The War on Cash, Is It a Real Thing? The Answer Is Yes.

September 16th, 2021 by Bruce Wilds

All Global Research articles 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 our bizarre economy, we hear many things, and ideas are constantly being thrown out to us. This all tends to flow together and help us develop a strategy as to how we should cope with the changing times. One thing we continue to hear is that a war is being waged to eliminate cash. Not only are most people going along with this but many have embraced the notion. 

Some people view carrying cash as dangerous or burdensome. This also dovetails with their desire to spend more than they can afford, when using a credit card it is far easier to continue spending money you do not have. All things considered, when asked, is the war on cash a real thing being directed from those on high, sadly we must answer yes. Cash reflects “options for the people” and it appears those in charge of such things want in gone.

Currencies were developed to facilitate and ease transactions between individuals and businesses. The war on cash is simply another way Washington can continue to show its favoritism towards big business. Small businesses often rely more on small cash transactions and often lack the ability to process other forms of payment. It is ironic that while big businesses and companies like Amazon flourish with each move government makes, the small businesses on Main Street are left worse off.

A cashless society where records are made and kept reflecting every transaction we make even down to buying a candy bar also allows the government to monitor our every move. This is something Big Brother-type governments strongly aspire to under the guise it will extend its ability to protect us or tamp down on crime, tax evasion, and corruption. For some reason, they seem to think this will allow them to collect more taxes, yet it comes at the same time they continue to tilt the tax code in favor of massive companies.

The way the government has handled coins during the pandemic is a clear indication of its unconcern over the role cash plays in our economy. When coin shortages developed, little or no effort to straighten out the mess was instituted. Considering the massive number of coins sitting unused in jars and cans across America it is a situation that could easily be resolved. In fact, coinage has yet to return to full use following the pandemic, and claims of coin shortages persist.

Another place this “war on cash” is showing its head is that as of July 1st my bank started to charge a “cash handling fee” of 13 cents per hundred dollars. Simply put, banks want and feel they are in a position to charge customers for the “inconvenience” of having their employees handle cash.

Let me be clear, banks, saving accounts, and other vehicles designed to hold cash are paying little or nothing in the way of interest. With the numbers just out that the CPI is up for the 15th straight month, cash is under assault.  this reflects the fourth straight month above 5% on a year-over-year basis.

While this is the first time the month-over-month CPI has come in below expectations since November 2020 that is not something worthy of celebration. The CPI is routinely criticized for understating and not accurately portraying the true rate of inflation. Another issue is this could be merely the Delta variant’s impact creating the illusion inflation is not rising as rapidly as some people think.

Inflation, currency debasement, and a slew of other problems have always haunted those holding fiat currencies. This does not mean placing your wealth into one of the new cryptocurrencies is the solution. It does not help that in our world where everything seems to be manipulated, central bankers and their ilk all seem to be moving in the same direction. The masses are trapped in a box and the sides are slowly being moved inward.

Because central banks must keep a lot of liquidity in the system in order to keep it functioning, we have the potential of reaching the place where we drown in paper money and inflation soars. This would signify the end of this war on cash and that cash had lost. It is difficult to justify leaving your wealth in cash that is rapidly losing its value. As we stare into the face of rising inflation and possibly lower negative interest rates the reality that all fiat currencies are in trouble and this is just one big Ponzi scheme becomes very apparent.

How fast events unfold is impossible to predict. Just as important is the order in which the four major currencies fail. We have good reason to be concerned about this because it has the potential to strip us of our wealth and cause major disruptions throughout society. Until then, which may be years away, cash has value and plays a very important part in our lives.

*

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

All images in this article are from Advancing Time

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

One of the main fears about the Brazilian Amazon is beginning to materialize: logging is starting to move from the periphery of the rainforest toward the core of the biome, groundbreaking new research shows.

Tracking cut trees through satellite mapping data, the research found that logging activities cleared 464,000 hectares (1.15 million acres) of the Brazilian Amazon — an area three times the size of the city of São Paulo — between August 2019 and July 2020. More than half (50.8%) of the logging was reportedly concentrated in the state of Mato Grosso, followed by Amazonas (15.3%) and Rondônia (15%).

“Around 20 years ago, we feared that the forest would be devastated in the so-called ‘deforestation arch’ and the movement would migrate from the peripheral areas toward the central region of the Amazon,” said Marco Lentini, senior project coordinator of Imaflora, a sustainable development NGO involved in the mapping project. “Our map shows this is happening now: logging is going toward the Amazon core.”

He said the logging pattern was that of “frontier migration,” adding, “This is something that terrifies us. We have to stabilize this frontier.”

The largest seizure of illegal timber in Brazil’s history saw police recover 226,000 cubic meters (8 million cubic feet) of wood on the border between the states of Amazonas and Pará in March 2021. Image courtesy of the Federal Police in Amazonas state.

The research, released last week, was developed by the Simex network formed by four Brazilian environmental nonprofits: Imazon, Imaflora, Idesam, and Instituto Centro de Vida (ICV). The institutions say they set up the alliance to map, for the first time, logging in almost all of the Amazon. They managed to map seven of the nine states that make up the Brazilian Amazon — Acre, Amazonas, Amapá, Mato Grosso, Pará, Rondônia and Roraima — which together account for almost 100% of timber production from the rainforest.

Although the mapping was unable to specify the exact amount of trees illegally extracted from untouched forests, mostly of the illegalities were concentrated at the triple border between Mato Grosso, Amazonas and Rondônia, where intense logging activity was detected in an Indigenous reserve and a conservation unit, according to Vinicius Silgueiro, territorial intelligence coordinator at ICV, a nonprofit based in Mato Grosso. “Protected areas in this region show a large presence of logging and low level of fiscalization, with a lot of signs of illegality.”

The Sismex map covers areas where the Federal Police made the largest seizure of illegal timber in Brazil’s history earlier this year, recovering 226,000 cubic meters (8 million cubic feet) of wood on the border between Amazonas and Pará states. This operation triggered the ouster of the controversial minister of environment, Ricardo Salles, in June, after he reportedly asked for the release of the wood.

Ten municipalities accounted for almost 200,000 hectares (494,000 acres) of logging, five of them in Mato Grosso, two in Amazonas and the remaining in Roraima, Acre and Pará. Most logging activity, 78%, reportedly occurred on privately owned properties. Legal permits are often used to mask logging in restricted areas through a process known as tree laundering, according to the findings.

A more detailed study developed by Imazon focused on Pará shows that over half of the logging in the state has not received any governmental authorization. From August 2019 to July 2020, 50,139 hectares (123,896 acres) of forest were reportedly devastated, with 55% without authorization from environmental bodies. This represented a 20% growth over the 12 months before, when non-authorized logging totaled 38%, according to Imazon.

The map developed by the Simex network shows concentrations of logging activity in the state of Mato Grosso, followed by Amazonas and Pará. Image courtesy of Simex.Before the advent of the Simex project, only Pará and Mato Grosso had satellite-based maps identifying areas where logging has occurred. Imazon started monitoring Pará in 2008 and ICV joined the iniciative in 2013 by monitoring Mato Grosso. The institutions say that these states were their initial focus for data transparency due to high logging activities.

Logging for timber doesn’t clear forest area as extensively as deforestation does, and vegetation growth over logging sites can make visualization via satellite harder, according to Vinicius Silgueiro, territorial intelligence coordinator at ICV.

“With logging, different than deforestation, there is still some coverage by vegetation. We can identify scars in the forest made by the roads used to move the logs, as well as clear areas for storage. There is a whole infrastructure around logging that helps us find these areas,” Silgueiro told Mongabay in a phone interview.

In most states, however, he said it’s nearly impossible to verify when the logging activity is illegal, due to lack of transparency or technological barriers. Many times, he added, certificates for legal forestry activities are filed on paper, making it hard to cross-reference the database of certificates with the images. The only two states with digitized databases are Pará and Mato Grosso.

Logging activity in the Brazilian state of Rondônia, with trees already tagged and awaiting transportation. Image courtesy of Vicente Sampaio/Imaflora.

Another challenge is that the certificates allowing forest management give the location coordinates, but not the shape file — the digital map — of the area, which hampers efforts to identify through satellite imagery where illegal logging occurs, according to Lentini.

Despite these challenges, there are cases where it is very clear that the logging taking place is illegal, Lentini said: when it happens in protected areas like Indigenous reserves and conservation units. The study found that 6% of logging in the Amazon, or 28,112 hectares (69,466 acres), was in conservation units during the study period; 5% was in Indigenous reserves, at 24,866 hectares (61,445 acres). “These areas don’t have any kind of authorization for legal logging,” Silgueiro said.

A 2018 report by the Greenpeace, titled “Imaginary trees, real destruction,” highlighted the unreliability of Brazil’s forestry licensing and control systems, which it said makes it harder to tackle fraud.

“A critical flaw in the Amazon states’ forestry governance lies in the weakness of the licensing process for sustainable forest management plans,” the report said. For the most part, no field inspections are conducted before management plans are drawn up, or these inspections are of low quality, according to the report.

“This allows the forest engineers … to overestimate volumes or fraudulently add trees of high commercial value to the area’s forest inventory. State agencies subsequently issue credits for the harvesting and movement of this non-existent timber,” which will be logged from forests on Indigenous lands, protected areas or public lands, according to Greenpeace’s investigation.

Pará state environmental authorities seize illegal timber in an inspection operation in 2021. Image courtesy of Agência Pará.

Silgueiro, from ICV, said legal and illegal logging persist in proportions of around 60:40. “The more legal documentation there is for exploring the forest, the more illegal timber there is,” he said. He added that logging fraud will only stop once the whole process becomes traceable through technologies that help estimate the real volume of timber production and track each tree individually. “Traceability of production is essential,” Silgueiro said. “This technology already exists, but producing states are slow at adopting it.”

The environmental impact of illegal logging is immense. Recent studies show the Brazilian Amazon is now a net CO2 source, instead of being a carbon dioxide sink as would be expected, due to factors that include logging.

*

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

Featured image: A truck carries logs cut from the Amazon Rainforest in the state of Rondônia. Image courtesy of Vicente Sampaio/Imaflora.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

It is time for Republicans, Democrats and everyone in between to MEET THE MOMENT right now. The tyrannical top-down approach from President Biden must be met with a strong rebuke from state leaders!

Minnesota Must Become a Health Freedom Sanctuary State:

  • A permanent banishment of vaccine passports
  • A banishment of private employer vaccine mandates
  • A banishment of child masking policies
  • A permanent ban of emergency lockdowns – without exception

*

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

Featured image is from Minnesota Senate Republican Caucus

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Permanent Banishment of Vaccine Passport. A Nationwide Movement against Joe Biden’s Tyrannical Approach: Senator Scott Jensen
  • Tags: ,

Guantánamo Must Close

September 16th, 2021 by Miriam Pensack

All Global Research articles 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.

***

 

Two decades after 9/11, the US prison at Guantánamo Bay still holds detainees who have been charged with no crime. The crimes of Gitmo must end and the base must be returned to the Cuban republic.

Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn has lost many things over the course of the disastrous US “war on terror.” As one of the thirty-nine remaining detainees in Washington’s extralegal prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, he has lost touch with the outside world for nearly two decades.

Presumably, too, he has lost some sense of well-being, and not merely for the psychological and physical distress that imprisonment provokes by design. He was the first prisoner to be subjected to the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” program at an agency black site, making his legacy distinctly sinister among his cohort.

His case is thus notorious among the 780 men and children who have been held at Guantánamo. He was the first to be waterboarded, subjected to forced nudity, deprived of sleep for days on end, and held in a box no larger than a human coffin for long stretches of time.

The same fate befell countless others, but his case, detailed at length in the 2012 Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on torture, is perhaps especially haunting for the precedent that it set. When al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn entered CIA custody following his capture in a US-Pakistani raid in March 2002 in Faisalabad, Pakistan, he still had his left eye. By the time he was transferred from a black site to Gitmo four years later, he had lost that, too.

Mistaken Identity

At the time of his torture, the CIA believed al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn, whom they referred to as Abu Zubaydah, to be the number-three-top-ranking leader of Al Qaeda. As with so many pretenses and declarations that the US government has conjured since September 11, 2001, the agency was incorrect. Allegations of his connection to Al Qaeda have been discredited by both the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the UN Security Council.

The roots of such claims are likely to be found in his role facilitating the travel of a number of militant Islamic fighters in Afghanistan during the early 1990s, after the guerrilla force known as the Mujahideen had purged the country of Soviet forces. The United States had spent over $2 billion arming the Mujahideen, making Washington and al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn allies of sorts, however opaque the nature of that coalition.

On July 15 of this year, I sat in a conference room at the Pentagon and watched fifteen minutes of his most recent Guantánamo Periodic Review Board (PRB) hearing, which was beamed in live from the base in eastern Cuba. For many years, the PRB referred to him as Abu Zubaydah, but at this hearing they used his legal name in lieu of the wartime moniker. Revealing the simultaneously patronizing and intimate relationship that the national-security state has with its remaining Guantánamo detainees, the board ultimately came to call him by his first name, Zayn.

Zayn is perhaps most physically identifiable for the eyepatch that has for many years covered the space where his left eye used to be. On the day of his hearing, however, the eye patch was absent. There was an elegance to him as he waited in the courtroom, flanked by a government-appointed personal representative on one side and an Arabic-language translator on the other. His white shirt was pressed, his beard and hair trimmed neat. He sat taciturn, gazing downward through a pair of round glasses, passing prayer beads between his thumb and forefinger.

Understandably, he was trying to make the best possible physical impression on the Board, which was convened somewhere in Virginia and composed of officials from the departments of Defense, Justice, State, and Homeland Security, as well as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. At the opening of the unclassified portion of the hearing, which journalists were permitted to observe from the Pentagon, a PRB official reiterated the entity’s primary function.

They were not assembled to determine the “lawfulness of Zayn’s detention,” the official stressed, but rather to decide whether, nineteen years after his capture and total disconnection from the outside world, he still posed a threat to US national security. Should the board consider a detainee a “continuing significant threat to the security of the United States,” his ongoing detention would be deemed necessary.

The hearing’s opening qualification — that the legality of his detention is not up for decision — should hardly be considered startling at this point, however disturbing such tacit acceptance might be. Zayn is one of countless men still held at Guantánamo who has never been charged with a crime.

