it would now be the type of government that most people in Afghanistan and the West would probably welcome.  What happened to this government?

Long before the Soviet Union entered the scene, this government was undermined by the actions of the USA. It was the USA’s Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA, that created the mujahideen, which triggered a series of tragic events that destroyed the country. Following this, the US military invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 and stayed there for the next 20 years, pulling out just a few weeks ago. So in effect, it was the USA that created the present chaos and tragedy in Afghanistan.

Although the Afghan government in 1978 had come to power by means of revolution, surprisingly, it was a peaceful time, and I received full cooperation from government authorities and the Faculty of Agriculture at Kabul University. While at the University, the Dean and a number of professors briefed me on Afghanistan’s history, its economic conditions, and the causes of the revolution.

I still recall vividly that when I entered the Dean’s office, he was sitting at his desk, nicely dressed in a suit and tie. I began by telling him that I was on an agricultural research project in Asia but just as I left Canada at the beginning of May, I had heard that a few days before, there was a revolution in Afghanistan. And because of that I was wondering if I’d be able to do any research in the country. He pushed back his chair, and in flawless English with a British accent he said, “Revolution … just a day and a half, you know, April 27 and 28. I was there much of the time … I saw most of it … I’ll tell you about it. But first let me order some tea and I’ll get some faculty members to join us.”

For the next hour or more, he related what happened. According to the Dean and the professors, the bulk of Afghanistan’s people in the 1970s were farmers, but the landholding system hadn’t changed much since the feudal period.  They told me that more than three-quarters of the land was owned by landlords and mullahs who composed only 3 percent of the rural population. Peasants who had owned land and homes lost both to landlords and mullahs because they were unable repay their loans, so now they worked the land as sharecroppers . . . land that was once their own.

The landlord or the mullah, in the less fertile areas, took two-thirds of the crop, and in the fertile plains, he’d take four-fifths. In either case, the sharecropper was left with just barely enough grain to feed his family. Partly because of these terrible rural conditions, the king was finally deposed in 1973. But no land reform came about, and the new government was autocratic, corrupt, unpopular.

Then on April 27, 1978, in the wake a huge demonstration in front of the presidential palace, the army came to the support of the people and after a brief battle with the presidential guard, the government was deposed. The military officers then released the jailed leftist and Marxist leaders and invited their party, the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), to form the government under the leadership of Noor Mohammad Taraki, a writer and poet.  The military supported them because they were the only ones who had a program for land reform and progressive social and economic reforms.

As the Dean put it, after the government was deposed and leftist leaders were released from the nearby prison, the officers brought Taraki to the open space in front of the presidential palace. There was a tank in this open space in front of the crowd. After the officers talked to Taraki, they helped him to get on the tank, he then looked around and said, “All right, with your help, we will form the government.” Hearing this, there was a loud cheer and applause from the crowd.

So, this is how a leftist or  socialist government came into office — it was a totally indigenous happening — not even the CIA blamed the USSR for this. In fact, President Jimmy Carter’s secretary of state, Cyrus Vance, later wrote in his memoirs: “We had no evidence of any Soviet complicity in the coup.” Actually, the Soviets were much surprised at what happened. This new government immediately began to bring in much needed reforms.

The Taraki government’s first course of action was to declare non-alignment in foreign affairs and to affirm a commitment to Islam within a secular state. Among the much-needed reforms, women were given equal rights, girls were to go to school and be in the same classroom as boys. Child marriages and feudal dowry payments were banned. Labour unions were legalized, and equality of the nationalities was proclaimed. And very importantly, about 10,000 people were released from prisons. Within a short time, hundreds of schools and medical clinics were built in the countryside.

A major reform occurred on September 1, 1978. It was the abolition of all debts owed by farmers — landlords and moneylenders had charged about 25 percent interest.  Following this, a program was being developed for major land reform, and it was expected that all farm families (including landlords!) would be given the equivalent of equal amounts of land. [1]

Part of the Taraki administration’s land reform was an attack on the opium-growing feudal estates. Taraki went to the UN, where he requested and received loans for crop substitution for the poppy fields.

Through Kabul University I conducted my research project with the assistance of an agriculture professor.  I spent more than a week in the countryside and talked with many farmers. The farmers produced a variety of food crops and livestock, and Afghanistan was basically self-sufficient in food production. Raisins were an important export crop.

Because the farmers had much to gain from the reforms, most were extremely pleased with the new government. I heard tearful tales of how the farmers had lost their land because of inability to repay loans. In this manner almost half of the country’s farmers wound up with their houses on land that became the property of landlords. Also many of these people had debts that were inherited from their fathers and grandfathers, and they had never expected to repay them.

Several of them told me that the law abolishing these debts was like a gift from heaven. I recall how one of them clasped his hands together and with tears in his eyes he told me how he had lost his home and his land…. and now he had all this back.

Later, in talks with shopkeepers in Kabul, I discovered that they too were pleased. One of them told me that he wasn’t quite sure how the government leaders could be Marxist and Muslim, but they hadn’t interfered with their religion, and because the farmers now had money, business was increasing and they had no complaints.

From what I could see, life was peaceful and there were few police and soldiers on the scene — and women were free to dress as they wished. I have a slide of a street scene showing a woman in a burqa, another woman in a western style dress, a man in a business suit, another in casual clothes, and one in traditional robes and the distinctive Afghan turban. Such cosmopolitan scenes were quite typical.

Street scene in Kabul, November 1978. During the Marxist Taraki period, women were free to dress as they wished with no restrictions. [Photo by John Ryan]

The new government was faced with a variety of major problems. In the 1970s, life expectancy was 35; 1-in-3 children died in infancy, the highest in the world. Ninety percent of the population was illiterate. These were issues that the new government was determined to deal with.

Without question, this appeared to be a genuinely popular government and people seemed to look forward to the future. In short order, the Taraki government invited Soviet contractors and engineers to build roads, schools and hospitals …. with funds provided by the USSR. Soviet geologists discovered vast quantities of lithium and minerals in Afghanistan; vital resources which the government intended to exploit in the interests of the entire nation.

A dynamic medical doctor, Anahita Ratebzad, was appointed minister for Education in the Taraki government. Since the overthrow of this progressive government, Ratebzad’s role has virtually been erased from Afghanistan’s history. In one of her most famous editorials for the New Kabul Times she wrote:

Privileges which women, by right, must have are equal education, job security, health services, and free time to rear a healthy generation for building the future of the country … Educating and enlightening women is now the subject of close government attention.

Women played a key role in the Taraki government; the gains had no precedent. About half of Kabul’s university students were women during the 1980s and women made up 40 percent of Afghanistan’s doctors, 70 percent of its teachers and 30 percent of its civil servants. Thousands of women enrolled in the armed forces and there were 7 women in parliament.  Young female students roamed the streets of Kabul in denim flairs and t-shirts, dating men of their own choice. Many people spoke of a golden era.

The radical changes that occurred remain vivid in the memories of those who benefited. Saira Noorani, a female surgeon who fled Afghanistan in 2001, recalled:

“Every girl could go to high school and university. We could go where we wanted and wear what we liked … We used to go to cafes and the cinema to see the latest Indian films on a Friday … it all started to go wrong when the mujahedin started winning … these were the people the West supported.”

Women at university in Afghanistan in the late 1970s. (Amnesty International U.K.)

Admittedly, the issue of women’s rights and education for girls was controversial, and fundamentalist mullahs (clerics) conducted campaigns against this. It’s very important to point out that many of the 250,000 mullahs were landlords and they vehemently opposed the proposed land reforms.  

In their sermons in mosques, they urged the Afghan people to oppose the government’s plans because according to them it was only Allah who could grant land to them, and also that Allah would object to giving women equal rights or having girls go to school. But despite their pleadings, the reforms were popular in the general population. And because of this, these reactionary elements left for Pakistan, as so-called, “refugees.” These were the people who not only opposed land reform but all the other social and economic reforms as well.

But…behind these mullahs, there was a much more powerful opponent to the Afghan government — it was the USA. Although having no right to interfere in another country’s affairs, the USA viewed the new government as being Marxist and was determined to subvert it. On July 3, 1979, unknown to the American people and Congress, President Carter authorized a $500 million “covert action” program to overthrow Afghanistan’s first secular, progressive government.  This was code-named by the CIA “Operation Cyclone.” Immediately after this, the CIA, along with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, began to provide military aid and training to Muslim extremists who became known as the mujahideen and “freedom fighters.” 

And to make the USA’s determination crystal clear, noted journalist John Pilger stated that

In August 1979, the U.S. embassy in Kabul reported that ‘the United States’ larger interests … would be served by the demise of the PDPA government, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan.’ . . . It is not often that such cynical intent is spelt out as clearly.  The U.S. was saying that a genuinely progressive Afghan government and the rights of Afghan women could go to hell. . . Recruited from all over the Muslim world, America’s secret army was trained in camps in Pakistan run by Pakistani intelligence, the CIA and Britain’s MI6.”

In addition to this, alienated Afghan mullahs and landlords along with Muslin fanatics migrated to Pakistan where, through the efforts of the CIA, they were given arms and training to subvert the Afghanistan government. After getting military training and guns in Pakistan, and together with fanatic Muslims recruited by the CIA, they proceeded to conduct raids on the Afghan countryside where they burned clinics and schools, and if they found teachers teaching girls, they would kill the teachers, often disembowelling them in the presence of the children – to instill fear and panic in the population.

Another aspect of the US counter-revolution strategy involves a man named Hafizullah Amin. During the 1960s while studying at Stanford University, he appears to have been recruited by the CIA, and came back to Afghanistan, pretending he was a hard-line Marxist. Through him the CIA infiltrated the Taraki government.  This has never been officially acknowledged, but there is substantial evidence to support this. [2] His actions while in office reflect exactly what a CIA agent would have been expected to do. He cleverly worked his way to the top – first becoming defence minister and later the prime minister. In September of 1979 he carried out a coup, took over the government, had Taraki killed, and many of Taraki’s loyal supporters were then killed, jailed, or exiled. 

Amin then proceeded to undermine and discredit the Marxist government.  He enacted draconian laws against the Muslim clergy, to purposefully further alienate them. Many of Taraki’s progressive reforms were halted and thousands of people were jailed. Senior army officers were demoted, jailed or killed, and in that way he weakened the Afghan army.

In the meantime, the CIA’s trained and armed mujahideen came in by the thousands to attack parts of the country, especially to destroy health clinics and schools and kill teachers. 

In a matter of three months, with the combined actions of the mujahideen and the counterproductive policies of Amin, the socialist progressive  government was almost destroyed. It’s a matter of record that during this time Amin held numerous meetings with the American charge d’affaires and other US officials. [3] He also sent emissaries to hold secret meetings with the top mujahideen leader in Pakistan, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. [4] Apparently Amin had laid plans for a further coup d’état to eliminate all progressive elements in the government and then join forces with the mujahideen – to form a fundamentalist Islamic state, with himself as president and Hekmatyar as prime minister. [5]

But, near the end of December in 1979, Amin was overthrown and killed either by a regiment of the Afghan army that still had Taraki supporters or by Soviet soldiers – the truth still being difficult to establish.  The USSR always denied having anything to do with this. The fact is that some Soviet troops had been in Afghanistan since December 8, at the Afghan government’s invitation. [6] 

With the overthrow of Amin, there was great jubilation and about 10,000 political prisoners were released, and when Babrak Karmal became president (after being in exile in Czechoslovakia), he would have been hailed as a hero, if he had come in on his own. What soured the situation is the entry of Soviet troops.

Shortly before Taraki’s murder, he had been on a trip to Moscow where he pleaded with the Soviets to send some troops to Afghanistan to help its government deal with the insurrection. And so on the basis of this invitation as well as from the terms of a 1978 Afghan-Soviet treaty, the USSR sent in their troops. Their purpose was to ward off the thousands of well-armed mujahideen invaders, many being foreign mercenaries. 

What’s not widely known is that the USA through the CIA had been actively involved in Afghan affairs for at least a year before this, and so it was in response to this that the Soviets arrived on the scene. 

Sending in troops to Afghanistan was a colossal blunder on the part of the Soviet Union. If they had simply provided weapons for the Afghan government’s forces, they may have survived the “barbarians at the gates” – because ordinary Afghan people were not fanatics and most of them supported the government’s progressive reforms.

The advent of Soviet troops on Afghan soil tragically set the stage for the eventual destruction of the country. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Advisor, afterwards bragged that he had convinced Carter to authorize the CIA to set a trap for the Russian bear and to give the USSR the taste of a Vietnam war. [7] Brzezinski saw this as a golden opportunity to fire up the zeal of the most reactionary Muslim fanatics — to have them declare a jihad (holy war) “on the atheist infidels who defiled Afghan soil” — and to not only expel them but to pursue them and “liberate” the Muslim-majority areas of the USSR.  And for the next 10 years, with an expenditure of billions of dollars from the USA and Saudi Arabia, and with the recruitment of thousands of non-Afghan Muslims into the jihad (including Osama bin Laden), this army of religious zealots laid waste to the land and people of Afghanistan. 

Central Asia specialist Ahmed Rashid wrote [8]:

“With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war, waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals, from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan’s fight between 1982-1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad.”

It should be understood that Afghan people don’t have a history of being religious zealots. To create the CIA-desired jihad required the recruitment of Arab, Egyptian, and Pakistani extremists – so the fundamentalism that emerged in Afghanistan is a CIA creation. Although Reagan referred to the mujahideen as “freedom fighters,” they committed horrific atrocities and were terrorists of the first order.

As reported in the Washington Post (May 11, 1979, p.12), a “favourite tactic” of the mujahedeen was “to torture victims [often Russians] by first cutting off their noses, ears, and genitals, then removing one slice of skin after another,” leading to “a slow, very painful death.” The article describes Russian prisoners caged like animals and “living lives of indescribable horror.” Another publication [9] reported that “one [Soviet] group was killed, skinned and hung up in a butcher’s shop”.

Despite these graphic reports, President Reagan continued to refer to the mujahedeen as “freedom fighters” and in 1985 he invited a group of them to Washington where he entertained them in the Whitehouse. Afterwards, while introducing them to the media, he stated, “These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.”

Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen Commanders at the White House in 1985 (Reagan Archives)

Surely Soviet soldiers were every bit as human as American soldiers – just suppose it had been American soldiers who had been skinned alive.  Would President Reagan in such an instance still refer to the mujahideen as “freedom fighters” . . . or might he then call them terrorists, just as the Soviets had done? Indeed…how these actions are portrayed depends on whose ox is gored.

The cynicism of arming and funding the mujahideen against the Soviets exposes the lie of America’s humanitarian concerns in Afghanistan. It was basically the CIA that created the mujahideen whose purpose was to try to overthrow the Afghan Marxist government and thereby lure in the USSR. As the US expected, the Soviets eventually sent in an army to fight the mujahideen. During the ensuing 10-year conflict, it’s estimated that between a half million to a million Afghan civilians were killed, along with 90,000 mujahideen fighters, 18,000 Afghan government troops, and 14,500 Soviet soldiers.

But it seems that in America’s eyes, these deaths, along with the destruction of Afghanistan, were “worth it” to cripple the Soviets. When later confronted with these facts, Brzezinski, President Carter’s advisor, had no regrets.

The Soviets succumbed to their Vietnam and withdrew their troops in February of 1989, but the war raged on.  Somehow it is generally thought that the Afghan socialist government collapsed as soon as the Soviets left, but that’s not true.  Seeing the viciousness of the mujahideen, a large portion of the Afghan population, especially the women, supported the quite moderate government, later under Mohammad Najibullah, and without a single Soviet soldier on their territory, they fought on for another three years.  In fact, their government outlasted the USSR itself, which collapsed in December of 1991.

The crucial factor that undermined the Afghan government was the treachery of Americans.  The Soviets agreed to pull out their troops, but it was on the understanding that both the USSR and the USA would stop all military and economic aid to Afghanistan. The Soviets honoured the agreement, but the USA, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia violated the agreement and continued to support the mujahideen.

Seeing that the US did not honour their agreement, the Soviets should have provided the Afghan government with some economic and military aid. They then might have withstood the mujahideen attacks. [11] As it was, because of the unending supply of superior American weapons and no economic assistance, the Marxist government was finally defeated in April of 1992.

The victorious mujahideen, first of all, slaughtered the members of the previous secular government and thousands of progressive-minded people. Then for the next four years they fought amongst themselves. The mujahideen consisted of at least seven warring factions, all battling for territory and control of the opium trade. In the course of these battles, they conducted looting and rape campaigns. The dreadful mujahideen infighting finally ended in September 1996 when their forces were routed from Kabul by new combatants on the scene, the Taliban.

When in 1992 the mujahideen took Kabul, Dr. Najibullah, the last progressive president,found refuge in the United Nations compound where he lived until 1996. On September 27 the Taliban took Najibullah from his refuge, castrated him, dragged him behind a car over Kabul streets, finished him with a gunshot and hung his body from a traffic post.

During these years of civil war, Kabul was almost totally destroyed, as were many other cities — with the greatest damage occurring after the Marxist defeat during the fratricidal conflict. The landlords came back immediately after the mujahideen victory.

The Taliban were determined to bring about a peaceful state of affairs. They vowed to unify the country under Islamic law and to end the corruption and insecurity under the rule of the warlords and mujahideen. They found support, especially in poor, rural areas that had suffered most from the bloodletting.

So, who were these Taliban? It is often mentioned that they emerged from religious schools in Pakistan. It’s important to know their background. Interestingly, it’s the CIA that created them.

The CIA recruited Wahhabi missionaries from Saudi Arabia to go to Pakistan and later to Afghanistan to set up Sunni Islamic fundamentalist religious schools, madrassas.  The CIA and their agents then recruited young Afghans to go to these schools where they became brainwashed religious fanatics. The word Taliban means “students in an Islamic school.”From Pakistan the madrassas moved to Afghanistan and during the 1980s their number increased to about 40,000. These schools were essentially CIA covert psychological operations, whose purpose was to inspire divisiveness and opposition to the Marxist Afghan government.

Through these covert CIA machinations, the US essentially destroyed secular education in Afghanistan. In the course of this,

“The United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings…. The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books … Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtun, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska -Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $ 51 million on the university’s education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994.” (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)

Although the Taliban ended the civil war, unfortunately, with them on the scene a virtual war was declared on women. The Taliban were religious fanatics and they somehow accepted a perverted religious view in regard to women, which in actuality has no basis in Islamic law. Thousands of women were dismissed from their jobs as teachers, doctors, professors, and work of all kinds. They were then not allowed to participate in the work force or even have doctors treat them (without a male relative present), and girls were forbidden to go to school. Terror, in all its forms, became the basis of the regime — it became a regime of fascist Muslims, but it was a regime that was initially kept in power largely by Pakistan.

Despite the atrocities of the Taliban regime, they initially had support in the Clinton administration because it was thought that the Taliban would bring in “stability” which would enable the construction of oil and natural gas pipelines through the country.  Moreover, the later Bush administration provided $124 million in aid to Afghanistan and continued pipeline talks almost until the fateful September 11. [11]

As for the mujahideen that this conflict created, they took on a life of their own, and spread throughout the Muslim world.  One of the key players in the anti-Soviet, U.S.-led regime change project was Osama bin Laden, a Saudi-born millionaire who came from a wealthy, powerful family and had close ties to the Saudi royal family. He was brought to Afghanistan to organize recruitment for the mujahideen and is believed to have received security training from the CIA. In 1989, the same year that Soviet troops withdrew, Osama bin Laden founded the terrorist organization Al Qaeda. Ironically, after grooming him for their purposes, the USA would eventually turn bin Laden into a scapegoat after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

If we are to learn anything from the Afghanistan tragedy, it is important to understand that if the USA had left the Marxist Taraki government alone, there would have been no army of mujahideen, no Soviet intervention, no war that destroyed Afghanistan, no Osama bin Laden, and perhaps no September 11 tragedy in the USA.

But what about the events after September 11, 2001? After the trauma of the 9/11 assault, what should have been the rational response? Clearly, this was a criminal act, but it was not an act of war by some foreign government. If the US had any evidence linking Osama bin Laden or anyone else to this, they should have taken the necessary steps to have these people brought to the International Criminal Court to be tried as criminals. Instead, the US immediately demanded that the Taliban government surrender Osama bin Laden to them.

In response, the Taliban offered to turn him over to an international tribunal, but only after seeing evidence of his guilt in 9/11. [12] The US refused to do this, and the actual reason surfaced when it was revealed that Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, had made the astounding statement that “. . . the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” [13]

So what was the war on Afghanistan all about if,  years later, the USA still didn’t have proof connecting bin Laden to 9/11? This is an astonishing revelation, but the mainstream media never reported this.

To counter the USA’s accusation that he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, bin Laden stated repeatedly — on September 12, 16, 17, and 28 — that he had had nothing to do with the attacks. In the September 28 statement, he had even declared:

“I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. . . . [W]e are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed.”

It’s obvious that the FBI accepted this because they never retracted their position that they had any hard evidence connecting bin Laden with 9//1. In fact, this was on the FBI website right up until after May 2, 2011, when bin Laden was supposedly killed by a US military assault in Pakistan. But there are serious questions even about this as well, since there is some evidence that bin Laden had actually died of kidney failure some years before. See here, here, here. This issue deserves further analysis, but not within this article.

In rare unanimity, a number of Afghan groups pleaded with the US government not to bomb or invade the country. Noam Chomsky cites the New York Times as reporting that this was “a rare display of unity among tribal elders, Islamic scholars, fractious politicians, and former guerrilla commanders” [14] They unanimously “urged the US to stop the air raids . . . and the bombing of innocent people” and pleaded with the US to adopt other means to overthrow the Taliban. [15]

They pointed out that the Taliban who ran the country consisted of a small and closed group and without constant assistance from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia the central leadership could be undermined – and once they’d lose the support of their gun-toting rank and file, the regime could be easily overthrown. So if the Americans wanted a regime change, the Afghan people themselves were fully prepared to do it. All the US had to do was to put pressure on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to stop their support of the Taliban.

Never mentioned officially, but aside from the “official” 9/11 reason for attacking Afghanistan, there was an undisclosed reason. It appears that one of the key strategic objectives of the 2001 war on Afghanistan was to restore the opium trade following the Taliban government’s successful 2000-2001 drug eradication program which led to a 94% collapse in opium production. This program had been supported by the United Nations.

UN data (1994-2014)

As a result of the war launched by the USA in Afghanistan, many thousands of Afghan people were killed – all being just as innocent as the people in New York – the difference being that Afghans continued to be killed for next 20 years.

So where do we now stand? It should be obvious that the 9/11 attacks were the work of an organization far more powerful and professionally skilled than a rag-tag band of nineteen random Arabs armed with box-cutters. As such, who attacked the USA on September 11, 2001?

Strange as it may seem, even 20 years later, it’s still not known who was responsible for it. At first it appeared that the plot was hatched in Hamburg, Germany by an Al-Qaeda group, hence this had nothing to do with Afghanistan. Over the years, several reputable reports have shown that there is substantial evidence that it was Mossad and Israel that were somehow implicated in order for the US to take a more aggressive stance towards Muslim countries. This is still an ongoing issue, since a major investigative report appeared a few days ago, September 10, “implicating Israel and its Mossad intelligence service, with the case being overwhelmingly strong in motive, means, and opportunity. But leveling accusations of blame at Israel and its domestic collaborators for the greatest attack ever launched against America on our own soil entails enormous social and political risks.” Other reports on this issue are here, here, here, here, here, here, here and there are others in addition.

9/11 and the American War

A month after 9/11, the US launched its war on Afghanistan. Not having approval of the United Nations, this was an illegal war. But this was never reported in the mainstream media, so few people were aware of this fact.

The bombing began on October 7th. The published images of the war were shocking in the violence they portrayed. Many people in Europe were appalled by the scale of the bombing against a defenceless population, and the utter disregard for Afghan lives. But in the United States that autumn, the mixture of vengeance and patriotism meant dissenting voices were rare and scarcely heard.

At first the attack was by bomber planes and then US soldiers came in. The Taliban realized it was hopeless for them to resist, so they just abandoned Kabul and fled into the countryside. However, the US did have the support of the forces of the Northern Alliance, a coalition of non-Pushtun warlords in the north of the country.

Initially, there was not much fighting. Taliban leaders and their supporters went home to their villages or into exile in Pakistan.

For two years there was no resistance to the American occupation. None, in any village or city. The reason is that most ordinary people, even in the Taliban heartland in the south, dared to hope that the American occupation would bring Afghanistan peace and develop the economy to end the terrible poverty.

Peace was crucial. By 2001 Afghans had been trapped in various wars for twenty-three years. By 2001 even Taliban supporters felt a bad peace was better than a good war.

All this was the basis for a possible good ending to the US invasion, but the US fouled this up. Instead of accepting this peaceful state of affairs, the US in a grossly misguided fashion, decided that its mission was to root out any remaining “bad characters.” Night raids crashed through doors, humiliating and terrifying families, taking men away to be horribly tortured for information about any opposition to the US-installed government. At the slightest excuse, the Americans called in airstrikes and their bombs killed family after family. And so war returned across the south and east of the country.

No one was ever held to account for the American torture regime in Afghanistan. The U.S. launched more than 13,000 drone strikes in Afghanistan between 2015 and 2020, killing up to 10,000 people. The CIA, relying on cellphone numbers, often launched its Hellfire missiles at the wrong targets or at targets standing amid groups of civilians.

This practice has devastated Afghan villages, yet the U.S. refused to keep track of civilian casualties from drone strikes. Overall, the American occupation had been unbearably cruel and corrupt. In this manner the US totally discredited itself in the eyes of most Afghan people. And so it was time for the US to go.

In the course of all this, there is an important issue that must still be dealt with, and that is the matter of Afghan opium poppy farming. Soon after the Taliban took control of Afghanistan this past August, their spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said: “When we were in power before there was no production of drugs. . . we will bring opium cultivation to zero again.”

This was verified by a UN report in May 2001 which “observed the near total success of the ban in eliminating poppy cultivation in Taliban controlled areas”.  However, immediately following the US invasion and takeover of the country, poppy production resumed with considerable vigour for the next 20 years. In fact, the area under opium poppy cultivation increased from 163,000 hectares in 2019 to 224,000 hectares in 2020 – an increase of 37%. Over the years, Afghanistan has been responsible for more than 80% of global opium production, as illustrated in this UN diagram:

At present, heroin made from opium grown in Afghanistan makes up 95% of the market in Europe. However, only 1% of the US supply of heroin comes from Afghanistan, according to the US Drug Enforcement Agency. Most comes from Mexico. As for Afghanistan, in 2018 the UNODC estimated opium production contributed up to 11% of the country’s economy. 

Although never discussed in the mainstream media, arguments have been advanced that one of the key strategic objectives of the 2001 war on Afghanistan was to reopen the opium trade following the Taliban government’s successful 2000-2001 drug eradication program. Immediately following the US October 2001 invasion, opium markets were restored and opium prices spiraled. By early 2002, the opium price (in dollars/kg) was almost 10 times higher than in 2000.

The resumption of opium trade provided a vital source of finance for the CIA and other US intelligence agencies. As put forward by journalist Finian Cunningham, “The big advantage from drug business is that the finances are off the books, and therefore not subject to Congressional oversight. That “dark” source of income allows American agencies to fund covert operations without ever being held to account.”

To add to this, Russia’s presidential envoy to Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, is quoted as saying that CIA complicity in drug trafficking is “an open secret” in the country. “US intelligence officers… are involved in drug trafficking. Their planes from Kandahar, from Bagram [airfield near Kabul] are flying wherever they want to – to Germany, to Romania – without any inspections.”

During the USSR’s engagement in Afghanistan, both the CIA and the mujahideen rebels were deeply involved in the opium trade. Over the years the CIA was paying $3.2 billion a year in their role in the Afghan war, and part of this was financed by the drug trade.

With so many factors at play, US involvement in Afghanistan became an archetypal quagmire. America’s declared strategic objectives in Afghanistan have never been coherent or convincing even to some top government officials. The initial justification of “avenging terrorism of 9/11” now sounds threadbare.

Afghanistan is known as the “Graveyard of Empires” where the British suffered a blow to their imperial prowess, where the Soviets failed in their attempt to salvage a progressive government, and now the defeat of the Americans after their senseless 20-year war.

During this past 20-year period, 775,000 American soldiers served in Afghanistan. Of these, it is reported that 2,442 were killed and 20,666 were injured. In addition, 1,144 other NATO soldiers were killed. Afghan military and police had about 70,000 killed. The report also states that about 50,000 Taliban fighters were killed. Overall, about 240,000 people have been killed in the Afghanistan and Pakistan war zone since 2001. As such, the majority of those killed were civilians.

Even in the absence of fighting, unexploded ordnance from this war and landmines from previous wars continue to kill, injure, and maim civilians. It remains to be seen if the Americans will have the decency to try to remove these deadly remains of their war.

Initially, after the US invasion, Afghans had hoped for development that could lift both the rich and the poor. But when American money poured into Afghanistan, it went the people in the new government headed by Hamid Karzai. It went to the people working with the Americans and the occupying troops of other nations. And it went to the warlords and their entourages who were deeply involved in the international opium and heroin trade facilitated by the CIA and the Pakistani military. None of this money got to ordinary Afghan people.

Afghans had long been used to corruption, but as time went by the scale of this US-dominated period was unprecedented. In the eyes of the poor and middle-income people, all the obscene new wealth, was obvious corruption. In light of all this, the Taliban decided that they had no recourse but to get rid of the Americans.

A further indication of corruption and neglect for the overall population is that the number of Afghans reporting that they were struggling to live on their current income increased from 60% in 2008 to 90% by 2018. A 2018 Gallup poll found the lowest levels of self-reported “well-being” that Gallup has ever recorded anywhere in the world. Afghans not only reported record levels of misery but also unprecedented hopelessness about their future.

Over the last decade the Taliban have offered two things across the country. The first is that they are not corrupt, and people could see this.

Second, the Taliban have run an honest judicial system in the rural areas they have controlled. Their reputation is so high that many people involved in civil lawsuits in the cities have agreed that both parties will go to Taliban judges in the countryside. This allows them swift, cheap and fair justice without massive bribes. Because the justice was fair, both parties can live with it.

Because of these issues, the Taliban gradually acquired genuine support in a large part of the Afghan population. The Taliban have learned and changed. The Taliban have realized that Pushtun chauvinism was a great weakness. They now emphasize that they are Muslims, brothers to all other Muslims, and they now have the support of Muslims of many ethnic groups.

The new Taliban have also emphasized their concerns for the rights of women. They say they welcome music, and videos, and have moderated the puritanical sides of their former rule. And they are now saying over and over again that they want to rule in peace, without revenge on the people of the old order. However, there is still a minority who do not go along with this. But that’s only to be expected in such a wide range of people in the country.

The Taliban, who banned the internet the first time they controlled Afghanistan, have turned social media into a powerful tool to tame opposition and broadcast their messages. Ironically, the images of peace and stability projected by the Taliban contrasted sharply with the scenes broadcast around the world of the chaotic American evacuation from the Kabul airport.

In one video, a Taliban official reassured female health workers that they could keep their jobs. In another, militants told Sikhs, a minority religious group, that they were free and protected. And wherever they were, they provided a sense of law and order.

Overall, this is a turning point in world history. The greatest military power in the world has been defeated by the people of a small, desperately poor country. As such, this will weaken the power of the American empire all over the world.

This is a military and political victory for the Taliban. It is a military victory because the Taliban have won the war. Over the last ten years the Taliban took control of more and more villages and towns. This is also a political victory for the Taliban. No guerilla insurgency on earth can win such victories without popular support.

The Taliban of 2001 were overwhelmingly Pushtuns, and their politics was Pushtun chauvinist. In 2021 Taliban fighters of many ethnicities have taken power in Uzbek and Tajik dominated areas.

Of course, not all Afghans have chosen to side with the Taliban. This was a war against foreign invaders, but it is also a civil war. Many have fought for the Americans and the American installed government or the warlords. And many others are not sure which side to take and are waiting with different mixtures of fear and hope to see what would happen.

In time it became obvious that the Taliban were the only important political organization fighting the American occupation, and most Afghans have come to hate that occupation.

In conclusion, what is it that has happened during this past month of August? If those so-called ‘good Afghans’ who were nurtured by US forces truly represented Afghan society, why did their army of 300,000 men drop their weapons and desert or flee the country, along with their President, without a serious fight? And if the 75,000 poorly-armed and, at times, malnourished Taliban seemed to merely represent themselves, why did they manage to defeat formidable enemies in a matter of days?

Ironically, four US administrations spent at least $2.26 trillion fighting the Afghan war which included $88 billion arming and supplying a military that, in the end, disintegrated and “disappeared.”

From what we now see, there is no question that the Taliban have acquired support from the Afghan people in most sections of the country. They could not have won this brutal war without substantial grassroots support.

On September 9, a Taliban spokesman announced the composition of their new caretaker government. He provided the names of the 33 acting cabinet ministers. He stressed that this new cabinet is just an “acting” government. This implies one of the next big steps will be to set up a new constitution. Also, that eventually the government will include people from all parts of the country and implied that women and Shi’ites will be included.

The acting government that was announced will consist of an all-male, overwhelmingly Pashtun cabinet essentially of the Taliban old guard. It includes only one Uzbek and one Tajik. All 33 appointees are Taliban members.

This announcement was met with some consternation in the USA because a number of the appointees have been listed as terrorists, including the acting Prime Minister, Mohammad Hasan Akhund.

The Taliban’s government is a caretaker one, and the militants may very well hold free and fair elections and then install an inclusive government.

It’s too early to tell how the new Taliban will function with all the problems they will encounter. But they are now a much wiser, more traveled, social media-savvy Taliban. They seem to be fully aware they cannot allow themselves to repeat the mistakes of their early years. Also, they’ve already established good relations with China, Russia and Iran, with the possibility of getting economic help from them.

*

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

John Ryan, Ph.D., Retired Professor of Geography and Senior Scholar, University of Winnipeg, Canada.

Notes

  1. All these reforms and government measures were explained to me at considerable length by the Dean of Agriculture and some of the professors during a lengthy session at Kabul University.
  2. “How the CIA turns foreign students into traitors,”Ramparts (San Francisco), April 1967, pp. 23-24; Phillip Bonosky, Washington’s Secret War Against Afghanistan, New York: International Publishers, 1985, pp.33-34; The Truth About Afghanistan: Documents, Facts, Eyewitness Reports, Moscow: Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, 1980, pp. 83-96; Washington Post, December 23, 1979, p. A8.
  3. William Blum,Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995, p. 343.
  4. Phillip Bonosky,Washington’s Secret War Against Afghanistan, New York: International Publishers, 1985, pp. 33-34
  5. The Truth About Afghanistan: Documents, Facts, Eyewitness Reports,Moscow: Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, 1980, pp. 91-92.
  6. Washington Post, December 23, 1979, p.A8. Soviet troops had started arriving in Afghanistan on December 8, to which the article states: “There was no charge [by the State Department] that the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan, since the troops apparently were invited.”
  7. “How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen”: Interview of Zbigniew BrzezinskiLe Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p.76. 
  8. Ahmed Rashid, “The Taliban: Exporting Extremism,”Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999.
  9. John Fullerton,The Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan, (London), 1984 cites a journalist from the Far Eastern Economic Review reporting that “one [Soviet] group was killed, skinned and hung up in a butcher’s shop.”
  10. Zayar, “Afghanistan, Bin Laden and the hypocrisy of American imperialism,”In Defence of Marxism, September 26, 2001.
  11. “When the U.S. committed $43 million in aid to Afghanistan in May 2001, it brought the total of U.S. aid to the country that year alone to $124 million,” cited in article by Joseph Farah, “Murray pushed for aid to Taliban before to 9/11,”com, December 26, 2002. 
  12. “Taliban repeats call for negotiations,”com, October 2, 2001, includes the comment: “Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban repeated its demand for evidence before it would hand over suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Ladin.”; Noam Chomsky, “The War on Afghanistan,” Znet, December 30, 2001. 
  13. Ed Haas, “FBI says, it has ‘No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11’,”Muckraker Report, June 6, 2006.
  14. Noam Chomsky, “The War on Afghanistan,”Znet, December 30, 2001.
  15. Barry Bearak, “Leaders of the Old Afghanistan Prepare for the New,”NYT, October 25, 2001; John Thornhill and Farhan Bokhari, “Traditional leaders call for peace jihad,” FT, October 25, 2001; “Afghan peace assembly call,” FT, October 26, 2001; John Burns, “Afghan Gathering in Pakistan Backs Future Role for King,” NYT, October 26, 2001; Indira Laskhmanan, “1,000 Afghan leaders discuss a new regime, BG, October 25, 26, 2001; Noam Chomsky, op. cit.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

In CBC’s Morning Brief, yesterday, they reported:

In Hamilton, Ont., The Hearty Hooligan, a vegan restaurant, warned customers last week through its Instagram account about provincial vaccine certificate requirements that began Wednesday.

Head chef Matthew Miles said they’ve faced an onslaught of angry comments from people accusing them of everything from discrimination to supporting tyranny.

Having followed a vegan diet for many years now, I thought I’d give The Hearty Hooligan a call. I was confused. After all, the vegan diet is about abstinence from animal products (for moral or health reasons) yet…

The COVID-19 vaccine is derived from human heart tissue, which while not from an animal, is certainly not vegan. And considering the tissue may have been extracted from the dying heart of an aborted fetus, means it hardly falls into the non-violent category.

If you won’t hurt a fish, why would you hurt a three-month old human fetus?

Now what about health? The vaccine itself is certainly not healthy. The CDC currently reports nearly 15,000 deaths from this experimental mRNA injection and over 15,000 life-theatening conditions. And we know the CDC undercounts.

So, why would a vegan restaurant require vegan customers to be injected with a pharmaceutical drug derived from the heart tissue of an aborted fetus? I didn’t understand. So I decided to call them and ask.

You can listen to my phone call here.

As you can hear, it didn’t end well. Maybe it was something I said?

The relevant questions for vegan restaurants:

1. Why do you require your vegan customers to be injected with a pharmaceutical drug derived from the heart tissue of an aborted fetus in order to eat vegan?

2. Since most of your customers believe in natural living and not taking drugs, do you not see how limiting your customer base to those willing to take the shot, will probably destroy your business?

3. If your menu is based on not harming living creatures, why would you coerce your customers into taking an injection that has already killed over 13,000 Americans according to the CDC?