Legal Limbo

A month to the day after the hearing, images streamed out of Kabul as the Taliban reclaimed the Afghan capital. The “war on terror” was ostensibly drawing to a close, with the seemingly interminable and devastating US intervention in Afghanistan as its longest and perhaps most flagrantly failed instantiation. At least 240,000 Afghans have died in the conflict, a large number of them civilians, and Washington ultimately replaced the Taliban with the Taliban.

Yet even as the forever war meets its nihilistic denouement, the illegal detention at Guantánamo forges on, a bleak national-security plight of Washington’s own making. Barack Obama never made good on his campaign promise and 2009 executive order to close the prison, and while one of the forty men who was being held there when Joe Biden took office has since been transferred to his home country of Morocco, it is unclear how the current administration will contend with the thirty-nine men who remain.

The military commissions war court established at the base to adjudicate the fates of those facing charges is currently handling the cases of twelve men — three facing proposed charges, seven facing active charges, and two who have been convicted. Another ten of the remaining so-called enemy combatants are still held in law-of-war detention without facing charges at all. They are now recommended for transfer to another country, which will oversee the relevant security measures.

The last seventeen neither face charges nor have been recommended for transfer or release. At this point in the prison’s history, this last category may be the most extreme state of legal limbo a Guantánamo detainee could face. It is also the category in which Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn finds himself.

Despite Washington’s flagrant bypassing of international law in the decades after September 11, war is by no means a lawless paradigm. And as scholar Nasser Hussain has argued, Guantánamo is not the lawless place some imagine it to be; rather, it is a space in which emergent laws proliferate to fit the needs of a belligerent government seizing upon a state of exception.

The legal status of the men still held at Gitmo is murky by design, not only because it is unlawful to indefinitely detain a person without charging him with a crime, but because the judicial apparatus at the base seeks to try civilians within the framework of a military court.

Enemies at the Gates

The way that such practices were implemented is itself a vestige of US invasions long past. The United States coercively obtained a lease to the territory on which Guantánamo sits as part of the agreement ending its first military occupation of Cuba in 1902 — another two US military interventions would storm the island before long. The lease had no termination date and could be annulled only with the agreement of both governments. When the agreement was renegotiated in 1934, following a period of tumultuous regime change on the island, it once again cemented a lease of the Cuban territory in perpetuity.

An overseas military presence with no termination date sounds not unlike “forever war,” but the connection is deeper still. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when the Bush administration added Cuba to its “Axis of Evil” list, it began kidnapping and illegally detaining men and boys on territory that it claimed was under Cuban jurisdiction and therefore not subject to US law.

This is more than mere historical rhyme. There is a troubling conclusion to be drawn from the 120 years that the United States has coercively occupied the base at Guantánamo. The potential culmination of Washington’s post-9/11 forever wars hardly marks the end of the propensity for unceasing extraterritorial militarism. Much like the resistance that a long history of US economic, political, and military intervention provoked in Cuba before and after the island’s 1959 revolution, the destabilization and antipathy that US empire sows rarely comes to a peaceable and tidy conclusion.

An empire needs enemies beyond its gates, and Washington has proved exceptionally skilled at making them. As historian Ada Ferrer notes in her new book, Cuba: An American History, Alberto Mora, the Cuban American general counsel for the US Navy, described Guantánamo as one of the greatest causes of US combat deaths in Iraq, “as judged by [its] effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat.”

The US government is remarkably adept at forging the conditions by which it justifies its interventions. In December 2001, US secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld refused a negotiated peace deal with the Taliban. Instead of accepting a settlement with a government that itself hoped to rid Afghanistan of Al Qaeda and was concerned with gaining recognition from Western governments, Washington engaged in twenty years of warfare that caused unimaginable loss of life. This was not because wresting Osama bin Laden from Taliban-ruled Afghanistan by other means was unfeasible. Washington wanted a war.

As recent images of the humanitarian crisis that US intervention wrought in that country have underlined, Washington’s global crusade against terror has certainly not made the world a safer place. The hundreds of thousands of lives lost, the trauma and devastation that do not end when US combat boots leave Iraqi or Afghan soil, constitute America’s legacy for the people it promised to liberate.

Incommunicado

Where does this leave Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn, who never swore allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and whose purported links to Al Qaeda have been debunked by the US government itself? Whatever connections or intelligence he was suspected of possessing at the time of his capture and torture are now, like the war on terror itself, two decades old. He has no network to facilitate and no information from the outside world to withhold.

His representatives believe that the PRB’s decision to categorize al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn as an ongoing national-security threat, and therefore unfit for transfer or release, is a matter of self-preservation. As his attorney wrote in his most recent PRB statement:

The CIA has a great deal of reason to want Abu Zubaydah to be held incommunicado for the rest of his life. That is because the fabrication of the facts used to justify the creation of the torture program would no longer be held incommunicado.

While the UN National Security Council argues that he was never affiliated with Al Qaeda and is unlikely to affiliate with the organization in the future, it is understandable if a man kidnapped, tortured, and illegally imprisoned for almost two decades might harbor some antipathy towards the United States.

Ultimately, Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn is a danger to US interests because his release might allow him to enumerate, in his own words, what the CIA did to him at its black sites all those years ago. If that is a threat to American safety, it is most certainly one of Washington’s own making.

*

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

Miriam Pensack is a writer, editor, and doctoral candidate in Latin American history at New York University.

Montana Puts Yellowstone Wolves in the Crosshairs

September 16th, 2021 by WildEarth Guardians

All Global Research articles 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.

***

 

Starting today, iconic Yellowstone wolves crossing the boundary of Yellowstone National Park into the state of Montana face slaughter by trophy hunters with high-powered rifles, including within federally-designated Wilderness areas. Wolves living in Glacier National Park face a similar fate when they exit the national park.

Last month, Montana not only eliminated any cap on the number of wolves that can be killed in hunting and trapping zones bordering Yellowstone National Park and Glacier National Park, but individuals can now kill a total of 10 wolves per season. New regulations also allow unethical baiting for wolves statewide, including within federal public lands and Wilderness areas. Night hunting with artificial lights or night vision scopes is also allowed on private lands statewide.

“Despite a groundswell of public opposition from individuals across Montana, the nation, and world, Montana has declared open season on wolves in the state, clearing the way for nearly 50% of the state’s wolf population to be decimated in the upcoming hunting and trapping season,” said Sarah McMillan, the Montana-based conservation director for WildEarth Guardians.

“Yellowstone’s wolves are nationally and internationally famous and the biological role these iconic wolves play within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is priceless. Yet starting today, an individual can slaughter up to ten Yellowstone wolves for just $12,” explained McMillan.

The general wolf hunting season in Montana runs for the next six months, until March 15, 2022, while the wolf trapping and snaring season will start on November 29, 2021 and also run until March 15, 2022.

In response to the on-going slaughter of wolves, in June, WildEarth Guardians and a coalition of fifty conservation groups asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to immediately restore Endangered Species Act protections to gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains. In July, Guardians and allies also petitioned the Biden administration to list the Western North American population of gray wolves as a distinct population segment.  Over 120 Tribes have signed “The Wolf: A Treaty of Cultural and Environmental Survival,” and have called on Interior Secretary Haaland to meet with a Tribal delegation regarding the Treaty and to reinstate protections for wolves. So far, the Biden administration has failed to take any steps to protect wolves.

“As we clearly warned would happen, state ‘management’ of wolves essentially amounts to the brutal state-sanctioned eradication of this keystone native species,” said McMillan. “We must not abandon wolf-recovery efforts or allow anti-wolf states, hunters, and trappers to push wolves back to the brink of extinction.”

Montana’s hunting regulation changes come on the heels of the Biden administration doubling down on its commitment to keep all wolves federally delisted, despite the massive public outcry. In August, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service filed a brief in federal court opposing legal efforts from multiple environmental groups—including WildEarth Guardians, Western Environmental Law Center, and Earthjustice—to challenge the federal delisting rule. This case is set for oral arguments in Northern California District Court in November 2021. As the Northern Rocky Mountain population of wolves was delisted by an act of Congress in 2011, the outcome of this litigation will not impact wolves in Montana.

Gray wolves became functionally extinct in the lower 48 states in the 1960s largely due to rampant hunting and trapping, including deliberate extermination efforts carried out by the federal government. Though first listed as endangered in 1967 under a precursor to the Endangered Species Act, gray wolves only began to recover in the West following reintroductions to central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park in the mid-1990s. Scientists estimated a steady population of about 1,150 wolves in Montana between 2012 and 2019. However, hunters and trappers killed 328 wolves in Montana during the 2020-2021 season, and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks now estimates that only 900 to 950 wolves remain in the state. The total wolf-kill quota for the 2021-2022 hunting and trapping season in Montana is 450, meaning that nearly 50% of the wolf population in Montana could be eliminated in the next six months.

*

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

Featured image: Gray wolf photo by Jacob W. Frank/NPS; graphic element added by Gus O’Keefe.

The Day After 9/11: UN Security Council’s Passes Resolution 1368 and Starts “Pillar Four” of the United Nations

By Elias Davidsson, September 16, 2021

The first overt diplomatic achievement by the United States related to 9/11, was Resolution No. 1368. It was adopted at noontime by the UN Security Council on September 12, 2001. The resolution contained the obligatory statements of condemnation and of solidarity with the 9/11 victims and their families.

“Our Species Is Being Genetically Modified”: What Happened in 2020-21. The “Pandemic”

By David Skripac, September 15, 2021

In the months leading up to 2020, the earth experienced a series of unprecedented wildfires fires from Australia to the Amazon and from Indonesia to California. In California alone, the wildfire season of 2019 destroyed more than 250,000 acres of land, along with 732 structures.

“Infringement Upon Individual Liberties”: Arizona Attorney General Suing Biden Administration over COVID Vaccine Mandate

By Mary Chastain, September 15, 2021

Brnovich describes the mandate as “one of the greatest infringements upon individual liberties, principles of federalism, and separation of powers ever attempted by an American President.”

Shockingly, CDC Now Lists Vaccinated Deaths as Unvaccinated

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, September 15, 2021

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, you’re not counted as fully vaccinated until a full 14 days have passed since your second injection in the case of Pfizer or Moderna, or 14 days after your first dose of Janssen, despite the fact that over 80% of deaths after the vaccines occur in this window. How convenient

24,526 Deaths 2,317,495 Injuries Following COVID Shots Reported in European Union’s Database of Adverse Drug Reactions

By Brian Shilhavy, September 15, 2021

Health Impact News subscriber from Europe reminded us that this database maintained at EudraVigilance is only for countries in Europe who are part of the European Union (EU), which comprises 27 countries.

Son Testifies About His Mother’s Cancer Alleged Due to Roundup Exposure

By Carey Gillam, September 15, 2021

A woman suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma was a devoted user of Roundup herbicide for decades before she became ill, her son testified Tuesday in a California trial that marks the fourth such trial pitting a cancer victim against Roundup maker Monsanto.

Masking Schoolchildren Is Institutional Child Abuse

By Janet Menage, September 15, 2021

Since children are at less risk from coronavirus than influenza and pose no risk to others, covering their faces not only risks damage to the developing brain from hypoxia, inhibits excretion of carbon dioxide leading to respiratory acidosis, forces them to inhale accumulated bacteria and fungi, and promotes headaches, dermatitis, and tooth decay, but it clearly worsens rather than protects their state of health.

The Covid-19 “Vaccine” and the Nuremberg Code. Crimes against Humanity, Genocide

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 15, 2021

The WHO “Guidelines” for establishing a Worldwide Digital Informations System for issuing so-called “Digital Certificates for Covid-19” are generously funded by the Rockefeller and Bill and Melinda Gates foundations.

A Letter to My Classmates on Covid-19: “Our Entire Social Fabric is Torn Apart”

By Dr. Naimul Karim, September 15, 2021

Do you know that about 80% of both FDA and WHO budgets come from private entities directly or indirectly linked to big pharma?  Do you know that several years ago WHO had changed the definition of a pandemic to exclude mortality as a criterion?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ “Tax the Rich” Gown Is a “Designer Protest” Meant to Dull Class Struggle

By Jonathan Cook, September 15, 2021

Tickets to the Met Gala are at least $30,000 a pop, though it seems AOC, a young New York City Congresswoman who identifies as a democratic socialist, did not pay for the ticket herself. She was invited and seized the moment to make her protest.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Arizona Attorney General Suing Biden Administration over COVID Vaccine Mandate

Nuclear White Elephants: Australia’s New Submarine Deal

September 16th, 2021 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Nuclear White Elephants: Australia’s New Submarine Deal

All Global Research articles 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 Black Lives Matter movement has had a major impact in raising awareness about police brutality and the ongoing persecution of Black people in the United States but has been remarkably parochial in evading discussion of U.S. imperialism in Africa and around the world.

While protest signs commemorating George Floyd and calling for defunding of the police have been legion at many of its demonstrations, few if any signs have called for the abolition of AFRICOM or indictment of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for presiding over the overthrow and lynching of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi.

The latter omissions stem in large part from the ignorance of most of the U.S. population—whether Black or white—about Africa and the consequences of U.S. imperialism there.

The major fault for this ignorance lies with U.S. educational institutions and the mass media, which have for decades promoted stereotypes about the continent and its people, and evaded discussion of how it has been adversely impacted by Western colonialism.

Africans are still frequently characterized as “tribal people”—with all the attendant negative perceptions that spring from this word—whose poverty, conflict and disease-ridden countries can only be salvaged under foreign oversight.

Leaders who stand up to the Western powers like Qaddafi are demonized while those who acquiesce to their agenda are presented more favorably.

African voices are meanwhile marginalized—especially those that adopt a Pan-Africanist and anti-imperialist message—and many Blacks come to internalize the message that they are inferior.

Manufacturing Hate

Milton Allimadi, a professor of African history at John Jay College and founder of Black Star News, has just published the book, Manufacturing Hate: How Africa Was Demonized in Western Media (Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing, 2021), which provides a history of racist stereotyping and media bias toward Africa that has helped skew American public opinion.

Allimadi starts his story with a discussion of European travelogues in the 18th and 19th centuries.

These presented Africans as being “trapped at a level of intellectual, socioeconomic and political development that Europeans had transcended centuries earlier” and helped justify the alleged obligation of Europeans to conquer and colonize Africa.

Sir Samuel Baker—Governor-General of the Equatorial Nile Basin (today South Sudan and Northern Uganda) between 1869 and 1873—set the standard in his 1866 book, The Albert N’Yanza Great Basin of the Nile, in which he wrote that “human nature viewed in its crude state as pictured among African savages is quite on a level with that of the brute, and not to be compared with the noble character of the dog.”

Joseph Conrad’s classic novel Heart of Darkness (1902) similarly depicted Africans as “primitive savages” and warned Europeans of Africa’s propensity to drive normal people insane.

The views cultivated by Conrad and other writers helped fuel support for colonization—which was considered a noble yet hazardous undertaking.

The New York Times’ Heritage of White Supremacy

The New York Times, in one of its earliest accounts of Africa published on July 1, 1877, claimed that Africans were “arrested at a position not so much between heaven and earth, as between earth and hell.” The article continued:

“The “poor dark savages” on the “dark continent” had “scarcely advanced beyond the element of art and science and even language” while, “from within, [they] devoured and destroyed one another, willingly offering their throats to the knives of sorcerers, or paving the deep grave of some bloody monarch with the living trembling bodies of his hundreds of young wives.”

These prejudicial comments ignore the flourishing of great African civilizations like ancient Carthage and the Songhai and Mali empires before the era of the slave trade and European colonization, which weakened and divided the continent.

Tunisia, Carthage. (Credit: DEA PICTURE LIBRARY/Getty Images)

Tunisia, Carthage in the 3rd century B.C. [Source: history.com]

The Times strongly endorsed British colonization over Germany’s and Russia’s, claiming that “the introduction of European civilization would be most justifiable, and might well repay the cost.”

Tomb of Askia, emperor of the Songhai Empire at Gao, Mali, West Africa. (Credit: Luis Dafos)

Tomb of Askia, emperor of the Songhai Empire, at Gao, Mali, West Africa. [Source: history.com]

The Times went on to depict the 1879 Anglo-Zulu War in South Africa as a “contest between a civilized nation with great military and naval power and inexhaustible resources and a primitive and barbaric tribe [the Zulu], however brave and unyielding … Sooner or later the powerful nation was destined to bring the savage tribe into abject submission or demolish it utterly.”

When Italy invaded Eritrea in the 1890s, the Times published a triumphalist account, claiming that the natives “welcomed the Italians as liberators.”

The Times adopted a more somber tone in reporting on Italy’s humiliating defeat at the Battle of Adwa in 1896—one of the greatest African victories against European imperialism—which the Times characterized as “terrible.”

In the 1930s, when Italy’s fascist leader Benito Mussolini reinvaded Ethiopia trying to reinvigorate the Roman Empire, the Times tried to diminish the significance of the Ethiopian victory at Adwa, while playing up the brutality of the “savage black warriors” who had “slaughtered nearly 40,000 Italians.”

Times reporter Herbert L. Matthews’s dispatch read like a press release from the Italian military command.

Known for his sympathetic reports of Fidel Castro’s rebel band in Cuba during the 1950s, Matthews had traveled in the same car as Italian military commander Marshal Pietro Badoglio as he entered Addis Ababa—and never bothered to interview any Ethiopians.

Support for Apartheid

The Times continued its pattern of white supremacy by supporting the odious apartheid system in South Africa from its beginning—and for many years thereafter.

In 1926, the “newspaper of record” published an article by Wyona Dashwood which supported the plan of South African Prime Minister James Barry Munnik Hertzog to segregate and disenfranchise Blacks in the Cape province as a way to deal with “the native factor.”

Dashwood claimed that the new system would help stop tribal fighting and give the “semi-civilized native”—whom she depicted as lazy and prone to theft—the chance to “develop along his own lines” and to begin to adapt some of the more “advanced economic, social and political systems of the white man’s civilization.”

Thirty years after Dashwood’s article, in May 1957, the Times ran a piece by Richard P. Hunt which reported on the perspective of apartheid leaders who had just passed a law empowering the new minister of native affairs, Hendrik Verwoerd, to ban Blacks from churches, clubs, hospitals, schools and other places if they would “cause a nuisance.”

An apartheid regime official was quoted as stating that the new powers were “needed to insure that the relations between black and white were to be those of guardian and ward,” which the article did not dispute.

When reporter Joseph Lelyveld began writing more critically about apartheid in the 1960s, his articles were toned down or distorted by editors, who made the system appear less brutal.

Lelyveld wrote to his editor in January 1983 that “virtually all the original reporting” he had conducted over a one-month period for a piece on the underfunding of Black schools had been omitted; the printed article, he said, was “like a salami sandwich without the salami, just slabs of stale bread.”

Always on the Wrong Side of History

Much like with its support for apartheid, The New York Times and other mainstream U.S. media outlets were on the wrong side of history when it came to African decolonization.

New York Times article in the 1950s on Africa adopting the “dark continent” trope, with the light seemingly coming from white Europeans. [Source: nytimes.com]

When Times reporter Leonard Ingalls wrote a letter demanding more sympathetic coverage, the foreign news editor, Emanuel Freedman, shot him down, preferring the traditional narrative in which Africans were depicted as “savages” and buffoons.

The Times’s coverage of the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya adopted a “witch-craft versus civilization narrative.” The Mau Mau were presented as a “secret tribal society whose campaign of murder [has] forced the imposition of martial law.”

No indication was given that the Mau Mau emerged in response to colonial injustice. Nor that the violence of the Mau Mau rebels paled in comparison to that resulting from Great Britain’s scorched-earth military campaign which led to the deaths of thousands of Kenyans and the detention of thousands more in concentration camps.

r/PropagandaPosters - NOW 25c FOR MEN SANTIAGO.. PASSION WILD PIT OF THE DECEMBER 1957 ACE ANDES SLAUGHTER AT APACHE PASS THE DAY FRISCO WENT BERSERK BLOODY PANGA STORY OF 'MAU MAU' TERRO

Cover of a men’s magazine that adopted stereotypical tropes about the Mau Mau similar to The New York Times. [Source: reddit.com]

Henry Wallace in Burnt Cork

The Times’s Kenya coverage fit with the pattern of demonization of radical anti-colonial movements, particularly when they were led by left-leaning Pan-Africanists like Dr. Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana—who was voted Africa’s Man of the Millennium at the dawn of the 21st century.

New York Times reporter Homer Bigart—a Pulitzer prize winning war correspondent who was expelled from South Vietnam for criticizing U.S. client Ngô Đình Diệm—wrote to Emmanuel Freedman in 1960 that “Dr. Nkrumah is Henry Wallace in burnt cork. I vastly prefer the primitive bush people. After all, cannibalism may be the logical antidote to this population explosion everyone talks about.”

Bigart’s negative association of Nkrumah with Henry Wallace was reflective of a prejudice not only toward Africans but also toward the left-wing and pacifist views which Wallace had embraced.

The comments about primitive bush people meanwhile reinforced deep-seated stereotypes about Africans. And the joke about cannibalism being an antidote to population explosion—a concern reflective of the Western elite’s view of Africans as a threat to be contained—was certainly in poor taste.

Congo

Like Nkrumah, Congolese Pan-African leader Patrice Lumumba was portrayed as a “wild eyed radical.”

Lumumba’s killer, Moïse Tshombe—who led a secessionist drive in the Katanga province backed by Belgian mining interests and white South African mercenaries—was praised in Time magazine by contrast as the “antithesis of the African savage.”

Most admirably, according to Time, Tshombe had “no complexes about being black” and recognized the “brutal side of the African personality, and the phony side of African socialism.”

Pro-Lumumbaist rebels who fought against Tshombe after Lumumba’s assassination were meanwhile depicted by Time as “a rabble of dazed, ignorant savages, used and abused by semi-sophisticated leaders.”

U.S. bombing operations—carried out by right-wing Cuban mercenaries—were hence justifiable, as was U.S. backing of the dictator Joseph Mobutu who was portrayed like Tshombe as a “responsible antidote” to Lumumba-style socialism.

Colonialism Dies Hard

At the end of the Cold War, numerous Western writers took stock of developments in Africa and concluded that the continent should be recolonized.

A characteristic piece from the era by Paul Johnson in The New York Times Magazine was titled “Colonialism’s Back and Not a Moment Too Soon.”

The article was about the U.S. intervention in Somalia, which Johnson considered “a model for action in other African countries facing similar political collapse.” He concluded in a refrain familiar to Rudyard Kipling that “the civilized world has a mission to go out to these desperate places and govern.”

An ever more apocalyptic and racist article was “The Coming Anarchy” by Robert Kaplan, whose Malthusian doomsday scenario read like a description of Africa from one of the 19th century explorers’ journals.

According to Kaplan, conditions in Africa were so dire, absent the white man’s rule, that Africans no longer resembled human beings.

Wherever Kaplan traveled in a taxi, young men with “restless scanning eyes” surrounded him. He described the men as being “like loose molecules in a very unstable social fluid that was clearly on the verge of igniting.”

Rwanda 1994

Historically, Western writers depicted Africans with alleged European features favorably, while demonizing those with so-called negroid features.

During the Rwanda conflict, Tutsis were adopted by some Western writers as honorary “Europeans” while Hutus were presented as the archetypical Africans.

The Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF)—who happened to be staunch American allies—became the “good guys” by extension, and Rwanda’s national army, comprising mostly of Hutu allied with France, became the bad guys.

One of the earliest articles to use this racist characterization—which helped cultivate support for the RPF—was Alex Shoumatoff’s “Rwanda’s Aristocratic Guerrillas.” It appeared in The New York Times Magazine on December 13, 1992—two years after the RPF had illegally invaded Rwanda from Uganda and committed legions of atrocities against civilians.

A Marine intelligence veteran who lived for a period on a hippie commune in New Hampshire, Shoumatoff was at the time married to a Tutsi woman, who had been a Ugandan refugee and was the cousin of an RPF spokesman.[1]

[Source: nytimes.com]

His article informed readers that the Tutsis were “refined and had European features,” while the Hutus were “stocky and broad nosed.” He continued that, in the 19th century, “early ethnologists had been fascinated by these languidly haughty pastoral aristocrats [Tutsis] whose high foreheads, acquiline noses and thin lips seemed more Caucasian than Negroid, and they classed them as false negroes…. The Tutsis were thought to be highly civilized people, the race of fallen Europeans, whose existence in Central Africa had been rumored for centuries.”

After the RPF seized power, Shoumatoff wrote another piece for The New Yorker, sizing up the ethnic mix between Tutsis and Hutus in Burundi. Shoumatoff described the Tutsi as “tall, slender, with high foreheads, prominent cheekbones, and narrow features,” a different physical type from the Hutus, who were “short and stocky, with flat noses and thick lips.”

Such racist observations reinforced traditional stereotypes about Africans and painted a stark dichotomy that lent validation to the Tutsis genocidal campaign against the Hutu, which extended into the Congo.

Forbes Africa on Twitter: "[NEW EDITION] @PaulKagame, Rwandan president &  Chair of the AU, graces the December/January issue of our #ForbesAfrica  magazine. In an exclusive interview he speaks to our editor @METHILRENUKA

Tutsi RPF leader Paul Kagame depicted by Forbes as a visionary. Shoumatoff in “Rwanda’s Aristocratic Guerrillas” quoted from a U.S. diplomat who described Kagame as “Moses [as he was] going to bring his people home.” Still in power today, Kagame may be responsible for more deaths than any living human being since the era of the Nazis. [Source: twitter.com]

Black Inferiority Complex

In a February 1965 speech in Detroit, Michigan, Malcolm X spoke about the damaging psychological impact of the demonization of Africa on Blacks. He said that

“the colonial powers of Europe, having complete control over Africa, they projected the image of Africa negatively. They projected Africa always in a negative light, savages, cannibals, nothing civilized. Why then naturally was it so negative it was negative to you and me, and you and I began to hate it. We didn’t want anybody to tell us anything about Africa, much less calling us ‘Africans.’ In hating Africa and hating the Africans, we ended up hating ourselves, without even realizing it. Because you can’t hate the roots of a tree and not hate the tree. You can’t hate your origin and not end up hating yourself.”

Thirty years after Malcolm X spoke those words, The Washington Post published a reactionary article by an African-American reporter, Keith Richburg, “A Black Man in Africa.”

Richburg, who had covered the inter-ethnic massacres in Rwanda, described his revulsion at witnessing the “discolored, bloated bodies floating down a river in Rwanda towards Tanzania.”

Richburg wrote that, as he witnessed the bodies, he realized how fortunate he had been; that he too “might have been one of the victims of the Rwanda massacre or he might have met some similarly anonymous fate in any one of the countless ongoing civil wars or tribal clashes on this brutal continent. And so I thank God my ancestor made the voyage [on the slave ship].”

Richburg’s article formed the basis of his 1997 book, Out of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa, which Milton Allimadi calls “Conrad’s Heart of Darkness for the new century.”

According to Allimadi, Richburg offered a classic case of a Black man caught in the psychic pain of what Frantz Fanon called “internal inferiorization.” Under this condition, negative stereotyping results in self-hatred and a desire to be affiliated with the dominant race.

As a youth, Richburg had been taught to believe that he was superior to other Blacks who came from poorer neighborhoods, talked loudly, had darker skin and nappier hair. When he went to the movies with his brother, they would cheer on the British soldiers attacking “Zulu tribesmen” in film.

This exemplifies the disorder Fanon and Malcolm X described. Its impact ultimately has been to neuter and destroy Black radical movements and solidarity. The legacy can be seen today, among other ways, with Black Lives Matter’s silence about Africa—which should be corrected.

*

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

Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].

Notes

1. An RPF fighter was the best man at his wedding. Previously Shoumatoff had written an article in Vanity Fair about the murder of Dr. Dian Fossey that helped shape the script for the hit movie Gorillas in the Mist. Shoumatoff had served in a U.S. Marine intelligence unit that trained him to be parachuted behind the Iron Curtain and had Russian language training. It is certainly possible he sustained his intelligence ties and that his writing on Rwanda was sanctioned by the CIA. 

Assisted Dying Is Open to Abuse

September 16th, 2021 by Janet Menage

All Global Research articles 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 anecdotal reports (1) (2) and statistics showing a positive correlation between midazolam prescriptions and deaths in the over-65s (3) are to be believed, it appears that euthanasia may have already been taking place on an illegal basis, predominantly in care homes.