If they say the government told them to, then ask:

4. If the government told you to start serving meat would you do it? If they told you to stop serving people who didn’t vote Liberal, would you do it? If they told you to stop serving Muslims, would you do it?

It would be kind of understandable if they were simply letting the government bully them into enforcing this type of unscientific segregation. But the fact that they let the CBC promote them doing so means they have crossed the line.

They should explain their actions or that they join the “We Won’t Ask” movement that Rebel News has started.

On The Hearty Hooligan’s website, they state their restaurant is a “LGBTQ2SIA+ safe space.” Sadly, that + at the end doesn’t include people who are unwilling to submit to an experimental mRNA injection.

They call themselves the “Hearty Hooligan.” Yet they immediately capitulate to the government’s demand that they coerce their customers into taking a pharmaceutical drug.

 

*

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

John C. A. Manley has spent over a decade ghostwriting for medical doctors, naturopaths and chiropractors. Since March 2020, he has been writing articles that question and expose the contradictions in the COVID-19 narrative and control measures. He is also completing a novel, Much Ado About Corona: A Dystopian Love Story. You can visit his website at MuchAdoAboutCorona.ca.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Vegan Restaurant Denies Me Service for Not Taking COVID Shot Derived from Fetal Heart Tissue

Eurasian Consolidation Ends the US Unipolar Moment

September 26th, 2021 by Pepe Escobar

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The 20th-anniversary summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, enshrined nothing less than a new geopolitical paradigm.

Iran, now a full SCO member, was restored to its traditionally prominent Eurasian role, following the recent US$400 billion trade and development deal struck with China. Afghanistan was the main topic – with all players agreeing on the path ahead, as detailed in the Dushanbe Declaration. And all Eurasian integration paths are now converging, in unison, towards the new geopolitical – and geoeconomic – paradigm.

Call it a multipolar development dynamic in synergy with China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

The Dushanbe Declaration  was quite explicit on what Eurasian players are aiming at: “a more representative, democratic, just and multipolar world order based on universally recognized principles of international law, cultural and civilizational diversity, mutually beneficial and equal cooperation of states under the central coordinating role of the UN.”

For all the immense challenges inherent to the Afghan jigsaw puzzle, hopeful signs emerged on Tuesday (September 21), when former Afghan president Hamid Karzai and peace envoy Abdullah Abdullah met in Kabul with Russian presidential envoy Zamir Kabulov, China’s special envoy Yue Xiaoyong and Pakistan’s special envoy Mohammad Sadiq Khan.

This troika – Russia, China, Pakistan – is at the diplomatic forefront. The SCO reached a consensus that Islamabad will coordinate with the Taliban on the formation of an inclusive government that including Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras.

The most glaring, immediate consequence of the SCO’s not only incorporating Iran but also taking the Afghan bull by the horns, fully supported by the Central Asian “stans,” is that the Empire of Chaos has been completely marginalized.

From Southwest Asia to Central Asia, a real reset has as its protagonists the SCO, the Eurasia Economic Union, the BRI and the Russia-China strategic partnership. Iran and Afghanistan – the missing links heretofore, for different reasons – are now fully incorporated into the chessboard.

In one of my frequent conversations with Alastair Crooke, a prominent political analyst, he evoked once again Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa’s The Leopard: everything must change so everything must remain the same.

In this case, imperial hegemony, as interpreted by Washington: “In its growing confrontation with China, a ruthless Washington has demonstrated that what matters to it now is not Europe but the Indo-Pacific region.” That’s Cold War 2.0 prime terrain.

The fallback position for the US – which possesses little potential to contain China after having been all but expelled from the Eurasia heartland – had to be a classic maritime power play: the “free and open Indo-Pacific,” complete with Quad and AUKUS, the whole setup spun to death as an “effort” attempting to preserve dwindling American supremacy.

The sharp contrast between the SCO continental integration drive and the “we all live in an Aussie submarine” gambit (my excuses to Lennon-McCartney) speaks for itself. A toxic mix of hubris and desperation is in the air, with not even a whiff of pathos to alleviate the downfall.

The Global South is not impressed. Addressing the forum in Dushanbe, Russian President Vladimir Putin remarked that the portfolio of nations knocking on the SCO’s door was huge.

Egypt, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are now SCO dialogue partners, on the same level with Afghanistan and Turkey. It’s quite feasible they may be joined next year by Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Serbia and dozens of others.

And it doesn’t stop in Eurasia. In his well-timed address to CELAC, Chinese President Xi Jinping invited no fewer than 33 Latin American nations to be part of the Eurasia-Africa-Americas New Silk Roads.

Remember the Scythians

Iran as a SCO protagonist and at the center of the New Silk Roads has been restored to a rightful historic role. By the middle of the first millennium BCE, northern Iranians ruled the core of the steppes in Central Eurasia. By that time the Scythians had migrated into the western steppe, while other steppe Iranians made inroads as far away as China.

Scythians – a northern (or “east”) Iranian people – were not necessarily just fierce warriors. That’s a crude stereotype. Very few in the West know that the Scythians developed a sophisticated trade system, as described by Herodotus among others, that linked Greece, Persia and China.

And why’s that? Because trade was an essential means to support their sociopolitical infrastructure. Herodotus got the picture because he actually visited the city of Olbia and other places in Scythia.

The Scythians were called Saka by the Persians – and that leads us to another fascinating territory: the Sakas may have been one of the prime ancestors of the Pashtun in Afghanistan.

What’s in a name – Scythian? Well, multitudes. The Greek form Scytha meant northern Iranian “archer.” So that was the denomination of all the northern Iranian peoples living between Greece in the West and China in the East.

Map of Scythia: Wikipedia

Now imagine a very busy international commerce network developed across the heartland, with the focus on Central Eurasia, by the Scythians, the Sogdians, and even the Xiongnu – who kept battling the Chinese on and off, as detailed by early Greek and Chinese historical sources.

These Central Eurasians traded with all the peoples living on their borders: that meant Europeans, Southwest Asians, South Asians and East Asians. They were the precursors of the multiple ancient Silk Roads.

The Sogdians followed the Scythians; Sogdiana was an independent Greco-Bactrian state in the 3rd century B.C. – encompassing areas of northern Afghanistan – before it was conquered by nomads from the east who ended up establishing the Kushan empire, which soon expanded south into India.

Zoroaster was born in Sogdiana; Zoroastrianism was huge in Central  Asia for centuries. The Kushans for their part adopted Buddhism: and that’s how Buddhism eventually arrived in China.

By the first century CE, all these Central Asian empires were linked – via long-distance trade – to Iran, India and China. That was the historical basis of the multiple, ancient Silk Roads – which linked China to the West for several centuries until the Age of Discovery configured the fateful Western maritime trade dominance.

Arguably, even more than a series of interlinked historical phenomena, the denomination “Silk Road” works best as a metaphor of cross-cultural connectivity. That’s what is at the heart of the Chinese concept of New Silk Roads. And average people across the heartland feel it because that’s imprinted in the collective unconscious in Iran, China and all Central Asian “stans.”

Revenge of the heartland

Glenn Diesen, professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway and an editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal, is among the very few top scholars who are analyzing the process of Eurasia integration in depth.

His latest book practically spells out the whole story in its title: Europe as the Western Peninsula of Greater Eurasia: Geoeconomic Regions in a Multipolar World.

Diesen shows, in detail, how a “Greater Eurasia region, that integrates Asia and Europe, is currently being negotiated and organized with a Chinese-Russian partnership at the center. Eurasian geoeconomic instruments of power are gradually forming the foundation of a super-region with new strategic industries, transportation corridors and financial instruments. Across the Eurasian continent, states as different as South Korea, India, Kazakhstan and Iran are all advancing various formats for Eurasia integration.”

The Greater Eurasia Partnership has been at the center of Russian foreign policy at least since the St Petersburg forum in 2016. Diesen duly notes that, “while Beijing and Moscow share the ambition to construct a larger Eurasian region, their formats differ. The common denominator of both formats is the necessity of a Sino-Russian partnership to integrate Eurasia.” That’s what was made very clear at the SCO summit.

It’s no wonder the process irks the Empire immensely, because Greater Eurasia, led by Russia-China, is a mortal attack against the geoeconomic architecture of Atlanticism. And that leads us to the nest-of-vipers debate around the EU concept of “strategic autonomy” from the US; that would be essential to establish true European sovereignty – and eventually, closer integration within Eurasia.

Image on the right: Glenn Diesen. Photo: we.hse.ru

European sovereignty is simply non-existent when its foreign policy means submission to dominatrix NATO. The humiliating, unilateral withdrawal from Afghanistan coupled with the Anglo-only AUKUS was a graphic illustration that the Empire doesn’t give a damn about its European vassals.

Throughout the book, Diesen shows, in detail, how the concept of Eurasia unifying Europe and Asia “has through history been an alternative to the dominance of maritime powers in the oceanic-centric world economy,” and how “British and American strategies have been deeply influenced” by the ghost of an emerging Eurasia, “a direct threat to their advantageous position in the oceanic world order.”

Now, the crucial factor seems to be the fragmentation of Atlanticism. Diesen identifies three levels: the de facto decoupling of Europe and the US propelled by Chinese ascendancy; the mind-boggling internal divisions in the EU, enhanced by the parallel universe inhabited by Brussels eurocrats; and last but not least, “polarization within Western states” caused by the excesses of neoliberalism.

Well, just as we think we’re out, Mackinder and Spykman pull us back in. It’s always the same story: the Anglo-American obsession in preventing the rise of a “peer competitor” (Brzezinski) in Eurasia, or an alliance (Russia-Germany in the Mackinder era, now the Russia-China strategic partnership) capable, as Diesen puts it, “of wrestling geoeconomic control away from the oceanic powers.”

As much as imperial strategists remain hostages of Spykman – who ruled that the US must control the maritime periphery of Eurasia – definitely it’s not AUKUS/Quad that is going to pull it off.

Very few people, East and West, may remember that Washington had developed its own Silk Road concept during the Bill Clinton years – later co-opted by Dick Cheney with a Pipelineistan twist and then circling all back to Hillary Clinton who announced her own Silk Road dream in India in 2011.

Diesen reminds us how Hillary sounded remarkably like a proto-Xi: “Let’s work together to create a new Silk Road. Not a single thoroughfare like its namesake, but an international web and network of economic and transit connections. That means building more rail lines, highways, energy infrastructure, like the proposed pipeline to run from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, through Pakistan and India.”

Hillary does Pipelineistan! Well, in the end, she didn’t. Reality dictates that Russia is connecting its European and Pacific regions, while China connects its developed east coast with Xinjiang, and both connect Central Asia. Diesen interprets it as Russia “completing its historical conversion from a European/Slavic empire to a Eurasian civilizational state.”

So in the end we’re back to … the Scythians. The prevailing neo-Eurasia concept revives the mobility of nomadic civilizations – via top transportation infrastructure – to connect everything between Europe and Asia.

We could call it the Revenge of the Heartland: they are the powers building this new, interconnected Eurasia. Say goodbye to the ephemeral, post-Cold War US unipolar moment.

*

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

This article was originally published on Asia Times.

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Eurasian Consolidation Ends the US Unipolar Moment
  • Tags: ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

“I’ll do one more mind experiment with you: If everyone on the planet were to get Covid and not get treated, the death-rate globally would be less than half a percent. I’m not advocating for that, because 35 million people would die.

However, if we follow the advice of some of the global leaders– like Bill Gates who said last year said “7 billion people need to be vaccinated”– then the death-rate will be over 2 billion people!

SO, WAKE UP! THIS IS WORLD WAR 3!

We are seeing a level of malevolence that we haven’t seen in the history of humanity!” Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, Author of The Zelenko “Early Treatment” Protocol that saved thousands of Covid-19 patients. (“Zelenko schools the Rabbinic Court”, Rumble; start at 11:45 minutes)

Did the regulators at the FDA know that all previous coronavirus vaccines had failed in animal trials and that the vaccinated animals became either severely ill or died?

Yes, they did.

Did they know that previous coronavirus vaccines had a tendency to “enhance the infection” and “make the disease worse”?

Yes.

Did Dr Anthony Fauci know that coronavirus vaccines had repeatedly failed and increased the severity of the infection?

Yes, he did. (See here: Fauci on ADE)

Did the drug companies conduct any animal trials prior to the FDA’s approval that would have convinced a reasonable person that the vaccines were safe to use on humans?

No, they didn’t.

Did they complete long-term clinical trials to establish whether the vaccines were safe?

No, there were no long-term clinical trials.

Did they conduct any biodistribution studies that showed where the substance in the injection goes in the body?

They did, but the data was not made available to the public.

Do the contents of the vaccine largely collect in various organs and in the lining of the vascular system?

Yes, they do.

Do large amounts of the substance accumulate in the ovaries?

Yes.

Will this effect female fertility and a woman’s ability to safely bring a baby to term?

The drug companies are currently researching this. The results are unknown.

Does the vaccine enter the bloodstream and collect in the lining of the blood vessels forcing the cells to produce the spike protein?

Yes.

Is the spike protein a “biologically active” pathogen?

It is.

Does the spike protein cause blood clots and leaky blood vessels in a large percentage of the people that are vaccinated?

It does, although the blood clots are mostly microscopic and appear in the capillaries. Only a small percentage of vaccinees get strokes or suffer cardiac arrest.

Should people be made aware of these possible bad outcomes before they agree to get vaccinated? (“Informed consent”)

Yes.

Did the FDA know that Pfizer had “identified vaccine-associated enhanced disease, including vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease, as an important potential risk”?

Yes, they did, but they did not demand that Pfizer fix the problem. Here’s more:

“The FDA noted that Pfizer, “identified vaccine-associated enhanced disease, including vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease, as an important potential risk”. The EMA similarly acknowledged that “vaccine associated enhanced respiratory disease” was “an important potential risk… that may be specific to vaccination for COVID- 19”.

Why neither regulator sought to exclude such dangers prior to emergency use authorization is an open
question that all doctors and patients are entitled to ask. Why medical regulators failed to investigate the
finding that large vaccine particles cross blood vessel walls, entering the bloodstream and posing risks of blood clotting and leaky vessels is yet another open question again.” (“Open Letter to the EMA and European Parliament”, Doctors for Covid Ethics)

Did the drug companies vaccinate the people in the placebo group after the clinical trials in order to conceal the difference in the long-term health outcomes between the two groups?

That is the conclusion a rational person would make.

So, they nuked the trials?

Yes.

Did the FDA largely shrug-off its regulatory duties and abandon its normal standards and protocols because

a– It wanted to rush the Covid vaccines into service as rapidly as possible?
b– It knew the Covid-19 vaccine would never meet long-term safety standards?

We don’t know yet, but the adverse events report strongly suggests that the Covid-19 vaccine is hands-down the most dangerous vaccine in history.

Is the FDA rushing the “boosters” without proper testing?

Yes, it is. Here’s a clip from author Alex Berenson’s latest at Substack:

“Pfizer basically hasn’t bothered to test the booster AT ALL in the people actually at risk – it conducted a single “Phase 1” trial that covered 12 people over 65. The main Phase 2/3 booster trial (beware efforts to cover multiple “phases” of drug research at once, you want it bad you get it bad) included no one over 55.

No one.

As in NONE.” (“Are you kidding me, Pfizer, volume 1 gazillion”, Alex Berenson, Substack)

Have the boosters been modified or improved to meet the changes in Delta variant?

No.

Is there any additional risk in taking a booster-shot after already taking two experimental gene-based vaccines in less than a year?

Considerable risk. Here’s more from the Doctors for Covid Ethics:

“Given that booster shots repeatedly boost the immune response to the spike protein, they will progressively boost self-to-self immune attack, including boosting complement-mediated damage to vessel walls.

Clinically speaking, the greater the vessel leakage and clotting that subsequently occurs, the more likely that organs supplied by the affected blood flow will sustain damage. From stroke to heart attack to brain vein thrombosis, the symptoms can range from death to headaches, nausea and vomiting, all of which heavily populate adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.

As well as damage from leakage and clotting alone, it is additionally possible that the vaccine itself may leak into surrounding organs and tissues. Should this take place, the cells of those organs will themselves begin to produce spike protein, and will come under attack in the same way as the vessel walls. Damage to major organs such as the lungs, ovaries, placenta and heart can be expected ensue, with increasing severity and frequency as booster shots are rolled out.” (“Open Letter to the EMA and European Parliament“, Doctors for Covid Ethics)

So, it’s the double-whammy. On the one hand, the booster will perform largely like the original vaccine, penetrating cells and forcing them to produce spike protein which, in turn, generates blood clots and leaky blood vessels.

And, on the other, the newly-produced S proteins trigger a damaging immune response in which the complement system attacks and destroys the cells that line the inside of the blood vessels. Every additional booster will intensify this process weakening the vascular system and increasing the clotting. If the Doctors are correct in their analysis, then we could see a sharp uptick in all-cause mortality in the heavily-vaccinated countries in less than a year. Cardiac arrests are already rising.

Here’s another question that’s worth mulling over: Was there any reason for the regulators at the FDA to think that these problems would not arise following the launching of the vaccine campaign?

No. They should have known there would be problems as soon as they saw that the vaccine did not stay in the shoulder as it was supposed to. The vaccine wasn’t supposed to enter the bloodstream and spread across the body leaving billions of spike proteins in its wake. (The spike protein is a cytotoxin, a cell killer. It is not an appropriate antigen for stimulating an immune response. It is a potentially-lethal pathogen that poses a threat to one’s health even if it is separated from the virus.) Nor was the vaccine supposed to trigger Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE)which is the condition we hinted at above when referring to “vaccine-associated enhanced disease”. Here’s a brief explanation:

“ADE has proven to be a serious challenge with coronavirus vaccines, and this is the primary reason many have failed in early in-vitro or animal trials. For example, rhesus macaques who were vaccinated with the Spike protein of the SARS-CoV virus demonstrated severe acute lung injury when challenged with SARS-CoV, while monkeys who were not vaccinated did not. Similarly, mice who were immunized with one of four different SARS-CoV vaccines showed histopathological changes in the lungs with eosinophil infiltration after being challenged with SARS-CoV virus. This did not occur in the controls that had not been vaccinated. A similar problem occurred in the development of a vaccine for FIPV, which is a feline coronavirus.” (“Is the Coronavirus Vaccine a Ticking-Time Bomb?”, Science with Dr. Doug)

Is this what we are seeing right now? In all the countries that launched mass-vaccination campaigns early (Israel, Iceland, Scotland, Gibraltar and UK) cases, hospitalizations and deaths are rising faster in the vaccinated portion of the population than the unvaccinated. Why?

Are they really experiencing a fourth or fifth wave or have the vaccines generated “inactivity-enhancing” antibodies that make the disease worse? This 2-minute video helps to clarify what’s going on:

Vaccines are made to a specific variant. And when that variant mutates, the vaccine no longer recognizes it. It’s like you are seeing a completely new virus. And, because that is so, you actually get more severe symptoms when you are vaccinated against one variant and it mutates and then your body sees the other variant. The science shows, that if you get vaccinated in multiple years (for the flu), you are more likely to get severe disease, you are more likely to get viral replication, and you are more likely to be hospitalized…. We are seeing the same thing in Covid with the Delta variant. So we are actually mandating that people get a vaccine when they can actually get more sick when they are exposed to the virus...In fact, this week, a paper came out that showed that–with the Delta variant– when you are vaccinated your body is supposed to make antibodies that neutralize the virus, but they were supposed to neutralize the old variant. When they see this new variant, the antibodies take the virus and help it infect the cells.” (“Expert testimony on mandatory vaccinations”, Dr Christina Parks PhD., Rumble, start at minute 5:05)

Repeat: “If you get vaccinated in multiple years, you are more likely to get severe disease, you are more likely to get viral replication, and you are more likely to be hospitalized…. With the Delta variant– when you are vaccinated …. the antibodies take the virus and help it infect the cells.”

This is ADE, and this is probably why hospitalizations and deaths are rising among the vaccinated in Israel, UK and the rest. True, the Delta variant is less lethal than the Wuhan virus but, unfortunately, that rule does not apply to those who have been vaccinated and whose antibodies promote the uptake of the virus into their cells. This increases the viral replication function that increases the severity of the disease. In short, people are getting sicker because they were vaccinated. Here’s another short video that helps to explain:

“…The vaccine-induced antibodies will stand up against the virus. and once a virus is under pressure; it changes, it becomes a variant, and the variant cannot be stopped by vaccine-induced antibodies.Vaccine-induced antibodies. also shut down your innate immune system… so variants can come straight through and infect those that are vaccinated. That is viral immune escape, and that means that the vaccinated are defenseless against variants. This is no longer a pandemic of Covid-19. It is a pandemic of variants…

And there is something called recombination, and recombination means a vaccinated host can be infected by more than one variant at a time. …If a vaccinated host is co-infected by more than one variant, the variants will mix DNA, and change and camouflage and produce a super variant. And if a super variants are produced, nothing can stop them. And already they are saying that the latest variant to come out is vaccine resistant. And this is just the beginning. Dr Geert Vanden Bosche warns that if we do not immediately stop mass vaccination campaigns around the world, the world will experience an international catastrophe of mass mortality. I didn’t say that, he did. The vaccinated are a threat to us all.” (“Viral Immune Escape Explained”, Dr. Michael McDowell, Rumble)

It’s not the variant that intensifies the disease, it’s the fact that the vaccine targets one narrow endpoint, the spike protein, that gradually adapts to survive. As the virus progressively learns to avoid the vaccine, vaccine-induced immunity wanes. Natural immunity produces broad, robust immunity to the whole virus not merely one part of it. It is strong and enduring.

So how will the vaccinated fight new forms of the virus, after all, the vaccine is not a medicine that overpowers a particular pathogen. It is a subtle (genetic) reprogramming of the immune system that forces one’s cells to produce a particular version of the spike protein. Boosters that stimulate production of the same protein will have only modest impact. In short, boosters are still fighting the last war.

Also, as we mentioned above, coronavirus vaccines tend to create antibodies that “enhance infectivity” when they encounter adapted forms of the virus. That means that millions of inoculated people will now face forms of the virus for which they have almost no protection and for which their compromised immune systems can only provide limited help. Here’s more from the article above:

“Right now, the fatality rate of the virus is estimated to be approximately 0.26%, and this number seems to be dropping as the virus is naturally attenuating itself through the population. It would be a great shame to vaccinate the entire population against a virus with this low of a fatality rate, especially considering the considerable risk presented by ADE. I believe t his risk of developing ADE in a vaccinated individual will be much greater than 0.26%, and, therefore, the vaccine stands to make the problem worse, not better. It would be the biggest blunder of the century to see the fatality rate of this virus increase in the years to come because of our sloppy, haphazard, rushed efforts to develop a vaccine with such a low threshold of safety testing and the prospect of ADE lurking in the shadows.” (“Is the Coronavirus Vaccine a Ticking-Time Bomb?”, Science with Dr. Doug)

“Blunder”, he says?

It wasn’t a blunder. It was deliberate. The Covid-19 vaccine was supposed to fail like all the coronavirus vaccines before it. That’s the point. That’s why the drug companies skipped the animal testing and long-term safety trials. That’s why the FDA rushed it through the regulatory process and suppressed the other life-saving medications, and silenced all critics of the policy, and pushed for universal vaccination regardless of the risks of blood clotting, cardiac arrest, stroke and death. And that’s why the world is on the threshold of an “international catastrophe of mass mortality.” It’s because that’s how the strategy was planned from the very beginning.

The vaccine isn’t supposed to work, it’s supposed to make things worse. And it has! It’s increased the susceptibility of millions of people to severe illness and death. That’s what it’s done. It’s a stealth weapon in an entirely new kind of war; a war aimed at restructuring the global order and establishing absolute social control. Those are the real objectives. It has nothing to do pandemics or viral contagion. It’s about power and politics. That’s all.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

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

Featured image is from The Unz Review

What is Agenda ID2020?

Behind its development is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – with support of the Rockefeller Foundation – and others belonging to the sinister all-digitization, depopulation and eugenics agenda. 

It is an alliance of public-private partners, including UN agencies and civil society.

It’s an electronic ID-program that uses generalized vaccination against Covid-19 as a platform for digital identity.

It is an all-electronic ID – linking everything to everything of each individual (records of health, criminal, banking, personal and private, etc.), being managed by a state agency or in extremis, by the private sector. – Imagine – an insurance company or bank handling your private records, converted into an electronic and eventually “chipped” ID.

Privatization of your personal records may sound far-fetched, but the Swiss government tried to get a privatized Agenda ID2020 quietly past the people. But the people found out and launched a referendum against Agenda ID2020. The idea was rejected with a margin of 2:1 in July 2021. 

 

Click here to link to bitchute version

bitchute.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Towards Digital Tyranny. # Say No to the Covid Vaccine Passport

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

While the jury is still out on who committed the attacks against U.S. officials, or even whether there were any attacks at all, directed energy weapons certainly do exist. Havana Syndrome might be science fiction, but directed energy weapons are very much science fact. 

It started in 2016. U.S. officials in Havana, Cuba, began complaining en masse about hearing strange noises, suffering recurring headaches, nausea, hearing and memory loss. From there it spread around the world, with hundreds of U.S. spies and diplomats in the United Kingdom, Colombia, China, Uzbekistan, Germany, Austria, and in Washington itself reporting similar symptoms. Very little about the cases — even the identities of those involved — can be verified. Nevertheless, the story has become a media sensation, appearing on front pages the world over, with journalists speculating that futuristic microwave weapons are the culprit, likely wielded by devious Russian spies. While the scientific and medical community have cautioned not to jump to conclusions, underlining a number of key flaws in the narrative, the existence of directed energy weapons (DEWs), as they are known, is beyond doubt.

Our men in Havana

Tensions with Cuba are high, the island being the home to many cloak-and-dagger plots both by and against the Cuban government, ever since the revolution of 1959, which marked the Caribbean nation as an enemy of Washington. Officials affected typically report hearing a grating sound coming from a particular direction and experiencing pressure in their heads. Those nearby were not affected. The Cuban government’s vehement denials, as well as their openness in helping the U.S. with their investigations, shifted suspicion away from them in Washington’s eyes, the chief culprit assumed by many to be Vladimir Putin’s Russia, although little public evidence of this exists.

From there, officials around the world began to report similar symptoms. Some, like one CIA agent stationed in Moscow, claim to have been debilitated from it. The Biden administration has taken the reports seriously. “The president and I are committed to getting to the bottom of this,” Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said in June. Later this summer, Vice-President Harris’ official trip to Vietnam was delayed after a suspected outbreak of Havana Syndrome in Hanoi. Earlier this month, Blinken scheduled a meeting with 41 diplomats who have been afflicted.

The news of American agents being secretly targeted has created an ongoing media furor. “CIA analysts who are Russia experts, diplomats and scientists contend that evidence points to Moscow,” wrote The New York Times. “Biden must call out Putin’s secret war against the United States,” demanded The Washington Post’s editorial board. Other big media outlets have peppered their coverage of the Havana Syndrome with pictures of the Kremlin, suggesting an iron-clad link to Moscow.

No smoking microwave gun

There is, however, considerable reason to be skeptical of all this, not least because the CIA showed reluctance to release information about those affected, even to other government departments. Then-Director of the agency Gina Haspel was reportedly unconvinced even that any attacks had occurred, let alone that Russia was responsible. An FBI investigation into the phenomenon concluded that those involved were suffering from a mass psychogenic illness (MPI), a condition where a group of people all suffer from similar conditions at the same time despite there being no logical cause — akin to a mass hysteria. Likewise, the Cuban Academy of Sciences concluded last week that the idea of a microwave attack was “not scientifically acceptable in any of its components,” and has survived largely because of “sensationalist media coverage” and a “biased use of science.”

The Cuban Academy of Sciences blamed the US gov’t and media endorsement of the attack theory in part for the MPI

Furthermore, most of the reports are based on accounts from anonymous agents working in organizations whose job it is to plant false information into the public domain. MintPress contacted a number of officials claiming to have been struck down with Havana Syndrome, including a CIA operative and a former embassy intern, but none responded.

“Nobody has detected microwaves, acoustic waves, etc. that could cause the symptoms. The issue is not resolved nor is it likely to be unless more information is forthcoming,” Kenneth Foster, Professor Emeritus of Bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania, told MintPress, adding:

I have been unable to come up with a plausible exposure scenario where pulsed microwaves could produce the reported effects. So far more than 300 people around the world have reported ‘symptoms’ and it is beyond belief that someone could be beaming microwaves at them at sufficient intensity to produce effects without it being noticed.”

Sergio Della Sala, Professor of Human Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Edinburgh, shared some of Professor Foster’s suspicions. “This story is very interesting, as it enters the realm of widely accepted truth with almost no evidential basis, and it reads as a modern era spy story, with all the elements of mystery and betrayal,” he told MintPress.

Bad science

A 2018 study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) did a great deal to legitimize the theory of a microwave attack. The study found evidence of neurological impairment in a number of diplomats who claimed to be suffering from the mystery ailment. Although it did not determine the cause of the injuries, its main author considers microwaves to be the “main suspect.”

The news elicited a torrent of media coverage. However, the report was littered with poor methodology, as Della Sala and others were quick to point out. Among the most questionable decisions was to qualify anyone scoring below the 40th percentile in various cognitive tests as “impaired.” In plain English, those performing worse than 60% of adults would be labeled as impaired — an extremely generous definition of injury. Despite this, only 28% of those tested scored below this line, considerably fewer than would be expected if participants were simply picked at random. Della Sala commented:

I looked at the data made available. The data do not support the existence of a new syndrome. Anyone assessed using those criteria could [appear to be] pathological, it is a statistical fact. There is no common, homogeneous pattern that distinguishes the patients from the controls. Hence, if there is no syndrome, it is rather vain to [have a discussion] about its potential causes, which could be multifarious.

If people claim to have seen a donkey flying, the discussion ensuing is how would this be possible; however first we would need to ascertain whether it is true that donkeys can fly. There are several cases of similar psychological reactions to stressful events. These potential causes should also be seriously considered.”

Others were even more scathing. Academics from around the world condemned JAMA for dabbling in a “conspiracy theory.” Neuroscience and neurology journal Cortex suggested JAMA retract the article. One paper reviewing the study concluded that the evidence “all points to mass psychogenic illness exacerbated by mundane sounds and Cold War beliefs.” It was later revealed that a peer reviewer of the article had recommended JAMA reject the study owing to its numerous flaws. Why it was published at all remains a mystery, although Della Sala speculated that it might have been “dictated by a political agenda.”

Two years after the JAMA study, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine released a report that suggested the symptoms displayed by U.S. government workers there were consistent with those of exposure to microwave energy, although it very prominently warned that “evidence has been lacking, no hypothesis has been proven and the circumstances remain unclear.” This added more fuel to the public speculation that Russia was secretly attacking us.

Like the JAMA study, the report was also heavily criticized by academics. Alberto Espay, a neurologist from the University of Cincinnati, described it as “the closest equivalent in science to fake news.” Professor Foster was similarly unconvinced, telling MintPress:

As I mention in my article, I have a strong sense that at least some individuals have experienced something real, whatever may have happened to the many other people reporting symptoms. I have been telling the government that they are going down a blind alley with the microwave theory. The government should cast a broader net and not rule out mass psychogenic illness for at least some of the affected individuals, and they should not rule out acoustic weapons.”

Chasing shadows

Mass psychogenic illnesses certainly do happen and are more common than many realize. In 2011, 18 children at a school in Le Roy, NY, spontaneously developed facial tics, muscle spasms and stutters. Four years previously, an MPI event happened in Australia, as more than two dozen schoolgirls in Melbourne began fainting. Going further back, in 1518, hundreds of residents of Strasbourg, then in the Holy Roman Empire, began dancing uncontrollably for days. Some sources even claim many danced themselves to death. The phenomenon of MPIs is believed by experts to be triggered in close-knit groups in situations of sudden or heavy stress. It is not out of the question that embassy staff could fall into that category.

Perhaps an even more relevant example, given the Cold War undertones, is the “Yellow Rain” phenomenon of the 1980s. While patrolling in the area, U.S. forces in southeast Asia noticed a yellow substance on leaves. Immediately fearing the worst, they suspected they had been attacked by chemical weapons, even though no casualties were recorded. Paranoid officials from the State Department promoted the idea, formally accusing the Soviet Union of supplying weapons of mass destruction to Communist forces in the region. The story became a national scandal lasting for much of the early 1980s, only for the U.S. to admit, years later, that the yellow substance on the leaves was actually honey bee feces.

Science fact

While the jury is still out on what happened in Havana, Guangzhou, London and the other locations, there can be no doubt that futuristic directed energy weapons do indeed exist. MintPress spoke with Suzie Dawson, a journalist who has followed DEWs’ development. “It is an open secret” that DEWs exist and are part of militaries around the world,” she said, adding:

WikiLeaks documents from the #HackingTeam releases confirm other publicly available commercial documentation and show that DEWs not only exist but that they have been operationally tested. They have already had a period of rollout and that rollout has been not only to militaries but to domestic police agencies around the world.”

The WikiLeaks documents to which Dawson is referring include a set of 2014 emails from a military market research company that notes that a number of major arms manufacturers — including BAE Systems, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon — are developing DEWs, as well as other nations, including Russia, Israel, China and France.

Wikileaks Direct Energy Weapons

Emails leaked by Wikileaks in 2015 show that a number of weapons makers and governments have active DEW programs

These weapons are already in service with the military. The Office of Naval Research (ONR), an official U.S. government organization, notes that “Navy DEWs include systems that use high energy lasers that emit photons, and high power microwaves that release radiofrequency waves. The U.S. Navy uses DEWs for power projection and integrated defense missions.”

DEWs have a number of advantages over conventional weapons, including their ability to be used quickly, quietly and without being detected. Running primarily on electricity, their firepower is essentially unlimited and they are far cheaper to operate than other weapons.

Office of Naval Research report on DEWs

An image from a declassified 2019 Office of Naval Research report on the state of US Directed Energy Weapons reserach

Navy railguns, for example, use magnetic fields created by high electrical currents and can propel projectiles at over 5,000 miles per hour. “Although it was once an object of imagination, theory, and science fiction, the electromagnetic railgun has finally made the leap from laboratory concept to weapon-grade technology,” the ONR writes, adding that electronic railguns will “play a significant role in the future of the U.S. Navy.” General Atomics and BAE Systems have both already developed railguns for the Navy.

The ONR’s 2019 annual report also reveals that high-powered microwaves (HPM) have been a key area of research for some time. “The U.S. Navy uses HPM to gain and sustain tactical, operational, and strategic advantage in the arena of EM Maneuver Warfare and Integrated Defense for U.S. forces across the full range of military operations, including power projection and integrated defense missions,” it wrote.

Also operational around the world are sophisticated lasers that can concentrate huge amounts of energy on a target, disabling it. These lasers are already effective against ground and air vehicles, including trucks and drones. The Navy has been using laser weaponry to this end since at least 2014.

Russia has certainly developed its own DEWs, with the new MiG-35 fighter jets employing laser weaponry. In 2014, it was widely rumored that a Russian jet had temporarily disabled the U.S.S. Donald Cook, a destroyer patrolling the Black Sea, with some kind of DEW.

China, too, is a world leader in the development of directed energy weapons. At the 2017 International Defense Exhibition and Conference, Chinese companies showed off a 50-70 kilowatt laser named Silent Hunter, capable of directing a beam of energy strong enough to burn out a car’s engine from over a mile away, making it twice as powerful as Lockheed Martin’s ATHENA laser system.

China has unveiled a system that unleashes a torrent of microwave radiation that disables or destroys integrated circuits, giving it the ability to paralyze electronic equipment, including in missiles and vehicles.

The United Kingdom is also heavily investing into DEWs. Last Tuesday, the Ministry of Defence announced a new $100 million contract with Thales and Raytheon U.K. to create similar anti-aircraft and anti-UAV laser weaponry that will be fitted to its ships. “Directed energy weapons are a key element of our future equipment programs and we intend to become a world leader in the research, manufacture and implementation of this next-generation technology,” saidJeremy Quin, the Minister for Defence Procurement. “These technologies have the potential to revolutionize the future battlefield for our Armed Forces, enabling the prosecution of new targets in the land, sea and air domains and allowing commanders to meet mission objectives in new ways,” he added.

Domestic use and abuse

The United Kingdom deployed an American-made Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD), in essence, a sound cannon, during the London 2012 Olympics. Products like LRAD represent a shift from military to domestic usage of directed energy weapons, Dawson noted, explaining:

DEW manufacturers seem to be developing more hand-held versions of what was industrial-scale military weaponry. So they are transitioning from something that was the size of a truck used in Afghanistan or Iraq and turning it into something more like a taser that can be held by a police officer. In fact, the Taser Corporation, as well as other manufacturers of crowd-control weaponry, are listed in the WikiLeaks files as being manufacturers of directed energy weapons.”

LRADs are used at airports to deter wildlife from runways. But they are also commonly used by law enforcement against protestors, such as at Occupy Oakland, the George Floyd protests, and at the 2017 Women’s March.

LRAD focuses a piercing and unbearable noise at those at whom it is pointed, leaving targets dizzy and suffering headaches. It is undoubtedly effective, but also poses a risk to human health. The National Institutes of Health advises that permanent hearing loss can begin when exposed to sounds of more than 85 dB. Yet police LRADs are capable of producing sounds of higher than 150 dB. There are serious concerns that the LRAD will be used liberally and illegally to disperse peaceful demonstrations. This is already happening: in 2017, the city of New York was forced to pay $748,000 to Black Lives Matter protestors targeted with LRAD. The NYPD suspended its use.

Other DEWs intended for domestic use are a working heat-ray gun called the Active Denial System, which fires a high-energy beam heating human skin to an unbearable temperature. Volunteers describe it as like being blasted by an oven and producing an instant “goodbye effect” — an overwhelming need to escape the beam immediately.

Cold War 2.0?

There was a time not so long ago when Russia was considered almost an ally of the United States. Just 10 years ago, a majority of Americans held positive opinions toward the world’s largest country by land area. During the 2012 presidential elections, Barack Obama mocked his opponent Mitt Romney’s assertion that Russia was the United States’ number one geopolitical enemy. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back… the Cold War has been over for 20 years,” Obama said, to great public approval.

But after the 2016 election, in which Democrats accused Vladimir Putin of interfering to help Donald Trump, public opinion quickly plummeted, to the point where views on Russia have hit historic lows, lower even than during the Cold War.