Since benzodiazepines are contraindicated in Acute Pulmonary Insufficiency, risking Respiratory Depression, particularly with intravenous administration (4), the increased use of midazolam during 2020/2021 is especially concerning.

Would doctors who have not adequately physically examined patients, thereby satisfying themselves that sedation is appropriate in every case, particularly in situations which include pulmonary symptomatology, and have subsequently not adequately monitored such treatment such that respiratory failure has ensued, be guilty of medical negligence? (5)

In the current environment where ‘Telemedicine’ has disrupted doctor-patient interactions (6) yet continues to be encouraged by politicians as reported, for example, by the Telegraph, rushing into legislation authorising Assisted Dying at this point in time would surely be premature and present many opportunities for abuse.

Palliative Care is clearly vitally important. However, relief of distress, whilst sometimes inevitably leading to death, does not have as its primary intention the ending of life.

“First, Do No Harm”, has never encompassed Playing God; it has been resisted by physicians for many years and for very good reason.

Further undermining the trust of an already terrified population at this stage would surely be a step too far?

*

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

Janet Menage is GP retired from Wales, UK.

Notes

(1) Fuller A. Care homes accused of using powerful sedatives to make coronavirus victims die more quickly as use rocketed 100%. The Sun 2020 Jul 12.

(2) Interview with Funeral Director, UK: Deaths Jumped 250% When Injections Began: Lindie Naughton Interviews Funeral Director John O’Looney. BitChute 2021 Sep 5.

(3) All cause mortality by age band (65 and over), January 2020 – June 2021, vs National prescriptions issued for midazolam hydrochloride 10 ml/2 mg ampoules for injection, January 2020 – March 2021

(4) https://bnf.nice.org.uk/drug/midazolam.html#contraIndications

(5) https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/goo…

(6) https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3603/rr

Featured image is from The Ethics Centre

All Global Research articles 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.

***

 

Brnovich describes the mandate as “one of the greatest infringements upon individual liberties, principles of federalism, and separation of powers ever attempted by an American President.”

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich announced he is suing the Biden administration over the COVID vaccine mandate on federal employees and businesses with over 100 employees.

Brnovich describes the mandate as “one of the greatest infringements upon individual liberties, principles of federalism, and separation of powers ever attempted by an American President.”

Brnovich states in his press release:

“The federal government cannot force people to get the COVID-19 vaccine. The Biden Administration is once again flouting our laws and precedents to push their radical agenda. There can be no serious or scientific discussion about containing the spread of COVID-19 that doesn’t begin at our southern border.”

The administration has not written or clarified the mandate’s rules. Brnovich said his “lawsuit is valid because it seeks to declare that the federal government doesn’t have the authority to create such rules.”

A reporter asked about Brnovich’s office recognizing federal safety regulations regarding hard hats at construction sites. The AG told the reporter, “Stay tuned for the next lawsuit.”

Um, hard hats don’t inject a substance into your body. But don’t get me started on federal safety regulations because a libertarian could go on forever about them.

Let’s get to the brief.

Brnovich cites the Equal Protection Clause in his brief due to the Biden administration exempting illegal aliens from the vaccine mandate.

The Equal Protection Clause falls under the 14th Amendment, Section 1: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Brnovich explains in the complaint why the mandate violates the clause:

7. Although the precise contours of the federal vaccination mandates are not yet clear, the violation of the Equal Protection Clause is already evident and egregious. In a nutshell: unauthorized aliens will not be subject to any vaccination requirements even when released directly into the United States (where most will remain), while roughly a hundred million U.S. citizens will be subject to unprecedented vaccination requirements. This reflects an unmistakable and unconstitutional—brand of favoritism in favor of unauthorized aliens.

8. This discrimination in favor of unauthorized aliens violates the Equal Protection Clause. Notably, alienage is a suspect class that triggers strict scrutiny. More typically (and almost invariably previously), this discrimination was against aliens rather than for them. See, e.g., Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 371, 375-376 (1971); Application of Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717, 721 1973). But the same principle applies to favoritism against U.S. citizens in favor of aliens. Defendants’ actions could never conceivably pass strict scrutiny.

“Because Defendants’ respect for individual rights vis-à-vis vaccination mandates appears to extend only to unauthorized aliens, and not U.S. citizens, their actions violate the Equal Protection Clause and should be invalidated,” continues Brnovich. “American citizens should be entitled to treatment at least as favorable as what Defendants afford to unauthorized aliens. This Court should accordingly declare this preferential treatment unlawful and enjoin actions taken pursuant to it.”

Remember when Biden’s Chief of Staff Ronald Klein retweeted this?

Lawyers said the retweet would cause problems for Biden. Well, it has because Brnovich brings it up in the complaint:

13. Recognizing that the Federal Government lacks the authority to directly impose a mandate, even the President’s own Chief of Staff retweeted that what the administration was planning for citizens (but not unauthorized aliens) would be the “ultimate work-around.”

14. The inadvertent admission in the preceding paragraph makes all of the administration’s actions constitutionally suspect. These other violations will be the subject of future challenges. Courts will have an opportunity to review and invalidate those forthcoming mandates as to private employers, federal contractors, federal employees, and health care workers. But this particular component—i.e., the unconstitutional discrimination against U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and aliens lawfully residing and working in the U.S.—is ripe for judicial review and invalidation now.

*

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

Featured image is from Legal Insurrection

Shockingly, CDC Now Lists Vaccinated Deaths as Unvaccinated

September 15th, 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.

***

 

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, you’re not counted as fully vaccinated until a full 14 days have passed since your second injection in the case of Pfizer or Moderna, or 14 days after your first dose of Janssen, despite the fact that over 80% of deaths after the vaccines occur in this window. How convenient

Anyone who dies within the first 14 days post-injection is counted as an unvaccinated death. Not only does this inaccurately inflate the unvaccinated death toll, but it also hides the real dangers of the COVID shots, as the vast majority of deaths from these shots occur within the first two weeks

The CDC also has two different sets of testing guidelines — one for vaccinated patients and another for the unvaccinated. If you’re unvaccinated, CDC guidance says to use a cycle threshold (CT) of 40, known to result in false positives. If you’re vaccinated, they recommend using a CT of 28 or less, which minimizes the risk of false positives

The CDC also hides vaccine failures and props up the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” narrative by only counting breakthrough cases that result in hospitalization or death

Hospitals are still also reporting non-COVID related illnesses as COVID-19

*

While public health officials and mainstream media claim the COVID-19 pandemic is now “a pandemic of the unvaccinated,”1 we now know this claim is based on highly misleading statistics.

In a July 16, 2021, White House press briefing,2 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky claimed that “over 97% of people who are entering the hospital right now are unvaccinated.” A few weeks later, in an August 5, 2021, statement, she inadvertently revealed how that statistic actually came about.3

As it turns out, the CDC was looking at hospitalization and mortality data from January through June 2021 — a timeframe during which the vast majority of the U.S. population were still unvaccinated.4

But that’s not the case at all now. The CDC is also playing with statistics in other ways to create the false and inaccurate impression that unvaccinated people make up the bulk of infections, hospitalizations and deaths. For example, we now find out the agency is counting anyone who died within the first 14 days post-injection as unvaccinated.

Not only does this inaccurately inflate the unvaccinated death toll, but it also hides the real dangers of the COVID shots, as the vast majority of deaths from these shots occur within the first two weeks.5 Now their deaths are counted as unvaccinated deaths rather than being counted as deaths due to vaccine injury or COVID-19 breakthrough infections!

How CDC Counts Breakthrough Cases

According to the CDC,6 you’re not counted as fully vaccinated until a full 14 days have passed since your second injection in the case of Pfizer or Moderna, or 14 days after your first dose of Janssen. This is how the CDC defines a vaccine breakthrough case:

“… a vaccine breakthrough infection is defined as the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen in a respiratory specimen collected from a person ≥14 days after they have completed all recommended doses of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized COVID-19 vaccine.”

In other words, if you’ve received one dose of Pfizer or Moderna and develop symptomatic COVID-19, get admitted to the hospital and/or die from COVID, you’re counted as an unvaccinated case. If you’ve received two doses and get ill within 14 days, you’re still counted as an unvaccinated case.

The problem with this is that over 80% of hospitalizations and deaths appear to be occurring among those who have received the jabs, but this reality is hidden by the way cases are defined and counted. A really clever and common strategy of the CDC during the pandemic has been to change the definitions and goalposts so it supports their nefarious narrative.

For example, the CDC has quietly changed the definition of “vaccine,” apparently in an attempt to validate calling the COVID mRNA gene therapies vaccines. In an August 26, 2021, archived version7of vaccine, the CDC defines it as a “product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”

But a few days later, a new definition appeared on the CDC’s website,8 which now says a vaccine is a “preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” The differences in the definitions are subtle but distinct: The first one defined a vaccine as something that will “produce immunity.”

But, since the COVID-19 vaccines are not designed to stop infection but, rather, to only lessen the degree of infection, it becomes obvious that the new definition was created to cover the COVID vaccines.

Different Testing Guidelines for Vaxxed and Unvaxxed

It’s not just the CDC’s definition of a breakthrough case that skews the data. Even more egregious and illogical is the fact that the CDC even has two different sets of testing guidelines — one for vaccinated patients and another for the unvaccinated.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, the CDC has recommended a PCR test cycle threshold (CT) of 40.9 This flies in the face of scientific consensus, which has long been that a CT over 35 will produce 97% false positives,10 essentially rendering the test useless.11,12,13

In mid-May 2021, the CDC finally lowered its recommended CT count, but only for patients who have received one or more COVID shots.14 So, if you have received a COVID injection, the CDC’s guidelines call for your PCR test to be run at a CT of 28 or less. If you are unvaccinated, your PCR test is to be run at a CT of 40, which grossly overestimates the true prevalence of infection.

The end result is that unvaccinated individuals who get tested are FAR more prone to get false positives, while those who have received the jab are more likely to get an accurate diagnosis of infection.

Only Hospitalization and Death Count if You’re COVID Jabbed

Even that’s not all. The CDC also hides vaccine failures and props up the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” narrative by only counting breakthrough cases that result in hospitalization or death.

In other words, if you got your second COVID shot more than 14 days ago and you develop symptoms, you do not count as a breakthrough case unless you’re admitted to the hospital and/or die from COVID-19 in the hospital, even if you test positive. So, to summarize, COVID breakthrough cases count only if all of the following apply:

  • The patient received the second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna shot at least 14 days ago (or one dose in case of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose injection)
  • The patient tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 using a CT of 28 or less, which avoids false positives
  • The patient is admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 and/or dies in the hospital

Vaccinated Probably Make Up Bulk of Hospitalizations

If vaccinated and unvaccinated were not treated with such varying standards, we’d probably find that the vaccinated now make up the bulk of hospitalizations, making the COVID pandemic one of the vaccinated. An August 30, 2021, exposé by The Epoch Times reveals what’s really happening on the front lines:15

“After a battery of testing, my friend was diagnosed with pancreatitis. But it was easier for the hospital bureaucracy to register the admission as a COVID case … The mainstream media is reporting that severe COVID cases are mainly among unvaccinated people … Is that what’s really going on?

It’s certainly not the case in Israel, the first country to fully vaccinate a majority of its citizens against the virus. Now it has one of the highest daily infection rates and the majority of people catching the virus (77 percent to 83 percent, depending on age) are already vaccinated, according to data collected by the Israeli government …

After admission, I spoke to the nurse on the COVID ward … The nurse told me that she had gotten both vaccines but she was feeling worried: ‘Two thirds of my patients are fully vaccinated,’ she said. How can there be such a disconnect between what the COVID ward nurse told me and the mainstream media reports?”

The heart of the problem is that the U.S. is not even trying to achieve an accurate count. As noted by The Epoch Times, “the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have publicly acknowledged that they do not have accurate data.”

So, when you hear that cases are rising, and that most of them are unvaccinated, you need to ask: “Are these people who have had one vaccine and gotten sick, two vaccines and gotten sick, or no vaccines at all? Without more details, it is impossible to know what is really going on,” The Epoch Times says.16

All we do know, according to one doctor who spoke with The Epoch Times, is “the vaccines are not as effective as public health officials told us they would be. ‘This is a product that’s not doing what it’s supposed to do. It’s supposed to stop transmission of this virus and it’s not doing that.’”

Counting Non-COVID Illness as COVID Cases

On top of all of that, hospitals are still also reporting non-COVID related illnesses as COVID. As reported by The Epoch Times:17

“Health authorities around the world have been doing this since the beginning of the COVID crisis. For example, a young man in Orange County, Florida who died in a motorcycle crash last summer was originally considered a COVID death by state health officials …

And a middle-aged construction worker fell off a ladder in Croatia and was also counted as a death from COVID … To muddy the waters further, even people who test negative for COVID are sometimes counted as COVID deaths.

Consider the case of 26-year-old Matthew Irvin, a father of three from Yamhill County, Oregon. As reported by KGW8 News, Irvin went to the ER with stomach pain, nausea, and diarrhea on July 5, 2020. But instead of admitting him to the hospital, the doctors sent him home.

Five days later, on July 10, 2020, Irvin died. Though his COVID test came back negative two days after his death and his family told reporters and public health officials that no one Irvin had been around had any COVID symptoms, the medical examiner allegedly told the family that an autopsy was not necessary, listing his death as a coronavirus case. It took the Oregon Health Authority two and a half months to correct the mistake.

In an even more striking example of overcounting COVID deaths, a nursing home in New Jersey that only has 90 beds was wrongly reported as having 753 deaths from COVID. According to a spokesman, they had fewer than twenty deaths. In other words, the number of deaths was over-reported by 3,700 percent.”

No Need to Fear the Delta Variant if You’re Unvaccinated

Watch the video here.

In a June 29, 2021, interview,18 Fauci called the Delta variant “a game-changer” for unvaccinated people, warning it will devastate the unvaccinated population while vaccinated individuals are protected against it. Alas, in the real world, the converse is turning out to be true, as the Delta variant is running wild primarily among those who got the COVID jab.