For its part, NATO continues to encroach closer and closer towards Russia, with the United States taking the lead in supporting the Euromaidan Revolution in 2014, which Moscow sees as little more than a Western takeover of Ukraine.

Relations with Cuba, too, have gone downhill in recent years. The Trump administration increased sanctions against the island — already estimated by the United Nations to have caused $1.1 trillion worth of damage by 2014 — blocking remittances from the United States. This, added to the COVID-induced tourism collapse, has greatly affected the local economy, leading to shortages and unemployment. This economic dislocation was a factor in the recent protests on the island, protests that were immediately supported and signal-boosted by the Biden administration.

It has become, once again, a world in which weapons like DEWs seem to have a logical, if not inevitable, place. And while the jury is still out on who committed the attacks against U.S. officials, or even whether there were any attacks at all, directed energy weapons certainly do exist, and not just in prototype form. Havana Syndrome might be science fiction, but directed energy weapons are very much science fact.

*

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

Alan MacLeod is Senior Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, as well as a number of academic articles. He has also contributed to FAIR.orgThe GuardianSalonThe GrayzoneJacobin Magazine, and Common Dreams.

Featured image: US Navy personnel operate a Directed Energy Weapon aboard the USS Ponce during an operational demonstration in the Persian Gulf in 2014. Photo | DVIDS

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The CDC (the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) was born, just like the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), as an important regulatory agency of the United States government. The intent of the legislation that authorized both watchdog groups was to regulate various corrupt and monopoly-seeking for-profit healthcare-related industries that could harm the health of the populace that are otherwise powerless to protect themselves from the dangerous practices of powerful healthcare-related industries.  

Tragically, over the past few generations (most significantly starting with the presidency of the pro-Big Business, pro-Big Pharma Ronald Reagan), both the CDC and the FDA have been seriously co-opted by the Big Pharma Corporations, their Big Bank lenders and investors and the ubiquitous corporate lobbying groups that propagandize our legislators in DC.

Simultaneously, the CDC and FDA have abandoned their original mission of protecting the people from the inevitable adverse consequences of pharmaceutical greed and the toxic and often addictive products that they manufacture and profitably market, which results in the production of even more polluting by-products that then additionally sicken the victims who took the drugs or vaccines in the first place.

The multimillionaire owners, investors, lobbying groups and think tanks of corporate America have become grotesquely wealthy – and powerful – because of their investments in the multitude of highly profitable anti-democratic (non-elected) entities that over-charge for the drugs and vaccines. The toxic adverse side effects include adverse drug-drug and vaccine-vaccine interactions, which are actually iatrogenic disorders (= doctor- or drug-caused).

The control that those corporate entities have acquired is easily seen in the day-to-day activities of America’s corporate-infiltrated White House, Congress and Supreme Court, each of which is doing the biding of whatever entities are currently profiting from Wall Street’s and War Street’s often secret agendas.

There should be no surprise as to why many governmental entities, many of our regulatory agencies, Big Pharma, Big Vaccine, Wall Street, etc have lost credibility with awakened citizens. But in this column, I have focused on the CDC, which buys and sells 4 billion dollars-worth of vaccines every year from their cronies in the Big Vaccine corporations. The CDC also, it must be pointed out, owns 56 vaccine-related patents that are projected to make the CDC’s elites a lot of money in the future, much of which will be used for the lavish bonuses for the higher-ups. And the FDA is not much cleaner. Conflicts of interest are everywhere.

The CDC is no longer an un-biased entity that protects the citizenry from sociopathic corporations. As a matter of fact, the CDC actually acts just like a corporation. A good example is the annual push by the CDC to get everybody in American to get their flu shots despite the powerful (and censored-out) evidence that influenza vaccines can be seriously harmful while offering little or no benefit.

What follows is a critique of what has become an institution in corporate-controlled America: The unconscious acceptance of annual flu shots. 

Definitions

  • Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is the percentage reduction of disease outcomes in a vaccinated group of people compared to an unvaccinated group, using the most favorable conditions. It is best measured using double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled trials, which are rarely done. A VE of 60% means that a vaccinated group of people has a 60% Relative Risk Reduction (see definition immediately below) of a given outcome compared to an unvaccinated group.
  • Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) is a deceptive statistic that is commonly-used by Big Pharma and the CDC to over-estimate the reduction in risk or outcome for a treatment group when compared to an untreated control group (ideally a placebo-controlled group). RRR is commonly a gross exaggeration of the actual effectiveness of a drug or vaccine and is therefore favored by entities that want to promote a drug or vaccine by exaggerating its efficacy. The more useful Absolute Risk Reduction statistic (see below) is essentially never used in medical journal reporting, perhaps because it more accurately describes the weaknesses, adverse effects, risks and failures of any treatment modality.
  • Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) signifies the absolute or actual difference in the reduction in risk between an untreated group and a group of treated individuals. The importance in being able to understand the difference between RRR and ARR is well illustrated in the Merck Fosamax Fraud case described further below.
  • The Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNV) is the number of individuals that must be vaccinated for an expected benefit to be attained in one individual.

Some examples of NNV are listed below.

  • The Number Needed to Treat (NNT) is the number of individuals that must be treated with a drug, vaccine or surgery that results in a measurable benefit to one individual. It is the inverse of ARR. The larger the NNV (or NNT) is, the more useless is the treatment.

Examples of NNV and NNT Statistics

A Cochrane Review publication from 2018, states: 71 healthy adults would have to be vaccinated with a flu shot to prevent one case of influenza. (NNV = 71)

Another example of NNV comes from a Pediatrics journal article from 2007: “Between 4255 and 6897 children ages 24–59 months of age would have to be vaccinated for influenza to prevent one hospitalization.” (NNV = A number between 4255 and 6807)

“6000 to 32,000 hospital workers would need to be vaccinated with the flu shot before a single patient death would be averted.”(NNV = A number between 6,000 and 32,000 for hospital healthcare workers to prevent one patient from dying because of influenza contagion from an un-vaccinated worker) See this.

“33,784 – 38,610 infants would need to be vaccinated with the Group B meningococcal vaccine in order to prevent one case of invasive Group B meningococcal disease.” (NNV for Group B Meningococcal Vaccine = >33,000) – From BMC Infect Dis, 12 (1) (2012), p. 202

And from a 2007 UCLA publication: 231 adults 70 years of age or older would have to be vaccinated for shingles to prevent 1 case of Herpes Zoster.” (NNV = 231)

“The NNV for Prevnar-13 to prevent one case of invasive pneumonia in low-risk asthmatic adults is estimated to be as high as 1059.” (NNV = 1059 for Prevnar-13 to prevent one case of invasive pneumonia) — See this

“Assuming that Gardasil procures lifelong protection and that its vaccine efficacy is 95% (both irrationally over-optimistic assumptions!), and if vaccine protection is assumed to wane at 3% per year (also an over-optimistic assumption), the predicted NNV would increase to 9,080. In other words, one would have to vaccinate and give booster Gardasil shots regularly to 9,080 girls to prevent one case of cervical cancer).” One of the conclusions of a Canadian Medical Association Journal article (3 of the authors actually had financial conflicts of interest with Gardasil’s maker, Merck & Co. From here

Common experience will understand that “The NNT for treating penicillin-sensitive streptococcal pharyngitis with penicillin is 1, and the NNT for any treatment that only cures half of the patients is 2.”

A Cochrane Review from 2011 states: “104 patients would have to take a statin drug for 5 years to prevent one heart attack.” (NNT = 104)

“To spare one person a heart attack, 100 people had to take Lipitor for more than three years, and for every 10 patients taking a statin drug for 5 years, one of them will develop statin-induced myonecrosis.” (NNT = 100 for Lipitor to prevent one heart attack after taking the drug continuously for > 3 years. (Number Needed to Harm [NNH] = 10, for patients who take a statin for 5 years.)from here)

“There are only 30 to 40 cervical cancer cases per year per one million women between the ages of 9 and 26. Therefore, you would have to vaccinate (with Gardasil) one million girls to prevent cervical cancer in 4 to 5 girls; and since only 1/3 of women who develop cervical cancer actually die from the disease, you would have to vaccinate one million girls to prevent 1 to 2 deaths per year – at the “bargain-basement price” of $360 million per year.” – Dr Joseph Mercola

“I predict that Merck’s Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all time because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profits for the manufacturers. Gardasil is useless and dangerous, and it costs a fortune!” — Dr Bernard Dalbergue (former Merck employee)

For more on understanding how Big Pharma and Big Medicine use deception in reporting statistics, go to this site.

Misuse of Medical Statistics by Researchers that also have Financial Conflicts of Interest  

In 2009 GlaxoSmithKline’s package insert for its influenza vaccine Flulaval read (in fine print): “not adequately demonstrated to decrease influenza”.

In a more recent Flulaval package insert, that sentence has been removed. The statement now reads: “Vaccination with FLULAVAL QUADRIVALENT may not protect all susceptible individuals.”

On June 22, 2017 a New England Journal of Medicine article was published. The article was about a new influenza vaccine (Flublok) that was developed and manufactured by a privately-held vaccine corporation called Protein Sciences. The new vaccine was compared only with standard flu vaccines and not to an unvaccinated group.

The article claimed that the new influenza vaccine had a 40% improvement in “vaccine effectiveness” compared to standard flu vaccines. However, hidden in the deceptive abstract – and deliberately NOT pointed out – were these figures:

96 of the 4303 study participants (2.2 %) who received the new vaccine still got the flu while 138 of 4301 (3.2%) study participants who received the old vaccine still got the flu, which revealed a miniscule Absolute Risk Reduction of 1% (3.2% – 2.2% = 1%).

But what was reported in the article was a Relative Risk Reduction of 40%, which was calculated by dividing 2.2% by 3.2% (60%). According to the formula for calculating RRR, subtracting the 60% from 100% resulted in a RRR of 40%, which sounded much better for a vaccine whose ARR was 1%. This manipulation appeared to be an attempt to over-state the benefits of the new vaccine.

Significantly, all the authors of the article – listed immediately below – also had serious financial conflicts of interest with the for-profit vaccine industry. Indeed, the three major authors were major shareholders and employees of Protein Sciences.

Here are the financial conflicts of interest of the article’s authors: “Drs. Dunkle, Izikson, and Cox report being employed by and holding stock in Protein Sciences; Dr. Patriarca, receiving consulting fees from Altimmune, FluGen, Georgia Institute of Technology, Medicago, VaxInnate, Vaxart, Vivaldi Biosciences, Moderna Therapeutics, Novavax, Seqirus, and Visterra; and Dr. Goldenthal, receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

It is interesting to note that Protein Sciences was in the process of being acquired by the multinational Big Vaccine giant Sanofi for $750 million as the NEJM article was being published.

Influenza-like Illnesses (ILI) and Influenza are NOT the Same  

Complicating the assessment of flu vaccine’s effectiveness, ineffectiveness or even harmful effects is the fact that “Over 200 viruses can cause Influenza-like Illnesses (ILIs) that can produce the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches, pains, cough, and runny nose) as influenza. Doctors cannot distinguish between them without laboratory tests because both persist for days and rarely cause serious illness or death” – From the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018

ILIs comprise 80% of what most people regard as vaccine-preventable influenza. What the CDC, Big Medicine and the mainstream media call “the flu” is only influenza 20% of the time.

Importantly, ILIs are also NOT vaccine preventable (although they may be caused by vaccines).

Whenever mini-epidemics (aka “outbreaks”) of any contagious viral illness occur, the CDC, Big Pharma, the bribed politicians and the mainstream media are there constantly stirring up irrational public fear in order to promote more over-vaccination programs for themselves and the billionaire investor classes that use their wealth and power to generate even more investment opportunities.

Specific viral diagnostic tests are unreliable or typically not performed by authorities before they make the knee-jerk proclamations that will benefit the pharmaceutical corporations and their wealthy investors. And the corporate-compromised media goes along with the charade by over-reporting the not yet established, unbiased truth about what is happening.

It would be remiss of me to not report on the many iatrogenic illnesses (doctor, drug or vaccine-caused) that can result from any vaccine especially when they are used in untested-for-safety or long-term efficacy cocktails of vaccines that are blindly injected into immune-deficient infants, children or adults.

There are many potentially toxic ingredients in all human and veterinarian vaccines that are known to cause influenza-like symptoms and falsely be labeled as the “flu”. The toxins in these vaccines include mercury, aluminum, live viruses, formaldehyde, Polysorbate 80 (essentially automobile  engine anti-freeze), impurities, etc.

Here is a list of some of the published adverse effects of typical FDA- and CDC-approved influenza vaccines:

  • Headache
  • fever
  • nausea
  • muscle aches
  • weakness
  • Guillain-Barre Syndrome
  • dizziness
  • hoarseness
  • cough
  • shortness of breath
  • wheezing
  • hives and soreness
  • redness and/or
  • swelling at the injection site

How are the Viruses Chosen for Inclusion in Next Fall’s Flu Shots?

One of the most important stories that has been kept from us naïve consumers of vaccines is how the ingredients of America’s annual flu vaccine are chosen. The process involves considerable guesswork.

A committee of the CDC in America (and the WHO in Europe) meets every early spring no matter what happened in the Southern Hemisphere during the previous 6 months. The committees meet to look at the strains of influenza that were most commonly identified in that hemisphere’s “flu season” the year before (Australia’s flu season occurs during the northern hemisphere’s summer season).

The often totally wrong theory is that the flu viruses that infected some Australians or Asian Indians 6 months earlier will be the same ones that Americans might theoretically be facing in the fall and winter months.

Then samples of the 3 or 4 live influenza viruses most likely to be common (out of the over 100 influenza viruses that are known to exist in humans, pigs or birds) will be isolated and mass-produced in Big Vaccine’s chicken egg labs until enough viruses are obtained to be made into vaccines and delivered to those parts of the world that can afford to pay for the shots.

Each batch of viral particles are then killed with formaldehyde, some are mixed with adjuvants, all are mixed with preservatives in the multiple-dose vials and then – with fingers crossed – refrigerated and distributed to paying customers around the world. Of course, there is never any assurance to potential vaccine recipients that the chosen three or four viruses will match what turns up in the northern hemisphere. Indeed, the odds are against any match in any given year.

So, I suppose the lesson to be learned for any given patient, pregnant woman or parent of a vulnerable infant or child is to educate/inform oneself about the potential risks and actual benefits of any vaccine by thoroughly studying the information in the product insert above before going to the clinic (or pharmacy!!) and consenting  to the ”unavoidably unsafe” inoculation.

***

Pertinent Quotes About Seasonal Flu Vaccines 

Here are more important quotes that might help people understand the propaganda power that is regularly exercised by Big Pharma and Big Medicine:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” — Upton Sinclair

“If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been “taken”. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” — Carl Sagan

“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001 – 61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.” – Dr Peter Doshi, from in his 2005 BMJ report, titled, “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?” (BMJ 2005; 331:1412)

“A study by the world-renowned clinical immunologist Dr H. Hugh Fudenberg found that adults vaccinated yearly for five years in a row with the flu vaccine had a 10-fold increased risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease. He attributed this to the mercury in the vaccine. Interestingly, both mercury and aluminum have been shown to activate microglia and increase excitotoxicity in the brain.” — Russell Blaylock, MD

“We already know that the aluminum content of brain tissue in late-onset or sporadic Alzheimer’s disease is significantly higher than what is found in age-matched controls. So, individuals who develop Alzheimer’s disease in their late sixties and older also accumulate more aluminum in their brain tissue than individuals of the same age without the disease.

Even higher levels of aluminum have been found in the brains of individuals, diagnosed with an early-onset form of sporadic Alzheimer’s disease, who have experienced an unusually high exposure to aluminum through the environment (e.g. Camelford) or through their workplace. This means that Alzheimer’s disease has a much earlier age of onset, for example, fifties or early sixties, in individuals who have been exposed to unusually high levels of aluminum in their everyday lives.”Christopher Exley, PhD

“In the field of chemical toxicology it is universally recognized that combinations of toxins may bring exponential increases of toxicity; ie, a combination of two chemicals may bring a 10-fold increase in toxicity, three chemicals 100-fold increases. This same principle almost certainly applies to the immunosuppressive effects of viral vaccines when administered in combination, as with the MMR vaccine, among which the measles vaccine is (known to be) exceptionally immunosuppressive.” – Harold Buttram, MD

“The most lucrative areas of medicine are the most corrupted by financial (and academic) conflicts of interest. So-called ‘authoritative’ sources of medical information are thoroughly corrupted not only by pharmaceutical industry manipulation but also by government officials and financially conflicted academic gatekeepers of medical science, ’expert’ panels, medical journal editors and the largely corrupted vaccine information base.” – Vera Sharav, MD

“For a long time no one considered the effect of repeated vaccinations on the brain. This was based on a mistaken conclusion that the brain was protected from immune activation by its special protective gateway called the blood-brain barrier. More recent studies have shown that immune cells can enter the brain directly, and more importantly, the brain’s own special immune system can be activated by vaccination.” – Russell Blaylock, MD

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 Gary G. Kohls is a retired American family physician who practiced holistic (non-drug) mental health care during the last decade of his professional career. His patients came to see him asking for help in getting off the psychotropic drugs to which they were addicted and which they knew had sickened them and disabled their brains and bodies. He was successful in helping significant numbers of his patients get off or cut down on their cocktails of drugs using a time-consuming program that was based on psychoeducational psychotherapy, brain nutrient therapy and a program of gradual, closely monitored drug withdrawal.

He warns against the abrupt discontinuation of any psychiatric drug – legal or illicit – because of the common, often serious withdrawal symptoms that can occur in patients who have been taking such drugs. It is important to be treated by an aware, informed physician who is familiar with treating drug withdrawal syndromes and brain nutritional needs.

Dr Kohls lives in Duluth, MN, USA and writes articles that deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, Big Pharma’s psychiatric drugging and over-vaccination agendas, and other movements that threaten the environment, prosperity, democracy, civility and the health and longevity of the planet and the populace.

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

Dr Kohls’ Duty to Warn columns have been archived at a number of websites around the world, including the following:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/gary-g-kohls;

http://freepress.org/geographic-scope/national;

https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/gary-g-kohls/?ptype=article; and

https://www.transcend.org/tms/author/?a=Gary%20G.%20Kohls,%20MD

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/

Featured image is from AdobeStock

The US, UK, Australia (AUKUS) Alliance against France

September 25th, 2021 by Andrew Korybko

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Recently, the US, UK and Australia formed an alliance which has hurt France on many levels.  Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Andrew Korybko to gain insight into the back story of this global headline.

Andrew Korybko is a Moscow-based American political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US grand strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s Belt & Road Initiative, Russia’s balancing act, and Hybrid Warfare.

*

Steven Sahiounie (SS):  Recently, Australia reneged on a deal to buy submarines from France. The US announced that Australia will deploy nuclear-powered submarines. This has infuriated France, and exposed the big differences on how Europe and America intend to confront China. Does this mean that the US is willing to have an ally suffer because of the US cold-war mentality towards China?

Andrew Korybko (AK):  It shows that the US always pursues its interests at others’ expense, including its own allies’. Some like France naively believed that this wasn’t the case due to their leadership’s liberal worldview. They assumed that military allies and those who share similar values would always keep each other in the loop on important matters such as this one. The last thing that France could have expected was that the US would secretly poach an AUS$90 billion submarine deal from it that had previously been described as the “Contract of the Century”.

This reality check exposes the practical limits of the liberal worldview. It proves that the realist one predominates since most countries would prefer to advance their own interests even if this results in backstabbing their allies. This is especially the case when it comes to the US’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”), which formulate policy according to this view. The Americans might also have assumed that their expected problems with France would be manageable.

SS:  France and the European Union prefer to deal with China in a different way than the US. In a policy paper titled the “EU Strategy for Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific.” The bloc said they would pursue multifaceted engagement on issues of common interest. Does this difference in the perception of a threat from China, drive a wedge between the EU and this new alliance of the US, UK and Australia?

AK:  It creates the opportunity for the EU to more pragmatically engage with China than the AUKUS countries do, but only if the bloc has the political will to act as a united actor in this respect, which remains to be seen. Some countries like Lithuania have tried to sabotage the EU’s China policy. It therefore can’t be taken for granted that the referenced policy paper will result in the expected outcomes. More than likely, it’ll probably be the case that select EU countries take the lead in pragmatically engaging with China.

It’s here where France could send a strong message to the US by defying America’s expectation mentioned in the first answer above that their problems over AUKUS would ultimately be manageable. The Western European Great Power has an historical tradition of behaving independently and could therefore snub its ally by improving ties with China in defiance of Washington’s demands. It won’t outright obstruct the AUKUS countries’ containment of China, but it could complicate this overall policy if it becomes China’s preferred EU partner.

Of course, this possibility also requires political will since it would severely worsen relations with the US and potentially lead to unpredictable consequences such as a competition between them for “spheres of influence” in Africa for example, but France would nevertheless do well to consider the strategic benefits. Going along with the West’s general trend of hostility towards China would lead to France being just another American-influenced country, but it could really set itself apart by breaking this trend and actively engaging China instead.

SS:  European leaders, and especially the French, have compared President Biden to former President Trump who had a disdain for allies. There has been some talk before, and renewed now, of developing a EU military capability independent of the US. In your opinion, do you think the EU would consider this?

AK:   AKAUKUS provides a convenient pretext for the EU’s de facto French-German duopoly to move forward with those plans, but they might not be as successful as some expect. The primary challenges concern financing, logistics, management, and redundancy with NATO. This initiative will cost a fortune and not every EU country will want to equally contribute to it, especially some of the Central & Eastern European (CEE) like Poland and its Baltic allies which presently prefer to rely on American military support for containing Russia.

Those countries, particularly Poland under its ruling conservative-nationalist party, also fear German domination of their affairs and could therefore work to either undermine this proposed military structure or just voluntarily keep themselves out of it. In their view, everything that they need is already being provided by NATO so it doesn’t make sense to them to invest in completely new logistics chains at the possible expense of putting themselves under Berlin’s indirect control any more than they already are by being EU members.

With these challenges in mind, the proposed EU Army would likely remain mostly a French-German project if it ever gets off the ground. Those countries would also be compelled to subsidize the costs for those other members who want to participate. The main question remains, though, and it’s whether this force would truly be independent of the US. Even though it wouldn’t be managed by America, it could still end up doing its bidding by “sharing the burden” of intervention in regional conflicts where the two share similar interests.

SS:  The US has singled out China as a main threat. The US has supported the Hong Kong protesters, the Taiwan weapon deals, and the Uyghurs (Turkistan Islamic Party). Trump waged an economic war onn China. How has China countered the US aggression?

AK:  China used legal means to contain the US’ Hybrid War threats on the mainland. These include passing national security legislation in the Hong Kong Special Autonomous Region. It also continued its proactive outreach efforts with Xinjiang’s Uyghurs whereby it engages credibly at-risk members of that community by teaching them valuable job skills simultaneously with de-radicalizing them over a period of time. As for rogue island province of Taiwan, China continues to beef up its military defenses in preparing to respond to any possible US-backed provocations from there.

Regarding the trade war, China expanded its regional economic ties through last year’s Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) pact with ASEAN, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea. It also promulgated the new development policy of dual circulation whereby it equally prioritizes the domestic economy and international trade. China also clinched the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) with the EU and continues to invest in Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) projects across the world. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) remains its flagship project but African ones are also very important for China too.

SS:  The Russia- China partnership has the potential to alter the status quo. US policymakers want to split up Moscow and Beijing, but Russians see benefits to closer Sino-Russian ties. In your opinion, how do you see the near future of the Russian and Chinese relationship?

AK:  The US is unlikely to divide Russia from China, but Moscow would also prefer to remain neutral in the New Cold War that’s primarily between the American and Chinese superpowers than to be seen as partisan actor in spite of its close strategic relations with China. Evidence of this policy in practice can be seen by the special and privileged Russian-Indian Strategic Partnership. The Kremlin continues to arm India to the teeth in spite of these weapons being used by its South Asian ally to contain China. Russia also arms China as well so it pursues a balanced policy in this respect when it comes to its “military diplomacy”.

Nevertheless, the point to pay attention to is that Russia is still arming one of China’s rivals despite those two Asian countries being members of BRICS and the SCO. There are also plans to export the Brahmos supersonic missiles that Russia and India jointly produced to the Philippines and possibly other countries like Vietnam that are engaged in fierce territorial disputes with China. Moreover, Russia didn’t take China’s side during last year’s border war with India, preferring instead to remain neutral, which shows the limits of Russian-Chinese ties. All of this confirms that Russia is trying to balance China’s rise.

This shouldn’t be mistaken as containing it though since Russia wouldn’t ever actively join that US-led campaign. Rather, its leadership realizes that their country must balance their strategic ties with China and India, which have emerged as rivals of one another after the US threw its support behind the South Asian state due to their shared intent to contain the People’s Republic. Instead of abandoning its historical ally, Russia is competing with America for its loyalty, which has actually had some success as of late because New Delhi refused to cancel its S-400 air defense contract with Moscow despite Washington’s sanctions threats.

India’s exclusion from AUKUS in spite of its anti-Chinese Quad membership alongside that new alliance’s American and Australian pillars couples with recent complications in its ties with Washington (S-400 sanctions threats, media criticism of India’s internal affairs, the US Navy violating the country’s Exclusive Economic Zone, delayed vaccine support, etc.) to create the opportunity for Russia to influence that country to moderate its hostility against the People’s Republic and possibly consider a future rapprochement with it. That outcome could counteract the US’ exploitation of India as its top Asian anti-Chinese proxy and thus stabilize the region.

As for how all of this relates to Russian-Chinese relations, it shows that the Kremlin hopes to relieve the US’ pressure upon it along the Indian flank through the creative employment of conventional and military diplomacy with New Delhi. The ideal scenario for Moscow is for India to balance China in a friendly/non-hostile way instead of the unfriendly/hostile one that it’s pursuing due to America’s pernicious influence. Russia acknowledges that China and India will likely continue to have unresolved disputes with one another that will naturally provoke a rivalry, but it believes that this can be responsibly managed through its diplomacy.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from MD

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The US, UK, Australia (AUKUS) Alliance against France
  • Tags:

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The scene: a British nuclear submarine. A detective has been sent to investigate the death of a sailor. When she asks the Naval Commander why there needs to be so much secrecy, as Britain is not at war, he responds ‘That is an illusion. We have always been at war’.

The series, entitled ‘Vigil’ is the BBC’s most watched drama of the year, and has been well publicised, attracting an audience of 10.2 million over its first week. It depicts a fight with an illusive, ruthless adversary that successfully manages to infiltrate a UK submarine to ‘knock out Britain’s nuclear deterrent’, killing British citizens in the process. The murder weapon of choice is a nerve agent; can you guess who the enemy is yet?

Of course it’s Russia. Nuclear submarines, nerve agent, a treacherous opponent; from the opening sequence with video footage of Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev projected onto a submarine, the audience is under no illusion as to who this adversary is. Nowadays, the British public almost expects it to be Russia.

For years now the UK population has been schooled on ‘evil Russia’ across all media platforms – from the news to TV dramas to films – with the line between fiction and reality becoming increasingly blurred. One of the most Googled questions about the ‘Vigil’ drama series is ‘is it real?’ This is hardly surprising given the sheer volume of anti-Russian content, with cinema often dramatising real life events and vice versa.

Take the Skripal case, for instance. The apparent poisoning with ‘Novichok’ of the former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter took place just a few months after a British/American TV series ‘Strike Back’ was released, in which a ‘rogue Russian biochemist‘ was working on a substance of the very same name. That was probably the first time that western audiences had ever heard the word ‘Novichok’, and yet, by extraordinary coincidence, it was to appear on our TV screens just a few months later, in the news.  The finger of blame was immediately pointed at Moscow, just as preparations were being made for Russia to host the 2018 world cup. The timing could not have been worse for the Kremlin, and yet it helped Britain considerably in its bid to discredit Russia in its hosting of the sporting event.

TV and cinema being used by governments as instruments to sway and foster public opinion is nothing new. In the book ‘Propaganda and empire: the manipulation of British public opinion, 1880-1960’ John M MacKenzie explores the plethora of ways the British government promoted imperialism throughout the empire’s existence, not only through cinema, but using everything from cigarette cards to school textbooks. During the war, the British Ministry of Information also pumped out films with instructive government messaging under the direction of Humphrey Jennings. These documentaries were more about what to do and what not to do, promoting slogans such as ‘grow your own’ and ‘make do and mend’ to aid the war effort on the home front.

The Nazis however, under the direction of Joseph Goebbels, were even more expert at the propaganda machine. Prior to the outbreak of the Second World War, the Germans sought to make a future military offensive more palatable to the public by commissioning the production of several feature films designed to stir up anti-British sentiment. ‘Traitor’ of 1936, was one particular example of this, depicting the infiltration of foreign agents in a Germans arms factory. Such anti-British films continued to be produced throughout the war, with ‘Germanin’ released in 1943, showing Britain to be a heartless and opportunistic colonial power.

Ominously, the more one analyses the current anti-Russian propaganda campaign in the western media, the more parallels can be found with the German efforts in the run-up to WW2. The seeds that ‘Russian is an enemy’ have been firmly planted in the consciousness of the British and American public for years now, particularly in the last decade, as relations between Russia and the West began to deteriorate. The campaign is unrelenting, like an obsession, and has probably even surpassed the levels of the anti-Soviet propaganda we saw during the 20th century. As Dmitry Polyanskiy, Russia’s Deputy to the UN, tweeted recently:

One could argue that the British government has no relationship to the production of TV dramas. But let’s not forget the BBC is a state broadcaster, with an editorial line, toeing the government line when it comes to foreign policy. We know from some whistleblowers who have spoken out, that shows are approved by people at the top, and management has the authority to approve or ‘kill’ programmes. Former BBC journalist John Sweeney – although himself taking a strong anti-Russian position – wrote about how ‘direct intervention’ from management prevented some of his documentaries from being broadcast, and in a letter to Ofcom he indicated there was politicisation of programming. He suggested that BBC leadership at the time, under Tony Hall, was not interested in anti-Russian programmes. Clearly the stance has changed since Hall left his position in August last year.

The ‘Vigil’ drama obviously had a considerable budget. And its political function is twofold; it highlights the ‘threat’ from Russia, and the question of the Trident’s future in an independent Scotland. By playing up the idea of a real, imminent danger from Russia, it persuades the viewer of the importance of retaining Britain’s nuclear deterrent. As tensions grow between East and West, and Boris Johnson pursues his ‘Global Britain’ strategy, we will no doubt see more programmes emphasising Britain’s military strength countering Russia and let’s not forget, China. Sadly, such manipulation of the population doesn’t encourage understanding between peoples and instead, fosters division and discrimination. At best it is Britain using Russia as a scapegoat to bolster its sense of national pride; at worse, it is laying the groundwork for a future conflict with Russia.

*

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

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

De-Listed Anti-China Terror Group “Rises from the Dead”

September 25th, 2021 by Brian Berletic

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Suspicions were raised when in late 2020 the US de-listed as a terrorist organization the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), sometimes referred to as the Turkestan Islamic Party (TIP).

This was because the US had claimed as its rationale that the ETIM/TIP had not been active for over a decade despite the US itself admitting to striking ETIM/TIP targets in Afghanistan as recently as 2018, just 2 years before the de-listing.

A 2020 Guardian article titled, “US removes shadowy group from terror list blamed by China for attacks,” for example, would note:

In a notice in the Federal Register, which publishes new US laws and rules, the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, said on Friday he was revoking the designation of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) as a “terrorist organization.”

“ETIM was removed from the list because, for more than a decade, there has been no credible evidence that ETIM continues to exist,” a state department spokesperson said.

The US State Department spokesperson’s claim went unchallenged by The Guardian despite the paper itself having written a 2013 article as recently as 7 years ago from the US de-listing of ETIM/TIP titled, “Islamist group claims responsibility for attack on China’s Tiananmen Square,” which reported:

The Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) is the first group to claim responsibility for the attack on 28 October, when a four-wheel drive vehicle ploughed through a group of pedestrians near the iconic square in central Beijing, crashed into a stone bridge and caught fire, killing five people and injuring dozens. Chinese authorities quickly identified the driver as Uighur, a Muslim ethnic minority hailing from Xinjiang, a sparsely populated, restive region in the country’s far north-west.

Not only does the article indicate the US State Department lied in its claim the terrorist organization has been inactive for over a decade, it also illustrates the very real terrorist threat China faces nationwide from Xinjiang-based terrorist organizations.

The US government and the Western media in general have, for years now depicted security policies carried out by Beijing to counter this threat as “genocide.”

ETIM/TIP “Back from the Dead”

Considering all of this it should come as no surprise then when US-based Newsweek published an article in September of this year titled, “Exclusive: Despite China’s Pressure on Taliban, Uyghur Separatists See Opportunity in Afghanistan,” in which the “non-existent” ETIM/TIP’s spokesperson was interviewed by US media.

The article followed on the heels of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, a move that clearly opened the door to a transition from America’s overt military footprint in the Central Asian country to a more covert role in backing militant groups to sow chaos not only within Afghanistan’s borders but far beyond them, including into neighboring China.

The Newsweek article would report:

“The United States is a strong country, it has its own strategy, and we see the withdrawal of the American government today from this war in Afghanistan, which is incurring huge economic losses, as a means of confronting China, who are the enemy of all humanity and religions on the face of the Earth,” a spokesperson for the political office of the Turkestan Islamic Party, commonly known as the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), told Newsweek.

In what appears to be the first remarks by the secretive group to an international media outlet since being removed from a US list of terrorist organizations last year, the Turkestan Islamic Party spokesperson expressed hoped the US military exit last month would be followed by greater pressure against China.

“We believe that the opposition of the United States to China will not only benefit the Turkestan Islamic Party and the people of Turkestan,” the spokesperson said, “but also all mankind.”

Newsweek would also mention US strikes on ETIM/TIP targets in 2018, noting:

For many years, the US included ETIM on its Terrorist Exclusion List, part of Patriot Act measures established after the 9/11 attacks. The Pentagon even targeted the group with airstrikes in Afghanistan up until at least 2018.

The public is expected to believe the US de-listing ETIM/TIP was based on alleged evidence the organization no longer exists, despite the organization clearly continuing to exist and carry out acts of terrorism, and now also openly aligning itself with US foreign policy vis-à-vis China upon its “reemergence.”

The US has similarly de-listed terrorist organizations it sought to use as armed proxies in conflicts against targeted nations. This includes the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) the US used in its proxy war with not only Libya itself in 2011, but after transferring fighters and weapons from North Africa to the Middle East, against Syria as well from 2011 onward.

The US also de-listed the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), a terrorist organization used by the US and its allies to conduct terror operations against the government and people of Iran.

It’s No Secret the US Supports Separatism in Xinjiang, China

The Newsweek article spends much of its space attempting to depict the ETIM/TIP as engaged in a heroic battle for independence against an “oppressive” Chinese occupation. The article claims:

“East Turkestan is the land of the Uyghurs,” the Turkestan Islamic Party spokesperson said. “After the Chinese government occupied our homeland by force, they forced us to leave our homeland because of their oppression against us. The whole world knows that East Turkestan has always been the land of the Uyghurs.”

Only until about midway through the article does Newsweek finally admit:

Beyond China and the UN, an array of nations and international organizations including the European Union, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom consider ETIM to be a terrorist organization.

Indeed, the UN does count ETIM/TIP as a terrorist group and is quoted by Newsweek as noting the organization “poses an immediate threat to the security of China and its people.”

The UN Security Council, on the official UN website in a statement titled, “Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement,” explicitly notes:

The Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) is an organization which has used violence to further its aim of setting up an independent so-called “East Turkistan” within China.

The UNSC statement makes two things abundantly clear. First, the UN, and by extension the majority of the international community, does not recognize the term “East Turkestan,” and instead recognizes the territory as Xinjinang and as part of China.

Second, the UNSC is explicitly designating ETIM/TIP as a terrorist organization that has used violence to further its separatist ambitions.

The term “East Turkestan” is used only by separatists in contradiction to international law and the region’s internationally recognized status as Xinjiang, China.

Therefore it is especially telling to see on the US government’s National Endowment for Democracy’s official website its programs in Xinjiang listed on a page titled, “Xinjiang/East Turkestan (China).”

The organizations listed, including the Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP) and the World Uyghur Congress (WUC) both explicitly refer to Xinjiang, China as “East Turkestan” which they regard as “occupied” by China.

The UHRP describes itself on its website, claiming (emphasis added):

The Uyghur Human Rights Project promotes the rights of the Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslim peoples in East Turkistan, referred to by the Chinese government as the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region…

WUC’s website claims the organization declares an “opposition movement against Chinese occupation of East Turkistan.”

Both organizations are funded by the US government with the UHRP being based in Washington D.C.

The World Uyghur Congress, funded by the US government, was the organization that initiated the so-called “Uyghur Tribunal.” The Uyghur Tribunal’s official website even admits (emphasis added):

In June 2020 Dolkun Isa, President of the World Uyghur Congress formally requested that Sir Geoffrey Nice QC establish and chair an independent people’s tribunal to investigate ‘ongoing atrocities and possible Genocide’ against the Uyghurs, Kazakhs and other Turkic Muslim Populations.

Thus not only is the US clearly promoting separatism in Xinjiang, by directly funding organizations promoting separatism, and not only has the US de-listed ETIM/TIP, an active terrorist organization, making it easier for the organization to allocate funding and travel globally, but it also leveraging its considerable control over global media and international institutions to depict China’s response to this concerted campaign of separatism and terrorism aimed at its territory and people as “genocide.”

In other words, the US in one hand is armed with a sword – “reemerged” ETIM/TIP terrorists keen on joining America’s encirclement and containment of China – and in the other hand, the US holds the shield of “human rights advocacy” to guard against China’s attempts to address this threat.

It is a perpetual irony that the US presumes leadership of a “rules-based international order”  it claims underwrites peace and stability worldwide while simultaneously being the greatest threat to both.

*

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

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from NEO

Afghanistan and Beyond: End U.S. War-Making Everywhere

September 25th, 2021 by Azadeh Shahshahani

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, after 20 years of brutal occupation, should just be the beginning. The United States must also end the disastrous ​War on Terror,” including the bombing campaigns targeting Somalia and Yemen. And it must also put a stop to the brutal sanctions against Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and other countries in the Global South. 

But it’s not enough to merely stop the harm: The United States must also make amends. This means paying reparations to the people of Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries it has invaded and exploited, and providing refuge to any citizens of those countries who are fleeing because of the destruction and destabilization wrought by the United States.