In a June 30, 2021, appearance on Fox News (video above), epidemiologist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough pointed out that “It is very clear from the U.K. Technical Briefing19 that was published June 18 that the vaccine provides no protection against the Delta variant.”20

The reason for this is because the Delta variant contains three different mutations, all in the spike protein. This allows this variant to evade the immune responses in those who have received the COVID jabs, but not those who have natural immunity, which is much broader.

Even so, the Delta variant is far milder than previous variants, according to the U.K.’s June 18, 2021, Technical Briefing.21 In it, they present data showing the Delta variant is more contagious but far less deadly and easier to treat. As McCullough told Fox News:

“Whether you get the vaccine or not, patients will get some very mild symptoms like a cold and they can be easily managed … Patients who have severe symptoms or at high risk, we can use simple drug combinations at home and get them through the illness. So, there’s no reason now to push vaccinations.”

Contrast that with the following statement made by President Biden during a CNN town hall meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio, in late July 2021:22

“We have a pandemic for those who haven’t gotten a vaccination. It’s that basic, that simple. If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, not going to the ICU unit, and not going to die. You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.”

However, Dr. Leana Wen, an emergency doctor and visiting professor of health policy and management at George Washington University’s Milken School of Public Health in Washington, D.C., contradicted the president, saying he had led the American astray by telling them you don’t need a mask if you’re vaccinated, or that you can’t get it or transmit it. As reported by CNN Health:23

“In particular, Wen took issue with Biden’s incorrect claims that you cannot contract Covid-19 or the Delta variant if you are vaccinated. ‘I was actually disappointed,’ Wen said. ‘I actually thought he was answering questions as if it were a month ago. He’s not really meeting the realities of what’s happening on the ground. I think he may have led people astray.’”

CNN added that Wen had told their political commentator Anderson Cooper that “many unknown answers remain related to Covid-19, and that it is still not known how well protected vaccinated individuals are from mild illness … [or] if you’re vaccinated, could you still be contagious to other people.”

Vaccinated Patients Flood Hospitals Around the World

The U.K. data showing the Delta variant is far milder than previous SARS-CoV-2 viruses deflates the claim that avoiding severe illness is a sign that the shots are working. Since the Delta variant typically doesn’t cause severe illness in the first place, it doesn’t make sense to attribute milder illness to the shot.

But if Delta is the mildest coronavirus variant yet, why are so many “vaccinated” people ending up in the hospital? While we still do not have clear confirmation, this could be a sign that antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) is at work. Alternatively, it could be that vaccine injuries are being misreported as breakthrough cases.

Whatever the case may be, real-world data from areas with high COVID jab rates show a disturbing trend. For example, August 1, 2021, the director of Israel’s Public Health Services, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, announced half of all COVID-19 infections were among the fully vaccinated.24 Signs of more serious disease among fully vaccinated are also emerging, she said, particularly in those over the age of 60.

A few days later, August 5, 2021, Dr. Kobi Haviv, director of the Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, appeared on Channel 13 News, reporting that 95% of severely ill COVID-19 patients are fully vaccinated, and that they make up 85% to 90% of COVID-related hospitalizations overall.25

In Scotland, official data on hospitalizations and deaths show 87% of those who have died from COVID-19 in the third wave that began in early July were vaccinated.26

In Gibraltar, which has a 99% COVID jab compliance rate, COVID cases have risen by 2,500% since June 1, 2021,27 and in Iceland, where over 82% have received the shots, 77% of new COVID cases are among the fully vaccinated.28

Data from the U.K. show a similar trend among those over the age of 50. In this age group, partially and fully “vaccinated” people account for 68% of hospitalizations and 70% of COVID deaths.29

A CDC investigation of an outbreak in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, between July 6, 2021, through July 25, 2021, found 74% of those who received a diagnosis of COVID19, and 80% of hospitalizations, were among the fully vaccinated.30,31 Most, but not all, had the Delta variant.

The CDC also found that fully vaccinated individuals who contract the infection have as high a viral load in their nasal passages as unvaccinated individuals who get infected.32 The same was found in a British study, a preprint of which was posted mid-August 2021.33,34 This means the vaccinated are just as infectious as the unvaccinated.

Interestingly, a Lancet preprint study35 that examined breakthrough infections in health care workers in Vietnam who received the AstraZeneca COVID shot found the “viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020.”

What’s more, they found no correlation between vaccine-induced neutralizing antibody levels and viral loads or the development of symptoms. According to the authors:

“Breakthrough Delta variant infections are associated with high viral loads, prolonged PCR positivity, and low levels of vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies, explaining the transmission between the vaccinated people.”

Not All Vaccinated Are Confirmed Vaccinated

As if all of that weren’t enough, there’s yet one more confounder. Just because you got the COVID shot does not mean you’ve been confirmed as having gotten the shot. You’re only confirmed “vaccinated” if your COVID injection is added to your medical record, and this sometimes doesn’t happen if you’re going to a temporary vaccination clinic, a drive-through or pharmacy, for example. As reported by CNN:36

“If you are among the countless people who didn’t get the doses at a primary care doctor’s office, there may not be any record of the vaccination on file with your doctor.”

To actually count as a “confirmed vaccinated” individual, you must send your vaccination card to your primary care physician’s office and have them add it to your electronic medical record. If you got the shot at a pharmacy, you’ll need to verify that they forwarded your proof of vaccination to your doctor. Primary care offices are then responsible for sharing their patients’ immunization data with the state’s immunization information system.

Patient-recorded proof of vaccination is only accepted for influenza and pneumococcal vaccines, not COVID-19 injections.37 What this all means is that, say you got the shot several weeks ago at a drive-through vaccination clinic and get admitted to the hospital with COVID symptoms. Unless your COVID shot status has actually been added into the medical system, you will not count as “vaccinated.”

This too can skew the statistics, because we know the CDC ascertains vaccination status by matching SARS-CoV-2 case surveillance and CAIR2 data using person-level identifiers and algorithms.38

As noted by John Zurlo, division director of infectious disease at Thomas Jefferson University, “the lack of reliable vaccine records complicates efforts to precisely understand vaccine effectiveness and determine how many local hospitalizations and deaths are resulting from COVID-19 breakthrough infections.”39

We’re in the Largest Clinical Trial in Medical History

In closing, it’s worth remembering that the COVID injection campaign is part and parcel of a clinical trial. As noted Dr. Lidiya Angelova in a recent Genuine Prospect article:40

“Many people are unaware that they are participating in the largest clinical trial test of our times. It is because World Health Organization, healthcare authorities, politicians, celebrities, and journalists promote the experimental medical treatments (wrongly called COVID-19 vaccines) as safe and efficient while in fact these treatments are in early clinical research stage.

It means that there is not enough data for such claims and that the people who participate are test subject.”

As shown in a graph on Genuine Prospect, under normal circumstances, clinical research follows a strict protocol that begins with tests on cell cultures. After that comes tests on animals, then limited human testing in four phases. In Phase 1 of human testing, up to 100 people are included and followed anywhere from one week to several months.

Phase 2 typically includes several hundred participants and lasts up to two years. In Phase 3, several hundred to 3,000 participants are tested upon for one to four years. Phase 4 typically includes several thousand individuals who are followed for at least one year or longer. After each phase, the data is examined to assess effectiveness and adverse reactions.

The timelines for these stages and phases were not followed for the COVID “vaccines.” Most Phase 3 trials concluded by the end of 2020, and everyone who got the shots since their rollout under emergency use authorization is part of a Phase 4 clinical trial, whether they realize it or not.41 And since the trials are not completed, you simply cannot make definitive claims about safety, especially long-term safety. As noted by Angelova:42

“When I worked at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) … I went to the course Ethical and Regulatory Aspects of Clinical Research … The first rule we learnt was ‘Clinical research must be ethical’ … All ethical aspects of clinical research are dismissed with the COVID-19 vaccines.

People should know that nobody can require such to participate in everyday activities like using public transportation, shopping, going to school and even hospital. People should know that they should not be punished for refusing to take the experimental medical treatments.

COVID-19 vaccines mass use and COVID-19 measures are an infringe[ment] of the Articles 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20, 25, 27, 28 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).”

*

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

Notes

1 The New York Times July 16, 2021

2 WH.gov Press Briefing July 16, 2021

3 Fox News

4 Mayo Clinic COVID Vaccine Tracker

5 Twitter DX Foundation September 2, 2021

6 CDC August 25, 2021

7 Web Archive August 26, 2021

8 CDC September 1, 2021

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

10 Clinical Infectious Diseases September 28, 2020; ciaa1491

11 The Vaccine Reaction September 29, 2020

12 Jon Rappoport’s Blog November 6, 2020

13 YouTube TWiV 641 July 16, 2020

14 CDC.gov COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Case Investigation Guidelines (PDF)

15, 16, 17, 28 The Epoch Times August 30, 2021

18 PBS June 29, 2021

19, 21 Public Health England, SARS-CoV-2 Variants Technical Briefing 16, June 18, 2021 (PDF)

20 Covidcalltohumanity.org July 5, 2021

22 CBS 8 News July 21, 2021

23 CNN Health July 22, 2021

24 Bloomberg August 1, 2021 (Archived)

25 American Faith August 8, 2021

26 The Daily Expose July 29, 2021

27 Big League Politics August 4, 2021

29 Evening Standard August 20, 2021

30 CDC MMWR July 30, 2021; 70

31 CNBC July 30, 2021

32 NBC News August 7, 2021

33 Impact of Delta on Viral Burden and Vaccine Effectiveness in the UK (PDF)

34 CBS News August 19, 2021

35 The Lancet Preprint August 10, 2021

36 CNN April 26, 2021

37 Immunize.org Documenting Vaccination

38 MMWR August 27, 2021; 70(34): 1170-1176

39 Philadelphia Enquirer August 31, 2021

40, 42 Genuine Prospect August 31, 2021

41 Red Voice Media June 22, 2021

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.

***

 

The fall of Kabul to the Taliban, pre-negotiated with the US in Doha, Qatar, has launched yet another fruitless enterprise, as fruitless as the US effort to keep Afghanistan under its own control: all sorts of IR scholars, pundits, and journalists, in all sorts of specialized and unspecialized publications in the US and Europe, are trying to prove that the 2021 version of the Taliban has not changed in comparison to the version of the Taliban which seized control of Afghanistan in 1996 and that they will again make Afghanistan a cradle for all kinds of terrorists. If they use facts rather than hollow phrases, they commonly seek a confirmation of this thesis in the names of the 2021 Taliban leaders appointed to the interim government, the names which are not particularly different from those of the Taliban who governed the country from 1996.

Yet, all these would-be experts have somehow failed to notice that the times have changed, and so has the geopolitical environment in which the whole overturn took place. Indeed, how can the Taliban remain the same, if the entire world has changed so profoundly, comparing the year of 2001, when the Taliban were overthrown by the US forces, with the year of 2021, when the US forces withdrew before the Taliban’s advance?  No matter how rigid they are in their faith as a religious movement, the Taliban as a political organization had no choice but to adapt to the tide of change, if they wanted to seize and exercise power in a changed geopolitical context.

There are many symbolic signs of this new context which are directly linked to the second arrival of the Taliban.

First, both the Taliban and the US sat down to negotiate the withdrawal of the US forces and transfer of power to the Taliban, which signals that the US is no longer the same hegemonic power that refuse to ‘negotiate with the terrorists’, as the Taliban were characterized by the US diplomacy for so many years.

Second, the Taliban have adopted a different political philosophy, which gives precedence to diplomatic – rather than military – means, whenever the former proves more efficient.

Third, the negotiations took place in Qatar, a country that used to be the most isolated among the Arab countries due to its alliance with Iran, which shows that the Americans have accepted not only Qataris, but also Iranians, as mediators and potential partners.

Fourth, despite their ambiguous relations and deep ideological differences, Iranians have also accepted the Taliban as a potential partner, which is also mirrored in the fact that their only Arab ally, Qatar, played the role of the mediator and host to the US-Taliban negotiations.

Fifth, China, Russia, Iran, and Pakistan did not close their diplomatic missions in Kabul after its takeover by the Taliban, which demonstrates that two global and two regional powers intend to cooperate with the Taliban-led government; moreover, that these four powers asses that they can benefit from such cooperation and accept the Taliban as a relevant regional partner of potential strategic significance. Therefore, at the very least, the Taliban are not going to be so isolated as they were during their first incarnation, which will certainly open them up, for the first time, to various foreign policy options.

However, there is one important question that is rarely posed by those who pretend to write and speak about the Taliban. This question is the most basic one: who are, in fact, the Taliban and who actually created them?

In an interview, the (late) National Security Advisor to US President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, proudly admitted that the US intelligence agencies inserted a number of Islamist fighters’ cells into Afghanistan by the end of the 1970s, with the task to penetrate the territory of the then Soviet Union and perform military actions, so as to provoke the Soviet regime to invade Afghanistan.

The idea was to turn Afghanistan into the Soviet Union’s Vietnam-like catastrophe and thus bring the communist empire to a collapse. As we all know, the Soviets had fallen into that trap and the rest is history: they were eventually defeated and expelled by the well-organized Islamist fighters, better prepared for a guerrilla war than the Soviet army.

However, no matter how Brzezinski prided himself for this idea, it is well-known that its execution and implementation were in more than 90% left to a non-American agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan, the country that was the most faithful British and American ally at the time. In an exceptional analysis Forever Friends? Pakistan and the Taliban Still Need Each Other, written by Zahid Shahab Ahmed and published in the National Interest, we can see it clearly:

After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, Washington approached Islamabad to become its frontline ally in a proxy war against the Soviets. During the Afghan-Soviet War (1979-1989), thousands of mujahideen were recruited from around the world and trained in Pakistan, and then deployed into Afghanistan. In addition to receiving billions in economic and military assistance from the United States, Pakistan expanded its influence in Afghanistan through close relations with the Afghan mujahideen as they later united into the Taliban in the 1990s. In 1994, Mullah Mohammed Omar founded the Taliban with fifty students in Kandahar. By 1995, the group’s control increased to twelve provinces and its size to 25,000 fighters. Due to its quick territorial gains, the Taliban managed to seize control of most of the country and established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in 1996. To date, their first takeover of Kabul is attributed to Pakistan’s strong backing.

Therefore, the Taliban’s recruitment from among the Afghani and Pakistani Pashtuns and their military training for guerrilla warfare and religious indoctrination with the mixture of Pakistani Deobandi and Saudi Wahhabi Islam are to be treated as a special intelligence operation conducted by the ISI, and the same may be applied to their military victory.