The stakes could not be higher. The full cost of U.S. war-making during the past 20 years is tremendous. The Costs of War, a Brown University Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs project, recently estimated that post‑9/​11 U.S. wars have killed between 897,000 and 929,000 people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and other countries since 2001. The true number may be even higher: One study conducted by Opinion Research Group estimates that more than 1 million Iraqis have died as a result of the Iraq War since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

Bombings

In 2007, former President George W. Bush started the airstrike campaign in Somalia, and since then at least 254 declared U.S. actions have taken place in the country. Airwars, which took over the work of recording airstrikes from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in 2019, estimates that anywhere between 70 to 143 civilian deaths in Somalia are the result of 31 U.S. separate actions between 2007 and 2021, 18 to 21 of those children. U.S. Forces only concede to five of those civilian casualties, the rest of which are either unacknowledged or claimed to be ​unsubstantiated.”

US military in Somalia (Source: Internationalist 360)

The current administration has continued this lethal campaign. On July 20, the U.S. military carried out its first airstrike in Somalia under Biden, followed by another airstrike only three days later, a sign that the undeclared war will continue to take lives.

U.S. ​counterterrorism” operations officially began in Yemen in 2009(although there were other bombings before that), with both the U.S. military and CIA launching airstrikes on the country. Since then, the country has seen possibly over 100 civilian deaths from U.S. airstrikes alone. U.S. forces only concede to 13 civilian deaths, according to Airwars.

However, most civilian casualties in Yemen are the result of Saudi-coalition bombings, which began in 2015 and are backed and supported by U.S. intelligence, as well as weaponry sales. After 23,470 coalition air raids, which consist of multiple individual air strikes, nearly 10,000 people were injured and nearly 9,000 dead as a direct result of the Saudi-led campaign.

In February 2021, Biden announced that the United States would end offensive support in Yemen while also helping Saudi Arabia ​defend its sovereignty” against ​threats from Iranian-supplied forces.” However, the announcement did not come with solid plans shared with Congress, and the Biden administration has failed to share details or plans to distinguish between offensive and defensive aid.

The bombings in Somalia and Yemen are just the tip of the iceberg. Based on official U.S. military data, Airwars concluded that the United States has carried out at least 91,340 airstrikes since 911 in the global ​War on Terror.” The total number of civilian deaths directly attributed to U.S. airstrikes is estimated to be at least 22,679 but could be as high as 48,308. The data is collected from U.S. operations in Afghanistan since 2006, Iraq from 2003 to 2013, Iraq and Syria from 2014 to 2021, Libya since 2012, and a once-secret drone campaign in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. Overall civilian harm is likely higher because of the collateral consequences of U.S. bombings and other military actions in these regions.

Bloated budget

Despite withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, the U.S. war budget continues to expand. The watchdog group Public Citizen notes that the Biden administration actually requested a 1.7% increase in overall military spending — for a whopping $753 billion, an increase that is roughly on par with inflation. While some members of Congress resist high levels of military spending, 14 House Democrats recently sided with Republicans to increase the request by almost $25 billion. The primary justification for more spending is the increasingly confrontational stance toward China.

Sara Kate Baudhuin of Public Citizen recognized that the requested budget for the Department of Defense would be larger than the budget for the Departments of State, Justice, Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency combined. On the topic of defense funding, Brown University’s Costs of War project reported the Pentagon has spent $14 trillion dollars of public funds from 2001to 2021. One-third to one-half of this total went to five weapons companies: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon and Northrup Grumman. Investments in defense stocks are now worth almost 10 times what they were when the war in Afghanistan first started. Public Citizen called this out for what it is, saying that ​The only ​winner” of the Afghanistan war was the military industrial-complex.”

Biden’s proposed budget allocated $15.2 million for a ​Sea-Launched Cruise Missile,” a nuclear weapon Biden himself called a ​bad idea” during his campaign. The plans are a remnant of the Trump administration and, while Biden could have cancelled it, his administration has chosen to maintain the project and add to what Kingston Reif, the director for disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Arms Control Association, describes as the U.S. military’s ​already extensive and growing nuclear arsenal.” The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation calls the projecta costly solution to a nonexistent problem.” It was eliminated by the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

The bloated budget is a continuation of total military spending on the ​War on Terror.” The Institute of Policy Studies reviewed publicly-available Office of Management and Budget data, reporting that the United States has spent $21trillion on foreign and domestic militarization, surveillance, and repression between the federal years of 2002 to 2021.

Global empire

All the while, the United States maintains military bases around the world.

Maps of U.S. military presence are not readily available and many bases are intentionally kept secret. There are also many military affiliated spaces that hold U.S. weaponry, but are not deemed official ​U.S. bases.” David Vine, an anthropologist at American University, said the United States might have ​800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad.”

In 2007, the United States established U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). Since then, U.S. military presence on the continent increased from 2,600personnel to 7,000 by 2019. Military presence through official and unofficial bases spans the continent from coast to coast. The Intercept, citing official Pentagon records, revealed that, as of 2019, there were 29 verifiable bases across 15 different countries or territories within the AFRICOM ​area of responsibility,” which covers all countries across the continent besides Egypt.

In 2017, it was revealed that U.S. commandos were actively engaged in military action, despite AFRICOM’s claims that they were only providing ​advice and assistance.”

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM), which has an ​area of responsibility” spanning most of East Asia and the Pacific Island nations, asked Congress for $27 billion in additional funds between 2022 and 2027. The funds are meant to ​boost deterrence against China,” as Defense News put it, with new missiles, air defenses, radars, supply depots, testing ranges, and more. Communities in the Pacific Ocean are still suffering from the remnants of U.S. military nuclear testing, while the United States is continuing its escalation against China.

The network of overseas bases not only creates a harmful presence, but also actively makes conflict and war more likely. Scholar David Vine, in his book The United States of War, explains that after World War II, the United States has had ​unparalleled military power and an unparalleled global military presence.” Troops are permanently deployed worldwide in strategic locations, ready to further U.S. economic, political and military interests under the threat of violence.

Sanctions

Meanwhile, the United States is continuing to engage in other forms of warfare such as sanctions targeting Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and other countries in the Global South.

U.S. sanctions against Cuba began in the 1960s. In 1992, with the Torricelli Act, U.S. presidents gained the ability to sanction countries that aided Cuba and prohibit foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies from trading with Cuba. In June 2021, a total of 184 countries voted in favor of a resolution to demand the end of the U.S. economic blockade on Cuba — only the United States and Israel voted against. Food and medicine shortages are widespread; this has contributed to the unrest erupting across the country. The island has faced its worst food shortages in 25 years. Cuba’s national food import company, which is vital since it imports 70% to 80% of its food, reported that it lost $45 million because it could not engage in direct transactions with U.S. banks. Even though the United States technically allows the sale of food to Cuba, the tightening of economic sanctions hinders Cuba’s ability to afford adequate food supplies.

U.S. officials often say that humanitarian aid is exempt from the sanctions. However, humanitarian exemptions are not very effective in practice. Even though medicine and medical supplies can technically be licensed for export to Cuba, many restrictions and barriers have resulted in a ​de facto ban on critical medical and other assistance,” a reality taht the American Association for World Health pointed out in 1997 that persists to this day. The conditions governing the licensing process, meanwhile, make export extremely difficult.

Rally in rejection of the U.S. destabilizing plan against Venezuela, 2019. | Photo: Twitter/ @codepink

As for Venezuela, the oil embargo imposed under Trump and maintained under Biden, has been very harmful, since the country receives 90% of its revenue from the oil industry. Like Cuba, Venezuela imports a majority of its food, and the fall in oil production has caused currency devaluation and a contraction of food imports. The reduction in food imports due to sanctions has resulted in the steady worsening of malnourishment over the past six years, with 2.5 million Venezuelans severely food insecure.

The United States has also been imposing economic sanctions on Iran, in varying degrees of extremity, since 1979. In 2018, the Trump administration pulled the United States unilaterally out of the Iran nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and re-imposed what it termed maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran. The administration tacitly admitted that the sanctions were meant to make people suffer to induce protests. Many Trump-era sanctions remain in place.

While U.S. sanctions technically exempt medicine and medical equipment, the fear of secondary sanctions have left many countries that produce Iran’s necessary medicines unable to find banks that are willing to authorize transactions for supplies going to Iran. The most stringent sanctions on Iran’s financial sector have made it nearly impossible to transact in these goods. Even though Iran manufactures 97% of its medicine needs, the 3% that it has traditionally imported include essential treatments for serious diseases like cancer. Covid-19 has also absolutely ravaged the country, with more than 115,000 deaths from February 2020 to mid-September 2021, and Iranian doctors have warned that the sanctions have made the outcomes far worse.

Natasha Hakimi Zapata, writing for In These Times, criticizes the United States for imposing sanctions on two-dozen countries ​from the Balkans to Zimbabwe” as of 2021. Sanctions are a bipartisan project of U.S. imperialism. The Biden administration has maintained the harsh sanctions on Nicaragua, Venezuela, Sudan, and Ukraine from the Trump era, additional sanctions on Cuba, Iran, China, Syria and Russia, and brand-new sanctions on the Balkans, Belarus and Burma.

While the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan is the first necessary step in ending the U.S. legacy of violence, much is yet to be uncovered about the true toll of the U.S. invasion and 20-year-occupation.

Malalai Joya, a women’s rights and human rights activist and former Afghan Parliamentarian, told Democracy Now! in July, ​For years I have called for the withdrawal of the foreign occupation from our country… Now it has been proved for our people, as well, that U.S. and NATO were not honest for them… The blood of Afghan people has no value for them.”

In addition to pursuing refuge for those fleeing for their lives and reparations for the people of Afghanistan as well as Iraq, it is time to end all U.S. wars, shut down all U.S. military bases, and put an end to U.S. militarization and sanctions impacting countless people in the Global South. We need a reinvigorated anti-war movement led by and taking direction from people of color and those who are directly harmed by U.S. wars and militarization. The people of the Global South cannot afford any more U.S. militarization and violence. It is on us to put a stop to 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.

Azadeh Shahshahani is legal and advocacy director at Project South and past president of the National Lawyers Guild. She tweets @ashahshahani.

Featured image is by Xavi | CC BY 2.0

“US Sovereignty”: NATO Takes over Norfolk Naval Base

September 25th, 2021 by Renee Parsons

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Some Americans may be unaware that efforts to create a sovereign country in the New World began a century before our Founding Fathers fought a revolution to give form to that desire.

Without fully understanding its long term implications or its ultimate impact upon the entire planet, the American colonists knew instinctively, as if directed by divine guidance, that in order to free themselves from the strangling yoke of the British Empire, they had the right, the duty to establish their own country based on natural law, to define their own borders, to create their own laws and their own authority.

Little did those Founders of what became the greatest country in the world realize they had birthed the essential concept of national sovereignty as a self-governing ideal for an American Republic which would then become the motivation for many  countries around the world to emulate.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Fast forward two hundred years as US sovereignty is threatened today at multiple levels.  In what may be another chapter in the formation of a New World Government, the question remains how NATO asserted its omnipotent authority to establish a new Atlantic Command at the Norfolk Naval Base with the apparent acquiescence of the US military and Congressional leadership.

Once the largest naval port in the world, significant questions persist about how the Pentagon allowed this travesty against the Republic to occur with what appears to have been a black-out of national media attention, no Congressional scrutiny and no Trump Administration participation. I am still wrapping my mind around how easily the usurpation of an American military facility of such prominence could be so quietly accomplished with such finesse requiring so many accomplices.

Stepping back to May, 2017 newly elected President Donald Trump first met with NATO leaders in Brussels.  He wasted no time by questioning NATO’s relevance and asserting that “Twenty-three of the 28 nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they’re supposed to be paying for their defense,” Trump said. “This is not fair to the people and the taxpayers of the United States.”

In January, 2018, seemingly out of the blue, the city of Norfolk  adopted an ordinance to accept a donation of three traffic signs.  Those signs acknowledged Norfolk as Home to the North American NATO Headquarters.   For some residents that may have come as a shock but city documents reveal that Norfolk has been ‘home’ to the only North American headquarters for the North Atlantic NATO since 1953.  By early 2018, NATO sought to ‘formalize’ the details with the donation and a letter of acceptance.

Yet it was not until six months later in June, 2018 that NATO’s North Atlantic Defense Ministers formally adopted the Alliance’s command structure to establish a new Atlantic Command in Norfolk as the only operational NATO Atlantic Command in North America.  As one of three regionally focused joint, operational-level commands, all Commands would report directly to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe.

In other words, what was once the US Navy’s largest and most sophisticated naval base in the world and on US soil would now be under the command of NATO.  Yet there is no real substantive background to know exactly how the United States agreed to relinquish its historic  naval claim on Norfolk.

As any engaged citizen might ask, where was President Donald Trump when all this was going on in 2018?

By July 2019, NATO’s newest operational command at Norfolk was created as part of the Alliance’s command structure adaptation and serves as the first NATO headquarters dedicated to the Atlantic Ocean since 2003.  Its assigned mission was to protect the Strategic Lines of Communication across all domains, protect sea-lanes between Europe and North America and enable the reinforcement of Europe, as necessary.

On September 17, 2020, six weeks before the 2020 Presidential election, Royal Navy Rear Admiral Andrew Betton, Deputy Commander of the Joint Force Command Norfolk and US Vice Admiral Andrew Lewis, Commander of the Command, cut the ribbon during the Initial Operational Capability ceremony at NATO’s New Norfolk Command Center.  Neither President Trump nor any representative from his Administration were in attendance.

On October 16, 2020, seventeen days before the 2020 election, the City of Norfolk unveiled a new sign at its arrival airport terminal which read “Welcome to Norfolk – NATO’s Home in North  America”. By that date, the US Navy’s base in Norfolk became known as home to both NATO-Allied Command Transformation (ACT) and the Joint Force Command Norfolk (JFC).   Hundreds of civilian and military personnel representing over 30 Member NATO countries had already relocated to Norfolk area.

On May 28, 2021, the North Atlantic Council approved the nomination of General Phillippe Lavigne, French Air and Space Force, as Supreme Allied Commander Transformation at the Norfolk base.

On June 4, 2021, NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg called for more investment from members of the Alliance and adherence to NATO’s 2030 agenda issued in 2020 “making sure [that] NATO remains strong militarily, becomes even stronger politically and takes a ‘more global approach.

On July 15, 2021, with little public fanfare or awareness, the Allied Joint Force Command Norfolk declared its NATO base at Norfolk to be at Full Operational Capability.  During a ceremony on board the USS Kearsarge which was largely a formality since NATO’s presence  achieved initial operational capability in September, 2020 – less than two months prior to the 2020 Presidential election. 

According to Vice Adm. Lewis who leads the US Second Fleet and the JFC Norfolk, its NATO mission is in response to increased Russian submarine activity in the Atlantic, increased military traffic including Chinese warships cruising the Aleutian Islands and an interest in securing the Atlantic Ocean’s sea-lanes between Europe and North America.

Also in attendance on the Kearsarge was Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, now revealed as an insurrectionist,  who gave a twenty minute dissertation during which he never once mentioned the word ‘peace.”  Obviously aware of the imminent NATO-Norfolk union, and as the President’s Chief military advisor, did General Milley ever inform President Trump of NATO’s move to Norfolk or that he would be attending the ceremony to celebrate NATO’s operational status at what was once the US Norfolk Naval Base.

As Milley described it,

“It’s the mission of this command to fight the Battle of the Atlantic in the event of armed conflict, these will be the admirals in charge of a Battle for the Atlantic. … I would tell you that the survival of NATO, the success or failure in combat in a future war in Europe, would largely depend on the success or failure of this command.”

Again, President Trump’s absence is noted and alarming, given that we now know of Milley’s penchant to assume decision-making which he has no authority to assume and without informing his Commander in Chief.   Or was Trump asleep at the wheel or the victim of his own flawed official appointments – too many of whom were less than loyal to their President?

Most importantly, what are the implications of NATO’s Article 5 with its roots now entangled into the American land mass.  Infamous on its own, Article 5 dates back to 1949 and provides that

“..if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.”

The only time Article 5 has ever been invoked was immediately after the 911 attack on the Twin Towers in NYC which potentially could have committed NATO troops to participate in the US-led attack on Afghanistan.

Looking ahead, what role might Article 5 play if the current Covid-vaccination-passport debate  reaches an insoluble threshold within any Member nation or could NATO legitimately claim its Article 5 authority to intercede to protect the peace?

*

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

Renee Parsons served on the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and as president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, staff in the Office of the Colorado State Public Defender, an environmental lobbyist for Friends of the Earth and a staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found at [email protected].

She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: 9 Flattops at Norfolk naval base, December 20, 2012 (Source: Public Domain)

Wanted: A Palestinian Front for All Seasons

September 25th, 2021 by Rima Najjar

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The Palestinian political scene remains bleak. The status quo in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip continues to be backed by the international community at the behest of the the Zionist regime, which is comfortable with having its cake and eating it too, and why shouldn’t it be? In March 2015, then Israeli economy minister Naftali Bennett even proposed the racist status quo as a political platform.

In Ramallah, there are faltering and pathetic “explorations” (most notably through webinars on “Alternatives and Options” organized by Masarat: The Palestinian Center for Policy Research & Strategic Studies).

I call such attempts pathetic, not as a reflection on the organizers themselves, all honorable men — certainly walking a tightrope without a safety net, even if it is academic in nature, is preferable to passive acceptance of the status quo. What I mean is that such challenges to the Palestinian political status quo simply highlight the rabbit hole of our political reality.

In a situation where revolutionary struggle is the only possible logical path to achieving a just resolution in Palestine, we are confronted, as Palestinian writer and activist Khaled Barakat put it in an Al-Akhbar opinion piece recently, with “ignorant traditional leaders who only know one thing about Russia, Mr. Bogdanov, and know little about China other than it is a ‘very important country’ … They are fighting in the name of defending this or that axis, at a time when international and regional [activists] are cooperating at all levels.”

(Conference of the Alternative Palestinian Path): Towards a new revolutionary commitment, Madrid, Spain, October-November 2021 (Source: https://masarbadil.org)

Barakat adds:

“It is unfair to drop our past experience [with liberation struggle] from the reality of the new world, or to invoke old balances of power as if they still existed (as some talk about Russia and China). The easiest thing is to be defeated and live outside the era, outside of action and influence. The easiest thing is to blame others or hand over your cause to them. The easiest thing is to turn into a mouthpiece for an Arab regime or a major country. To be insulted and rejected or applauded and accepted. Ghassan Kanafani says: Nothing is easier than absolute acceptance, except absolute rejection.”

Recently, Nasser Al-Kidwa, President of the National Democratic Forum, participated in a workshop organized by Masarat within the “Alternatives and Options” program mentioned above. He fielded several observations addressed to him, most importantly regarding the mechanism he envisions by which the Forum’s initiative for change would begin to see the light of day in the political arena. His answer was this:

“The starting point for implementing the initiative proposed by the Forum or similar others could begin to happen if Hamas or the Palestinian Authority or one or more of the other smaller blocs such as the Popular Front commits to it.”

He added that the National Democratic Forum has tried but failed to engage any of the blocs in the Forum’s initiative for change.

Masarat continues to invite Palestinian politicians, academics, researchers, activists and youth to express their “views and visions to get out of the current impasse.” If nothing else, such efforts could raise awareness, especially among Palestinian youth trapped in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, that alternatives and options do exist and that our situation is not hopeless in both theory and implementation, as Israeli propaganda would have us believe.

Regarding change, Khaled Barakat’s voice is the clearest and most sobering. In the Al-Akhbar article I quote above titled “Palestine and the conflicted discourse between yesterday and today,” he concludes (my translation):

It is … the siding of Hamas with its people, and the initiation of building a united national front that will make the world reconsider its calculations and force the countries to recognize a new revolutionary Palestinian project.

Armed resistance in the Gaza Strip, led by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, constitutes one of the most important elements of Palestinian power that must be supported, developed, and its comprehensive capabilities strengthened. The movement’s leadership must exert greater effort in establishing relations with liberation movements and popular struggle forces in the world, and not with the “big countries” nor on the basis that it should replace “Fatah” and take its place.

Rather, we need to present a different and opposite model. What is required is to draw on our century-long Palestinian experience and build a united Palestinian national front that catches up with the times and is aware of all the people, all Palestine, and all rights.

We need to drop the Madrid stage — Oslo — and restore consideration to the spirit of Palestine, its identity, its people and its position in the struggle … in accordance with the Palestinian popular will. [We need a front] that charts in depth the new Palestine’s relations with its Arab and international community, a front in which all the people participate and that celebrates political, intellectual and religious pluralism and transforms the project of liberation and return.

There are glimmers of hope that “a different and opposite model” has been emerging — one that de-legitimizes Israel and legitimizes the Palestinian struggle for liberation.

From the beginning, the story of the Zionist state in Palestine has deployed legitimization strategies (in the sense of condoning, licensing, validating and justifying Zionist violence and inhumanity in Palestine), first through political machinations in Great Britain and the US, and then through a relentless campaign of misinformation and propaganda, in my opinion the ultimate and most successful and enduring engine of fake news in the history of the world.

The propaganda strategies the Israeli regime has used to rob Palestinian property and eviscerate their history have always been rooted in legal warfare, as it pertains to international law (Israeli lawyers are still mulling over whether the West Bank and Gaza Strip are occupied or not) and getting Israel’s highest court to quash Palestinians’ attempts to obtain rights or resist their subjugation, however non-violently.

Add to that the charade of military kangaroo courts that Israel uses to make prison a revolving door for Palestinians and that the Palestinian’s own legislative body functions only according to the whim of the occupier, and the picture is complete.

To emerge loudly and fully, a different and opposite model as envisioned by Khaled Barakat above must bypass not only the political control in the western world Israel has managed to exert, but also the legal control that now dominates social media as well as academia through the misapplication of “community standards.” These continue to be blind to the complex political and historical context of the Palestinian struggle for liberation and situate it as an exception to all such struggles in the world.

*

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

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank. 

She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from demilked.com

China in Action: Carbon Neutral by 2050

September 25th, 2021 by Peter Koenig

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

An early priority for China – at least two to three decades back – was to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) output, as well as that of other greenhouse gases, such as methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and some artificial chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), to eventually reach carbon neutrality, meaning, eliminating as much CO2 as is produced, by 2050.

With industrialization and excessive consumption, the output of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has increased rapidly and especially in later years. And this despite repeated pledges during numerous UN-sponsored Environmental Conferences, to reduce the world’s carbon footprint.

Global carbon dioxide levels reached 419 parts per million (ppm) in May 2021, the highest since CO2 output has been measured 63 years ago. Compare this to China’s CO2 output of 409 ppm by 2018.

China is often blamed as being the world’s largest polluter which may be the case in absolute terms, as China also has the world’s largest population. However, putting China’s CO2 output in perspective, on a per capita basis, China ranks only 5th, after Australia, the US, Russia and Germany:

  • Australia: 17.27 tons per capita
  • USA:  15.52 tons p/c
  • Russia: 11.33 tons p/c
  • Germany: 8.52 tons p/c
  • China: 7.38 tons p/c (less than half the US level)
  • India:  1.91 tons p/c

These are 2019 figures.

China’s 14th Five Year Plan (14th FYP), published in March 2021, included 2025 energy and carbon intensity reduction targets, as well as a mid-point non-fossil share target to achieve her nationally determined contributions, or NDC.

At China’s Leaders Climate Summit in April 2021, President Xi Jinping announced that China will strictly control coal generation until 2025 when she will start to gradually phase out of coal.

President Xi just announced at the UN General Assembly in NYC of 2021, that China seizes using coal powered plants as of now.

To understand the concept and the lingo of the different terms and terminologies, let’s back track a bit.

It all began decades ago – with the First United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the ‘Earth Summit’, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 3-14 June 1992. It set the stage for the reduction of greenhouse gases, the most important of which is carbon dioxide.

CO2 emissions are toxic and harmful for the environment and life, when produced in excess.

However, let’s also keep in mind – CO2 is one of the most important gases on earth, because the plants use it to produce carbohydrates in a process called photosynthesis. Since humans and animals depend on plants for food, thus, CO2 is necessary for the survival of life on earth.

In the meantime, there have been numerous climate change conferences around the world, most of them UN-sponsored, the latest one if I’m not wrong, was the Santiago Climate Change Conference, the 25th so-called Conference of the Parties (COP25) of December 2019 — meaning the 25th conference to the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The names of these conferences and their results are often confusing, at times also controversial, especially between the industrialized countries and the so-called developing countries, or the Global South.

A chief reason for potential conflicts is rapid industrialization – excessive consumption, particularly in the West, or the Global North. The output of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has increased rapidly and unequally between the Global North and the Global South. Yet, developing countries are often asked to take similar measure to reduce greenhouse gases, in particular, CO2.

A safe level of CO2 in the air, according to one of the first 21st Century UN Conferences, it may have been the 2009 Copenhagen Conference, was suggested to be 350 ppm. This figure was already exceeded in 1987, reaching, as mentioned before, 419 ppm in May 2021.

Despite COVID, the concentration has not been significantly changed for the better. In some cases, to the contrary.

Despite pledges to the contrary, the main source of energy has changed little in the last 20 years. Hydrocarbons are still king. Today’s world economy still depends on some 84% of hydrocarbons (petrol, gas, coal) of all energy used, as compared to 86% at the turn of the century.

What does carbon neutral mean?

Carbon neutral – the amount of CO₂ emissions put into the atmosphere is the same as the amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere. The impact is neutral. This is not making it actively worse, but it doesn’t make it better either, especially when the average output is above 400 ppm, meaning above the considered “safe” target of 350 ppm.

Carbon negative, or carbon net zero might be a step in the right direction. It means the amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere is bigger than the CO₂ output. The impact is positive; something is actively done to reduce the harm to the atmosphere – and to improve the air for every breathing life.

We have the historical responsibility to urgently cleaning up the atmosphere to eventually get back to the civilized level of 275 ppm.

Since the beginning of human civilization, our atmosphere contained about 275 ppm of carbon dioxide. According to renowned climatologist Dr. James Hansen, these are the conditions under which civilization developed and to which life on earth adapted.  Going beyond this indicator, risks disrupting our global climate system’s 1,000,000+ years of relative stability. Beginning in the 18th century, with the age of industrialization, humans began to burn coal, gas, and oil to produce energy and goods. The carbon in the atmosphere began to rise, at first slowly and, then ever more rapidly.

Many of the activities we do every day, rely on energy sources that emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. We’re redistributing millions and millions of years’ worth of carbon, once stored beneath the earth as fossil fuels, and releasing it into the atmosphere.

Just a thought.

Apologies for this long background. The environmental agenda is very complex.

As to China, China’s Ministry of Environment and Ecology publishes regularly CO2 concentration levels. China’s greenhouse gas emission in 2018 reached 409.4 ppm with an estimated annual growth of 1.3%.

While in full action towards carbon neutrality, China was hosting the 5th Ministerial meeting on Climate Action in April 2021. A virtual event attended by the European Union and Canada, plus ministers and representatives from 35 governments and international organizations, from all the world’s regions.

The meeting aimed at drastically reducing the carbon level in the air, through significant shifts from fossil fuel energy to alternative sources for the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference (COP26), hosted by the UK, from 31 October to 12 November 2021 in Glasgow.

The Glasgow Conference will focus at implementation of the Paris Agreement in a comprehensive, balanced and effective manner, building a fair global climate governance system, equitable and centered on win-win cooperation – with focus on renewable energy, the phase-out of fossil fuels, zero-emissions vehicles, resilience-building, carbon-pricing, green finance, nature-based climate solutions such as afforestation and reforestation, biodiversity conservation, and waste management.

China is already pushing ahead with this agenda.

The Ministers asked for an equitable transition throughout the implementation process. This may include financial, technological and capacity building support to developing countries, especially the poorest and most vulnerable ones. Implementation of the Paris Agreement should also reflect the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances.

China’s ambitious agenda to reach carbon neutrality or better, by 2050, includes …

  • Investing in projects of liquid hydrogen which can be used, for instance, in hydrogen fuel cell automobiles, and Hydrogen metallurgy, a technology that applies hydrogen instead of carbon.
  • Third generation photovoltaic energy with efficiency above 40%, is another sector where China’s world-class development and vast demands may attract global investors.
  • In addition, China has ambitious research projects into generating energy from photosynthesis, the process plants use to transform carbon dioxide and sunlight into energy. It’s an ecosystem’s way of producing fuel at a high level of efficiency (>90%) without polluting residues.
  • Green parks in urban areas and reforestation as well as improved water management, so as to reduce areas of frequent droughts and convert them into green agricultural crop lands.
  • At the same time, China is seeking new alternative energy investments abroad, such as an automotive lithium-ion battery production in Germany – a planned investment of 1.8 billion euros.

And much more….

China is not only on the right track to seek environment-friendly renewable sources of energy, thus, reducing her carbon footprint – but to exceed the 2050 net zero emissions target into a carbon negative project.

China, as in other matters of importance to the world’s societies, just to mention one – poverty alleviation – may be again an example on environmental progress. Towards a human society with shared benefits for all.

*

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

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He is also is a non-resident Sr. Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Featured image is from Food & Water Watch

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The U.S.-led international coalition denied responsibility for a drone attack that allegedly targeted al-Qaeda affiliated Horas al-Din commanders. Sources in Greater Idlib said that the target of the drone strike was either sheikh Abu al-Bar’a al-Tunisi, a leader of al-Qaeda-linked Horas al-Din, or the terrorist group’s military commander Abu Hamzah al-Yamani.

In its turn, Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby claimed the U.S. strike was a success, referring to the data of the Central Command of the US Armed Forces, which recognized responsibility for the strike.

Once again Washington proved its unwillingness to defer to its allies.

This is the first US drone strike to target Syria’s Greater Idlib since President Joe Biden assumed office on January 20.

Horas al-Din was one of the major factions in northeastern Syria, and is one of the main opponents to Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the de facto ruler of Greater Idlib. Last year, HTS carried out a series of security operations against Horas al-Din.

The US strike on Horas al-Din leaders is an important support to HTS – after all, Washington has been attempting to rebrand HTS as a “reformed terrorist” group that could potentially be an ally.

In 2020, a series of drone strikes on Greater Idlib claimed the lives of several senior leaders of Horas al-Din and other al-Qaeda factions. Failed assassination attempts also targeted sheikh Abu al-Bar’a al-Tunisi and Abu Hamzah al-Yamani. They were allegedly carried out by US Special Operations Command.

Meanwhile, the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) continue their airstrike activity over Greater Idlib and don’t deny their involvement.

The strikes targeted positions of al-Qaeda-affiliated HTS in the outskirts of the town of Kansafra in the southern countryside of Idlib.

According to the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a militant of HTS was killed and several others were wounded as a result of the airstrikes.

Russian warplanes have been bombing Greater Idlib for over a month now in response to repeated ceasefire violations by HTS and its allies. Turkey has been an enabler for these continued breaches.

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will visit Russia and meet with President Vladimir Putin on September 29. The situation in Greater Idlib will reportedly be the main topic of the one-day visit.

Recently, a number of reports talked of a near ground operation in Greater Idlib led by the Syrian Arab Army and backed by Russia. Such actions could trigger Ankara’s forces and the factions it backs to move, but currently nothing has taken place.

In an attempt to pursue its interests, on September 22nd, Turkish forces and their proxies carried out an attack on the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). They targeted the village of al-Dibs in the northern countryside of Raqqa.

The attack failed, completely, according to SDF. Bitter from the quick defeat, Ankara’s forces shelled the al-Dibs village and the M4 highway. It is interesting that the M4 highway is frequently patrolled specifically by the Turkish military, and they still shelled 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.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

In the video below, Dr. Bryan Ardis, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg discuss about the COVID-19 pandemic and the inconsistencies in medical authorities’ narratives.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Covid-19, “What are They Doing to These Patients”. Dr. Bryan Ardis, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich

Canadian Election 44: No Mice in the Field of Cats

September 25th, 2021 by Michael Welch

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

“You see, my friends, the trouble wasn’t with the colour of the cat. The trouble was that they were cats. And because they were cats, they naturally looked after cats instead of mice.”

– Tommy Douglas, Mouseland (1944)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

After 36 days and 600 million dollars of organizing, debating, and protesting, Canadian finally voted to power a new Parliament which was virtually identical in number of seats per party to what it was previous to the election.  [2][3]

September 20 2021 results                                        October 21 2019 results

Liberals 159                                                                      Liberals 157

Conservatives 118                                                           Conservatives 121

Bloc Quebecois 33                                                          Bloc Quebecois 32

New Democratic Party 24                                           New Democratic Party 24

Green 2                                                                               Green 3

People’s Party 0                                                               People’s Party 0

In addition there was debate on a number of issues, from the plan to tackle climate change, to child-care programs, to gun registration, to how tough we should be on China, to how we can finally stop the injustices toward Canada’s Indigenous people, to how everyone would tackle another wave of the coronavirus.

With September 20 receding in the background as time moves forward it seems it will be a long time before any of these parties will be seeking another kick at the ballot hat. Which means Parliament will have to proceed with less ambitious and less gutsy legislation as they were able to when they grabbed the helm of a Majority. But how exactly will our House of Commons coordinate its forces as COVID-19 apparently surges, the vaccinations have taken hold of most Canadians, and as the Great Reset is about to introduce the most dramatic changes to our country’s finances and social life then perhaps we have ever experienced?

In this week of post-election denouement, the Global Research News Hour will reflect on the meaning of Canadian politics as it relates to how Canadians can get the kind of policy they really want. As the quote from the Mouseland story quoted above indicates, the elite interests in charge always run these parties in their own interests and run the ordinary woman or man into their own control.

Our first guest, Yves Engler, comments on aspects of our foreign policy that did not get addressed in the election.

He was followed by Ken Stone, an organizer with the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War, who especially focused on the wrongful treatment of Chinese executive and Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou arrested now almost three years at the extradition request of the United States. (A copy of their recent panel discussion can be found below.)

Finally, we are joined by Matthew Ehret to examine some of the history behind the Liberal Party and the way in which certain members of the aristocracy were able to change the party and consequently the entire country.

Yves Engler is one of Canada’s foremost Canadian foreign policy critics and dissidents. He is the author of ten books on Canadian foreign policy including House of Cards: Justin Trudeau’s Foreign Policy (2020), and Canada and Israel: Building Apartheid (2010). His articles have appeared at rabble.ca, canadiandimension.com, and on his own site yvesengler.com.

Ken Stone is a veteran antiwar activist, a former Steering Committee Member of the Canadian Peace Alliance, an executive member of the SyriaSolidarityMovement.org, and treasurer of the Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War [hcsw.ca]. Ken is author of “Defiant Syria”, an e-booklet available at Amazon, iTunes, and Kobo. He lives in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

(Global Research News Hour Episode 325)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.

Notes:

  1. https://ndp.fandom.com/wiki/Story_of_Mouseland
  2. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-votes-2021-election-night-highlights-1.6177106
  3. Official Voting Results (elections.ca); https://elections.ca/res/rep/off/ovr2019app/51/table7E.html
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canadian Election 44: No Mice in the Field of Cats

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Joe Biden both spoke at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on Tuesday. The first-mentioned addressed his audience via video while the second spoke in person. These two world leaders’ speeches couldn’t have been more different, though. President Xi presented a pragmatic and inclusive way for the world to move forward from the pandemic while Biden focused mostly on a hegemonic view of the future. It’s important to elaborate more on their differences.

President Xi’s speech was much shorter than his American counterpart’s. He got straight to the point by drawing attention to four topics: beating COVID-19; revitalizing the global economy; promoting win-win policies in international relations; and improving global governance so that it truly embraces the trend of multilateralism. The Chinese leader’s speech rehashed some of the points that he made last year, but they took on a renewed importance since the pandemic continues to rage and international relations remain uncertain.

Nevertheless, President Xi expressed confidence that the peaceful development of humanity is irreversible. He’s optimistic that a new form of international relations is emerging whereby countries treat one another with mutual respect and prioritize the central role of the United Nations (UN). Furthermore, he’s sure that developing nations will continue to grow and pledged his country’s support for them to this end, including through the sharing of green technologies. President Xi also has no doubt that COVID-19 will be defeated.

By contrast, Biden’s speech was much longer than his Chinese counterparts after clocking in at roughly forty minutes. Like President Xi, he too talked about beating COVID-19 and countering climate change, but only for a minimal portion of his speech. Most of it was about how America intends to shape what he described as this decisive decade by continuing to promote democracy and its conception of human rights, supporting anti-corruption protesters across the world, and ensuring compliance with its envisioned world order.

The aforesaid foresees NATO and the Quad playing larger roles, and Biden promised that the US will call out alleged human rights violations in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Republic, Russia’s Chechen Republic, and other parts of the world. These information warfare attacks as well as his implied criticisms of China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) as corrupt and low-quality infrastructure projects expose his claim of not wanting a new cold war to have been nothing more than a bald-faced lie.

Upon comparing the Chinese and American Presidents’ speeches, it’s clear which one sincerely cares about the world and which cares only for his own country’s interests at everyone else’s expense. President Xi is truly committed to restoring predictability and stability to international relations through China’s promotion of legitimate multilateralism unlike the American model of relying on small cliques of countries obsessed with zero-sum games. Biden, by contrast, is only interested in worsening new cold war tensions on various pretexts.

This tale of two speeches shows just how divergent their respective visions are. Quite naturally, the vast majority of the world will stand in solidarity with President Xi’s views. There’s a genuine desire to move beyond the outdated and counterproductive models of the past in jointly charting a community of shared future for mankind where people rightly become the center of all policymaking. Only those countries that are either terribly misled or under American control will support Biden’s dangerous and selfish games.

UNGA 2021 allowed the whole world to see the differences between China and the US. Only the UN can provide leadership during these uncertain times in accordance with international law, not any individual country or clique thereof. The world must come closer together in pursuit of shared interests connected to their people’s development, not move further apart as a result of self-interested geopolitical games. President Xi’s vision is thus expected to resonate with the global masses while Biden’s will mostly be ignored or ridiculed.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image is from The White House Facebook Page

This Week’s Most Popular Articles

September 24th, 2021 by Global Research News

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

Dr. Mike Yeadon, September 22 , 2021

 

Bombshell: FDA Allows Whistleblower Testimony that COVID-19 Vaccines Are Killing and Harming People!