Of course, this operation would not have been viable without adequate coverage by the American CIA and British MI6, and assistance by Saudi Arabia’s GID (General Intelligence Directorate). Thus the Taliban and their hybrid ideology were created for a particular purpose and their heavy-handed policies upon the seizure of power also served a particular geopolitical agenda. It would go beyond the scope of this article to analyse in detail what this agenda was or might have been. Let us only notice that the Taliban in those times prepared the ground, both ideologically and literally, to legitimize the future American ‘War on Terror’, which has brought 20 years of continuous instability to the central part of Eurasia. In other words, there is no reason to look at the Taliban as a genuine occurrence – they had been created as a proxy and were left with no option but to remain a proxy. Whose proxy, that is the only question.

There is no doubt that the second arrival of the Taliban has been prepared and backed, again, by the ISI and Pakistan. On the operative level, the Taliban have clearly remained Pakistan’s proxy. However, in the meantime, Pakistan has totally changed its geopolitical orientation and switched loyalties. Initially created by the British Empire through religious partition of the post-colonial India to enable continuous Anglo-American control of the heart of Eurasia, Pakistan found itself abandoned and cornered by its former sponsors and allies, when they invested their capital and geopolitical weight in the strengthening and rise of its archenemy, Hindu-controlled India. Of course, this was not the first time that the British-American axis supported India against Pakistan, just as they were supporting Pakistan against India.

However, this time it happened in the context of the rise of the most extreme form of religious nationalism promoted by the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, designed to eliminate Muslims as a constituent part of the Indian nation for good, which would force Pakistan to enter yet another conflict with India over a definite line of Muslim-Hindu separation.

Ostensibly, it was a rational calculation by the British and Americans, to support instant economic rise of India and foster a redesign of Indian policy towards extreme, religiously based nationalism, so as to make India capable and willing to confront China, as India’s old and their new geopolitical adversary. However, such a tricky game has only pushed Pakistan to turn towards China as a potential ally and geopolitical patron. Thus the British and Americans have eventually pushed Pakistan away and lost their most faithful ally, and China has been delivered an entirely new leverage to fundamentally change the geopolitical balance in Eurasia.

With Pakistan under the US-UK patronage and Afghanistan under American control, China had a huge problem to secure its most important strategic project, the Belt and Road Initiative, in particular its China/Pakistan and China/Central Asia/West Asia Corridors. Also, the direct access of the Anglo-American intelligence agencies to the very borderland of China, through their stronghold in Afghanistan and the porous borders of the post-Soviet Central Asian republics, made it possible to instigate China’s own ‘Muslim problem’ in the form of the Islamist radicalization of Uighurs in Xinjiang. This, predictably, provoked the Chinese regime to respond in an extremely oppressive manner, which almost put in question its relations with the entire Islamic world, especially the countries of Central Asia, thereby undermining the prospects for their participation in the Belt and Road Initiative. As this problem proved to be too difficult to solve on the internal level, China’s imperative was to take Afghanistan out of the American control and reverse this trend that gravely threatened Chinese strategic interests. In these circumstances, Pakistan’s well-known proxy, the Taliban, appeared on the horizon as the best suited instrument for that purpose. In this context, it is not difficult to imagine why the Taliban were so quickly and efficiently restored by the ISI and why they suddenly became so politically pragmatic and militarily strong.

So, the Taliban’s 2021 takeover was also decisively supported by Pakistan, as it had been the one in 1996. However, this time it has all happened in a totally different geopolitical environment, with Pakistan under China’s geopolitical umbrella, which implies a totally different geopolitical orientation on Pakistan’s, as well as the Taliban’s, part.

Instead of serving the goals of Halford Mackinder’s doctrine of permanent destabilization of Eurasia, so as to secure British-American control over the world’s sea-trade routes, now Pakistan and its proxies have become open to promoting the opposite geopolitical agenda, the Chinese doctrine of building Eurasian land-trade infrastructure as an alternative to the Anglo-American hegemony over sea-trade routes. Such a doctrine, embodied in the Belt and Road Initiative, requires a long-lasting stabilization of the Eurasian geopolitical space, and Afghanistan occupies a strategic place within this constellation.

Of course, most the Chinese officials could do in their public activities was to keep the embassy in Kabul open, recognize the Taliban, and send their Minister of Foreign Affairs, Wang Yi, to meet the Taliban delegation in Tianjin.

On their part, the Taliban described China as a ‘friendly country’ and invited it to participate in reconstruction and development of Afghanistan, guaranteeing the safety of Chinese investments.

However, there is no need to make vain guesses about whether the new version of the Taliban will really prevent various Islamist militant groups to penetrate China’s territory [on behalf of the US], as well as the territory of the post-Soviet Central Asian republics: this time, the Taliban have been resurrected and installed as a watchdog, to serve no other than this very purpose, so as to eventually make Afghanistan a part of a potential strategic alliance of China, Pakistan, and Iran. All in accordance with the Chinese strategic vision to make the Eurasian land-mass stable for transcontinental development of infrastructure, trade, and industry, designed to lead to economic, and eventually political, unification of the Eurasian continent.

*

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

Dr. Zlatko Hadžidedić is the founder and director of the Center for Nationalism Studies, in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina (www.nationalismstudies.org).

Featured image is from Modern Diplomacy

All Global Research articles 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 European Union database of suspected drug reaction reports is EudraVigilance, and they are now reporting 24,526 fatalities, and 2,317,495 injuries, following COVID-19 injections.

Health Impact News subscriber from Europe reminded us that this database maintained at EudraVigilance is only for countries in Europe who are part of the European Union (EU), which comprises 27 countries.

The total number of countries in Europe is much higher, almost twice as many, numbering around 50. (There are some differences of opinion as to which countries are technically part of Europe.)

So as high as these numbers are, they do NOT reflect all of Europe. The actual number in Europe who are reported dead or injured following COVID-19 shots would be much higher than what we are reporting here.

The EudraVigilance database reports that through September 11, 2021 there are 24,526 deaths and 2,317,495 injuries reported following injections of four experimental COVID-19 shots:

From the total of injuries recorded, almost half of them (1,126,869) are serious injuries.

Seriousness provides information on the suspected undesirable effect; it can be classified as ‘serious’ if it corresponds to a medical occurrence that results in death, is life-threatening, requires inpatient hospitalisation, results in another medically important condition, or prolongation of existing hospitalisation, results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly/birth defect.”

Health Impact News subscriber in Europe ran the reports for each of the four COVID-19 shots we are including here. It is a lot of work to tabulate each reaction with injuries and fatalities, since there is no place on the EudraVigilance system we have found that tabulates all the results.

Since we have started publishing this, others from Europe have also calculated the numbers and confirmed the totals.*

Here is the summary data through September 11, 2021.

Total reactions for the mRNA vaccine Tozinameran (code BNT162b2,Comirnaty) from BioNTechPfizer – 11,711 deathand 980,474 injuries to 11/09/2021

  • 26,634   Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 156 deaths
  • 26,940   Cardiac disorders incl. 1,745 deaths
  • 253        Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 21 deaths
  • 13,005   Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 9 deaths
  • 728        Endocrine disorders incl. 5 deaths
  • 15,314   Eye disorders incl. 28 deaths
  • 87,239   Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 489 deaths
  • 256,117 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 3,330 deaths
  • 1,098     Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 55 deaths
  • 10,351   Immune system disorders incl. 64 deaths
  • 32,834   Infections and infestations incl. 1,141 deaths
  • 12,714   Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 179 deaths
  • 24,765   Investigations incl. 368 deaths
  • 7,178     Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 210 deaths
  • 130,077 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 149 deaths
  • 757        Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 67 deaths
  • 173,079 Nervous system disorders incl. 1,278 deaths
  • 1,211     Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 36 deaths
  • 168        Product issues incl. 1 death
  • 17,756   Psychiatric disorders incl. 156 deaths
  • 3,348     Renal and urinary disorders incl. 198 deaths
  • 19,084   Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 3 deaths
  • 43,232   Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 1,376 deaths
  • 47,012   Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 105 deaths
  • 1,805     Social circumstances incl. 14 deaths
  • 887        Surgical and medical procedures incl. 31 deaths
  • 26,888   Vascular disorders incl. 497 deaths

Total reactions for the mRNA vaccine mRNA-1273 (CX-024414) from Moderna – 6,358 deathand 281,505 injuries to 11/09/2021

  • 5,465     Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 59 deaths
  • 8,364     Cardiac disorders incl. 687 deaths
  • 113        Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 3,466     Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 1 death
  • 221        Endocrine disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 4,302     Eye disorders incl. 18 deaths
  • 24,595   Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 237 deaths
  • 75,804   General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 2,461 deaths
  • 458        Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 24 deaths
  • 2,485     Immune system disorders incl. 11 deaths
  • 8,436     Infections and infestations incl. 416 deaths
  • 6,013     Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 121 deaths
  • 5,460     Investigations incl. 120 deaths
  • 2,693     Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 145 deaths
  • 35,728   Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 129 deaths
  • 333        Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 37 deaths
  • 49,722   Nervous system disorders incl. 650 deaths
  • 538        Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 6 deaths
  • 59           Product issues incl. 1 death
  • 5,316     Psychiatric disorders incl. 110 deaths
  • 1,632     Renal and urinary disorders incl. 107 deaths
  • 3,558     Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 3 deaths
  • 12,150   Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 614 deaths
  • 15,102   Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 57 deaths
  • 1,188     Social circumstances incl. 25 deaths
  • 905        Surgical and medical procedures incl. 69 deaths
  • 7,399     Vascular disorders incl. 246 deaths

Total reactions for the vaccine AZD1222/VAXZEVRIA (CHADOX1 NCOV-19) from Oxford/ AstraZeneca5,254 deathand 980,909 injuries to 11/09/2021

  • 11,826   Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 221 deaths
  • 16,641   Cardiac disorders incl. 603 deaths
  • 158        Congenital familial and genetic disorders incl. 5 deaths
  • 11,541   Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 1 death
  • 504        Endocrine disorders incl. 4 deaths
  • 17,332   Eye disorders incl. 22 deaths
  • 96,191   Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 270 deaths
  • 257,766 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 1,278 deaths
  • 831        Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 51 deaths
  • 3,987     Immune system disorders incl. 23 deaths
  • 24,674   Infections and infestations incl. 330 deaths
  • 11,183   Injury poisoning and procedural complications incl. 141 deaths
  • 21,578   Investigations incl. 121 deaths
  • 11,626   Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 73 deaths
  • 148,195 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 74 deaths
  • 510        Neoplasms benign malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 16 deaths
  • 204,423 Nervous system disorders incl. 840 deaths
  • 439        Pregnancy puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 11 deaths
  • 158        Product issues incl. 1 death
  • 18,501   Psychiatric disorders incl. 47 deaths
  • 3,639     Renal and urinary disorders incl. 48 deaths
  • 12,993   Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 34,557   Respiratory thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 629 deaths
  • 45,140   Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 36 deaths
  • 1,291     Social circumstances incl. 6 deaths
  • 1,142     Surgical and medical procedures incl. 22 deaths
  • 24,083   Vascular disorders incl. 379 deaths

Total reactions for the COVID-19 vaccine JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S) from Johnson & Johnson1,203 deaths and 74,607 injuries to 11/09/2021

  • 690        Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 31 deaths
  • 1,201     Cardiac disorders incl. 120 deaths
  • 25           Congenital, familial and genetic disorders
  • 560        Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 1 death
  • 42           Endocrine disorders incl. 1 death
  • 1,006     Eye disorders incl. 5 deaths
  • 6,822     Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 56 deaths
  • 19,539   General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 303 deaths
  • 96           Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 9 deaths
  • 302        Immune system disorders incl. 7 deaths
  • 1,679     Infections and infestations incl. 66 deaths
  • 694        Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 16 deaths
  • 3,861     Investigations incl. 72 deaths
  • 431        Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 26 deaths
  • 11,861   Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 30 deaths
  • 31           Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 2 deaths
  • 15,493   Nervous system disorders incl. 142 deaths
  • 26           Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 1 death
  • 20           Product issues
  • 988        Psychiatric disorders incl. 11 deaths
  • 280        Renal and urinary disorders incl. 11 deaths
  • 863        Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 4 deaths
  • 2,629     Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 136 deaths
  • 2,296     Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 5 deaths
  • 212        Social circumstances incl. 4 deaths
  • 546        Surgical and medical procedures incl. 38 deaths
  • 2,414     Vascular disorders incl. 106 deaths

Professor of Ethics in Canada for 20 Years is Fired for Refusing Mandatory COVID-19 Shot

Dr. Julie Ponesse, Professor of Ethics at Huron College of the University of Western Ontario, one of the largest universities in Canada, goes online to give her last lesson on medical ethics to her students, discussing the ethics of mandating a vaccination as a requirement for employment. Within 11 hours after posting this video, the University terminated her employment after 20 years of faithful service.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

Vaccine Mandates ‘Potentially Harmful, Damaging Act,’ Physician Says

September 15th, 2021 by Children’s Health Defense

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

In a paper published Sept. 9, Nina Pierpoint, M.D., Ph.D., analyzed studies published in August 2021 which she said prove the Delta variant is evading the available COVID vaccines, leading her to conclude herd immunity to COVID cannot be achieved through vaccination.

Based on what we know about COVID vaccines, mandating them for the public is a “potentially harmful, damaging act,” according to New York physician Nina Pierpont, M.D., Ph.D.

In a paper published Sept. 9, Pierpoint analyzed studies published in August 2021 which she said prove the Delta variant is evading the available COVID vaccines, leading her to conclude herd immunity to COVID cannot be achieved through vaccination.

Pierpont, a graduate of Yale University with a Ph.D. from Princeton University and an M.D. from the John Hopkins University School of Medicine, cites three studies whose findings and data support her conclusions.

The studies include:

  • One published Aug. 6 in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.”
  • Another published Aug. 10 by Oxford University.
  • A third study published Aug. 24, which was funded by the UK Department for Health and Social CareIn her paper, Pierpont states that new research in multiple settings shows Delta produces very high viral loads (meaning, the density of virus on a nasopharyngeal swab as interpreted from PCR cycle threshold numbers), and that viral loads are much higher in people infected with Delta than they were in people infected with Alpha.