Brian Shilhavy, September 20 , 2021

 

Video: #Yes, It’s a “Killer Vaccine”: Michel Chossudovsky

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 17 , 2021

 

India State of 241 Million People Declared COVID-free after Government Promotes Ivermectin

Infowars.com, September 20 , 2021

 

Bluetooth Vaccine? Does the Injected COVID “Non-Vaccine” Connect with Devices?

Makia Freeman, September 18 , 2021

 

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

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 16 , 2021

 

Stop the Covid Holocaust! Open Letter

Rabbi Hillel Handler, September 16 , 2021

 

220,000 Military Service Members Say ‘No’ to Biden’s Forced COVID Injections: File Lawsuit Claiming They Already Have Natural Immunity

Leo Hohmann, September 13 , 2021

 

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

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 20 , 2021

 

The Conspiracy Theorists Were Right; It Is a “Poison-Death Shot”

Mike Whitney, September 19 , 2021

 

Video: Funeral Director John O’Looney Blows the Whistle on COVID

John O’Looney, September 19 , 2021

 

The Claim that COVID Jabs Are Safe and Effective Has Fallen Apart. “Forcing Employees to be Stabbed by Covid Jabs”

Prof. Anthony J. Hall, September 21 , 2021

 

Local Detroit TV Asks for Stories of Unvaxxed Dying from COVID – Gets over 180K Responses of Vaccine Injured and Dead Instead

Brian Shilhavy, September 16 , 2021

 

The “Secret Agenda” of the So-called Elite and the COVID mRNA Vaccine. “Reducing World Population”?

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, September 19 , 2021

 

Pfizer Admits Israel Is the Great COVID-19 Vaccine Experiment

Dr. Joseph Mercola, September 21 , 2021

 

Shockingly, CDC Now Lists Vaccinated Deaths as Unvaccinated

Dr. Joseph Mercola, September 15 , 2021

 

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

Xander Nieuws, September 6 , 2021

 

Are These Findings the Death Blow for Vaccine Passports?

Dr. Joseph Mercola, September 17 , 2021

 

More Evidence that They Know the COVID Vaccine Is Killing and Maiming People and Yet They Continue Their Death Program

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, September 22 , 2021

 

The Significance of the Resignations of FDA Officials Responsible for Vaccine Safety

Jeffrey A. Tucker, September 21 , 2021

 

Two Top Virologists’ Frightening Warnings About COVID Injections: Ignored by Government and Big Media

Joel S. Hirschhorn, August 23 , 2021

 

COVID Vaccines Bloody Travesty: From Shots to Clots

Joel S. Hirschhorn, September 20 , 2021

 

Digital Tyranny and the Rockefeller-Gates WHO “Vaxx-Certificate Passport”: Towards a World War III Scenario

Peter Koenig, September 13 , 2021

 

COVID Vaxx Certificates — Borderless Genocide

Peter Koenig, September 20 , 2021

 

Indisputable Science. Diabolical Crimes against Humanity: “I Refuse to be Silent”: Stephen Lendman

Stephen Lendman, September 22 , 2021

 

Video: Vaccine Injuries and Deaths: Whistleblower Exposes VAERS Corruption

Deborah Conrad, September 21 , 2021

 

Diagnostic Lab Certified Pathologist Reports 20 Times Increase of Cancer in Vaccinated Patients

Great Game India, September 21 , 2021

 

Covid Cases Fall in the Least Vaccinated Countries

Rodney Atkinson, September 22 , 2021

 

Political Commentator Kim Iversen Unpacks ‘Alarming and Shocking’ COVID Data from Israel

Children’s Health Defense, September 20 , 2021

 

Oregon Senators File Formal Grand Jury Petition Calling for Investigation into CDC’s Willful Misconduct to Hyperinflate COVID-19 Data Following Federal Law Violations

Stand for Health Freedom, September 17 , 2021

 

The Covid Outbreak: “Biggest Health Scam of the 21st Century.” Report by 1500 Health Professionals

United Health Professionals, September 19 , 2021

 

The Great Reset: Population Control and the Plotting of a “Managerial Revolution”

Cynthia Chung, September 21 , 2021

 

Thousands of Fetal Deaths and Injuries Now Reported Following COVID-19 Injections of Pregnant Women

Brian Shilhavy, September 22 , 2021

 

The “Killer Vaccine” Worldwide. 7.9 Billion People

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 24 , 2021

 

Pulmonary Nurse of 31 Years Testifies How He Followed the COVID Protocols, Unknowingly that They Could Result in the Deaths of Patients

Brian Shilhavy, September 23 , 2021

 

Twilight’s Last Gleaming. Biden’s So-called Vaccine Mandates. Judge Napolitano

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, September 16 , 2021

 

A Letter to the Unvaccinated

Dr. Angela Durante, September 19 , 2021

 

31 Reasons Why I Won’t Take the Vaccine

Rabbi Chananya Weissman, September 19 , 2021

 

Conquered by a Fake Pandemic, We Can Kiss America Good-bye

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, September 20 , 2021

 

Video: Towards Digital Tyranny. # Say No to the Covid Vaccine Passport

Peter Koenig, September 18 , 2021

 

Is Gene Editing the New Name for Eugenics? “Enter Bill Gates”

F. William Engdahl, September 19 , 2021

 

Perspective on the Covid Pandemic. Somebody is Lying through their Teeth.

Jeff Harris, September 21 , 2021

 

Video: Why Vaccine Passports Are Illegal in Canada

Nicholas Wansbutter, September 15 , 2021

 

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

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 19 , 2021

 

Where Is the Virus? Dr. Janet Menage, BMJ

Janet Menage, September 19 , 2021

 

Canadian Elections: Conservative Leader O’Toole’s COVID Plan: “Vaccines on Steroids”

William Walter Kay, September 19 , 2021

 

24,526 Deaths 2,317,495 Injuries Following COVID Shots Reported in European Union’s Database of Adverse Drug Reactions

Brian Shilhavy, September 15 , 2021

 

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

Dr. Roxana Bruno, August 17 , 2021

 

New Movement Launched by Physicians, Including Dr. Robert Malone, to Fight Medical Tyranny

Joel S. Hirschhorn, September 23 , 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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

A lawyer for a woman claiming her use of Roundup herbicide caused her to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma sparred with a longtime Monsanto scientist in court on Wednesday, forcing the scientist to address numerous internal corporate documents about research showing Monsanto weed killers could be genotoxic and lead to cancer.

The testimony by former Monsanto scientist Donna Farmer marked her second day on the stand and  came several weeks into the case of Donnetta Stephens v. Monsanto, the fourth Roundup trial in the United States, and the first since 2019. Juries in three prior trials all found in favor of plaintiffs who, like Stephens, alleged they developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma due to their use of Roundup or other Monsanto herbicides made with the chemical glyphosate. Thousands of people have filed similar claims.

Bayer AG, which bought Monsanto in 2018, has earmarked more than $14 billion to try to settle all of the U.S. Roundup litigation, but many plaintiffs have refused to settle, and cases continue to go to trial.

A “genotox hole”

In hours of contentious back-and-forth, interrupted repeatedly by objections from a Monsanto attorney, Stephens’ lawyer William Shapiro quizzed Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer about emails and documents dating back to the late 1990s that focused on research – and the company’s handling of that research – into whether or not the company’s herbicide products could cause cancer.

In one line of questioning, Shapiro asked Farmer about emails in which she and other company scientists discussed the company’s response to outside research that concluded the company’s glyphosate-based herbicides were genotoxic, meaning they damaged human DNA. Genotoxicity is an indicator that a chemical or other substance may cause cancer.

Shapiro focused during one series of questions on work done by a scientist named James Parry, who Monsanto hired as a consultant in the 1990s to weigh in on the genotoxicity concerns about Roundup being raised at the time by outside scientists. Parry’s report agreed there appeared to be “potential genotoxic activity” with glyphosate, and recommended that Monsanto do additional studies on its products.

In an internal Monsanto email dating from September 1999 written to Farmer and other company scientists, a Monsanto scientist named William Heydens said this about Parry’s report:

“let’s step back and look at what we are really trying to achieve here. We want to find/develop someone who is comfortable with the genetox profile of glyphosate/Roundup and can be influential with regulators and Scientific Outreach operations when genetox issues arise. My read is that Parry is not currently such a person, and it would take quite some time and $$$/studies to get him there. We simply aren’t going to do the studies Parry suggests.”

In a separate email revealed through the litigation, Farmer wrote that Parry’s report put the company into a “genotox hole” and she mentioned a suggestion by a colleague that the company should “drop” Parry.

Farmer testified that her mention of a “genotox hole” referred to problems with “communication” not about any cancer risk. She also said that she and other Monsanto scientists did not have concerns with the safety of glyphosate or Roundup, but did have concerns about how to respond to paper and research by outside scientists raising such concerns.

Shapiro pressed Farmer on her reaction to Parry’s finding:

“You thought it would be okay on behalf of Monsanto to receive information as you did from Dr. Parry that this Roundup product was genotoxic or could be, you thought it would be okay to go ahead and continue to sell the product, correct?”

Farmer replied:

“We didn’t agree with Professor Parry’s conclusions at the time that it may be, could be, capable of being genotoxic. We had other evidence….  We had regulators who had agreed with our studies and conclusions that it was not genotoxic.”

Her answer was interrupted as Shapiro objected, saying he was asking a yes or no question and Farmer’s attempt to respond beyond that should be stricken. The judge agreed and struck part of the response.

Continuing his questioning, Shapiro asked:

“Well that didn’t work out to have Dr. Parry be the spokesperson for Monsanto, did it Dr. Farmer?

“I would disagree with you because there is still a lot more to this Professor Parry, working with him, and I’d be happy to…” Farmer replied before being cut off by another Shapiro objection and the judge’s striking of everything following the first five words.

A similar pattern played out throughout Farmer’s testimony as Stephens’ lawyer objected to Farmer’s attempts to provide extended answers to multiple questions posed, and Monsanto’s lawyer Manuel Cachan objecting repeatedly to Shapiro’s questions as “argumentative.”

Ghostwriting and “FTO”

Shapiro asked Farmer to address multiple issues expressed in the internal corporate emails, including one series in which Monsanto scientists discussed ghostwriting scientific papers, including a very prominent paper published in the year 2000 that asserted there were no human health concerns with glyphosate or Roundup.

Shapiro additionally asked Farmer to address a strategy Monsanto referred to in emails as “Freedom to Operate” or “FTO”. Plaintiffs’ lawyers have presented FTO as Monsanto’s strategy of doing whatever it took to lessen or eliminate restrictions on its products.

And he asked her about Monsanto emails expressing concerns about research into dermal absorption rates – how fast its herbicide might absorb into human skin.

Farmer said multiple times that information was not being presented in the correct context, and she would be happy to provide detailed explanations for all of the issues raised by Shapiro, but was told by the judge she would need to wait until questioning by Monsanto’s lawyers to do so.

Zoom trial

The Stephens trial is taking place under the oversight of Judge Gilbert Ochoa of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County in California. The trial is being held via Zoom due to concerns about the spread of Covid-19, and numerous technical difficulties have plagued the proceedings. Testimony has been halted multiple times because jurors have lost connections or had other problems that inhibited their ability to hear and view the trial testimony.

Stephens is one of tens of thousands of plaintiffs who filed lawsuits against Monsanto after the World Health Organization’s cancer experts classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen with an association to non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The three prior trials were all lengthy, in-person proceedings loaded with weeks of highly technical testimony about scientific data, regulatory matters and documents detailing internal Monsanto communications.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 Maui Independent

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

 

 

Dr. Alexander Van der Bellen, who was inaugurated as the Federal President of the Republic of Austria on January 26, 2017, has taken another undemocratic, authoritarian position that anyone unemployed because of the state’s lockdowns who refuses the vaccine will lose ALL benefits. This is absolute tyranny and a disgrace to any country that pretends to be free. It has been reported:

“Unusual measure: Austria’s Minister of Labor Martin Kocher (ÖVP) has decided to block unemployment benefits for job seekers if they do not apply for a reasonable position because a vaccination is required there or simply not accepting an offered position.”

Something is seriously wrong. The vaccination was supposed to protect you, but now the unvaccinated threaten the vaccinated. Does that then prove that the vaccinations do not work? If the death rate is less than 1%, then why are governments forcing such vaccines?

The object seems to be to justify tracking all people. If we cannot do anything without a COVID passport, then we are right back to the same type of control as Adolf Hitler. You cannot get on a train in France without a COVID passport. Canada is doing the same thing for travel. Australia is turning the country into a concentration camp where you cannot travel more than 5k from your residence even if vaccinated.

Meanwhile, with this experimental vaccine, we have no idea of the long-term effects. We are supposed to trust the likes of Bill Gates, who is a college dropout with no medical background whatsoever. Our politicians are not trying to kill off people, but they are trying to alter society from the land of freedom to a fully tracked concentration camp where they must know everything we are doing. This is all because they intend to eliminate democracy and adopt the 2030 Agenda of Klaus Schwab, who I can tell you is a notorious control freak.

Europe is gradually transforming into a concentration camp. Some think it will soon return to normal if they comply, but NO VACCINE will ever eliminate any coronavirus, the same with the flu or the common cold. It is IMPOSSIBLE, for it also resides in animals. So this has been one giant lie, and they feed it out to us one tiny step at a time. Then they are complete, and it is too late to resist.

While our politicians are simply looking for control, Gates has an entirely different agenda, pretending to care about society, and at the same time, holding secret meetings about reducing the population of the world. And this is the guy our politicians embrace? I think they are too busying counting their money and dreaming of absolute power. Creating COVID Passports will be the same as the income tax in 1913 which was 1% only on the rich. It is now criminal not to file an income tax and if you put cash in a safe deposit box, read the fine print – that is now money laundering defined as hiding money from the government. COVID Passports will be permanent – they will not vanish because there will NEVER be a return to NORMAL. Anyone who believes the government is simply a sublime fool.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 AE

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

A new profile of Dr. Hector Carvallo of Argentina is titled “A Lifeline from Buenos Aires,” and it focuses of his use of and advocacy for ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. The doctor is a professor of medicine and former director of a large hospital, retired from University of Buenos Aires. TrialSite has followed his ivermectin studies. By February 2020, our pandemic was already looking dangerous to the world. And later that month, Hector’s wife, Mirta Carvallo, MD, heard that “something’s going on with ivermectin in Australia,” and she informed her husband of this: scientists at Monash University in Australia had shown that ivermectin could fight SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. Hector was intrigued; the anti-parasite medicine had already saved millions of folks in the southern hemisphere from river blindness, known as onchocerciasis. The doctor and his wife had often prescribed the drug for scabies, rosacea, and other ailments, and he says it is “one of the safest medicines I’ve ever used. ”Considered one of the most important drugs of the 20th century, ivermectin’s creators won the Nobel Prize 2015 for their work on the drug. The important source of this story can be viewed here.

Crying for Joy, Then Crying from Frustration

Mere weeks later, prior to any official reporting of the Australian findings, Hector and a colleague conducted the first human trials of ivermectin as a prophylactic preventative against COVID-19. “I am not ashamed to say I cried when we got the results,” Carvallo remembers. Yet months later, for a very different reason, Hector reports, “I cried again.” This time his emotions were due to the medical authorities in Argentina began an effort to suppress knowledge about ivermectin’s safety and efficacy, question Hector’s results, and even attack his reputation. The doctor is reportedly soft-spoken and gracious personally, and he speaks perfect English partially due to a childhood attachment to TV medical drama, the latter inspired him to be a doctor. Within days of his wife hearing rumors of ivermectin from down under, Dr. Carvallo met with a top Argentine infectious disease expert, Dr. Roberto Hirsch, to discuss ivermectin.

Not an Animal Drug Only

Little known in North America and Europe except for veterinary use—or perhaps for lice or scabies—ivermectin was reputed to inhibit RNA viruses such as dengue, Zika, and yellow fever in vitro. It is thought that the drug blocks virus’s capacity “to transport from a cell’s watery cytoplasm to its nucleus.” In early March 2020, Carvallo and his colleague penned a message to the Journal of the American Medical Association. Noting the drugs, “virucidal properties,” the letter offered that ivermectin might be “a safe, potent, widely available and cheap prophylaxis against Covid, urgently in need of swift investigation. ”They also posited that the drug might be effective against active COVID-19 cases, that it could be a treatment as well as a preventative. “But the editor of JAMA said he was not interested. He gave us no good reason,” Carvallo says. “I was surprised. I wrote to say, ‘At least take it as a possibility,’ but we never heard back. So, we decided to form our own trials. We would replicate what the Australians had done in vitro, but we would do it in vivo.”

Observational Studies Show Great Promise

The doctors then proposed an experiment to the ethics committee of Eurnekian Hospital: giving weekly ivermectin to about 100 hospital workers who were often exposed to COVID-19 patients. Another 100 who chose not to take ivermectin functioned as the control group. Carvallo and Hirsh both felt that lengthy RCT’s would be unethical: “If I had to post my hypothesis atop a pile of corpses, that’s criminal,” he said. Their approach was a “classic” type of research, an observational study. “Elated” by the proposed study, hospital officials, said yes to the idea, and the government health office quickly approved the protocols. The trial started in April, without funding or RCT formality, and utilizing donated medicine. 131 subjects used ivermectin, and 98 did not. The results were stunning: of the 98 who did not use ivermectin, 11 contracted the virus, of the 131 who had gotten the drug, zero cases of COVID-19 were found. “Word spread quickly through the hospital, and the union representing our health care workers demanded the prophylaxis be given to everyone [on staff] who wanted it. With this large “volunteer pool” available, the doctors started a second and expanded version of the trial. Due to running out of free medicine, this expanded study ended in August 2020. The findings: of 407 folks in the control group, 58.2 were infected with SARS-CoV-2, of 788 patients treated with ivermectin (and carrageenan), zero had contracted the virus.

“Not Allowed to Keep Investigating Ivermectin”

By this point, the doctors had begun a new study of folks already suffering with COVID-19. They signed up 135 outpatients with mild symptoms and 32 in patients with moderate to severe symptoms. All were given ivermectin on a weekly basis. The hospitalized also got steroids and a blood thinner if symptoms warranted. Four weeks later, none of the 135 required going to the hospital. One inpatient, an 82-year-old with “severe co-morbidities,” died. So, the doctors saw that there was a death rate of 3.2 percent of those using their protocol, far less than the 23.5 percent overall rate for hospitalized patients in Argentina. Days later, Carvallo got a call at home. The secretary for the health minister was on the line, and “he said I was not allowed to keep investigating ivermectin, or it would put my job in jeopardy. I was baffled. I said, ‘Why?’ and he would give me no answer—And that’s when I cried again, from frustration. I’m not ashamed to say I cried because it’s true.” Now, a year and a half later, “ivermectin still struggles for official recognition as an anti-Covid agent despite the large body of research in its favor.”

Three Phases of Truth

The May 2021 issue of Antibiotics Review, for example, put out a metanalysis of ivermectin which showed that 100% of 36 prophylaxis and early treatment studies showed positive results, and 26 of the studies showed “statistically significant improvements.” But in August 2021 FDA was “still pounding the same drum it first pounded in June 2020, when the Australian researchers published their findings.” FDA warned, “Taking a drug meant for horses and cattle to prevent or treat COVID-19 is dangerous and could be fatal.” To Carvallo, this mockery and bad information were “very frustrating.” Next, on September 2, the outlet BuzzFeed put out a lengthy and critical look at the doctor’s work. They reported that the studies “raised questions about how the study’s data was collected and analyzed.” Carvallo says the ivermectin backlash is “not a matter of ignorance.” He notes that NIH, CDC, and FDA have read the pertinent studies. The doctor feels that a double standard is in place: “The more expensive a compound is, the less quantity of evidence is required to get it approved. “But when a compound is cheap and available,” he opined, “that’s another matter.” He is confident that eventually, ivermectin will be widely used against COVID-19. “All truth passes through three phases,” he told BuzzFeed. “First it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, then it is accepted as self-evident. We are in phase two 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.

Featured image is from TrialSiteNews

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ivermectin Wars: Dr. Hector Carvallo Versus the Medical Establishment
  • Tags: ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

White House claims anything but dishonourable discharge for refusing vaccines would “detract from readiness and limit a commander’s options for enforcing good order and discipline.”

The Biden administration is pushing for dishonourable discharges and even court martialing for troops who disobey orders to get COVID vaccines.

GOP Representative Mark Green of Tennessee proposed an amendment this week to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would prohibit “any discharge but honorable” for troops who refuse vaccines.

The White House responded with a statement noting

“The Administration strongly opposes section 716,” reasoning that it would “detract from readiness and limit a commander’s options for enforcing good order and discipline when a Service member fails to obey a lawful order to receive a vaccination.”

The statement added

“To enable a uniformed force to fight with discipline, commanders must have the ability to give orders and take appropriate disciplinary measures.”

Responding to the statement, Rep. Green said

“I am appalled that the Biden Administration is trying to remove my amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that prevents anything but an honorable discharge for service members who refuse to get the COVID-19 vaccine.”

Green added

“This was a bipartisan amendment — every Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee agreed to it.”

“No American who raises their hand to serve our Nation should be punished for making a highly personal medical decision,” Green previously urged.

Another section of the bill, 720, proposes that troops who have previously had COVID-19 should be exempted from a vaccine mandate. The Biden administration also opposes it, claiming it creates “a new and overly broad exemption from the vaccination requirement for previous infection that would undermine the effectiveness of the requirement.”

The House is expected to vote on the NDAA early Thursday morning.

As we have previously noted, there has been significant resistance to vaccine mandates among military service members.

Tucker Carlson revealed Monday that a bizarre presentation was given to troops sardonically ridiculing vaccine mandates with links to satanism, as the military pushes mandates, even for elite navy SEALS who have had the virus and have natural immunity.

*

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The global agenda to inoculate every man, woman and child is coming straight to your dinner plate. A team of scientists from the University of California, Riverside are researching ways to turn your GROCERIES into mRNA vaccines. In order to combat “vaccine hesitancy” in the population, these scientists want to distribute coronavirus spike proteins throughout the food supply. This experiment could give rise to a new paradigm of vaccination that gives Big Pharma total control over the food supply, as they venture to genetically alter food to inundate the population with more blood clotting spike proteins.

Is this the reason why GMO/vaccine investor Bill Gates is buying up farmland across the United States? Will all current vaccines and hundreds of future vaccine experiments be carried out through the food supply?

Genetic modification of the food supply could soon be used to vaccinate the population

The future of bio-warfare and human experimentation will likely be carried out through the food supply, and advertised as safe. By altering the cytoplasm of edible plants, scientists hope to introduce foreign spike protein toxins into your food. These vaccine-pimping scientists are already experimenting on lettuce and spinach plants, to develop a new species of greens that can vaccinate people more often and in a less invasive manner. These new designer greens can be grown at home, too. The scientists are working on a way to quantify the correct dosage of spike protein per plant while demonstrating that the plant can replicate enough mRNA to out-perform the current vaccine supply.

“Ideally, a single plant would produce enough mRNA to vaccinate a single person,” Juan Pablo Giraldo, lead researcher and associate professor in UCR’s Department of Botany and Plant Sciences. “We are testing this approach with spinach and lettuce and have long-term goals of people growing it in their own gardens,” he added. “Farmers could also eventually grow entire fields of it.”

Giraldo strives to demonstrate that DNA containing mRNA vaccines can successfully be integrated into plant cells. To do this, the researchers intend to alter the chloroplast of the plant cell. The chloroplast takes in the sun’s energy and converts it to sugar and other molecules that the plant needs in order to grow. The scientists want to interfere with this natural process and instruct the cytoplasm to generate spike proteins and other foreign molecules that can be introduced as antigens into humans.

Giraldo and his team have already demonstrated that the chloroplast is capable of expressing foreign genes that are not part of the plant’s natural design. This genetic modification was accomplished by enclosing foreign genetic material in a protective casing and then inserting it into the plant’s cells. The goal is to introduce these GMOs into humans so their immune system can be programmed to fight antigens and viral sequences that scientists have pre-selected and designed.

Is a new paradigm of food-based vaccines upon us?

At UC San Diego, Nicole Steinmetz has already developed nanotechnologies that can deliver genetic material to the chloroplast of plants. Steinmetz tinkers with plant virus nanoparticles and repurposes them to deliver foreign genes into the plant’s cells.

This is not the only edible vaccine experiment currently underway. Scientists from the University of Ottawa have been working on an edible vaccine for coronaviruses for over a year.

The Ottawa Hospital is already testing the first prototype. This edible vaccine expresses viral antigens inside the lettuce and spinach plants. Their goal is to deliver the spike proteins to the human body without altering the protein synthesis of human cells. The current vaccine supply must be kept refrigerated at extremely low temperatures. If this research effort can demonstrate the delivery of spike proteins throughout the food supply, the current vaccine supply could be scrapped in favor of a new paradigm of food-based vaccination. This experiment could forever alter the food supply, turning healthy, healing foods into bio-warfare playgrounds that globalists can use to exploit the human race.

Sources include:

CTVNews.ca

NaturalNews.com

News.ecr.edu

*

 

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 Natural News

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

As we have previously reported here at Health Impact News, the government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) now lists twice as many deaths following COVID-19 shots for the past 9 months as deaths following ALL vaccines for the past 30 years!

Not only is this information from the government’s own database NOT being reported in the pharma-funded corporate media, but nurses and other frontline workers are now coming forward to report that very few deaths and injuries from the COVID-19 shots are actually being reported to VAERS due to tremendous pressure by the pro-vaccine crowd to NOT report them.

Their voices are being censored by the corporate media.

Here is a video report we have compiled of nurse whistleblowers (including a physician’s assistant’s testimony) explaining just how difficult it is for anyone to actually file a report for COVID-19 vaccine injuries and deaths.

This is from our Bitchute channel, and will also be on our Rumble channel.

So what are the REAL numbers of those already dead or permanently injured from the COVID-19 shots?

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

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

What she found was that anaphylaxis was being underreported in VAERS by 41X. Taking that variable and then applying it to other events, such as death, she arrived at the 150,000 death figure. See the full analysis here.

*

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

All images in this article are from HIN

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Dr. Danice Hertz said people like her who have been seriously injured by COVID vaccines are being dismissed or ignored, and because health officials won’t research their injuries and potential treatments, they have nowhere to turn.

Danice Hertz, a 64-year-old physician who was “horribly ill” and “incapacitated” after getting Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, claims U.S. health agencies are ignoring thousands of adverse events.

In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Hertz said if she could go back in time, she would not have gotten vaccinated.

Hertz said she has been in contact with numerous health agencies, physicians and researchers — including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Surgeon General and doctors at Harvard and Stanford universities and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles — in an effort to obtain help for the neurological injuries she suffered after getting the vaccine.

Hertz told The Defender there are thousands of people like her — who have been injured by COVID vaccines — who are suffering and need help, yet they’re ignored by mainstream media and U.S. health agencies. Meanwhile, COVID vaccine mandates are being rolled out for millions of Americans, with barely any discussion of the risks.

Hertz, a gastroenterologist who retired in October, got her first and only dose of Pfizer’s vaccine on Dec. 23, 2020.

“There was an opportunity to get the vaccine because the hospital was giving it to every doctor,” Hertz said. “I didn’t know if I would need to go back into the workforce, so I ran to get it. Within 30 minutes, I started experiencing adverse effects.”

“I waited the 15 minutes you’re required to wait after you get it, and I went to the car and my face started burning,” Hertz said. “I drove home five minutes away, and by the time I walked through the door, I told my husband to call the paramedics.”

Hertz said within 24 hours she developed neurological symptoms, including severe paresthesias in her face, tongue, scalp, chest wall and limbs, as well as tremors, twitching, weakness, headaches, tinnitus and imbalance.

“My blood pressure was 186 over 127, which I’ve come to find is characteristic of these reactions,” Hertz said.

Hertz called her doctor, and took Benadryl and steroids in case she was having an allergic reaction. The next day her face turned completely numb.

Hertz said:

“My entire face felt like it was burning — like acid had been poured on my face. I had sensations throughout my body like it was vibrating. I felt like I had a tight band around my waist, chest pain and shortness of breath, and I went to bed for seven days.”

Hertz followed up with an allergist who treated her with steroids in case she was experiencing an allergic reaction to the vaccine. After a few weeks of no improvement, Hertz met with the chief neurologist at Cedars-Sinai.

“I saw six neurologists, five allergists, three rheumatologists, and no one had a clue,” Hertz said. “They did blood work, skin biopsies, an MRI and more, and nothing really came up. Unfortunately, if a doctor doesn’t know what’s wrong with you they’re done with you, though that’s not how I practice.”

Early on, when Hertz was evaluated by the first neurologist, the neurologist asked her about a “CISA consult” with the CDC.

According to the CDC’s website, the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project was established in 2001 to address the unmet vaccine safety clinical research needs of the U.S.

CISA is a national network of vaccine safety experts from the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office and seven medical research centers, plus other partners who address vaccine safety issues, conduct high-quality clinical research and assess complex clinical adverse events following vaccination.

The CISA Project also provides consultation to U.S. clinicians who have vaccine safety questions about a specific patient residing in the U.S. It also provides consultation to U.S. healthcare providers and public health partners on vaccine safety issues, and reviews clinical adverse events following immunization involving U.S.-licensed vaccines.

Hertz’s case was accepted into the CISA Project and was presented at the CDC’s grand rounds on March 23. Following the meeting, a physician forwarded a letter to Hertz suggesting she had “mast cell disorder.”

The CISA Project never followed up with her.

Mast cell activation syndrome (or mast cell disorder) is a condition in which a patient experiences repeated episodes of the symptoms of anaphylaxis — allergic symptoms such as hives, swelling, low blood pressure, difficulty breathing and severe diarrhea.

Systemic mastocytosis can cause skin lesions, pain in inner organs, bone pain, diarrhea and vomiting, weight loss and cardiovascular symptoms.

Hertz contacted the NIH and was evaluated remotely by Dr. Avindra Nath, a physician-scientist who specializes in neuroimmunology and is intramural clinical director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke at the NIH.

Hertz said she sent the NIH her blood for a study, because they were seeing quite a few patients like her. She also sent her blood to doctors at Stanford and Harvard for evaluation.

The Harvard physician also thought Hertz had mast cell activation, and put her on medications, but they didn’t help.

“I’m now on a lot of medications for mast cell activation, but I’m still quite ill,” Hertz said.

“I don’t think that’s [mast cell activation] the whole explanation of what’s happening to us,” Hertz said. “I’m still here nine months later. I still don’t know what’s wrong with me. I am not as sick as I was initially, but I still get attacks where I feel like I’m being electrocuted, and my husband can actually feel my legs and arms vibrating.”

Hertz started a Facebook group that now has more than 160 people who have experienced neurological problems after a COVID vaccine, and can’t find help with their conditions.

“We have 160 people in this private Facebook group and we all know each other very well and are trying to help each other,” Hertz said. “Together we’ve been trying very very hard to get help.”

“Although my group consists of 160 members who had legitimate adverse reactions to COVID vaccines, there are other groups I’m aware of that have thousands,” she added.

Hertz said the mainstream media does not want to talk to anyone in her group who’s been injured because they’re not allowed to publish about vaccine injuries. “There are a lot of people who have had neurological reactions and a lot of people don’t know it’s vaccine-related,” she said.

Hertz and her group managed to get a Zoom meeting with Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) at the FDA, to discuss their vaccine injuries, but were disappointed when he did not show up for the meeting.

Hertz explained:

“We had a very important Zoom meeting with Marks set up. I think it was the day they announced Pfizer’s vaccine was given full FDA approval. We [the group] didn’t know in advance it was going to be approved.

“We all prepared speeches to plead with Marks for help and he didn’t show up. The head of the communications showed up –– not a science person. She listened to us. Her response after listening to us for a full hour was, ‘well if you could give me your VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] number, I’ll have everyone look into your VAERS cases and we will see what we can do to help you.’”

Hertz said the FDA representative completely missed the point. “We were here to represent a large number of people who’ve been injured and need medical care, yet we got no response,” she said.

U.S. agencies are aware of vaccine injuries

Hertz said there are different theories for adverse reactions like hers, but she doesn’t think any have been proven or that enough research has been done.

“Some people think it’s an immune-mediated neuropathy where nerves are attacked by antibodies triggered by the vaccine,” Hertz said. “A doctor in California claims he found a spike protein produced by the vaccine in our monocytes — as he is doing research on members in the group.”

Hertz said several members of her private Facebook group went to the NIH for treatment, especially those who were paralyzed after getting the vaccine and can’t use their legs.

“The NIH is aware of what is happening but publicly has been dismissive of vaccine adverse reactions,” Hertz said.

“Early on when I was so sick in early January, I tried to figure out whom I should contact — and I did contact another gentleman at the NIH who is very high up in the NIAID [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases],” Hertz said. “He told me they are ‘very aware’ of these reactions and are looking into them.”

“They knew about these adverse reactions before the vaccines were released from the clinical trials,” Hertz said.

In a Feb. 11 email exchange (see below)  between Hertz and the NIH and NIAID (the agency led by Dr. Anthony Fauci) just two months after COVID vaccines received Emergency Use Authorization, an official acknowledged other reactions like the ones Hertz experienced had been reported and agencies were aware of them.

Page 5

Hertz said she believes the NIH conveys a different position behind the scenes than the one the agency presents to the public. She said she believes it’s because the NIH is funded by the FDA.

Hertz has had several communication exchanges with Marks and Dr. Janet Woodcock, FDA acting commissioner. Neither Marks, nor Woodcock took Hertz’ concerns seriously, but instead, wished her the best with her debilitating vaccine injuries.

Hertz said Woodcock initially said she would like to help, but then responded again saying:

“I am so very sorry for your ordeal. It seems what is missing is what they call a ‘research definition,’ in other words a syndromic framework to describe what is being experienced, since it may not fit into current diagnostic categories. Possibly one of the academic researchers you have consulted could work on that. I don’t have insight into how this could be approached from a treatment standpoint.”

In other words, they are not interested in hearing about these reactions, Hertz said in an email to the NIH where she described the FDA’s response.

In the email, Hertz said:

“It is shocking to me that they completely blow off these reports of hundreds  and thousands  suffering with severe reactions. I would think they would want to know as much as possible about these reactions. Something is very wrong and these adverse reactions to the vaccines are being covered up. It is a great disservice to so many who are suffering like me.”

On Feb. 1, Hertz reached out to her team of physicians, the CDC and Marks regarding her experience and those of five other women who developed neurological problems after Pfizer’s vaccine. Hertz asked why their neurological reactions were being ignored.

Hertz wrote:

“As most of you know me, I am a 64-year-old gastroenterologist who suffered a terrible reaction 30 minutes after receiving the first dose of the Pfizer Covid vaccine. I am still very symptomatic almost 9 weeks out with severe paresthesias, chest tightness, tremor, dizziness, headaches. I am on the internet seeking information and came across an article in a journal Neurology Today. I wrote a comment after the article about my reaction. I have subsequently been contacted by five other women who have had very similar neurological reactions to mine and are all quite ill weeks after receiving their vaccines.

“They have had similar difficulty in getting appropriate medical care as the medical community knows nothing about these reactions. They, too, have reported their reactions to the drug companies, the regulatory governmental agencies, and there has been no response or documentation of their reactions.

“It is apparent that these neurological reactions are not unheard of. Why are they not being addressed? Why are our reports being ignored? We do not have any desire to frighten the public about the vaccine, but we all very much would like to get medical care and fear that we will not recover from these debilitating symptoms. We were all previously healthy. We are considering going to the media as we are terribly frustrated at the lack of transparency. Any advice from you would be greatly appreciated.”

Marks responded that he was “so sorry” to hear of her symptoms, that the FDA takes adverse events seriously and said he asked the pharmacovigilance team to follow up with her. To date, neither Marks, nor the pharmacovigilance team have followed up.

On March 17, an official at the NIH emailed Hertz — and copied Pfizer — acknowledging more than 1,000 neurological side effects reported to VAERS, and promising to present them to the scientific community, which to date, has not been done.

The official said:

“If you look at VAERS database there are more than 1,000 neurological side effects already reported but in order to present it to scientific community we have to gather as much information as we can before sending it out. I promise you we will report your issue and other cases that we are reviewing now and I really [would] appreciate if you kindly give us 1-2 weeks to collect comprehensive information before publicizing it.”

In an April 15 email to Marks, Woodcock, the CDC and NIH, Hertz said:

“Why is this being kept a secret? When will the public be made aware so we can get treatment? Will we recover? You have no idea the pain and suffering that many people have been going through. I wish you could experience what we are experiencing to understand my pleas. It is very difficult to live this way. At times, I am in so much pain that I don’t want to live. It is so shocking to me that this suppression of information and the truth can occur in our country. As a physician, I never imagined this could occur here in the United States, with our great medical system and regulatory agencies.

“Please bring these reactions public so medical care will be available to the many like me who are suffering agonizing symptoms resulting from these vaccines. Eventually, the truth will be told. We need help now.”

Hertz said she received a response from Woodcock, who said the FDA is “looking into these neurological reactions.” But there has been no follow-through or acknowledgement of her injuries — or the injuries thousands of others are experiencing.

Hertz, who is pro-vaccine, said she is concerned the FDA, NIH, CDC and pharmaceutical companies are ignoring vaccine injuries.

Hertz explained:

“We want the medical community to be educated about these reactions so they don’t dismiss us, so that they can validate what has happened and treat us. We need research done to discover what happened and to create treatments. And now there are vaccine mandates and people like us cannot get vaccinated again. There are many in my group who are physicians and cannot go back to work until they’re fully vaccinated but they can’t go back to work and it’s not easy to get an exemption. We need to look at that.”

On May 24, Hertz and 79 other individuals who were injured by Moderna, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca (U.S. clinical trial) vaccines wrote a letter to Dr. Vivek Murthy, U.S. Surgeon General and the White House pleading with them to validate their reactions so they could be addressed properly.

The group stated:

“We have all shared very similar adverse reactions to these vaccines. We were previously healthy individuals. Our reactions occurred within minutes to a few short days after receiving the vaccines. There is no doubt that the vaccines caused our reactions.

“Our reactions have included nausea, weight loss, heartburn, diarrhea/constipation, sleep disturbances, chest pains, headaches, facial and sinus pressure, dizziness, severe weakness and fatigue, painful paresthesias throughout the body, severe painful paresthesias focused on the face, tongue and scalp, internal vibrations and tremors, muscle twitching and muscle spasms, brain fog and mental status changes, memory loss, tinnitus, impaired/blurred vision, elevated blood pressure and heart rate, bulging veins, heart issues and weakness. Several in our group have experienced paralysis of the lower extremities and to this day remain paralyzed. Many of us have been ill for five months.”

Nobody in the group had any of the above symptoms prior to getting a COVID vaccine.

“They [the injuries] are leaving the majority of us disabled and unable to return to our jobs as medical and other healthcare professionals, parents, teachers, scientists, etc.,” the group wrote.

“Not only have we been impacted physically, but mentally and financially as well. Most of us are unable to work, or are on a reduced work schedule. This is continuing for us without any end in sight.”

“WE NEED HELP,” the group wrote. “The constant messaging that the vaccines are safe and with zero acknowledgement of these adverse neurological reactions has made it impossible for us to obtain medical treatment. We are ‘collateral damage’ in the effort to stop the pandemic.”

The group told Murthy that until adverse reactions are acknowledged, it will be impossible to receive care. “We are pleading that you make the medical community aware of these reactions so we can get the medical care we need,” the group wrote.

U.S. health agencies don’t want people to know about vaccine injuries

When asked by The Defender why the U.S. health agencies would cover up vaccine adverse events, suppress research and fail to provide those injured with adequate treatments, Hertz responded:

“The pandemic is horrible. It’s a real problem. But they made calculated decisions on how to protect the most people, and I don’t know who made these decisions but they’ve decided vaccinating as many people as possible will save more people than attending to the vaccine injuries. I think they do not want to create fear or panic and to publicize the fact there are injuries.”

Hertz said she believes what’s happening with COVID vaccines is a crime against our country.

“If there is anything I could do, I would go back in time and take that shot out of me,” Hertz said. “I took every single vaccine that ever came out, and I had never had a reaction to anything. I went in that day without any concern because it had been cleared by the FDA. I feel like an idiot.”

Hertz said she submitted several reports to VAERS, but the CDC never followed up. She received a call from one clerical person just confirming the report and she told them, “I am a physician. I am severely ill. I’m fearful of my life. I did report to Pfizer in written and verbal form, and nobody has ever called me back.”

Page 83

Hertz reached out to Dr. Marks again on Feb. 23 after not receiving a follow-up as promised, and another official with CBER responded. The official referred her to VAERS, and told her how to request information about her adverse event and how to obtain a copy of the report. He also suggested she request a CISA consult from the CDC, which she had already done.

Hertz responded:

“Thank you for your recommendation to contact VAERS. Unfortunately this is not helpful as it has already been done. Hopefully, you will become aware of the injuries some people are experiencing from the vaccines and educate the medical community so that medical care will be available for people like me.”

The official asked whether she had filled out her report correctly and that he was under the impression VAERS will contact her if “follow-up information is needed.”

Hertz said she provided contact information on the VAERS report she filed and was “fully aware of the many hundreds of reports with similar reactions in the VAERS database,” as were the people in her group with similar severe reactions. “We and our physicians have requested CDC CISA consults which have been completely unhelpful,” Hertz said.

Hertz explained:

“I would think the FDA and CDC would want to know about these reactions. We have all been seriously ill. It is truly shocking that our reports have not been taken seriously and that the FDA is not asking for follow up from us. There is apparently no concern about people being injured by the vaccines.

“The suggestions you make in both of your emails to me are nonsensical. I am a physician, not a moron. You skirt the issue that there are many of us that have been injured by the vaccines and are being ignored. Your emails are insulting and demeaning. You are completely missing my point. I guess that is just representative of how seriously you are taking the fact that there are many people being severely injured by the Covid vaccines and are struggling to get validation and medical care because these reactions are being hidden from the medical community.

“This is truly shocking. Having practiced medicine for 33 years, I always had faith in our regulatory agencies. Now, having been seriously injured by this vaccine and struggling to be taken seriously and get medical assistance, I no longer have faith.”

On July 2, Hertz reached out to one of her contacts at the NIH again asking if there was anyone studying adverse reactions like hers, and the group she represents. She wrote, “We have been abandoned by the government, and the medical community knows nothing about these adverse reactions. We desperately need medical help.”

There was no response.

Hertz said that as a physician, she is pro-vaccine but she is also “pro-informed consent,” and she has always given that to her patients.

“Whatever I did to them, if it was a procedure like a colonoscopy or prescribing a medication, I always provided them with the risks involved,” Hertz said. “There has been no informed consent with the [COVID] vaccine, and if I would have known I never would have gotten it.”

Hertz said the public needs to be given accurate and complete information about the risks and the ability to make a choice. “To make that choice for them is wrong,” she said.

*

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

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Featured image is from CHD

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The CEO of pharmaceutical giant Moderna says that even younger people will have to get vaccine booster shots at least once every three years, meaning that a two-tier society which punishes the unvaccinated could remain in place indefinitely.

According to Stephane Bancel, the pandemic will continue for at least another year, at which point there will be enough vaccine doses “so that everyone on this Earth can be vaccinated.”

This includes jabs for infants and booster shots for those who require them.

“Those who don’t get vaccinated will immunize themselves naturally because the Delta variant is so contagious,” said Bancel, although he went on to assert that such people would still get ill.

“You can either get vaccinated and have a good winter. Or you don’t do it and risk getting sick and possibly even ending up in hospital,” said the Moderna CEO.

Bancel says life will return to normal “in a year,” but that this will be dependent on people continuing to receive regular COVID-19 booster jabs.

The CEO said older and vulnerable people would “undoubtedly” need refresher shots at least once a year, while even younger people who face an infinitesimal chance of dying from the virus will need booster shots every three years.

Israel has already signaled that vaccine passports will incorporate mandatory proof of an individual having received booster shots.

This means that those hoping to ride out the pandemic while remaining unvaccinated, with all freedoms returned next year, may actually face a permanent bio-security police state which keeps them under de facto lockdown forever.

Those who for whatever reason refuse to take their booster jabs will also face discrimination when it comes to travel and basic lifestyle activities in many countries.

Despite Bancel’s insistence that the entire planet will have been offered a vaccine within a year, according to Amnesty International, “Moderna has not yet delivered a single vaccine dose to a low-income 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.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on CEO of Moderna Says Even Young Will Need to Take Vaccine Booster Shots Indefinitely
  • Tags: ,

Video: Trust the Science! James Corbett

September 24th, 2021 by James Corbett

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

We are being told to trust the science.

But what science? From which scientists?

Join James for this week’s edition of The Corbett Report podcast as he explores the transparent lies of the “settled science” crowd and how those lies will increasingly be used to run our lives in the new biosecurity state.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Australian Government Shuts Down Melbourne Construction Sites Amid Protests over Vaccine Mandates

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

It seems that ever since Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in the U.S. presidential election of 2016 the western media and numerous politicians have been working especially hard to convince the world that the Russian government is little better than a modern version of Josef Stalin’s USSR. Part of the effort can be attributed to the Democratic Party’s desire to blame someone other than the unattractive candidate Hillary for the defeat, but there is also something more primitive operating behind the scenes, something like a desire to return to a bipolar world in which one knew one’s enemies and one’s friends.

The anti-Russian bias has manifested itself in a number of ways, to include the fabricated libel referred to as Russiagate, but it also featured personal denigration of the Russian leadership as a rogue regime inclined to employ assassination by poisoning against its critics and political opponents.

The first widely publicized assassination of a Russian dissident took place in London in 2006. Alexander Litvinenko, a former Federal Security Service (FSB) officer and critic of the government who had sought asylum in England, died after he met two Russian acquaintances in a hotel bar and was reportedly poisoned by a dose of radioactive polonium inserted into his cup of tea. The Russians whom he had met with were named by the British police but the Russian government refused extradition requests. Without any evidence, the British media claimed that Litvinenko had been killed under orders from Putin personally.

More recently, the poisoning of former Russian intelligence agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia on March 4th, 2018 made headlines around the world. Sergei was living near Salisbury England and his daughter was visiting from Moscow when they were found unconscious on a park bench. A policeman later investigating the incident also suffered from the effects of what appeared to be a nerve agent, which investigative sources claimed had been sprayed on to the front door handle of the Skripal residence. Both Sergei and Yulia survived the incident.

There was quite a bit that was odd about the Skripal case, which came at a time when there was considerable tension between Russia and the NATO allies over issues like Syria and Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin was regularly demonized, seen in the western media as a malevolent presence stalking the world stage.

Observers noted that the British investigation of the poisoning relied from the start “…on circumstantial evidence and secret intelligence.” And there was inevitably a rush to judgment. British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson blamed Russia before any chemical analysis of the alleged poisoning could have taken place. British Prime Minister Theresa May told Parliament shortly thereafter to blame the Kremlin and demand a Russian official response to the event in 36 hours, declaring that the apparent poisoning was “very likely” caused by a made-in-Russia nerve agent referred to by its generic name novichok. The British media was soon on board, spreading the government line that such a highly sensitive operation would require the approval of President Putin himself. Repeated requests by Russia to obtain a sample of the alleged nerve agent for testing were rejected by the British government in spite of the fact that a military grade nerve agent would have surely killed both the Skripals as well as anyone else within 100 yards.

The expulsion of scores of Russian diplomats and imposition of sanctions soon followed with the United States and other countries following suit. The report of the new sanctions was particularly surprising as Yulia Skripal had subsequently announced that she intends to return to her home in Russia, leading to the conclusion that even one of the alleged victims did not believe the narrative being promoted by the British and American governments.

The response within the United States was also immediate and threatening. A New York Times editorial on March 12th entitled Vladimir Putin’s Toxic Reach thundered:

“The attack on the former spy, Sergei Skripal, who worked for British intelligence, and his daughter Yulia, in which a police officer who responded was also poisoned, was no simple hit job. Like the 2006 murder of Alexander Litvinenko, another British informant, who was poisoned with radioactive polonium 210, the attack on Mr. Skripal was intended to be as horrific, frightening and public as possible. It clearly had the blessing of President Vladimir Putin, who had faced little pushback from Britain in the Litvinenko case. The blame has been made clearer this time and this attack on a NATO ally needs a powerful response both from that organization and, perhaps more important, by the United States.”

But the story of the poisoning of the Skripals begun to come apart very quickly. Former UK Ambassador Craig Murray detailed how the narrative was cooked by “liars” in the government to make it look as if the poisoning had a uniquely Russian fingerprint. Meanwhile prize winning U.S. investigative reporter Gareth Porter summed up the actual evidence or lack thereof, for Russian involvement, suggesting that the entire affair was “based on politically-motivated speculation rather than actual intelligence.”

The head of Britain’s own top secret chemical weapons facility Porton Down even contradicted claims made by May and Johnson, saying that he did not know if the nerve agent was actually produced in Russia as the chemical formula was revealed to the public in a scientific paper in 1992 and there were an estimated twenty countries capable of producing it. Some speculated that a false flag operation by the British themselves, the CIA or Mossad, was not unthinkable. Development of novichok type poisons is known to have taken place at both Porton Down and at the U.S. chemical weapon facility Fort Dietrich Maryland.

But the most damning evidence opposing a Russian role in the alleged poisonings was that Moscow had no motive to kill a former British double agent who had been released from a Kremlin prison in a spy swap after ten years in prison and who was no longer capable of doing any damage. If Moscow had wanted him dead, they could have killed him while he was still in Russian custody. Putin had an election coming up and Russia was to be the host of the World Cup in the summer, an event that would be an absolute top priority to have go smoothly without any complications from a major spy case.

There is now new evidence that the claims of Russian involvement in the alleged assassination attempt was fraudulent, engineered by the British government, possibly in collusion with American intelligence, to smear Vladimir Putin in particular. Bulgarian investigative journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva has written an article entitled “UK Defense Ministry Document Reveals Skripals’ Blood Samples Could have been Manipulated.”

Relying on a series of British-version Freedom of Information Act queries, Gaytandzhieva determined that there was a considerable gap between the time when it was claimed the Skirpals’ blood was drawn and the time when it was actually tested for possible poisons at Porton Down. The gap is inexplicable and means in legal terms that the chain of custody was broken. It further suggests that the samples could have been deliberately diverted and tampered with.

Gaytandzhieva, who provides copies of the relevant government documents in her article, sums up her case as “New evidence has emerged of gross violations during the UK investigation into the alleged poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury on 4th March 2018.” The Ministry of Defense, which is in charge of the British military laboratory DSTL Porton Down which analyzed the Skripals blood samples responded to a request that “Our searches have failed to locate any information that provides the exact time that the samples were collected.” The samples “were collected at some point between 16:15 on 4 March 2018 and 18:45 on 5 March 2018. Even the time of arrival at Porton Down is indicated as “approximate.”

She also cites some expert testimony,

“A British toxicologist [commented] that ‘It is inconceivable that with such a visibility case, and the obvious significance of any and all biological samples, normal and expected sample logging and documentation did not take place. The person drawing the sample, in any clinical or forensic setting knows that the date and time must be recorded, and the donor positively identified. In a criminal case, evidence gleaned from these samples would be thrown out as inadmissible… This lack of protocol is either very sloppy or clandestine.”

If the Skripals case sounds very similar to the recent alleged poisoning of Russian dissident Alexei Navalny it should, as the same rush to judgement by many of the same players took place. Navalny became ill while on a flight from Tomsk to Moscow on August 20th, 2020 and was taken to a hospital in Omsk after an emergency landing. The Russian hospital could not find any poison in his blood and attributed his condition to metabolic disorder. Two days later, the Russian government allowed Navalny to be transported to a hospital in Germany which then announced that the Putin government had poisoned Navalny with novichok, which became the story that was read and televised worldwide. Interestingly, there is now evidence that the air medevac team was standing by and ready even before anyone knew Navalny was ill, suggesting that it was planned in advance. Once in Germany, as in the case of the Skripal poisoning, the evidence of the crime mysteriously disappeared for a while. Blood samples and water bottles allegedly containing the novichok were sent to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons offices for verification. They took five days to arrive.

The doubts regarding both the Skripals and Navalny poisonings might suggest that the Cold War never really ended, at least from the Anglo-American perspective. Whatever Vladimir Putin has been doing for the past three years hardly touches on genuine U.S. or British interests, unless one considers the governance of places like Ukraine and Syria to be potentially threatening. That someone, somewhere, somehow seems to be making an effort to isolate and delegitimize President Putin by making him an international poisoner is tragedy elevated by its absurdity to the level of farce. It serves no purpose and, in the end, can only lead to mistrust on all sides that can in turn become very, very ugly.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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]

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Longstanding Holy See tradition opposes liberation theology, liberal morality, ordaining women, equity and social justice.

Pontiffs notoriously reject what just societies cherish most dearly.

In his book, titled “God and His Demons,” Michael Parenti exposed the myth of organized religion being above reproach.

Criticizing Old and New Testament dogma, he challenged notable religious figures by exposing their dark side, saying:

“The god of the Holy Bible – so much adored in the United States and elsewhere – is ferociously vindictive, neurotically jealous, intolerant, vainglorious, punitive, wrathful, sexist, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sadistic and homicidal.”

“As they say, it’s all in the Bible. Beware of those who act in the name of such a god.”

Author John Allen slammed Pope Benedict XVI, saying he “believe(d) the best antidote to political totalitarianism is ecclesial totalitarianism.”

He and other pontiffs exercised dictatorial powers, governing as they wished, their decrees having final say.

Mixing religion with politics, Roman Catholicism and other hard-right faiths spread ideological extremism to mass audiences.

Claiming to serve God’s will, they tread where they don’t belong by siding with wealth, power and privilege over equity and justice for all.

Before becoming archbishop of Buenos Aires in 1998, then a cardinal in 2001, Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis) supported Argentina’s military dictatorship (March 1976 – December 1983) – including its brutal dirty war backed by Washington.

Thousands disappeared. In detention centers, they were tortured, many eliminated.

Communists, socialists, independent journalists, human rights supporters, trade unionists, priests endorsing social justice, and students were targeted.


See:

Who is Pope Francis? Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Argentina’s “Dirty War”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky


In his earlier capacity, Pope Francis was complicit in what went on, supporting instead of denouncing it responsibly.

As pontiff, he operates in similar fashion with greater authority.

Last Christmas eve, he pushed toxic flu/covid mass-jabbing instead of forthrightly opposing what harmed countless millions over the past eight months.

Urging mass-jabbing “for all,  especially for the most vulnerable and needy of all regions of the planet (sic),” he called toxins designed to destroy health “morally acceptable.”

Who better to push poison than the Bishop of Rome with over a billion followers worldwide.

On Monday, Vatican News reported the following:

Effective October 1, “(t)he Governorate of Vatican City State” decreed that entry into its territory “will only be permitted to persons who are in possession of a Vatican Green Pass…European Green Pass, or a foreign (flu/covid) green pass attesting to (having been jabbed) or recovered from (the) SARS-COV-2” virus that doesn’t exist, adding:

“Entry will also be granted to those who have a negative molecular or antigenic test for the (nonexistent) SARS-COV-2 virus.”

The above decree came in response to remarks by Pope Francis on September 7.

Policy now decreed is necessary to ensure “the health and well-being of the working community (sic) while respecting the dignity, rights and fundamental freedoms of each of its members (sic).”

Francis called for “adopt(ing) every suitable measure to prevent, control and counteract the health emergency” that doesn’t exist.

The decree is signed by Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello, president of the Pontifical Commission for the Vatican City State and its Governorate.

Its provisions apply the Vatican City State’s citizens, residents, staff, and other workers.

No exemptions are permitted except for limited numbers of individuals participating in “liturgical celebrations for the time strictly necessary for the performance of the rite.”

They’ll be required to wear masks, maintain social distancing, and not enter areas outside of worshipping space.

Health passports where mandated have nothing to do with protecting what’s too precious to lose.

They have everything to do with draconian social control with tyrannical rule in mind.

If protecting public health was prioritized in the West, the Vatican City State and elsewhere, all things flu/covid never would have been mandated or urged — especially no mass-jabbing with health destroying toxins.

“Verification of compliance with new (Vatican) norms will be carried out by the Service for the Health and Safety of Workers in the workplaces of the Directorate of Health and Hygiene,” Vatican News reported.

Left unexplained is that the new policy has nothing to do with its stated purpose.

It has everything to do with Vatican dark forces going along with draconian US/Western policies that are all about destroying public health and fundamental freedoms.

According to an unnamed Vatican City civil servant critic:

“I look to the church to take care of its flock.”

“To see this happening in the Vatican is both uncharitable and scientifically ignorant.”

“As many scientific studies have shown, (jabbing) does not render one immune or unable to transmit the virus.”

It “increases the potential for carrying a higher virus load.”

“I will never take an abortion tainted vaccine.”

Aborted fetal cells are used in making bioweaponized flu/covid jabs.

Last February, a Holy See decree called for “appropriate measures aimed at preventing, tracking, and dealing with unique situations of a public health emergency” that didn’t exist then or now.

The decree covered “instruments required for an adequate and proportional response to the (nonexistent) health risk” — notably mass-jabbing with health destroying toxins.

It virtually mandated “measures…deemed necessary (sic)” for public interactions and what it called risks to the safety of residents and staff, saying:

“Voluntary adherence to a (jabbing) program must, therefore, take into account the risk that any refusal by a person concerned may pose a risk to him or herself, to others, and to the working environment.”

On the phony pretext of “protecting the community (from) those who refuse (jabs) in the absence of health reasons…(draconian) measures (will be adopted that have nothing to do with) minimiz(ing) danger(s)” that don’t exist.

Article 6 of the Vatican’s 2009  Rules for the Protection of Human Dignity and Fundamental Rights (sic) stipulates the following:

“(R)efusal to undergo preventive or periodic (medical) examinations… entail(s) consequences for employees of various degrees that can go as far as interruption of the employment relationship.”

“For job holders, this is equivalent to renouncing the employment relationship.”

Will Vatican City State refuseniks be isolated from others?

Will those with jobs be fired, fined, or otherwise punished?

Vatican City State policies follow draconian Western ones.

Will its residents and staff rebel?

“Will they resist what no one should tolerate anywhere?

*

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

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

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

A Parable of (All-American) Violence

September 24th, 2021 by Kelly Denton-Borhaug

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

As a religious studies professor, I know a parable when I see one. Consider the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and the final events in this country’s war in Afghanistan as just such a parable taken directly from the history of our moment.

The heart-wrenching last days of that war amounted to a cautionary tale about the nature of violence and the difficulty Americans have honestly facing their own version of it. As chaos descended on Kabul, and as the Biden administration’s efforts to evacuate as many Afghans and Americans as possible were stretched to the limit, one more paroxysm of senseless violence took center stage.

A suicide bomber sent by the Islamic State group ISIS-K struck Kabul’s airport, killing and maiming Afghans as well as American troops. The response? More violence as a Hellfire missile from an American drone supposedly took aim at a member of the terror group responsible. The U.S. military announced that its drone assassination had “prevented another suicide attack,” but the missile actually killed 10 members of one family, seven of them children, and no terrorists at all. Later, the Pentagon admitted its “mistaken judgment” and called the killings “a horrible tragedy of war.”

How to react? Most Americans seemed oblivious to what had happened. Such was the pattern of the last decades, as most of us ignored the staggering number of civilian casualties from our country’s bombing and droning of Afghanistan. As for the rest of us, well, what else could you do but hold your head and cry?

In fact, those final events in Afghanistan crystallized an important truth about our post-9/11 history: the madness of making war the primary method for dealing with potential global conflict and what’s still called “national security.” Throughout these years, our leaders and citizens alike promoted delusional dreams of violence (and glory), while minimizing or denying the nature of that violence and its grim impact on everyone touched by it.

With respect to the parables of the New Testament gospels, Jesus of Nazareth is reported to have said, “Those who have ears, let them hear.” In this case, however, Americans seem unable to listen.

Parables are compact, supposedly simple stories that, upon closer examination, illustrate profound spiritual and moral truths. But too few in this country have absorbed the truth about the misplaced violence that characterized our occupation of Afghanistan. Our culture remained both remarkably naïve and blindly arrogant when it came to widespread assumptions about our violent acts in the world that only surged thanks to the further militarization of this society and the wars we never stopped fighting.

The Costs of War in Well-Being, Money, and Morality

Over the last 20 years, according to a report from the National Priorities Project, the U.S. dedicated $21 trillion to an obsessive militarization of this country and to the post-9/11 wars that went with it. Nearly one million people died in the violence, while at least 38 million were displaced. Meanwhile, more than a million American veterans of those conflicts came home with “significant disabilities.” Deployment abroad brought not just death but devastation to all-too-many military families. Female spouses too often bore the brunt of care for returning service members whose needs were unfathomably wrenching. The maltreatment of children in military families “far outpaced the rates among non-military families” after increasing deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq and children of deployed parents showed “high levels of sadness.”

Many analysts have pointed to the culture of lies and self-deceit that characterized these years. American leaders, political and military, lost their own moral grounding and were dishonest with the citizenry they theoretically represented. But we citizens also share in that culpability. Andrew Bacevich recently asked why the American people didn’t hold their leaders to a more stringent accounting of the wars of the last 20 years. Why were Americans so willing to go along with the unremitting violence of those conflicts year after year, despite failure after failure? What he called the “Indispensable Nation Syndrome” was, he suggested, at least partially to blame — a belief in American exceptionalism, in our unique power to know what’s best for the world and grasp what the future holds in ways other nations and people couldn’t.

In the post-9/11 period, such a conviction mixed lethally with a deepening commitment to violence as the indispensable way to preserve what was best about this country, while fending off imagined threats of every sort. Americans came to believe ever more deeply, ever more thoughtlessly, in violence as a tool that could be successfully used however this country’s leaders saw fit.

The unending violence of our war culture became a kind of security blanket, money in the bank. Few protested the outlandish Pentagon budgets overwhelmingly approved by Congress each year, even as defeats in distant lands multiplied. Violence would protect us; it would save us. We couldn’t stockpile enough of it, or the weapons that made it possible, or use it more liberally around the globe — and increasingly at home as well. Such a deep, if remarkably unexamined, belief in the efficacy of violence also served to legitimate our wars, even as it helped conceal their true beneficiaries, the corporate weapons producers, those titans of the military-congressional-industrial complex.

As it happens, however, violence isn’t a simple tool or clothing you can simply take off and set aside once you’ve finished the job. Just listen to morally injured military service members to understand how deep and lasting violence turns out to be — and how much harder it is to control than people imagine. Once you’ve wrapped your country in its banner, there’s no way to keep its barbs from piercing your own skin, its poison from dripping into your soul.

Canaries in the Coal Mine of War, American-Style

Listening intently to the voices of active-duty service members and veterans can cut through the American attachment to violence in these years, for they’ve experienced its costs and carried its burden in deeply personal ways. Think of them as the all-too-well-armed canaries in the coal mine of our post-9/11 wars, taking in and choking on the toxicity of the violence they were ordered to mete out in distant lands. Their moral injuries expose the fantasy of “using violence cleanly” as wishful thinking, a chimera.

Take Daniel Hale who, while serving in the Air Force, participated in America’s drone-assassination program. Once out of the service, his moral compass eventually compelled him to leak classified information about drone warfare to a reporter and speak out against the drone brutality and inhumanity he had witnessed and helped perpetrate. (As the Intercept reported, during five months of one operation in Afghanistan, “nearly 90% of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets.”)

Convicted of violating the Espionage Act and given 45 months in prison, he wrote, in a letter to the judge who sentenced him, “Your Honor, the truest truism that I’ve come to understand about the nature of war is that war is trauma. I believe that any person either called upon or coerced to participate in war against their fellow man is promised to be exposed to some form of trauma. In that way, no soldier blessed to have returned home from war does so uninjured.” Having agonized about “the undeniable cruelties” he perpetrated, though he attempted to “hold his conscience at bay,” he eventually found that it all came “roaring back to life.”

Or listen to the voice of former Army reservist and CIA analyst Matt Zeller. Having grown up in a family steeped in the American military tradition and only 19 years old on September 11, 2001, he felt “obligated” to do something for his country and signed up. “I bought into it,” he would later say. “I really believed we could make a difference. And it turns out… you don’t come back the same person. I wasn’t prepared for any of that. And I don’t think you really can be.” Describing his post-service efforts to assist Afghans “endangered by their work with the United States” who were fleeing the country, he said, “I feel like this is atoning for all the shit that I did previously.”

Such voices disrupt the dominant narrative of the post-9/11 era, the unshakeable belief of our military and political leaders (and perhaps even of most Americans) that committing violence globally for two decades in response to that one day of bloody attacks on this country would somehow pay off and, while underway, could be successfully contained, distanced, and controlled. There was a deep conviction that, through such violence, we could purchase the world we wanted (and not just the weapons the military-industrial complex wanted us to pay for). Such was the height of American naïveté.

The Inequality and Inhumanity of Violence

Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung has defined violence as an “avoidable assault [on] basic human needs and more generally [on] life.” But how many Americans in these years ever seriously considered the possibility that the violence of war could be avoided? Instead, in response to that one day of terrible violence in our own land, perpetual conflict and perpetual violence became the American way of life in the world, and the consequences at home and abroad couldn’t have been uglier.

Who bothered to consider other avenues of response in the wake of 9/11? The U.S. invaded Afghanistan five weeks after that day, while the Bush administration was already preparing the way for a future invasion of Iraq (a country which had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11). I’ll never forget the confusion, shock, and fear in the early weeks after those attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The world was grieving with us, but the dominant urge for violent revenge took shape with breathtaking speed, so quickly that it all seemed the natural course of events. Such is the nature of violence. Once it’s built into the structures of human society and government planning, it all too often takes precedence over any other possible course of action whenever conflict or danger arises. “There’s no other choice,” people say and critical thinking shuts down.

We in the United States have yet to truly face the personal as well as national costs of the violence that was so instantly woven into the fabric of our response to 9/11. Within a few days, for instance, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was already talking about a global war on terror targeting 60 countries! Most Americans blithely believed that we could strike in such a fashion without being truly affected ourselves. People generally failed to consider how such a recourse to endless violence would conflict, morally speaking, with the nation’s own deepest values.

But philosophers know that such violence almost invariably turns out to be grounded in inequality and so sharply conflicts with this country’s most basic values, especially the idea that human beings are equal. To act violently against the other, people must believe that the object of violence is somehow less worthy, of less value than themselves. In these years, they had to believe that the endless targets of American violence, like those seven dead children in Kabul, not to speak of the future lives and psychic well-being of the soldiers who were sent to deliver it, didn’t truly matter. They were all “expendable.”

No wonder military training always includes a process of being schooled in dehumanizing others. Otherwise, most people just won’t commit violence in that fashion. The sharp assault on their own values, their own humanity, is too great.

The commemorations of the 20th anniversary of 9/11 spotlighted the limits of the world that two decades of such wars have embedded in our national soul. With rare exceptions, there was a disparity when it came to grief. Countless reports mourned the victims and first responders who died here that day, but few were the ones who extended remembrance and grief to the hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions who have died in our wars in distant lands ever since. Where was the grief for them? Where was the sense of regret or introspection about what 20 years of unmitigated violence has wrought around the world and what it has undoubtedly changed in the moral character of this country itself?

For, believe me, all of us have been impacted morally by our government’s insistent attachment to violence. It’s helped destabilize our own core humanity, its toxicity penetrating all too deeply into the soul of the nation.

Recently, I was asked whether I agreed or disagreed with the statement, “I can be trained to kill and participate in killing and still be a good person.”

As a theologian, an American, and a human being, I find myself filled with dread when I attempt to sort this out. One thing I do know, though. I may be a civilian, but along with the members of the U.S. military, I can’t escape sharing complicity in the killing that’s gone on in my nation’s name, in that war on terror that became a war of terror. I remain part of the group that committed those crimes over so many seemingly endless years and that truth weighs ever more heavily on my conscience.

*

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

Kelly Denton-Borhaug, a TomDispatch regular, has long been investigating how religion and violence collide in American war-culture. She teaches in the global religions department at Moravian University. She is the author of two books, U.S. War-Culture, Sacrifice and Salvation and, more recently, And Then Your Soul is Gone: Moral Injury and U.S. War-Culture.

Featured image: U.S. jets bombing Afghanistan. These attacks will not end despite the formal U.S. withdrawal by September 11th. [Source: wired.com]


waronterrorism.jpgby Michel Chossudovsky
ISBN Number: 9780973714715
List Price: $24.95
click here to order

Special Price: $18.00

In this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky’s 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by “Islamic terrorists”.  Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.

The expanded edition, which includes twelve new chapters focuses on the use of 9/11 as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, the militarisation of justice and law enforcement and the repeal of democracy.

According to Chossudovsky, the  “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.

September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington’s agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.

30 Facts You Need to Know: Your COVID Cribsheet

September 24th, 2021 by Kit Knightly

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Our Thanks to Off-Guardian for bringing this important article to our attention

We get a lot of e-mails and private messages along these lines “do you have a source for X?” or “can you point me to mask studies?” or “I know I saw a graph for mortality, but I can’t find it anymore”. And we understand, it’s been a long 18 months, and there are so many statistics and numbers to try and keep straight in your head.

So, to deal with all these requests, we decided to make a bullet-pointed and sourced list for all the key points. A one-stop-shop.

Here are key facts and sources about the alleged “pandemic”, that will help you get a grasp on what has happened to the world since January 2020, and help you enlighten any of your friends who might be still trapped in the New Normal fog.

*

Part I: “COVID Deaths” and Mortality

1. The survival rate of “Covid” is over 99%. Government medical experts went out of their way to underline, from the beginning of the pandemic, that the vast majority of the population are not in any danger from Covid.

Almost all studies on the infection-fatality ratio (IFR) of Covid have returned results between 0.04% and 0.5%. Meaning Covid’s survival rate is at least 99.5%.

2. There has been NO unusual excess mortality. The press has called 2020 the UK’s “deadliest year since world war two”, but this is misleading because it ignores the massive increase in the population since that time. A more reasonable statistical measure of mortality is Age-Standardised Mortality Rate (ASMR):

By this measure, 2020 isn’t even the worst year for mortality since 2000, In fact since 1943 only 9 years have been better than 2020.

Similarly, in the US the ASMR for 2020 is only at 2004 levels:

For a detailed breakdown of how Covid affected mortality across Western Europe and the US click here. What increases in mortality we have seen could be attributable to non-Covid causes [facts 7, 9 & 19].

3. “Covid death” counts are artificially inflated. Countries around the globe have been defining a “Covid death” as a “death by any cause within 28/30/60 days of a positive test”.

Healthcare officials from Italy, Germany, the UK, US, Northern Ireland and others have all admitted to this practice:

Removing any distinction between dying of Covid, and dying of something else after testing positive for Covid will naturally lead to over-counting of “Covid deaths”. British pathologist Dr John Lee was warning of this “substantial over-estimate” as early as last spring. Other mainstream sources have reported it, too.

Considering the huge percentage of “asymptomatic” Covid infections [14], the well-known prevalence of serious comorbidities [fact 4] and the potential for false-positive tests [fact 18], this renders the Covid death numbers an extremely unreliable statistic.

4. The vast majority of covid deaths have serious comorbidities. In March 2020, the Italian government published statistics showing 99.2% of their “Covid deaths” had at least one serious comorbidity.

These included cancer, heart disease, dementia, Alzheimer’s, kidney failure and diabetes (among others). Over 50% of them had three or more serious pre-existing conditions.

This pattern has held up in all other countries over the course of the “pandemic”. An October 2020 FOIA request to the UK’s ONS revealed less than 10% of the official “Covid death” count at that time had Covid as the sole cause of death.

5. Average age of “Covid death” is greater than the average life expectancy. The average age of a “Covid death” in the UK is 82.5 years. In Italy it’s 86. Germany, 83. Switzerland, 86. Canada, 86. The US, 78, Australia, 82.

In almost all cases the median age of a “Covid death” is higher than the national life expectancy.

As such, for most of the world, the “pandemic” has had little-to-no impact on life expectancy. Contrast this with the Spanish flu, which saw a 28% drop in life expectancy in the US in just over a year. [source]

6. Covid mortality exactly mirrors the natural mortality curve. Statistical studies from the UK and India have shown that the curve for “Covid death” follows the curve for expected mortality almost exactly:

The risk of death “from Covid” follows, almost exactly, your background risk of death in general.

The small increase for some of the older age groups can be accounted for by other factors.[facts 7, 9 & 19]

7. There has been a massive increase in the use of “unlawful” DNRs. Watchdogs and government agencies have reported huge increases in the use of Do Not Resuscitate Orders (DNRs) over the last twenty months.

In the US, hospitals considered “universal DNRs” for any patient who tested positive for Covid, and whistleblowing nurses have admitted the DNR system was abused in New York.

In the UK there was an “unprecdented” rise in “illegal” DNRs for disabled people, GP surgeries sent out letters to non-terminal patients recommending they sign DNR orders, whilst other doctors signed “blanket DNRs” for entire nursing homes.

A study done by Sheffield Univerisity found over one-third of all “suspected” Covid patients had a DNR attached to their file within 24 hours of hospital admission.

Blanket use of coerced or illegal DNR orders could account for any increases in mortality in 2020/21.[Facts 2 & 6]

Part II: Lockdowns

8. Lockdowns do not prevent the spread of disease. There is little to no evidence lockdowns have any impact on limiting “Covid deaths”. If you compare regions that locked down to regions that did not, you can see no pattern at all.

“Covid deaths” in Florida (no lockdown) vs California (lockdown)

“Covid deaths” in Sweden (no lockdown) vs UK (lockdown)

9. Lockdowns kill people. There is strong evidence that lockdowns – through social, economic and other public health damage – are deadlier than the “virus”.

Dr David Nabarro, World Health Organization special envoy for Covid-19 described lockdowns as a “global catastrophe” in October 2020:

We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of the virus[…] it seems we may have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition […] This is a terrible, ghastly global catastrophe.”

A UN report from April 2020 warned of 100,000s of children being killed by the economic impact of lockdowns, while tens of millions more face possible poverty and famine.

Unemployment, poverty, suicide, alcoholism, drug use and other social/mental health crises are spiking all over the world. While missed and delayed surgeries and screenings are going to see increased mortality from heart disease, cancer et al. in the near future.

The impact of lockdown would account for the small increases in excess mortality [Facts 2 & 6]

10. Hospitals were never unusually over-burdened. the main argument used to defend lockdowns is that “flattening the curve” would prevent a rapid influx of cases and protect healthcare systems from collapse. But most healthcare systems were never close to collapse at all.

In March 2020 it was reported that hospitals in Spain and Italy were over-flowing with patients, but this happens every flu season. In 2017 Spanish hospitals were at 200% capacity, and 2015 saw patients sleeping in corridors. A paper JAMA paper from March 2020 found that Italian hospitals “typically run at 85-90% capacity in the winter months”.

In the UK, the NHS is regularly stretched to breaking point over the winter.

As part of their Covid policy, the NHS announced in Spring of 2020 that they would be “re-organizing hospital capacity in new ways to treat Covid and non-Covid patients separately” and that “as result hospitals will experience capacity pressures at lower overall occupancy rates than would previously have been the case.”

This means they removed thousands of beds. During an alleged deadly pandemic, they reduced the maximum occupancy of hospitals. Despite this, the NHS never felt pressure beyond your typical flu season, and at times actually had 4x more empty beds than normal.

In both the UK and US millions were spent on temporary emergency hospitals that were never used.

Part III: PCR Tests

11. PCR tests were not designed to diagnose illness. The Reverse-Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) test is described in the media as the “gold standard” for Covid diagnosis. But the Nobel Prize-winning inventor of the process never intended it to be used as a diagnostic tool, and said so publicly:

PCR is just a process that allows you to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that.”

12. PCR Tests have a history of being inaccurate and unreliable. The “gold standard” PCR tests for Covid are known to produce a lot of false-positive results, by reacting to DNA material that is not specific to Sars-Cov-2.

A Chinese study found the same patient could get two different results from the same test on the same day. In Germany, tests are known to have reacted to common cold viruses. A 2006 study found PCR tests for one virus responded to other viruses too. In 2007, a reliance on PCR tests resulted in an “outbreak” of Whooping Cough that never actually existed. Some tests in the US even reacted to the negative control sample.

The late President of Tanzania, John Magufuli, submitted samples goat, pawpaw and motor oil for PCR testing, all came back positive for the virus.