Research also shows viral loads with Delta are equally high whether the person has been vaccinated or not. The more virus one has in the nose and mouth, Pierpont writes, the more likely it is to be in this individual’s respiratory droplets and secretions, and to spread to others.

According to Pierpont, due to evolution of the virus itself, all the currently licensed vaccines — all based on the original Wuhan strain spike protein sequence — have lost their ability to accomplish the purpose of a vaccine, which is to prevent infection and transmission.

As a result, vaccine mandates are “stripped of their justification,” since to vaccinate an individual no longer stops or even slows his ability to acquire and transmit the virus to others.

Pierpont also cites data in the studies that show, under Delta, natural immunity is much more protective than vaccination.

“All severities of COVID-19 illness produce healthy levels of natural immunity,” she concludes.

*

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

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.

***

 

Ein Artikel in „The Guardian“ vom 13. September „Starker Anstieg der akutmedizinischen Betten, die von Kindern belegt werden, die sonst nirgendwo unterkommen“ sollte nicht nur Eltern alarmieren. „Uncut-news.ch“ veröffentlichte den Artikel. Ich zitiere:

„Ein Drittel der Intensivbetten in England ist mit Kindern belegt, die aufgrund ihrer Krankheit nirgendwo anders hingehen können. Mitten in der COVID-19-Pandemie leiden diese Kinder unter psychischen und neurologischen Problemen. Einige zeigen gewalttätiges oder selbstverletzendes Verhalten, andere haben schwere neurologische Entwicklungsstörungen. Wieder andere sind aufgrund einer Essstörung dort. Doch trotz ihrer individuellen Bedürfnisse haben viele von ihnen keine spezifische psychiatrische Diagnose. Und ohne Diagnose haben sie keinen Anspruch auf ein Bett in einer echten psychiatrischen Abteilung, selbst wenn sie so gewalttätig sind, dass sie nicht nur eine Gefahr für sich selbst, sondern auch für ihre Umgebung darstellen. Das bedeutet, dass diese Kinder schließlich in einem normalen Krankenhaus leben, manchmal monatelang. Noch besorgniserregender ist, dass seit Beginn der Pandemie die Zahl der Kinder in diesen Betten dramatisch gestiegen ist. In den USA berichten Kinderkrankenhäuser im ganzen Land, dass die Zahl der Kinder, die psychiatrische Hilfe benötigen, ‚explodiert‘ ist, so CNN. ‚Mehrere Kinderkrankenhäuser gaben an, dass das Angebot an stationären psychiatrischen Betten so knapp war, dass sie Kinder in ihren Notaufnahmen unterbringen mussten – manchmal wochenlang.‘“ (1)

Screenshot from The Guardian

Bereits im vergangenen März forderte ich in einem Kommentar „‘Lockdown Kinderrechte‘: Wir töten die Seelen unserer Kinder“, der in verschiedenen unabhängigen Internet-Plattforen veröffentlicht wurde: „Wenn wir gegen diesen Lockdown-Wahnsinn nicht sofort aufstehen, machen wir uns mitschuldig am Seelenmord unserer Kinder!“

Doch der Großteil der Eltern und Erzieherinnen und Erzieher in Kindergärten und Schulen steht nicht auf, sondern nimmt stillschweigend hin, dass korrupte Regierungen ihre Kinder in den Wahnsinn oder gar Suizid treiben und damit unser aller Zukunft strangulieren.

Natürlich ahnen alle vernunftbegabten Erwachsene seit über eineinhalb Jahren, dass es bei den politischen Wahnsinns-Maßnahmen nicht um den Gesundheitsschutz der Bevölkerung geht, sondern allein um ein weltweites politisches Großexperiment, mit dessen Hilfe diabolische Herrscher versuchen, ihren Willen durchzusetzen. Aber diese Erwachsenen bringen nicht den Mut auf, die Regierenden dazu zu zwingen, diesen Wahnsinn sofort zu beenden.

Im Gegenteil: Durch den direkten und indirekten Impfzwang mit einem „Killer-Impfstoff“ – auch von Kindern und Säuglingen – verschärfte sich die weltweite Situation für die Menschen im letzten halben Jahr noch einmal entscheidend. Sogar Kirchen werden inzwischen zu Impfzentren umfunktioniert. Und die Tatsache, dass „COVID 19“ in Wahlkämpfen – wie zum Beispiel in Deutschland – keine Rolle spielt, ist ein untrügliches Zeichen dafür, dass es um ganz andere Ziele als den Gesundheitsschutz geht.

Wer ist in der Lage, Eltern und Erziehern so ins Gewissen zu reden, dass sie endlich aufstehen und NEIN sagen? Unsere Kinder sind in großer Not und unsere Zukunft ist in Gefahr.

*

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

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel ist Vater, Großvater, Erziehungswissenschaftler und Diplom-Psychologe. 

Note:

1. https://uncutnews.ch/die-krankenhausbetten-fuellen-sich-mit-kindern-aber-es-ist-nicht-das-was-sie-denken/

Featured image is from Xavier Donat

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Eltern opfern ihre Kinder auf dem Altar des Gehorsams: Die Kinder in Not – die Zukunft in Gefahr

Foreign Devils on the Silk Road

September 15th, 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.

***

 

The title of an unputdownable 1980 classic by Peter Hopkirk comes to mind even as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation are preparing to hold back-to-back summit meetings at Dushanbe, Tajikistan, on September 17. 

Foreign Devils on the Silk Road: The Search for the Lost Treasures of Central Asia tells the breathtaking story of the intrepid men who made long-range archaeological raids in far west China looking for the lost cities of the Taklamakan Desert before they were gradually swallowed by the shifting waves of sand (and weren’t rediscovered until the early 19th century.) 

Central Asia has been beyond the tour itineraries of External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar. But this time around, he is making a great exception to attend the forthcoming SCO event in Dushanbe in person and possibly catch up on the CSTO summit from the sidelines.  

This is an exceptional circumstance as the Taliban’s seizure of power in Afghanistan following the defeat of the US in the 20-year war is expected to be the main topic of discussion. The SCO and CSTO summits are expected to inject some transparency into the prospects, if any, for an anti-Taliban resistance at the regional level backed by a ‘coalition of the willing’ from among the member states of the two security organisations. 

The West is not directly represented in the summit meetings but then, India’s presence makes up for it. Delhi also happens to be the flag carrier of the Quad, which is also holding its maiden summit in Washington on September 24 presided over by President Joe Biden in the ‘post-Afghanistan’ setting. 

The regional reaction to the events in Afghanistan is not on an even keel. At one end stand Pakistan, Iran and China, which advocate an engagement with the Taliban so as to ‘guide and urge’ its policies in a positive direction in regard of an inclusive government and commitment to rooting out terrorist groups based in Afghanistan. They seem reasonably certain about Taliban’s receptiveness. 

On the other extreme stands Tajikistan which refuses to accept a radical Islamist government next-door under any circumstance. In between stand two weathercocks — Russia and Uzbekistan. 

So far, no regional state has advocated resistance to the Taliban government, although Russian propaganda apparatus has become patently unfriendly in a U-turn on orders of the Kremlin from Moscow’s effusive praise of the movement as a legitimate indispensable Afghan entity to President Putin’s own arrogant description of the Taliban as not being ‘civilised’ enough for company. 

Iran has serious issues with the non-representation of non-Pashtun ethnic groups in the Afghan government. Indeed, Iran has ethnic affinities with the (Sunni) Tajiks and the Hazara Shias of Afghanistan who together account for some 45% of the population. Iran is unlikely to compromise on this issue. In a curious way, Iran is promoting the democratisation of Afghanistan. Which is a good thing.  

But Iran has also taken on board the Taliban’s assurances that it will not allow Saudi-Israeli-Emirati backed terror groups to operate from Afghanistan. Fundamentally, Iran feels satisfied that the Taliban has successfully ended the US occupation. 

Iran and Russia have not liked the sort of perceived dominance that Pakistan has achieved in Afghanistan. That does not, however, turn into a zero-sum mindset or an urge to be ‘spoiler’, given their high stakes in the overall stability of Afghanistan, especially in border security. Iran has had a serious problem with cross-border terrorism and narcotics trafficking during the 20 years of US occupation. 

For Russia too, border security is crucial. For a start, just about 100 kms from the Afghan border in Nurak (Gorno-Badakhshan region Tajikistan ), Russia has its space surveillance system for detecting objects in outer space, the only one of its kind possible for it in the entire post-Soviet space — in the clear sky zone in the Pamir Mountains. The station is fully automated and has the ability to operate without human intervention and gather information on space objects and monitor objects in space, including those in geostationary orbit, at a distance of 120 to 40,000 km. It is an irreplaceable strategic asset for Russia. 

But concentrations of terrorist groups have been reported on the Afghan side in the Gorno-Badakhshan region, especially Jamaat Ansarullah, the Central Asian group fighting alongside the Taliban, founded in 2010 by the former Tajik warlord Amriddin Tabarov.

India has common interest with China, Iran and Russia in regard of counterterrorism as but their threat perceptions and approaches vary. India’s main worry is that Pakistan-supported terrorist groups may set up sanctuaries in Afghanistan. 

Again, India and Russia have restive Muslim populations that feel suppressed and Delhi and Moscow worry about their ‘radicalisation’. The Taliban’s triumph in Kabul has worried the current Chechen leader, Ramzan Kadyrov, a Kremlin appointee, who is nervous that this is ‘an American project’ against Russia. 

However, Kadyrov’s own advisor on religious affairs, Adam Shakhidov, has praised the Taliban’s successes in an Instagram comment, attributing them, somewhat cryptically, to its Maturidi-Hanafi creed! The Taliban’s sweep to power in Afghanistan clearly boosted the morale of the North Caucasus militants. The most enthusiastic reaction to the Taliban’s return to power came from the Caucasus Emirate, the pan-Caucasus militant group whose Chechen wing congratulated “the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Mujahideen and all Muslims of Afghanistan on a great, historic victory.” 

The Kremlin seems worried. President Putin has reportedly directed that no CSTO member country should have anything to do with the American evacuation plans without his express approval. (Russia has a visa-free regime with the Central Asian countries.) 

Clearly, Russia empathises with India’s concerns, which brought the top Kremlin official Nikolay Patrushev to Delhi for consultations. However, Russia also worries about the ISIS waiting in the wings to exploit any chaos. Unlike India, which is a junior partner of the US, Russia is haunted by the spectre of Washington using the ISIS as a geopolitical tool against it. Sections of the Russian security establishment also suspect a tacit US-Pakistan understanding regarding the Taliban. 

Can this dense paradigm transform as a common Iran-Russia-India enterprise for the armed overthrow of the Taliban government in Kabul? Certainly not. Each has specific interests and none has an alternative to the Taliban government. 

Besides, the circumstances are very different today. India helped the anti-Taliban resistance in the 1990s as a revenge act against Pakistan’s support of terrorism in India. In turn, Taliban hit back at the time of the Kandahar hijacking of an Indian civilian plane. Iran’s support for the resistance also led to a Taliban retaliation in the ghastly killing of 11 Iranian diplomats assigned to its consulate in Mazai-i-Sharif in 1998. Taliban hit back at Russia by recognising the rebel government in Chechnya. 

Uzbekistan, the most important Central Asian state, offers a case in study. Tashkent is genuinely worried about the type of government Afghanistan will organise itself and whether the Taliban will succeed in peacefully co-existing with different ethnic groups and political forces. Ideally, Tashkent would prefer an inclusive government in Kabul. 

But life is real. Succinctly put, Tashkent is not going to rigidly lock itself into only supporting a coalition government for Afghanistan but is willing to accept any outcome and avoid taking one side over another in a civil war. Tashkent focuses on beefing up its military so that it remains strong and ready to handle any threat. Uzbekistan will not countenance any refugee flow from Afghanistan. 

Tashkent will continue to cherrypick security assistance from Moscow, but there’s always a red line to ward off Russian hegemony and preserve its strategic autonomy. Indeed, Tashkent also is the main gateway for Afghanistan to the Central Asian region and will look forward to participation in the Afghan reconstruction. 

Overall, Uzbekistan is finessing the same policy approach it took in 1996 when the Taliban seized power in Kabul. Of course, compared to the 1990s, it has become more savvy, self-confident and composed and skilful in diplomacy. Tashkent even became a venue for mainstreaming the Taliban! 

Prima facie, it is Tajikistan which may seem closest to the Indian security establishment. But Delhi must also understand President Emomali Rahmon’s, calculus, which has 5 vectors: One, he is sync    with the public opinion which has memories of the violent civil war in the 1990s and abhors radical Islamists. 

Like any old fashioned dictator, Rahmon’s number one concern is his domestic politics. The emergent situation is conducive for Rahmon to advance his son Rustam’s prospects as his successor. He has increasingly positioned himself as the protector of Afghanistan’s Tajik community, which also plays well in the domestic gallery. 

Rahmon’s government has been lately stoking nationalist sentiments, which may help distract people from the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Ironically, however, the people of Tajikistan do not want to get entangled in any conflict in Afghanistan, a much poorer country and a failed state, which has been known as the graveyard of empires! 

Two, Russia does not have a great track record as ‘provider of security’ in Central Asia. It supplies weapons and holds military exercises, but when the crunch time comes, it may prefer to stand in the sidelines. Yet, Rahmon has gone out on a limb on Taliban. It is inconceivable he didn’t consult Putin. Are they playing ‘good cop, bad cop’? Such theatrics are endemic to Central Asian politics and Russia  is a seasoned actor. 

Three, without doubt, Rahmon’s antipathy toward the role of Islam in politics is authentic. He evicted the Islamists from his coalition government as recently as in 2015 on trumped up charges of an attempted coup, and any traces of co-habitation with an even more patently radical islamist group like the Taliban risks generating blowback in Tajik domestic politics. 

Four, an estimated one third of the Tajikistani economy comes from drug trade, much of it controlled by corrupt officials. Tajikistan will want to ensure that this lucrative commodity continues to flow north (to Russia and Europe.) But Taliban has repeatedly stated that it would not allow the production of opium or other narcotics in Afghanistan. Interestingly, Tajik officials have met the Taliban in Kabul to assure them that Dushanbe will not retract on the bilateral agreement on electricity supply. The border crossings also remain open. 