As early as February of 2020 experts were admitting the test was unreliable. Dr Wang Cheng, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences told Chinese state television “The accuracy of the tests is only 30-50%”. The Australian government’s own website claimed “There is limited evidence available to assess the accuracy and clinical utility of available COVID-19 tests.” And a Portuguese court ruled that PCR tests were “unreliable” and should not be used for diagnosis.

You can read detailed breakdowns of the failings of PCR tests here, here and here.

13. The CT values of the PCR tests are too high. PCR tests are run in cycles, the number of cycles you use to get your result is known as your “cycle threshold” or CT value. Kary Mullis said: “If you have to go more than 40 cycles[…]there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.”

The MIQE PCR guidelines agree, stating: “[CT] values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported,”Dr Fauci himself even admitted anything over 35 cycles is almost never culturable.

Dr Juliet Morrison, virologist at the University of California, Riverside, told the New York Times: Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive…I’m shocked that people would think that 40 [cycles] could represent a positive…A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35″.

In the same article Dr Michael Mina, of the Harvard School of Public Health, said the limit should be 30, and the author goes on to point out that reducing the CT from 40 to 30 would have reduced “covid cases” in some states by as much as 90%.

The CDC’s own data suggests no sample over 33 cycles could be cultured, and Germany’s Robert Koch Institute says nothing over 30 cycles is likely to be infectious.

Despite this, it is known almost all the labs in the US are running their tests at least 37 cycles and sometimes as high as 45. The NHS “standard operating procedure” for PCR tests rules set the limit at 40 cycles.

Based on what we know about the CT values, the majority of PCR test results are at best questionable.

14. The World Health Organization (Twice) Admitted PCR tests produced false positives. In December 2020 WHO put out abriefing memo on the PCR process instructing labs to be wary of high CT values causing false positive results:

when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.

Then, in January 2021, the WHO released another memo, this time warning that “asymptomatic” positive PCR tests should be re-tested because they might be false positives:

Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

15. The scientific basis for Covid tests is questionable. The genome of the Sars-Cov-2 virus was supposedly sequenced by Chinese scientists in December 2019, then published on January 10th 2020. Less than two weeks later, German virologists (Christian Drosten et al.) had allegedly used the genome to create assays for PCR tests.

They wrote a paper, Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR, which was submitted for publication on January 21st 2020, and then accepted on January 22nd. Meaning the paper was allegedly “peer-reviewed” in less than 24 hours. A process that typically takes weeks.

Since then, a consortium of over forty life scientists has petitioned for the withdrawal of the paper, writing a lengthy report detailing 10 major errors in the paper’s methodology.

They have also requested the release of the journal’s peer-review report, to prove the paper really did pass through the peer-review process. The journal has yet to comply.

The Corman-Drosten assays are the root of every Covid PCR test in the world. If the paper is questionable, every PCR test is also questionable.

Part IV: “Asymptomatic Infection”

16. The majority of Covid infections are “asymptomatic”.From as early as March 2020, studies done in Italy were suggesting 50-75% of positive Covid tests had no symptoms. Another UK study from August 2020 found as much as 86% of “Covid patients” experienced no viral symptoms at all.

It is literally impossible to tell the difference between an “asymptomatic case” and a false-positive test result.

17. There is very little evidence supporting the alleged danger of “asymptomatic transmission”. In June 2020, Dr Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said:

From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,”

A meta-analysis of Covid studies, published by Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in December 2020, found that asymptomatic carriers had a less than 1% chance of infecting people within their household. Another study, done on influenza in 2009, found:

…limited evidence to suggest the importance of [asymptomatic] transmission. The role of asymptomatic or presymptomatic influenza-infected individuals in disease transmission may have been overestimated…”

Given the known flaws of the PCR tests, many “asymptomatic cases” may be false positives.[fact 14]

Part V: Ventilators

18. Ventilation is NOT a treatment for respiratory viruses. Mechanical ventilation is not, and never has been, recommended treatment for respiratory infection of any kind. In the early days of the pandemic, many doctors came forward questioning the use of ventilators to treat “Covid”.

Writing in The Spectator, Dr Matt Strauss stated:

Ventilators do not cure any disease. They can fill your lungs with air when you find yourself unable to do so yourself. They are associated with lung diseases in the public’s consciousness, but this is not in fact their most common or most appropriate application.

German Pulmonologist Dr Thomas Voshaar, chairman of Association of Pneumatological Clinics said:

When we read the first studies and reports from China and Italy, we immediately asked ourselves why intubation was so common there. This contradicted our clinical experience with viral pneumonia.

Despite this, the WHO, CDC, ECDC and NHS all “recommended” Covid patients be ventilated instead of using non-invasive methods.

This was not a medical policy designed to best treat the patients, but rather to reduce the hypothetical spread of Covid by preventing patients from exhaling aerosol droplets.

19. Ventilators killed people. Putting someone on a ventilator who is suffering from influenza, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or any other condition which restricts breathing or affects the lungs, will not alleviate any of those symptoms. In fact, it will almost certainly make it worse, and will kill many of them.

Intubation tubes are a source of potential a infection known as “ventilator-associated pneumonia”, which studies show affects up to 28% of all people put on ventilators, and kills 20-55% of those infected.

Mechanical ventilation is also damaging to the physical structure of the lungs, resulting in “ventilator-induced lung injury”, which can dramatically impact quality of life, and even result in death.

Experts estimate 40-50% of ventilated patients die, regardless of their disease. Around the world, between 66 and 86% of all “Covid patients” put on ventilators died.

According to the “undercover nurse”, ventilators were being used so improperly in New York, they were destroying patients’ lungs:

This policy was negligence at best, and potentially deliberate murder at worst. This misuse of ventilators could account for any increase in mortality in 2020/21 [Facts 2 & 6]

Part VI: Masks

20. Masks don’t work. At least a dozen scientific studies have shown that masks do nothing to stop the spread of respiratory viruses.

One meta-analysis published by the CDC in May 2020 found “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks”.

Another study with over 8000 subjects found masks “did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections nor against clinical respiratory infection.”

There are literally too many to quote them all, but you can read them: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Or read a summary by SPR here.

While some studies have been done claiming to show mask do work for Covid, they are all seriously flawed. One relied on self-reported surveys as data. Another was so badly designed a panel of experts demand it be withdrawn. A third was withdrawn after its predictions proved entirely incorrect.

The WHO commissioned their own meta-analysis in the Lancet, but that study looked only at N95 masks and only in hospitals. [For full run down on the bad data in this study click here.]

Aside from scientific evidence, there’s plenty of real-world evidence that masks do nothing to halt the spread of disease.

For example, North Dakota and South Dakota had near-identical case figures, despite one having a mask-mandate and the other not:

In Kansas, counties without mask mandates actually had fewer Covid “cases” than counties with mask mandates. And despite masks being very common in Japan, they had their worst flu outbreak in decades in 2019.

21. Masks are bad for your health. Wearing a mask for long periods, wearing the same mask more than once, and other aspects of cloth masks can be bad for your health. A long study on the detrimental effects of mask-wearing was recently published by the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Dr. James Meehan reported in August 2020 he was seeing increases in bacterial pneumonia, fungal infections, facial rashes .

Masks are also known to contain plastic microfibers, which damage the lungs when inhaled and may be potentially carcinogenic.

Childen wearing masks encourages mouth-breathing, which results in facial deformities.

People around the world have passed out due to CO2 poisoning while wearing their masks, and some children in China even suffered sudden cardiac arrest.

22. Masks are bad for the planet. Millions upon millions of disposable masks have been used per month for over a year. A report from the UN found the Covid19 pandemic will likely result in plastic waste more than doubling in the next few years., and the vast majority of that is face masks.

The report goes on to warn these masks (and other medical waste) will clog sewage and irrigation systems, which will have knock on effects on public health, irrigation and agriculture.

A study from the University of Swansea found “heavy metals and plastic fibres were released when throw-away masks were submerged in water.” These materials are toxic to both people and wildlife.

Part VII: Vaccines

23. Covid “vaccines” are totally unprecedented. Before 2020 no successful vaccine against a human coronavirus had ever been developed. Since then we have allegedly made 20 of them in 18 months.

Scientists have been trying to develop a SARS and MERS vaccine for years with little success. Some of the failed SARS vaccines actually caused hypersensitivity to the SARS virus. Meaning that vaccinated mice could potentially get the disease more severely than unvaccinated mice. Another attempt caused liver damage in ferrets.

While traditional vaccines work by exposing the body to a weakened strain of the microorganism responsible for causing the disease, these new Covid vaccines are mRNA vaccines.

mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) vaccines theoretically work by injecting viral mRNA into the body, where it replicates inside your cells and encourages your body to recognise, and make antigens for, the “spike proteins” of the virus. They have been the subject of research since the 1990s, but before 2020 no mRNA vaccine was ever approved for use.

24. Vaccines do not confer immunity or prevent transmission. It is readily admitted that Covid “vaccines” do not confer immunity from infection and do not prevent you from passing the disease onto others. Indeed, an article in the British Medical Journal highlighted that the vaccine studies were not designed to even try and assess if the “vaccines” limited transmission.

The vaccine manufacturers themselves, upon releasing the untested mRNA gene therapies, were quite clear their product’s “efficacy” was based on “reducing the severity of symptoms”.

25. The vaccines were rushed and have unknown longterm effects. Vaccine development is a slow, laborious process. Usually, from development through testing and finally being approved for public use takes many years. The various vaccines for Covid were all developed and approved in less than a year. Obviously there can be no long-term safety data on chemicals which are less than a year old.

Pfizer even admit this is true in the leaked supply contract between the pharmaceutical giant, and the government of Albania:

the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known

Further, none of the vaccines have been subject to proper trials. Many of them skipped early-stage trials entirely, and the late-stage human trials have either not been peer-reviewed, have not released their data, will not finish until 2023 or were abandoned after “severe adverse effects”.

26. Vaccine manufacturers have been granted legal indemnity should they cause harm. The USA’s Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP) grants immunity until at least 2024.

The EU’s product licensing law does the same, and there are reports of confidential liability clauses in the contracts the EU signed with vaccine manufacturers.

The UK went even further, granting permanent legal indemnity to the government, and any employees thereof, for any harm done when a patient is being treated for Covid19 or “suspected Covid19”.

Again, the leaked Albanian contract suggests that Pfizer, at least, made this indemnity a standard demand of supplying Covid vaccines:

Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer […] from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses

Part VIII: Deception and Foreknowledge

27. The EU was preparing “vaccine passports” at least a YEAR before the pandemic began. Proposed COVID countermeasures, presented to the public as improvised emergency measures, have existed since before the emergence of the disease.

Two EU documents published in 2018, the “2018 State of Vaccine Confidence” and a technical report titled “Designing and implementing an immunisation information system” discussed the plausibility of an EU-wide vaccination monitoring system.

These documents were combined into the 2019 “Vaccination Roadmap”, which (among other things) established a “feasibility study” on vaccine passports to begin in 2019 and finish in 2021:

This report’s final conclusions were released to the public in September 2019, just a month before Event 201 (below).

28. A “training exercise” predicted the pandemic just weeks before it started. In October 2019 the World Economic Forum and Johns Hopkins University held Event 201. This was a training exercise based on a zoonotic coronavirus starting a worldwide pandemic. The exercise was sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and GAVI the vaccine alliance.

The exercise published its findings and recommendations in November 2019 as a “call to action”. One month later, China recorded their first case of “Covid”.

29. Since the beginning of 2020, the Flu has “disappeared”.In the United States, since February 2020, influenza cases have allegedly dropped by over 98%.

It’s not just the US either, globally flu has apparently almost completely disappeared.

Meanwhile, a new disease called “Covid”, which has identical symptoms and a similar mortality rate to influenza, is supposedly sweeping the globe.

30. The elite have made fortunes during the pandemic. Since the beginning of lockdown the wealthiest people have become significantly wealthier. Forbes reported that 40 new billionaires have been created “fighting the coronavirus”, with 9 of them being vaccine manufacturers.

Business Insider reported that “billionaires saw their net worth increase by half a trillion dollars” by October 2020.

Clearly that number will be even bigger by 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.

Featured image is from OffGuardian

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

1) Iran’s independence 

The Iranian revolution was a leading factor which set Jimmy Carter’s government to incite division and conflict in Afghanistan, which shares an extensive western border with Iran.

From the early spring of 1979, plans were formulating in Washington to surround, isolate and overthrow the new Islamic Republic of Iran; while simultaneously a US strategy was developing to back the Afghan mujahideen jihadists, with president Carter officially sanctioning such support on 3 July 1979. Afghanistan was an important piece on the chess board in this imperialist game, as its neighbour Iran had made the swift transformation from US client state to staunch enemy of America.

Carter’s successor as president, Ronald Reagan, said that “Iran encompasses some of the most critical geography in the world”, of which Afghanistan is interlinked with. Reagan noted also that Iran occupies “a critical position from which adversaries could interfere with oil flows from the Arab states that border the Persian Gulf. Apart from geography, Iran’s oil deposits are important to the long-term health of the world economy”. (1)

As the Americans knew too well, their old enemy the Soviet Union was in early 1979 watching Iran’s independence with glee – while American allies in the region, like the dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, were hardly reassured. Of further concern to Carter was that, in late April 1978, a Marxist-Leninist government had taken power in the Afghan capital Kabul.

On 30 April 1978 Harold Saunders, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, warned that Washington should “seek to avoid driving the new regime [in Afghanistan] into a closer embrace with the Soviet Union than it might wish”. (2)

On 17 May 1978, an unspecified number of Soviet Communist Party advisers arrived in Kabul, to assist the Afghan communist leader Nur Muhammad Taraki in safeguarding his government (3). President Taraki’s position was vulnerable, as his rapid and progressive reforms faced resistance from fundamentalist and conservative muslims. Among those Russians arriving in the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA) on 17 May were Yuri Gankovsky and Nikolai Simonenko, the latter holding the status of head of the Afghanistan sector for the Soviet Union.

On 27 June 1978, a group of 48 Soviet officials landed in the Afghan capital, so as to provide counsel to Taraki’s cabinet. In mid-July 1978 David D. Newsom, the US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, said that the US should continue a “monitoring action” on Afghanistan. According to president Taraki following a meeting with Newsom, the American diplomat said he felt there was a “new chill” in US-Afghan relations. (4)

On 23 August 1978 Taraki, reflecting on anti-communist skirmishes in Afghanistan which had occurred that summer, told the Soviet representative in Kabul, Alexander Puzanov, that he had freshly uncovered “an anti-government plot” (5). Taraki claimed it involved the US, West Germany, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and also China.

In January 1979 on the recommendation of the American ambassador to Afghanistan, Adolph Dubs, the US State Department proposed a $310,000 program for 1979-1980, in order to train Afghan officers. (6)

2) Prestige

The presence of a new far-left government in Afghanistan was, from the American point of view, serious enough, while Iran’s revolution was especially grating with the power brokers in Washington.

Dean Acheson, former US Secretary of State, said in 1962 that a reaction by America when its “power, position and prestige” are challenged is not a “legal issue”, and that the US should feel no constraints by international law in such circumstances (7). Acheson was a lawyer too one might add, and he was speaking here to the American Society of International Law.

On 14 November 1978 the Soviet diplomat in Afghanistan, Puzanov, outlined that “already more than 700 Soviet advisers and experts work on a free-of-charge basis in civil ministries and in the military field in Afghanistan”. (8)

Eight days later on 22 November 1978, the Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev said Russian material assistance should go to “such states as the People’s Republic of Yemen, Ethiopia, Angola, Afghanistan, and some others”.

On 5 December 1978, presidents Brezhnev and Taraki signed a milestone 20 year Treaty of Friendship centred on “co-operation in the military field”. The treaty stipulated that Taraki could request Soviet military aid, if he felt threatened. The official response in Washington to this deal was apparently mild concern, but in private the Carter White House was increasingly disconcerted at the Soviet-Afghan links (9). It was a natural development for Moscow to pursue such relations, considering the close proximity of Afghanistan to the Soviet Union coupled with the political leanings of Taraki’s government.

On 17 December 1978, Puzanov informed Taraki of Moscow’s decision to furnish the Afghan communists with military supplies and armaments, worth 24 million roubles (10). In addition, Afghanistan would receive a bonus loan of 12 million roubles, with the Kremlin allowing the Afghans 10 years to pay it back, a welcome gift.

3) Strategic importance

By the spring of 1979, the Soviet Union looked to be in a position where it could start making inroads into US hegemony in the Middle East. Were this to unfold, and if Moscow could avoid becoming caught in a spider’s web in Afghanistan, it is unlikely that the USSR would have collapsed in 1991.

Afghanistan is situated in the heart of the long-coveted Eurasia: lying beside the Middle East, China, South Asia and Central Asia. It can be remembered that close collaboration, between Afghanistan and Soviet Russia, was not merely a phenomenon that can be recalled in living memory.

The Belarusian-born Soviet diplomat, Andrei Gromyko, wrote that

“Shortly after the October 1917 revolution the Soviet Republic and its neighbour, Afghanistan, established diplomatic relations. Soviet political and material support was one of the chief factors in Afghanistan’s victory, in its almost 100 year struggle for independence from its British colonisers. It is therefore not surprising that Soviet-Afghan relations have long been of a friendly nature”. (11)

In January 1979 Zbigniew Brzezinski, the powerful National Security Advisor, had gained control over US covert operational planning with president Carter’s full support. Brzezinski, born in Warsaw, Poland, was by instinct hostile to the USSR, and it had long bothered him how, in the post-World War II period, Poland was under the Soviet sphere of control. Even the New York Times, continually supportive of aggressive US militarism, admitted that Brzezinski had “a rigid hatred of the Soviet Union”. (12)

One of Brzezinski’s great hopes was to have a role in harming the Soviets, “of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War”, he insisted to Carter. From early 1979, Brzezinski and other Carter administration officials were pushing for Washington to begin clandestine activities in Afghanistan, and to support the mujahideen insurgency there. A US National Security Archive chronology highlighted,

“Having control over covert operations enables Brzezinski to take the first steps toward a more aggressively anti-Soviet Afghan policy, without the State Department’s knowing very much about it”. (13)

By early February 1979, moves had already been made by the Americans against the Afghan communists (14). On 2 February, the Washington Post reported on a joint program run by the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI, in which at least 2,000 Afghan militants were being trained in former Pakistani army bases beside Afghanistan.

4) Overthrowing the USSR

The Carter administration’s plan to suck the Russians into the Afghan trap was intent on delivering a heavy, perhaps grievous blow, to the USSR. Brzezinski said that US covert actions in Afghanistan, which largely enticed the Soviets to engage militarily there, had induced “a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire”. (15)

The West’s desire to eliminate communist Russia had preceded the Second World War. At Soviet Russia’s founding when World War I was reaching its end, the leading Western states (America, Britain and France) and their allies had attempted to oust the Bolshevik government by invading Russia in 1918. Part of the aim was to restore a pro-Western, White Russian outfit in the Kremlin.

Through Winston Churchill’s firm support, in autumn 1919 the British deployed poison gas in northern Russia against Bolshevik troops (16); and this despite the horrors of chemical warfare fresh in the memory from the First World War. Scholars and diplomats, like John Lewis Gaddis and George Kennan, traced the Cold War’s origins to around 1917-1918.

By 1920, it was clear the Western military attack on Soviet Russia had failed to achieve its objectives. A generation later, with the defeat of Nazi Germany becoming a probability in World War II, the Soviet Union was again identified as the West’s principal foe from 1942-1943.

US Brigadier General Leslie Groves assumed control of the Manhattan Project (America’s atomic bomb program) in September 1942. In March 1944 Groves confided to the Polish physicist Joseph Rotblat,

“You realise of course that the main purpose of this [Manhattan] project is to subdue the Russians”.

On another occasion Groves remarked again on America’s atomic bomb development,

“There was never, from about two weeks from the time I took charge of the project, any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and the project was conducted on that basis”. (17)

This crucial testimony from a prominent US military official like Groves, indicates that as early as October 1942 the Soviets were beginning to be thought of as the Americans’ next major adversary.

5) The Domino Theory

– Within the space of a year (1978-79), the US had seen both Afghanistan and Iran become independent of its influence.

It sparked fears in Washington about the recurring domino theory: that other countries could fall like dominoes outside of US control, with revolution in Iran potentially spreading to nearby Iraq and Saudi Arabia, two further states rich in oil reserves. This was among the worst of scenarios for the White House. It was, for example, partly out of fear of dominoes falling that US governments launched wars of aggression in Indochina from the early 1960s.

On 15 February 1979, the Carter administration issued an official protest about purported Soviet activity in Iran of an “anti-American” nature. (18)

Five days later on 20 February 1979 president Carter, presumably referring to the Soviet Union, warned “other nations” against meddling in Iran, during a speech he gave at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. Carter continued that any such interference “will have serious consequences and will affect our broader relationship with them”. (19)

On 1 March 1979, US government departments conceded that the vital CIA TACKSMAN Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) sites – which had been located in northern Iran – were now closed down by the new Iranian leadership. In the Cold War era, the most important sites operated by the CIA were precisely these TACKSMAN intelligence facilities; which among other things enabled the Americans to secretly monitor Soviet missile tests. (20)

In the spring of 1979, the CIA was surveying Afghanistan as a replacement for its TACKSMAN sites (21). In mid-March 1979, an anti-communist revolt erupted around the ancient city of Herat, in western Afghanistan. It lasted for just a few days but resulted in many thousands of deaths. Among the men behind this insurrection was the Afghan-born Ismail Khan, who would later command a large mujahideen force against the Red Army in Afghanistan.

During the Herat revolt, Pakistani author Ahmed Rashid wrote that Khan’s forces were responsible for “killing Soviet and communist Afghan officers” and “Hundreds of Russians were killed” (22). Among the dead were some of the families of Soviet officers and military advisers. Herat’s civilian population, caught between the exchanges of gunfire and heavy weaponry, suffered a loss of life running into the low thousands at a minimum.

The 72-year-old Brezhnev was irate when informed about the Russian death toll in Herat. He agreed to increase military aid to the Afghan communists. However, no evidence existed through 1979 that Soviet troops were directly participating in combat operations in Afghanistan (23), until the Russian military offensive began in late December that year.

*

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

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 Ronald Reagan, “Address to the Nation on the Iran Arms and Contra Aid Controversy”, The American Presidency Project, 13 November 1986

2 Douglas Rivero, The Detente Deception: Soviet and Western Bloc Competition and the Subversion of Cold War Peace (University Press of America, 19 Dec. 2012) p. 106

3 Malcolm Byrne, Vladislav Zubok (assisted by National Security Archive staff), The Intervention in Afghanistan and the Fall of Detente, The National Security Archive

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 Diego Cordovez, Selig S. Harrison, Out of Afghanistan: The Inside Story of the Soviet Withdrawal (Oxford University Press, 29 June 1995) p. 34

7 Paul Craig Roberts, “How America Was Lost”, Foreign Policy Journal, 8 November 2013

8 Byrne, Zubok, The National Security Archive

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Andrei Gromyko, Memories: From Stalin to Gorbachev (Arrow Books Limited, 1 Jan. 1989) p. 306

12 Bill van Auken, “Zbigniew Brzezinski, architect of the catastrophe in Afghanistan, dead at 89”, World Socialist Web Site, 29 May 2017

13 Byrne, Zubok, The National Security Archive

14 Ibid.

15 Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Le Nouvel Observateur, Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, “America Initiated the War on Afghanistan 40 Years Ago: U.S. Recruitment of ‘Islamic Terrorists’ Started in 1979. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Introductory Note by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky”, Global Research, 15 October 2001, Republished 22 August 2021

16 Giles Milton, “Winston Churchill’s shocking use of chemical weapons”, The Guardian, 1 September 2013

17 Peter Kuznick, “Truman’s ‘human sacrifice’ to subdue Moscow”, newagebd.net, 5 August 2020

18 Byrne, Zubok, The National Security Archive

19 New York Times, “Text of Speech by President Carter at Georgia Tech”, 21 February 1979

20 Jeffrey T. Richelson, The CIA and Signals Intelligence, The National Security Archive

21 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. 132

22 Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia (Yale University Press, 8 Feb. 2001) p. 37

23 Byrne, Zubok, The National Security Archive

Featured image: Brzezinski visits Osama bin Laden and other Mujahideen fighters during training.

The European Energy Crisis Is About to Go Global

September 24th, 2021 by Irina Slav

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

It was only a matter of time, really. In a globalized world, energy crunches can hardly remain regionally contained for very long, especially in a context of damaged supply chains and a rush to cut investment in fossil fuels. The energy crunch that began in Europe earlier this month may now be on its way to America. For now, all is well with one of the world’s top gas producers. U.S. gas exporters have enjoyed a solid increase in demand from Asia and Europe as the recovery in economic activity pushed demand for electricity higher. According to a recent Financial Times report, there is a veritable bidding war for U.S. cargos of liquefied natural gas between Asian and European buyers—and the Asians are winning.

Coal exports are on the rise, too, and have been for a while now, especially after a political spat had China shun Australian coal. But supply is tightening, Argus reported earlier this month. In July, according to the report, U.S. coking coal exports dropped by as much as 20.3 percent from June. The report noted supply was constrained by producers’ limited access to funding and a labor shortage that has plagued many industries amid the pandemic.

All this should be good news for U.S. producers of fossil fuels. But it may easily become bad news as winter approaches. The Wall Street Journal’s Jinjoo Lee wrote earlier this week high energy prices could be the next hot import for the United States. Lee cited data showing gas inventory replenishment was running below average rates for this season, and gas in storage in early September was 7.4 percent below the five-year average.

Coal inventories are also running low because of stronger exports, with prices for thermal coal three times higher than they were a year ago. According to calculations from the Energy Information Administration cited in the WSJ report, coal inventories in the United States could fall to less than half last year’s inventory levels by the end of the year. Last year, energy demand was depressed because of the pandemic. This year, the U.S. economy is firing on all cylinders once again.

No wonder electricity prices are already going up.

In a way, the events in Europe could be seen as a trailer of what might happen in the United States. It is a trailer because it shows all the worst bits. The United States is much more energy independent than, say, the UK, and that’s a big plus. Yet exports bring in revenues, and it would require government intervention to make gas producers cut exports.

In an alarming move, such intervention was requested last week by a manufacturing industry group. Industrial Energy Consumers of America, an organization representing companies producing chemicals, food, and materials, asked the Department of Energy to institute limits on the exports of liquefied natural gas in order to avoid soaring prices and gas shortages during the winter, Reuters reported on Friday.

Opinions seem to differ on whether rising LNG exports are in fact hurting U.S. consumers. But the fact is that gas prices are already double what they were a year ago. According to the IECA, they are not, however, high enough to motivate a ramp-up in natural gas production. Therefore, in order to stockpile enough gas for the winter, the U.S. government must force a reduction in exports.

The LNG industry is, of course, against this. The executive director of Center for Liquefied Natural Gas told Reuters most LNG exports are shipped under long-term fixed-price contracts that have no relation to benchmark gas prices and their movements. Yet some cargos are sold on the spot market.

“Buyers of LNG who compete for natural gas with U.S. consumers are state-owned enterprises and foreign government-controlled utilities with automatic cost pass through,” Paul Cicio, president of IECA, said, as quoted by Reuters. “U.S. manufacturers cannot compete with them on prices.”

Traders are already getting jittery, and this will likely contribute to price uncertainty; regardless of how the fundamentals situation develops. Again, Europe is at the heart of the uncertainty – or rather the certainty that prices have higher to climb. But now, China has added to concern about gas supply and the potential for shortages.

For now, China’s biggest problem seems to be coal rather than gas. A recent Bloomberg report said that China coal power plant operators are struggling to buy enough coal to keep their plants running, and some are being forced to shut down their boilers because of insufficient coal supply. This, however, might lead to stronger gas demand to ensure enough electricity and heating for the winter. This will further exacerbate the difference between global demand and supply.

The European energy crunch is spilling over into other regions. The blame game has begun with culprits ranging from years of underinvestment in local gas production to a Gazprom scheme to get Nord Stream 2 approved by Germany. For now, it is still unclear how much of the price surge is due to a gap between demand and supply and how much of it is due to market nervousness, at least according to RBC commodity strategist Christopher Louney, as quoted by the WSJ’s Lee. This question is less important than another, however, and it is a scary one:

Just how bad could things get this winter?

*

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

Irina is a writer for Oilprice.com with over a decade of experience writing on the oil and gas industry.

Featured image is from OilPrice.com

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Newspapers throughout Europe are talking about UK shortages and Brexit.

Spanish daily El País said last week that Brexit, worker shortages and the pandemic are hitting supplies in the United Kingdom.

Referencing shortages that plagued Britain in the 1970s, eventually leading to the arrival of Margaret Thatcher’s neoliberalism, the newspaper said Britain is returning to the days when it was “not uncommon to make excuses for breach of contract.”

‘Like a boycotted Cuba’

Also in Spain, La Vanguardia talks about KFC struggling to find chickens and having to close branches and McDonald’s not serving milkshakes and soft drinks.

It continues highlighting medicines are expiring before even arriving in British hospitals and pharmacies, fruits and vegetables are rotting in the fields, pubs are finding it hard to get hold of beer and water bottles are “evaporating”.

“In many many shops and supermarkets there isn’t milk, and the image of empty shelves has become usual, as if it were a boycotted Cuba,” the paper reported earlier this month.

French daily Libération used an almost bare toilet roll with the last sheet hanging reading “Brexit”.

And Le Parisien reported yesterday that gas stations run by UK’s BP and US rival ExxonMobil have closed in the UK due to fuel shortages caused by a lack of delivery drivers.

In a statement received by AFP, BP admits that it is “suffering from petrol supply problems at some sales sites in the United Kingdom”, caused by “delivery delays due to the lack of truck drivers across the UK”.

‘No one to transport fuel’

In Germany, Der Spiegel also reported yesterday about petrol shortagres, saying: “There would be enough fuel available – but nobody is there to transport it”.

Italy’s Repubblica TV talked about “Great Britain’s post-Brexit apocalipse” earlier this month.

And last month, Dissapore reported Brexit and Covid are putting Christmas at risk.

​​”London, Manchester, Cambridge, Birmingham: In all these cities there is a supply crisis that is hitting supermarkets and fast food,” the publication’s article read.

‘UK is in serious trouble’

Europe’s reporting of post-Brexit Britain sparked many reactions – with one user saying: “Brexit and its consequences are news all over the globe because what is happening in the UK isn’t happening there.

“Regardless of what the UK government says, the UK is in serious trouble.”

James Taylor said they must be “jealous” as there is no room for food in the UK because “our shelves are stacked full of sovereignty”.

And Paul Niland said: “Note. All of these countries also have Covid to deal with. Also note. The list of upsides contains nothing more than slogans.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 TLE

Pakistani Diplomacy Is on a Roll

September 24th, 2021 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

An Indian news website that is wired into Panjshir Valley reported this morning that Amrullah Saleh, former Afghan vice president and security tsar in the Ghani government has relocated to Tajikistan and that that he was given a safe passage by the Tajikistan government. 

This comes within days of the “lengthy meeting” in Dushanbe on September 17 between Tajik President Emomali Rahmon and Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan where they thrashed out the terms of a consensus approach towards the Taliban Govt in Kabul. 

Imran Khan later hinted that he would be working on Rahmon’s preconditions for accepting the Taliban rule in Afghanistan. Rahmon himself said in a major speech later in the presence of Imran Khan that he was “satisfied with the process of regular political contacts between our states, including at the highest level,” and expressed interest in connectivity with the ports of Karachi and Gwadar and in “joining regional corridors and transport projects”.

Rahmon stressed that “stabilising the situation in Afghanistan, as a country connecting regional and international transport networks, is especially important” for Dushanbe. He expressed the hope that peace and stability in Afghanistan “will be restored in the near future and the interests of all political and ethnic groups in Afghanistan will be taken into account. We support inclusive government in this country with the participation of all social groups.” 

Importantly, Rahmon and Imran Khan agreed that the “speedy elimination of the conflict and tensions in the Panjshir province by declaring a ceasefire and opening roads for providing humanitarian assistance is one of the most important tasks today.” And the two leaders also “agreed to direct all efforts to achieve these goals.”

Rahmon concluded, “We agreed to facilitate negotiations between the Taliban and Tajiks in Dushanbe. read more 

Dushanbe has finally accepted the Taliban as a reality. Imran Khan has won over Rahmon who has been an obdurate, seemingly recalcitrant critic of the Taliban.

It is entirely conceivable that Rahmon provided “safe passage” to Saleh so that the deck is clear for ending the strife in Panjshir Valley and reconciliation talks with the Taliban to begin.

Since then, a joint Russian-Chinese-Pakistani diplomatic mission to Kabul on September 21-22 has held talks with the acting Taliban Prime Minister Mohammad Hasan Akhund, acting Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi, acting Finance Minister Hidayatullah Badri and other senior officials, aside former Afghan President Hamid Karzai and and former Chairman of the High Council for National Reconciliation Abdullah Abdullah. 

The Chinese Foreign Ministry has stated that “in-depth and constructive discussions” took place on the whole range of issues, “especially on inclusiveness, human rights, economic and humanitarian issues, friendly relations between Afghanistan and other countries, especially neighbouring countries, and the unity and territorial integrity” of the country. The Taliban leaders appreciated that the 3 countries “are playing a constructive and responsible role in consolidating peace and stability” in Afghanistan. 

It appears that the inputs from the meeting in Kabul have gone into the meeting of the foreign ministers of the permanent members of the UN Security Council on Wednesday in New York chaired by Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. In subsequent remarks to the media, Guterres sounded optimistic.  

Importantly, this P-5 meeting took place at the initiative of the UK, a day after Prime Minister Boris Johnson met President Biden on Tuesday at the White House. 

A readout from 10 Downing Street later summed up that Johnson and Biden agreed that “the best way to honour all those who gave their lives to make Afghanistan a better place will be to use all the diplomatic and humanitarian tools at our disposal to prevent a humanitarian crisis and preserve the gains made in Afghanistan.”

The restrained language reflects the mellowed tone in Biden’s brief references in his UN GA speech on Tuesday where he en passe spoke of “closing this period of relentless war (in Afghanistan) and opening a new era of relentless diplomacy.” Biden made no threatening references to “out-of-the-horizon” military operations directed at Afghanistan and eschewed any demonising of the Taliban. 

Interestingly, Biden did advocate the rights of women but “from Central America to the Middle East, to Africa, to Afghanistan — wherever it appears in the world.” 

The bottom line is that the Pakistani line on the imperative need to engage with the Taliban government is steadily gaining traction. The Pakistani mantra is: “Be realistic. Show patience. Engage. And above all, don’t isolate.” — as a AP dispatch neatly summed up an exclusive interview with Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi on Wednesday on the sidelines of the UN GA in New York. read more

On granting recognition to the Taliban government, Imran Khan told the BBC this week,

“We will collectively take a decision… We think that all the neighbours will get together, we will see how they [Taliban] progress, and whether to recognise them or not will be a collective decision.” 

He underscored,

“There will not be any long-term sustainable peace in Afghanistan unless all the factions, all the ethnic groups are represented.” 

Pakistan’s decision to work for and through a regional consensus, is a tactically prudent course, that raises the comfort level of Afghanistan’s neighbours. Imran Khan’s understanding with Rahmon becomes vital. 

Imran Khan was at his persuasive best in the BBC interview, candidly discussing the international community’s anxieties over the rights of women under Taliban rule, etc. But his unspoken message is hard-hitting: What is the alternative to engaging with the Taliban government — nudging it, cajoling it, incentivising it? 

Perhaps, it smacks of a poker game where Imran Khan knows Pakistan is holding a strong hand and doesn’t have to flaunt it while claiming victory. But Pakistan has learned from the experience of the 1990s — high risk of going out on a limb in a triumphalist frame of mind. 

Today, the external environment is working favourably for Pakistani diplomacy. China’s readiness to salvage the Afghan economy is an altogether new factor. Again, with the Biden Administration disinclined to get into further entanglements in Afghanistan and Central Asia and big-power strategic competition accelerating elsewhere globally, the neighbouring countries of Afghanistan are becoming the main stakeholders — Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, China and Pakistan — and their number one priority is the stability of Afghanistan.

The Turkmenistan president Berdimuhamedow probably spoke for the region when he said in his speech at the UNGA earlier this week:

“The situation there is not easy, the government and public institutions that are being formed are very fragile. This is why assessing the situation in the country requires ultimate consistency, prudence and responsibility — both in words and actions. 

“The situation in Afghanistan has changed, and when forming an approach to it, one needs to abandon ideological preferences, old grudges, phobias and stereotypes, thinking first and foremost about Afghan people who are tired of wars and turbulences and dream of a peaceful and quiet life.

“Turkmenistan is deeply interested in a politically stable and safe Afghanistan. We call for normalising the situation in Afghanistan as soon as possible and expect that new government agencies will operate effectively in the interests of all Afghan people. Turkmenistan will continue to provide comprehensive economic support and humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan.” 

Indeed, the mood in the region is radically changing. It is noticeable too that Afghanistan has become a much calmer place. Violence and bloodshed have ceased. The civil war conditions are receding. 

The change of mood is reflected in a recent interview by Karzai to the Iranian media where he said that the Taliban are from Afghanistan and part of its people, they love their homeland and want calm and a peaceful life.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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: Acting Prime Minister of Taliban Interim Government Mohammad Hasan Akhund and senior ministers met the special envoys of Russia, China and Pakistan in Kabul, Afghanistan, September 21, 2021  (Source: Indian Punchline)

Pulmonary Nurse of 31 Years Testifies How He Followed the COVID Protocols, Unknowingly that They Could Result in the Deaths of Patients

By Brian Shilhavy, September 23, 2021

In this public testimony, Mr. Spence relates how he followed all the advice in the beginning of how the medical system wanted him to treat COVID patients, even though so much of it went against his 30+ years of experience in treating patients with respiratory illnesses.

30,000+ Women in UK Report Menstrual Problems after COVID Shots, but Menstrual Issues Not Listed as Side Effect

By Megan Redshaw, September 23, 2021

Reports of adverse reactions include heavier-than-usual periods, delayed periods and unexpected vaginal bleeding. Most women who reported a change to their period after vaccination found it returned to normal the following cycle, according to the author of the editorial, Dr. Victoria Male, a reproductive specialist at Imperial College in London.

The Revenge of White Colonialism Motivates the AUKUS Alliance Against China

By Danny Haiphong, September 23, 2021

AUKUS is primarily a military relationship but is said to include broad economic measures that undoubtedly seek to counter China’s rise in all spheres of development.

‘This Cannot Happen’: Biden DHS Seeks Contractor for Migrant Detention Center at Guantánamo Bay

By Jessica Corbett, September 23, 2021

The solicitation for bids—which requires some guards who speak Spanish and Haitian Creole—comes as the administration is under fire for mass deportations of migrants, including thousands of Haitians.

Video: ‘Liberal Media Darling’ George W. Bush Confronted by Iraq Veteran

By Steve Watson, September 23, 2021

An Iraq veteran gave George W. Bush a stark reminder this past weekend that although he’s now a liberal media darling, there are plenty of Americans who remember the lies that led to millions of deaths.

American Medical Association Instructs Doctors to Deceive

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, September 23, 2021

The Winter 2021 “AMA COVID-19 Guide: Background/Messaging on Vaccines, Vaccine Clinical Trials & Combatting Vaccine Misinformation,” issued by the American Medical Association (AMA) raises serious questions about the AMA’s adherence to transparency, honesty, ethics and the moral standards to which it will hold its members.

Eurasia Takes Shape: How the SCO Just Flipped the World Order

By Pepe Escobar, September 23, 2021

As a rudderless West watched on, the 20th anniversary meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization was laser-focused on two key deliverables: shaping up Afghanistan and kicking off a full-spectrum Eurasian integration.

How Can You be Content with a Counterfactual Explanation of an Orchestrated “Pandemic”?

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, September 23, 2021

The mRNA vaccines in effect train the virus to escape immune response, thus creating variants that are not controlled by immune responses. Alternatively, adverse vaccine reactions are called “variants.”

New Movement Launched by Physicians, Including Dr. Robert Malone, to Fight Medical Tyranny

By Joel S. Hirschhorn, September 23, 2021

When Americans see the data on COVID deaths of over 600,000, who or what should they blame?  The truth is this: Better than blaming the virus they should blame hospitals and the vast majority of physicians.

Welcome to the CO2 Monitoring Credit Card that Cuts You Off at Your Carbon Max

By Makia Freeman, September 23, 2021

Doconomy is a CO2 monitoring credit card backed by the UN (United Nations), WEF (World Economic Forum) and Mastercard which promises to track your carbon spending – and cut you off once you reach your permitted carbon maximum.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: How Can You be Content with a Counterfactual Explanation of an Orchestrated “Pandemic”?

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Albert Spence is a pulmonary nurse with 31 years of experience. He recently gave public testimony before the South Carolina State Legislature on “therapeutic options” for COVID-19.

Once again, we are finding that nurses who have been working on the frontlines treating COVID-19 patients are the most informed people in the U.S. right now who truly know what is going on in the hospitals, especially when it comes to COVID-19 protocols, and the experimental COVID-19 “vaccines.”

We absolutely need to be listening to these frontline workers right now instead of the talking head “doctors” on TV who never actually treat patients, if we truly want to know what the truth is. Wall Street and the pharmaceutical industry now control the corporate media, and they will never publish testimonies like this, even though it is public knowledge now having been recorded by the South Carolina legislature.

In this public testimony, Mr. Spence relates how he followed all the advice in the beginning of how the medical system wanted him to treat COVID patients, even though so much of it went against his 30+ years of experience in treating patients with respiratory illnesses.

But when the COVID patients started dwindling down in his ward at the beginning of this year, and he found out that the CDC had changed the threshold for PCR tests by reducing the tests from 40 cycles to 28, then he realized what was happening, and it horrified him.

He had been unwittingly assisting in killing his patients by just “doing what I was told.” He now knows that these patients were dying from the COVID protocols, and not COVID-19.

I lost sleep over it. I was having chest pain over it. It woke me up in the middle of the night – hit me hard. I could not sleep.

Because my first week or two there (COVID ward), I didn’t lead them to the gate, but I’m the guy that euthanized people.

They call it “comfort care.” But when you get to the point where you can’t take (oxygen mask) off, you get so upset. You haven’t seen your family except through maybe an iPad, in weeks.

And you’re never going to come off the high flow, and the doctor says: “You’ve done your best. But this is going to be it for you.”

And so the patients get all teary eyed and upset, and they call in the palliative team, and they all hold their hands and cry.

But they said: “We can keep you comfortable.”

Here comes Albert (referring to himself). He’s got the morphine and ativan, and I load them up and take off the high flow, and they gas themselves to death.

And I’m the guy who was pushing the buttons, like in the gas chambers at Auschwitz.

This is from our Bitchute channel, and it is also on our Rumble channel.

*

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

Featured image is from HIN

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pulmonary Nurse of 31 Years Testifies How He Followed the COVID Protocols, Unknowingly that They Could Result in the Deaths of Patients
  • Tags:

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

A federal district court in Los Angeles has ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the “Service”) violated the law when they failed to list the imperiled Joshua tree under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”).

The Service disregarded overwhelming scientific evidence showing that climate change poses a major threat to the Joshua tree’s survival when the agency denied listing the species as threatened under the Act. The decision stems from a 2019 lawsuit filed by WildEarth Guardians, challenging the Service’s decision that the desert icon did not warrant federal protection, despite all the available scientific evidence pointing to the same conclusion: Joshua trees will be in danger of extinction throughout most of their current range by century’s end from climate change driven habitat loss, invasive grass fueled wildfire, and other stressors.

“The Court’s decision represents a monumental step forward for the Joshua tree, but also for all climate-imperiled species whose fate relies upon the Service following the law and evaluating the best scientific data available with respect to forecasting future climate change impacts,” said Jennifer Schwartz, staff attorney for WildEarth Guardians and lead attorney on the case. “The Court’s unequivocal holding—that the Service cannot summarily dismiss scientific evidence that runs counter to its conclusions—will force the federal government to confront the reality of climate change and begin focusing on how to help species adapt.”

WildEarth Guardians first filed a petition to list the Joshua tree as “threatened” under the ESA in 2015and the Service found the listing “not warranted” in August 2019. Under the Trump administration, the Service ignored every available peer-reviewed study to model future climate impacts to Joshua tree—all of which agree that the vast majority (roughly 90%) of the species’ current range will be rendered unsuitable by the end of the 21st century. The Court lambasted the Service’s decision in the ruling stating that “[i]n concluding that climate change will not affect Joshua trees at a population- or species level, the Service relies on speculation and unsupported assumptions.”

Notably, while the decision was issued by the Service under the Trump administration, the Service refused to budge from its indefensible position—or even consider taking a fresh look at the finding—even under the Biden administration. In addition to the litigation, Guardians filed emergency petitions to protect two species of Joshua tree in May 2021, following the release of even more conclusive climate change findings and the large Cima Dome fire that swept through the Mojave National Preserve and killed an estimated 1.3 million Joshua trees. But the Service has failed to respond to the renewed petitions.

“While we are grateful to the Court for this positive decision, we are very disappointed that the Biden administration failed at several junctures to do what’s right by these iconic Joshua trees,” said Lindsay Larris, wildlife program director for WildEarth Guardians. “The time and money the federal government spent defending a decision that the Court could clearly see was wrong—instead of using these funds to conserve species and determine how to mitigate massive biodiversity loss from climate change—is tragic and, unfortunately, telling. We need this administration to take swift action to protect species and habitat, not just deliver nice messages about the importance of fighting climate change while defending the damaging actions of the prior administration.”

The Court order now directs the Service to reconsider its decision, taking into account the best available science, including climate change models, in issuing a new decision for the Joshua tree. Pursuant to the ESA, this decision is required to be issued within the next 12 months, though the Service will now have 60 days to decide whether or not to appeal the decision.

“For the sake of the Joshua tree and the overwhelming majority of the public who believe in conservation, science, and protection of species and habitat, we are optimistic that the Service will use this opportunity to quickly issue a decision to protect the Joshua tree,” said Schwartz. “Our climate-imperiled species—plants and animals alike—do not have time for political gamesmanship that questions unambiguous science. Now is the time for action to preserve what we can of the natural world before it is too late.”

*

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

Featured image: Joshua Tree. Photo by AdobeStock.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on WildEarth Guardians Scores Groundbreaking Legal Win for the Joshua Tree
  • Tags:

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

“If we were to follow the scientific method, as it was taught in textbooks … we would immediately see this observation of menstrual cycle changes in tens of thousands of women as a signal, for which necessary questions would need to be asked,” Dr. Lawrence Palevsky told The Defender.

According to an editorial published Sept. 16 in The BMJ, more than 30,000 reports of menstrual irregularities and vaginal bleeding had been made, as of Sept. 2, to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s (MHRA) Yellow Card Scheme — the UK system for collecting and monitoring adverse reactions following COVID vaccines.

Reports of adverse reactions include heavier-than-usual periods, delayed periods and unexpected vaginal bleeding. Most women who reported a change to their period after vaccination found it returned to normal the following cycle, according to the author of the editorial, Dr. Victoria Male, a reproductive specialist at Imperial College in London.

To date, none of the COVID vaccine manufacturers list any issues pertinent to menstrual health as a side effect. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, common side effects of COVID vaccines include: pain at the site of vaccination, tiredness, fatigue and fever.

Male called for further investigation into potential effects of COVID vaccines on menstrual health — but said the problem lies with the body’s immune response, not the vaccine.

“Menstrual changes have been reported after both mRNA and adenovirus vectored COVID-19 vaccines, suggesting that if there is a connection, it is likely to be a result of the immune response to vaccination rather than a specific vaccine component,” Male wrote.

According to the MHRA, evaluation of Yellow Card reports does not support a link between changes to menstrual periods and COVID vaccines, because the number of reports is low compared to the number of people vaccinated, and the prevalence of menstrual disorders generally.

However, the way in which Yellow Card data are collected makes firm conclusions difficult, according to Male.

According to the most recent data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) — the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. — between Dec. 14, 2020 and Sept. 10, 2021, there have been 8,793 total reports of menstrual disorders after vaccination with a COVID vaccine.

Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events, which means the number of actual adverse events evolving menstrual disorders could be much higher.

In an interview with Medical News Today, Dr. Sarah Gray — a general practitioner who for 15 years who ran a specialist women’s health clinic for the UK’s National Health Service — said:

“The control of menstrual bleeding is complex with potential effects from the brain, ovaries and uterus itself. It is plausible that the effects of [SARS-CoV-2] infection or vaccination on the immune system could affect this control pathway, and any research would be greatly valued.”

Gray also noted, “women’s health has not been a research priority for 20 years and there is much we do not know.”

Dr. Kathryn Clancy, assistant professor at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said she is involved in similar research into acute immune activation and menstrual repair mechanisms.

“I am dismayed that the research design of [COVID] vaccine trials makes it impossible at this time to actually explore this relationship, and hope drug and vaccine manufacturers in the future take these considerations into account,” Clancy said.

In an email to The Defender, Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, pediatrician, lecturer and author, said:

“If we were to follow the scientific method, as it was taught in textbooks (knowing full well there is no longer any adherence to the scientific method), we would immediately see this observation of menstrual cycle changes in tens of thousands of women as a signal, for which necessary questions would need to be asked.”

Palevsky — who is part of an independent research group collecting data from unvaccinated women who experienced menstrual changes after being around others who recently received COVID vaccines — said a necessary study would examine the contents of the injection, and assess the chemical natures of these contents and their effects on human physiology and women’s reproductive systems.

“A true adherence to the scientific method would allow for answers to be reported without bias or prejudice for a desired outcome of the results,” Palevsky said.

Palevsky explained:

“There is a long list of side effects that the manufacturers of the injection sent to the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] in the fall of 2020. Many of the injuries people are reporting after receiving these injections, including bleeding, blood clots, autoimmunity, Guillain-Barré syndrome and many others, are well known to the manufacturers and the FDA but, the powers that be continue to ignore the reports of people presenting with these real-time adverse events, as if they have nothing to do with the injections, at all.

“Essentially, they gathered the data in clinical trials but have kept them completely under wraps.”

Palevsky said he believes the spike protein could play a role in the menstrual irregularities women are reporting, along with “other factors we may not know because no one is doing the appropriate research.”

As The Defender reported Sept. 8, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded one-year supplemental grants totaling $1.67 million to five institutions to explore potential links between COVID vaccines and menstrual changes, after thousands of women reported menstrual irregularities after vaccination in the U.S.

According to the NIH website, some women have reported experiencing irregular or missing menstrual periods, heavier-than-usual bleeding and other menstrual changes after receiving COVID vaccines.

The new funding will go toward research to determine whether the changes may be linked to COVID vaccination itself, and how long the changes last. Researchers will also seek to clarify the mechanisms underlying potential vaccine-related menstrual changes.

So far, no published studies have examined — or offered conclusive evidence — of possible links between the vaccines and menstruation.

*

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

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Featured image is from CHD

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 30,000+ Women in UK Report Menstrual Problems after COVID Shots, but Menstrual Issues Not Listed as Side Effect
  • Tags: ,

Physicians Declaration: Global COVID Summit in Rome, Italy

September 23rd, 2021 by International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

We the physicians of the world, united and loyal to the Hippocratic Oath, recognizing the profession of medicine as we know it is at a crossroad, are compelled to declare the following;

WHEREAS, it is our utmost responsibility and duty to uphold and restore the dignity, integrity, art and science of medicine;

WHEREAS, there is an unprecedented assault on our ability to care for our patients;

WHEREAS, public policy makers have chosen to force a “one size fits all” treatment strategy, resulting in needless illness and death, rather than upholding fundamental concepts of the individualized, personalized approach to patient care which is proven to be safe and more effective;

WHEREAS, physicians and other health care providers working on the front lines, utilizing their knowledge of epidemiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology, are often first to identify new, potentially life saving treatments;

WHEREAS, physicians are increasingly being discouraged from engaging in open professional discourse and the exchange of ideas about new and emerging diseases, not only endangering the essence of the medical profession, but more importantly, more tragically, the lives of our patients;

WHEREAS, thousands of physicians are being prevented from providing treatment to their patients, as a result of barriers put up by pharmacies, hospitals, and public health agencies, rendering the vast majority of healthcare providers helpless to protect their patients in the face of disease.  Physicians are now advising their patients to simply go home (allowing the virus to replicate) and return when their disease worsens, resulting in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary patient deaths, due to failure-to-treat;

WHEREAS, this is not medicine. This is not care. These policies may actually constitute crimes against humanity.

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS:

RESOLVED, that the physician-patient relationship must be restored. The very heart of medicine is this relationship, which allows physicians to best understand their patients and their illnesses, to formulate treatments that give the best chance for success, while the patient is an active participant in their care.

RESOLVED, that the political intrusion into the practice of medicine and the physician/patient relationship must end. Physicians, and all health care providers, must be free to practice the art and science of medicine without fear of retribution, censorship, slander, or disciplinary action, including possible loss of licensure and hospital privileges, loss of insurance contracts and interference from government entities and organizations – which further prevent us from caring for patients in need. More than ever, the right and ability to exchange objective scientific findings, which further our understanding of disease, must be protected.

RESOLVED, that physicians must defend their right to prescribe treatment, observing the tenet FIRST, DO NO HARM. Physicians shall not be restricted from prescribing safe and effective treatments. These restrictions continue to cause unnecessary sickness and death. The rights of patients, after being fully informed about the risks and benefits of each option, must be restored to receive those treatments.

RESOLVED, that we invite physicians of the world and all health care providers to join us in this noble cause as we endeavor to restore trust, integrity and professionalism to the practice of medicine.

RESOLVED, that we invite the scientists of the world, who are skilled in biomedical research and uphold the highest ethical and moral standards, to insist on their ability to conduct and publish objective, empirical research without fear of reprisal upon their careers, reputations and livelihoods.

RESOLVED, that we invite patients, who believe in the importance of the physician-patient relationship and the ability to be active participants in their care, to demand access to science-based medical care.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed this Declaration as of the date first written.

Sign the Declaration here.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Physicians Declaration: Global COVID Summit in Rome, Italy
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Revenge of White Colonialism Motivates the AUKUS Alliance Against China

Afghanistan: Ex-Bagram Inmates Recount Stories of Abuse, Torture

September 23rd, 2021 by Agnieszka Pikulicka-Wilczewska

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Hajimumin Hamza walks through a long, dark corridor and carefully inspects the area as if he has never seen it before. Today, the 36-year old bearded man in a black turban and a traditional two-piece garment is a guide to fellow Taliban fighters in the place whose name he would rather forget. His eyes stop at a solitary chair standing on the pathway.

“They used to tie us to this chair, our hands and feet, and then applied electric shocks. Sometimes they used it for beatings, too,” Hamza says, recounting the torture he underwent during his captivity in Bagram prison between 2017 and the onset of the fall of Kabul last month, when he managed to escape.

The United States set up the Parwan Detention Facility, known as Bagram, or Afghanistan’s Guantanamo, in late 2001 to house armed fighters after the Taliban launched a rebellion following its removal from power in a military invasion.

The facility located within the Bagram airbase in the Parwan province was meant to be temporary. But it turned out otherwise. It housed more than 5,000 prisoners until its doors were forced open, days before the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan on August 15.

Sultan, who was jailed at Bagram between 2014 and August 2021, says he lost his teeth during what came to be known as enhanced interrogation techniques that rights groups say amounted to torture and violated international law. The 42 year old, who does not share his surname, opens his mouth to demonstrate the damage.

Read the full article here.

*

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

Featured image: Hamza recounts the torture he endured during his imprisonment at Bagram [Agnieszka Pikulicka-Wilczewska/Al Jazeera]

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The solicitation for bids—which requires some guards who speak Spanish and Haitian Creole—comes as the administration is under fire for mass deportations of migrants, including thousands of Haitians.

“This is an embarrassingly bad decision. Do better.”

That’s how U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) responded Wednesday to reporting that the Biden administration, already under fire this week for its immigration policies, “is seeking a private contractor to operate a migrant detention facility at the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, with a requirement that some of the guards speak Spanish and Haitian Creole.”

Though the White House, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) did not respond to requests for comment, the revelation from NBC News‘ Jacob Soboroff and Ken Dilanian sparked widespread condemnation.

“This cannot happen,” tweeted Erika Andiola, chief advocacy officer at the Texas-based rights group RAICES. She added a message directed at President Joe Biden: “Shame on you.”

Andiola wasn’t alone in taking aim at the president and other leaders in his administration.

The National Immigrant Justice Center called out Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. If NBC‘s reporting—which is backed up by public records—is true, “then you have lost your way,” the group said.

BuzzFeed, in 2016, described the so-called Migrant Operations Center at the naval base as “a building reminiscent of a budget hotel on an isolated side of the base far from its commercial district and the military detention center.”

DHS’ posting says in part that the center “has a capacity of 120 people and will have an estimated daily population of 20 people, however the service provider shall be responsible to maintain on site the necessary equipment to erect temporary housing facilities for populations that exceed 120 and up to 400 migrants in a surge event.”

The contract solicitation for the facility comes as President Joe Biden faces global criticism for his administration’s response to thousands of Haitian migrants who gathered at a camp on the Texas-Mexico border in the context of its broader policies on asylum and deportation.

Soboroff and Dilanian noted that the records “provided no indication that the Biden administration is planning to transfer migrants from the southern border to Guantánamo Bay,” which has been used by previous U.S. administrations to detain aslyum-seekers.

As TIME detailed in 2015:

In 1991, in the wake of a coup d’état in Haiti, thousands of Haitians fled by sea for the United States. In December of that year, Guantánamo Bay became the site of a refugee camp built to house those who sought asylum while the [George H.W.] Bush administration figured out what to do with them. Throughout the years that followed, the camp became home to thousands of native Cubans, too, who had also attempted to flee to the U.S. for political asylum. In the summer of 1994 alone, TIME wrote the following May, “more than 20,000 Haitians and 30,000 Cubans were intercepted at sea and delivered to hastily erected camps in Guantánamo.” In 1999, during conflict in the Balkans (and after the Haitian and Cuban refugees had been sent home or on to the States), the U.S. agreed to put up 20,000 new refugees at Guantanamo, but that plan ended up scrapped for being too far from their European homelands.

In a book initially published anonymously, former DHS official Miles Taylor claimed that former President Donald Trump discussed sending migrants to the U.S. naval base that is also infamously home to a torturous military prison, but it never actually happened.

Soboroff and Dilanian reported that immigrant rights advocates say the facility’s past use “was driven in part by the fact that some of the Haitians were HIV-positive.”

Wendy Young, president of the immigrant advocacy group Kids in Need of Defense, told NBC that the Biden administration’s potential plans are “highly concerning,” explaining that when the facility was used in the 1990s, it “proved highly deficient in terms of providing the services that migrant families and children urgently need, including legal representation.”

“Instead of defaulting to a law enforcement response grounded in deterrence, the administration should instead live up to our legal and ethical obligation to allow Haitians to apply for asylum,” Young said. “Conditions in Haiti underscore how essential that is.”

Even though Haiti is still reeling from the July assassination of former President Jovenel Moïse that was followed by a deadly earthquake and tropical storm last month, the Biden administration has ramped up deportations of Haitians in recent days under a pair of widely criticized removal policies, one of which the administration is defending in court.

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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: The entrance to Camp 1 in detention camp’s Camp Delta (Source: Public Domain)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

An Iraq veteran gave George W. Bush a stark reminder this past weekend that although he’s now a liberal media darling, there are plenty of Americans who remember the lies that led to millions of deaths.

Corporal Mike Prysner was captured on video launching into a tirade against Bush during a speech in Beverly Hills.

“When are you going to apologize for the million Iraqis who are dead because you lied?” Prysner yelled at Bush.

“You lied about weapons of mass destruction! You lied about connections to 9/11! You sent me to Iraq! You sent me to Iraq!” Prysner continued.

Bush can be heard responding “you said you’d behave yourself.”

As he was bundled out of the room, Prysner demanded Bush “apologise” adding “my friends are dead, you killed people.”

Watch:

Following a 9/11 memorial speech in which he directly compared supporters of President Trump to Al Qaeda terrorists, Bush is being held up as an icon by the left.

As journalist Glenn Greenwald noted last week,

“it turned into this love-fest. I mean they dripped with effusive praise for him because of what he said, essentially that the 9/11 attacks are the same as the three hour riot on January 6th, and more importantly that the people who did 9/11, Al Qaeda, are similar or identical to ‘the same foul spirit’ as he put it, Trump supporters essentially.”

“A domestic war on terror against your fellow citizens is music to the ears of American liberals because they want nothing more than treating their political adversaries, like the Bush administration treated Al Qaeda,” Greenwald asserted.

Watch:

*

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

Chromothripsis: Bad News for Gene Editing

September 23rd, 2021 by Claire Robinson

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

CRISPR gene editing is often presented as a straightforward, precise, and safe procedure. But recent research findings on CRISPR gene editing for gene therapy applications show it can lead to massive damage to chromosomes. The phenomenon is known as chromothripsis.

An article in Nature Biotechnology about the new findings describes chromothripsis as “an extremely damaging form of genomic rearrangement that results from the shattering of individual chromosomes and the subsequent rejoining of the pieces in a haphazard order”.

And now there are signs that the findings are hitting gene editing companies’ stock.

“You cannot make this go away”

The authors of the new study, published in Nature Genetics, conclude that “chromothripsis is a previously unappreciated on-target consequence” of the double-strand breaks in the DNA that CRISPR gene editing is designed to bring about. The fact that the damage occurs “on-target” – at the intended edit site – means that any attempts to target the CRISPR gene editing more precisely will not solve this problem, as pointed out in the Nature Biotechnology article by one of the researchers on the study, David Pellman of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School. He said, “You cannot make this go away by making the cutting more specific.”

Cancer worries

The major worry with chromothripsis in therapeutic settings is that it can lead to cancer or an inherited disease in any children of the affected patient. It would only take a single cell to be affected by chromothripsis to result in a cancer.

This has implications for animal gene editing, as edited animals could be prone to cancer. But it also spells bad news for plant gene editing, where chromosomal damage would lead to changes in the function of genes that could in turn result in unexpected toxicity or allergenicity, as well as unpredictable effects on wildlife.

Effect “cannot be completely avoided”

While an expert interviewed for the Nature Biotechnology article is upbeat about the ability of the gene editing field to “innovate its way around” this and any other problems that arise from CRISPR processes, the researchers on the original paper seem less convinced.

This is evident from the preprint version of their article, which appeared on BioRxiv before the peer-reviewed version was published in Nature Biotechnology. In the preprint version, the authors bluntly call chromothripsis “a catastrophic mutational process” and warn that it is “an on-target toxicity that may be minimized by cell manipulation protocols or screening but cannot be completely avoided in many genome editing applications”.

However, this wording is absent from the final published version. The original downbeat conclusion on the impossibility of avoiding chromothripsis has been watered down to the bland statement, “As genome editing is implemented in the clinic, the potential for extensive chromosomal rearrangements should be considered and monitored.”

Investors running scared

Others who remain unconvinced that this inherent problem of CRISPR can be solved may include investors in CRISPR-based companies. An article for the investment news outlet Seeking Alpha says that the “new data concerning chromothripsis may affect the long-term outlook of companies such as Crispr Therapeutics”. The stock of these companies (collected in a fund known as ARKG), which was previously surging, suddenly slumped in July this year, the same month that the Nature Biotechnology study was published.

The Seeking Alpha article continues, “The long-term impact on health of gene editing may not be known until around 2040.” It concludes, “Given the uncertain outlook, investors may be wise to re-evaluate their positions in companies employing DNA double strand breaks to edit the genome.”

Seeking Alpha does not go so far as to blame the chromothripsis findings as the sole or main cause of ARKG’s slump, but notes it as “one contributory factor”.

Chromothripsis is just the latest in a long list of unintended CRISPR-induced outcomes that can occur at the intended edit site and thus cannot be avoided by improving CRISPR targeting. In spite of this, policymakers in the UK and the EU persist in echoing industry lobbyists’ narratives that CRISPR gene editing is precise and the outcomes predictable.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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: Kumamon Y. Watson via Wiki Commons. Reproduced under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

American Medical Association Instructs Doctors to Deceive

September 23rd, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The Winter 2021 “AMA COVID-19 Guide: Background/Messaging on Vaccines, Vaccine Clinical Trials & Combatting Vaccine Misinformation,” issued by the American Medical Association raises serious questions about the AMA’s adherence to transparency, honesty, ethics and the moral standards to which it will hold its members

The guide lists nine “key messages” the AMA wants doctors to focus on when communicating about COVID-19. This includes stressing the importance of eliminating nonmedical vaccine exemptions, the importance of flu vaccines and COVID shots, and expressing confidence in vaccine development

In the guide, the AMA instructs doctors on how to disinform the public using psychological and linguistic tools. This includes explicit instructions on which words to swap for other more narrative-affirming choices

Word swaps include changing “hospitalization rates” to “deaths,” two terms that are not even remotely interchangeable

Swapping the term “Operation Warp Speed” for “standard process” is another rather egregious misdirection. The two are not interchangeable. In fact, they’re diametrically opposed to one another

*

The Winter 2021 “AMA COVID-19 Guide: Background/Messaging on Vaccines, Vaccine Clinical Trials & Combatting Vaccine Misinformation,”1 issued by the American Medical Association (AMA) raises serious questions about the AMA’s adherence to transparency, honesty, ethics and the moral standards to which it will hold its members.

The AMA was founded in 1847 and is the largest professional association and lobbying group of physicians and medical students in the U.S. According to the AMA itself, its mission is to promote the art and science of medicine and the betterment of public health.

How then do they explain this “COVID-19 messaging guide,” which explicitly teaches doctors how to deceive their patients and the media when asked tough questions about COVID-19, treatment options and COVID shots?

AMA Teaches Doctors How to Deceive

“It is critical that physicians and patients have confidence in the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines as they become available for public use,” the “AMA COVID-19 Guide” states, adding:2

“To overcome vaccine hesitancy and ensure widespread vaccine acceptance among all demographic groups, physicians and the broader public health community must continue working to build trust in vaccine safety and efficacy, especially in marginalized and minoritized communities with historically well-founded mistrust in medical institutions.”

Indeed, the entire guide is aimed at teaching doctors how to foster confidence in the medical profession in general, as it pertains to treatment of COVID-19, but in particular as it pertains to the experimental COVID shots.

The guide provides “suggested narratives” for various engagements, such as when communicating on social media, as sell as “talking points to guide external communications,” such as when being interviewed. It lists nine specific “key messages” that they want doctors to focus on when communicating about COVID-19. These key messages can be summarized as follows:

  • Express confidence in vaccine development
  • Stress the importance of vaccines
  • Highlight the need to combat the spread of vaccine misinformation
  • Adhere to updated ethical guidance for physicians and medical personnel, which says they have a moral obligation to get vaccinated themselves
  • Give general vaccine recommendations, such as the recommendation for everyone over the age of 6 months, including pregnant women, to get an annual flu shot
  • Stress the importance of eliminating nonmedical vaccine exemptions
  • Highlight the increased availability of flu vaccines, and the importance of getting a flu shot even if you’ve gotten a COVID injection
  • Highlight the importance of including minorities, both in vaccine trials and as trusted messengers who can “promote social pressure” to get minorities vaccinated and dispel historical distrust in medical institutions
  • Denounce scientific analyses “predicated on personal opinions, anecdote and political ideologies”

AMA Concerned About Disinformation

On page 7 of the guide, under the science narrative heading, the AMA declares it is “deeply concerned that rampant disinformation and the politicization of health issues are eroding public confidence in science and undermining trust in physicians and medical institutions,” adding that “Science should be grounded in a common understanding of facts and evidence and able to empower people to make informed decisions about their health.”3

To that end, the AMA is calling upon “all elected officials to affirm science and fact in their words and actions,” and for media to “be vigilant in communicating factual information” and to “challenge those who chose to trade in misinformation.”

 AMA Then Instructs Doctors on How to Disinform

It’s a disappointment, then, to find the AMA instructing doctors on how to misinform the public using a variety of psychological and linguistic tools. Perhaps one of the most egregious examples of this is the recommended “COVID-19 language swaps” detailed on page 9.

As you can see below, the AMA explicitly instructs doctors to swap out certain words and terms for other, more narrative-affirming choices. Shockingly, this includes swapping “hospitalization rates” to “deaths” — two terms that are not even remotely interchangeable!

Hospitalization rate refers to how many people are sick in the hospital with COVID-19, whereas death refers to how many people have died. The first term refers to people who are still alive, and the other refers to patients who are not alive.

It strains credulity that the AMA would actually tell doctors to substitute a factual data point with an outright lie. But with this swap, are they not telling doctors to state that people are dead, when in fact they’ve only been hospitalized with COVID-19?

covid 19 language swaps

Another highly questionable word swap is to not address the nitty, gritty details of vaccine trials, such as the number of participants, and instead simply refer to these trials as having gone through “a transparent, rigorous process.”

Swapping the factual term “Operation Warp Speed” for “standard process” is another outrageous misdirection. The two simply aren’t interchangeable. In fact, they’re actually diametrically opposed to one another. Standard process for vaccine development includes a long process of over a decade and a large number of steps that were either omitted or drastically shortened for the COVID shots.

Following standard process is what makes vaccine development take, on average, 10 years and often longer. Operation Warp Speed allowed vaccine makers to slap together these COVID shots in about nine months from start to finish. You cannot possibly say that the two terms describe an identical process.

The Power of Language

Other language swaps are less incredulous but still highlight the fact that the AMA wants its members to help push a very specific and one-sided narrative that makes power-grabbing overreaches and totalitarian tactics sound less bad than they actually are, and make questionable processes sound A-OK.

Language is a powerful tool with which we shape reality,4 because it shapes how we think about things. As noted by storyteller and filmmaker Jason Silva:5

“The use of language, the words you use to describe reality, can in fact engender reality, can disclose reality. Words are generative… We create and perceive our reality through language. We think reality into existence through linguistic construction in real-time.”

For example, “lockdown” sounds like involuntary imprisonment imposed by a totalitarian regime, which is what it is, whereas “stay-at-home order” sounds far less draconian. After all, “home” is typically associated with comfort and safety.

The same goes for using “COVID protocols” in lieu of “COVID mandates, directives, controls and orders.” “Protocols” sounds like something that is standard procedure, as if the COVID measures are nothing new, whereas “mandates, controls and orders” imply that, indeed, we’re in medical fascism territory, which we are.

How to Steer, Block, Deflect and Stall Inconvenient Questions

The AMA could have instructed its members to simply stick to the facts and be honest — and in some sections, it does do that — but it doesn’t end there. Rather, the AMA provides a full page of instructions on how to steer the conversation, and how to block, deflect and stall when faced with tough questions where an honest answer might actually break the official narrative.

Here’s a sampling of these instructions. I encourage you to read through page 8 of the guide, and pay attention to these psychological tricks when listening to interviews or reading the news.

It’s worth noting that the AMA also stresses that: 1) Doctors are to speak for the AMA, and 2) doctors are NOT to offer their personal views. Speaking for the AMA is listed under “Your Responsibilities” when being interviewed, while not discussing personal views is listed under “Interview Don’ts.”

AMA Is Rapidly Eroding All Credibility

The AMA’s guidance isn’t all bad. Some of its advice makes perfect sense. But the inclusion of language swaps that result in false statements being made, and tools for steering, blocking, deflecting, redirecting and stalling in order to avoid direct answers do nothing but erode credibility and thus trust in the medical community.

Its direct instruction to not share personal views is another trust-eroding strategy. When people talk to their doctor, they want to hear what that doctor actually thinks, based on their own knowledge and experience.

They don’t expect their doctor — or a doctor appearing in an interview — to simply rehash a narrative dictated by the AMA. If we cannot trust our medical professionals to give their honest opinions and give direct answers, there’s little reason to even discuss our concerns with them, and that’s the opposite of what the AMA claims it seeks to achieve.

The AMA is concerned about the proliferation of misinformation and eroding trust, yet it’s telling its members to keep their professional views to themselves and lie about COVID deaths. With this guidance document, the AMA is essentially implicating itself as a source and instigator of medical misinformation that ultimately might injure patients.

In a Stew Peters Show interview (see top of this article), Dr. Bryan Ardis criticized the AMA guidance document, pointing out that while the AMA claims it put out the guidance to prevent political ideologies from dictating medicine, it is actually proving that the AMA itself is deferring to political ideology rather than medical facts.

The AMA wants its members to act as propagandists for a particular narrative — using “politically correct language” — rather than sharing information and acting in accordance with their own conscience and professional insight. As noted by Peters:

“If a doctor’s just going to repeat what the AMA tells them, why have doctors at all? You can get plenty of starving propagandists at any liberal college, but instead we want to turn our medical professionals into ideological zombies with stethoscopes.”

Sen. Warren Threatens Amazon to Ban ‘The Truth About COVID-19’

Since the publication of my latest book, “The Truth About COVID-19,” which became an instant best seller on Amazon.com, there’s been a significant increase in calls for censorship and ruthless attacks against me.

Most recently, so-called “progressive” U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., in an outrageous, slanderous and basically unconstitutional attempt to suppress free speech, sent a letter to Amazon, demanding an “immediate review” of their algorithms to weed out books peddling “COVID misinformation.”

Warren specifically singled out “The Truth About COVID-19” as a prime example of “highly ranked and favorably tagged books based on falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines and cures” that she wants to see banned from sale.

Two days later, U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., followed in Warren’s footsteps, sending letters to Facebook and Amazon, calling for more prolific censorship of vaccine information. Even President Joe Biden has recently used a debunked report as his sole source to call for my censorship.

Sadly, these attacks are being levied by the very people elected to safeguard democracy and our Constitutional rights. Essentially, what they are calling for is modern-day book burning. This is a democracy, not a monarchy.

*

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

Notes

1, 2, 3 AMA COVID-19 Guide

4 A Mind for Language: How Language Shapes Our Reality, Senior Thesis Philosophy by Eric Tompkins, 2011

5 Thymindoman.com Does Language Construct Reality?

Featured image is from NOQ Report

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Reiner Fuellmich presents the results of the investigations of the Berlin Corona Committee to date.

Watch the video below.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Berlin Corona Investigation. Ongoing Crimes Against Humanity: “We Are Dealing with Psychopaths”. Reiner Fuellmich
  • Tags: ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Conflict in Eastern Ukraine continues simmering, with relatively regular escalations that lead to a few servicemen deaths and injuries.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) also made it a habit of targeting various civilian infrastructures, mostly damaging buildings but sometimes injuring civilians.

Most recently, on the morning of September 21st, the UAF opened fire on the town of Yasinovataya firing 15 shells from a 120-mm mortar.

A kindergarten was damaged, as well as a sanatorium boarding the school. All the children had to be taken to a bomb shelter and injuries were avoided, but a pipeline nearby was struck in the shelling.

The UAF carried out the attack from their position from the separation line in the village of Verkhnetoretskoe, which was split in two between the Donetsk People’s Republic troops and Kiev.

On the previous day, shelling on the area left more than 400 civilians without electricity due to UAF shelling on a transformer substation.

Damage to civilian infrastructure is an almost daily occurrence. On September 17th, shelling on Donetsk city left 3 civilians injured and 7 buildings damaged.

These escalations are commonly unrelated to the situation on the frontline, but rather on political processes in and around Ukraine, including in its neighboring Russia.

Usually, a ramping up in shelling activity is observed when a Western official is visiting, or Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky appears to inspect the frontlines.

Over the past few days, there have been elections in Russia, including in Crimea.

The Kiev regime was likely preparing for the elections on the peninsula in advance. In early September, it turned out that an August 23rd sabotage attack in the Crimean village of Perevalnoe was organized by Ukrainian military intelligence.

The elections in Crimea are a hot topic in the international arena, with Turkey refusing to recognize its results.

Kiev strictly opposes any political engagement in Crimea, and the increased shelling and targeting of various civilian infrastructure is a form of punishment by the UAF.

Meanwhile, the Kremlin is yet to take any response measures, and only urges Kiev not to move forward with its multi-faceted military preparations such as deploying more and more troops and hardware closer to the Russian borders.

Meanwhile, the US and Ukraine have launched a new Rapid Trident-2021 joint military exercise in a show of force, involving 6,000 soldiers from fifteen countries. At the same time, former American ambassador to Kiev John Herbst claimed that, in case of an open conflict with Moscow, the UAF should expect no actual help from the United States.

Still, a potentially incoming Iron Dome missile defense system could make Kiev even bolder in its provocations in Eastern Ukraine and lead to even more exchanges in the coming 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.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Kiev Targets Civilians in Eastern Ukraine as Punishment for Crimea Election
  • Tags: ,