Finally, in Rahmon’s calculus, it pays to take a strident stance against the Taliban government. Such a positioning of the country as a key actor vis-à-vis Afghanistan helps Tajikistan receive much-needed financial support from the West. In fact, he is scheduling a visit to Paris and Brussels in October, accepting invitations from President Macron and the president of the EU Council Charles Michel.

All in all, if the Taliban government quickly consolidates power and other regional states opt to develop direct ties Kabul, Rahmon may face pressure to switch course. Tajik intelligence agencies have deep connections inside Afghanistan, including with the Taliban. A policy change in Dushanbe is all but certain to follow if the Taliban pacifies Panjshir. 

Hopefully, these events in Dushanbe will be a wake-up call for all those who fantasise about anti-Taliban resistance — at least. Unless Taliban goofs up in a big way, which seems highly unlikely, given the pragmatism there are showing on women’s education and so on, we are looking at a regime that will be around for quite a long while and present a level of governance that the puppets of the richest and most advanced countries failed to provide. 

History would have the last laugh if the Taliban becomes the role model for the democratisation of Central Asia and the oligarchies of West Asia — or, everywhere else in the region, especially South Asia where human rights and justice are denied and state repression is a fact of life. 

These ‘foreign devils’ gathering at Dushanbe on Thursday don’t realise what they are getting into. A small footnote here will help restore a sense of proportions: Actually, it was following an official Indian Government report in 1875 describing the treasures of those lost ruins of the Taklamakan Desert that a race to excavate began from all corners of the world. And, inevitably, each ran into their own set of problems and interesting circumstances. 

*

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

Featured image: Trade caravan on the Silk Road, Central Asia (Source: Indian Punchline)

The Seekers of World Domination. “The Neocons”

September 15th, 2021 by Karsten Riise

All Global Research articles 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 US urge to dominate the World is still looking for a way.

Not that the US can – but that doesn’t mean the Neocons won’t attempt.

Neocons no longer identify themselves as such, but that also doesn’t mean that they have gone away – or that they have changed. Democrat Neocons, btw, never self-identified by this term, and as one observer rightly mentioned 20 years ago – Neocons span both the US parties.

An article at Al Jazeera prompted me to take stock of Neocon today.

The Al Jazeera article erroneously seems to indicate that Neocons are all Republicans. Only a few to list, and that the term Neocon is “outdated” or that they have “changed”. So let’s have a look.

Republican Party – Neocons

Rightly, Al Jazeera points out, that Republican Neocons seem to have assembled in a group which can be called “Never-Trumpers” – like Liz Cheney. The RINOs. A rather small group, actually.

And here we should add, that US Democrats and their media loooove and idealize these “Never-Trumpers” as “true” Republicans – just like they (including the Obamas) now idealize Bush II.

Republicans – with MAGA in charge – are now distinctly not-Neocon. Donald Trump Jr. strongly denounced Liz Cheney as a “Neocon warmaker” at a Conservative meeting a few months ago. Neocons to Republicans are now outcast, marginalized, or converts. Liz Cheney is outcast. Mitch McConnel is marginalized. And Lindsey Graham is a convert. Even Fox News is against “forever wars” nowadays.

Trump praises the US Military – but NO longer the lousy generals. Good. But the troops, who with their families and base-towns are big voters. The US Military has become a social pillar – one of the few employers of stable jobs left for ordinary Americans. This is what Trump senses. Pragmatically, Trump takes the Military not for fighting wars, but for keeping workers employed and …safe. Of course, Trump liked the US Military to press somebody, but not for starting wars. Not risking war for Europe, meaning not against Russia. US ordinary militaries want a job – not to die. US ordinary soldiers lack self-respect, therefore Trump praises them and their Military as an institution. They just don’t want to die, so Trump winds down US wars and talks big instead. That is better.

Trump made a peace-deal even with Taliban – to get Americans safely out of Afghanistan. Trump’s successor just botched it. And as Trump newly mentioned, the Middle East is quicksand. So Trump did NOT start a war with Iran, even after several hot incidents: Iran had shot down a US drone. Iran attacked a US base in Iraq in response to the US assassination of their Qassem Soleimani. Iran was behind a historic drone-attack on Saudi Arabia’s big refinery. Iran is still in Syria and Lebanon. And Iran sabotaged ships in UAE harbor. Talking “big”, Trump told the World that he has a “big button”, Trump then met with his counterpart in North Korea, declared “victory” – and went home. Trump cares more about realism (war with North Korea is un-winnable) than about Liberal / Neocon criticism. Excellently done, actually.

So Neocons are out of power in the Republican party. And as Trump remains relevant until 2024, (probably until 2030) and China grows fast, the Neocons have small chances of ever regaining the Republican party. The few remaining Republican Neocons will morph – probably into something unpleasant, but for now they are sidelined and cut-down.

Democrat Party – Neocons

Different is the picture with the Democrats.

Many US Democrats calling themselves “progressives” are against US foreign wars. Long ago, I noted that the critique of US imperial wars of choice was common among a lot of people both “progressive” Democrats and non-Neocon Republicans.

But war-critical Democrats have no say in the Democrat party’s foreign policy.

Democrat foreign policy is run by types like Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Victoria Nuland who supported Nazis in Ukraine. Feminist extremism. Democrat foreign policy is also run by male war hawks like Joe Biden – and probably Barrack Obama. The New York Times silences it.

Biden’s trick is that Biden stuffed the mouths of “progressives” with false money promises: Welfare galore like Sweden – stimulus – climate – “good paying jobs” for all – union safety – health care safety.

Biden promises 30 years of Cold War on China and “welfare”. Happy Christmas. All year. Right now.

Biden made the Devil’s promise to the Left: “You can have everything” – as long as the Left shuts up and keeps hands-off foreign policy. Because there will be lots of Military and Interventionism too!

These Devil’s promises are sold by Democrat Neocons like Biden to the US Left with the Big Lie that economic reality doesn’t exist. Supported by a Voodoo effort from “progressive” economists called “New Monetary Theory” – that you can just print trillions more money, then ALL get rich!

In other words – Biden promises that the US society can afford BOTH war AND welfare like never before. And not to build up in decades, like China did. No, it’s Magic. Wand waving money-printing.

In just 3 years until 2024. Only fools believe that – but they are millions.

Food prices increased 2.9% in August 2021 (seasonal adjusted, PPI p.14, 3rd row). That is 40% a year.

To pay trillions for war and Big Government – Biden with inflation makes poor Americans poorer.

The Democrat party has a Trifecta of US power – President – Senate – House of Representatives.

Democrats are in US politics the seat of Neocons.

Striving for US World domination.

*

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

Karsten Riise is a Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has a university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from Copenhagen University. He is the former Senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden. 

Featured image is from the author

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

A woman suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma was a devoted user of Roundup herbicide for decades before she became ill, her son testified Tuesday in a California trial that marks the fourth such trial pitting a cancer victim against Roundup maker Monsanto.

Under questioning by a lawyer representing plaintiff Donetta Stephens, her son David Stephens recalled his mother’s frequent use of Roundup in the yard and her tendency to wear sleeveless shirts and shorts when outside spraying the weed killer. He described recalling her use when he was a child and that use continuing when he was an adult and had his own children.

Stephens also testified about a family gathering in which his mother broke the news of her cancer to the family, the lengthy series of medical treatments that followed, his mother’s memory loss and other treatment-related problems, and a period in which his mother was hospitalized multiple times and nearly died.

Stephens is one of tens of thousands of plaintiffs who filed lawsuits against Monsanto after the World Health Organization’s cancer experts in 2015 classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen with an association to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup and other weed killing brands.

Bayer AG bought Monsanto in June 2018 just as the first trial was getting underway.

Three previous trials held to date were all found in favor of the plaintiffs. Jurors in those trials agreed with claims that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based weed killers, such as Roundup, cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and that Monsanto spent decades covering up the risks and failing to warn users.

The Stephens case is being tried in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County in California under the oversight of Judge Gilbert Ochoa. Though the trial started in person, Judge Ochoa ordered the proceedings shifted to a Zoom trial due to concerns about the spread of Covid-19 virus.

In testimony Tuesday, David Stephens broke down, emotionally describing a time when it appeared his mother was near death, and speaking of a photo he took of her that he thought at the time would be the last.

“I took that picture because when you think that your mother is going to die and that could be the last picture…,” Stephens said haltingly. “I wanted to take that picture so I could remember…”

Donnetta Stephens is now in remission from cancer but has been left debilitated, her son testified.

Former Monsanto scientist Donna Farmer will be called to testify next week, according to Stephens’ lawyer Fletch Trammell.

Technical trouble

The trial has been plagued by technical issues since the transition to a virtual setting through Zoom. There have been multiple times proceedings have been halted because a lawyer or juror loses an audio or video connection or experiences other difficulties. The virtual format has also proven problematic at times for the presentation of certain exhibits.

A courtroom attendant has been assigned to monitor jurors to determine if they are paying attention, and to alert the judge to lost connections or other problems.

In Tuesday’s testimony, as Monsanto lawyer Manuel Cachan was attempting to cross examine Stephens, questioning the reliability of his memory regarding his mother’s use of Roundup, the technical trouble kicked in again.

“I’m sorry for the interruption, juror number 13 is having issues, just starting to quote unquote glitch out,” the courtroom attendant interjected.

Minutes later: “Pardon me… juror number 11 has just disconnected,” the courtroom attendant interrupted again.

Some legal observers have speculated that the losing party in the trial will have an easy avenue for appeal given the persistent interruptions and difficulties.

Trial overlap

A fifth Roundup trial was starting jury selection this week in a case involving a boy with non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The child, Ezra Clark, is the subject of a trial beginning this week in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Clark was “directly exposed” to Roundup many times as he accompanied his mother while she sprayed Roundup to kill weeds around the property where the family lived, according to court documents. Ezra sometimes played in freshly sprayed areas, according to the court filings.

Ezra was diagnosed in 2016, at the age of 4, with Burkitt’s lymphoma, a form of NHL that has a high tendency to spread to the central nervous system, and can also involve the liver, spleen and bone marrow, according to the court filings.

Ezra’s mother, Destiny Clark, is the plaintiff in the case, filing on behalf of Ezra.

Opening statements in the Clark trial are scheduled to begin Wednesday morning.

Bayer denies any cancer connection

Bayer has earmarked more than $14 billion to try to settle the litigation and has announced it will stop selling glyphosate-based herbicides to consumers by 2023. But the company still insists that the herbicides it inherited from Monsanto do not cause cancer.

Last month Bayer filed a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking the high court’s review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in the case of Hardeman v. Monsanto. 

The move is widely seen as Bayer’s best hope for putting an end to claims that exposure to Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides, such as the popular Roundup brand, cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and the company failed to warn users of the risks.

During the month-long trial in 2019, lawyers for plaintiff Edwin Hardeman presented jurors with a range of scientific research showing cancer connections to Monsanto’s herbicides as well as evidence of many Monsanto strategies aimed at suppressing the scientific information about the risks of its products. Internal Monsanto documents showed the company’s scientists had engaged in secretly ghost-writing scientific papers that the company then used to help convince regulators of product safety.

*

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

Featured image is from Die Grünen Kärnten

Masking Schoolchildren Is Institutional Child Abuse

September 15th, 2021 by Janet Menage

All Global Research articles 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.

***

 

Returning from a trip away, I was disturbed to witness the haunting sight of a tiny, five year old boy in school uniform, standing silently and still, his face encased in a black mask. Only his frightened and traumatised eyes were visible.

Since children are at less risk from coronavirus than influenza (1) and pose no risk to others (2), covering their faces not only risks damage to the developing brain from hypoxia (3), inhibits excretion of carbon dioxide leading to respiratory acidosis (4), forces them to inhale accumulated bacteria and fungi (5), and promotes headaches, dermatitis (6), and tooth decay (7), but it clearly worsens rather than protects their state of health (8).

Not only is physical health harmed but also the psychological and emotional development of the child is inevitably affected by inhibiting normal communication via speech and facial expression (9), risking mental health problems and underdeveloped social skills, including empathy (10).

Those individuals who mandate or enforce such irrational and harmful policies are guilty of nothing less than Institutional Child Abuse. Anyone in a position of responsibility is legally obliged to prevent harm to those in their care and failure to do so represents a dereliction of duty (11).

So, when is the Medical Profession going to speak out and take action to prevent harm to child patients?

In the absence of medical ethics, let us hope that parents can find the courage to protect their offspring from those who continue to undermine the younger generation by means of reckless and unjustifiable policies.

Failure to do so renders the future a very bleak place indeed.

*

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

Janet Menage is GP retired from Wales, UK.

Notes

(1) https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(21)00066-3/fulltext

(2) https://adc.bmj.com/content/105/7/618

(3) https://rense.com/general96/Masks-Risks-Part3.pdf

(3) https://www.sott.net/article/442455-German-Neurologist-Warns-Against-Wea…

(4) https://rense.com/general96/Masks-Risks-Part3.pdf

(5) https://rationalground.com/dangerous-pathogens-found-on-childrens-face-m…

(6) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33814358/

(7) https://fineartsdentistry.com/how-face-masks-are-affecting-oral-health-d…

(8) https://principia-scientific.com/study-most-children-harmed-mentally-phy…

(9) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7417296/

(10) https://www.aier.org/article/masking-children-tragic-unscientific-and-da…

(11) https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/pro…

Featured image is from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

All Global Research articles 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.

***

 

Indigenous peoples in North America have helped block tar sands mines, oil pipelines, and LNG export terminals. Their successes against the fossil fuel industry have kept enormous volumes of carbon pollution out of the atmosphere.

The efforts of Indigenous peoples in North America have helped block or delay a long list of major fossil fuel projects over the past decade, successfully leading to the avoidance of a massive amount of greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new report.

“The numbers don’t lie. Indigenous peoples have long led the fight to protect Mother Earth and the only way forward is to center Indigenous knowledge and keep fossil fuels in the ground,” Dallas Goldtooth, a Keep It In The Ground organizer for Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), said in a statement. The report was coauthored by IEN and Oil Change International, a research and advocacy organization focused on transitioning away from fossil fuels.

Indigenous resistance has been key in blocking at least eight major projects, including the Keystone XL pipeline, the C$20 billion Teck Frontier tar sands mine in Alberta, the Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in Oregon, and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to name a few. Taken together, those delayed and canceled projects would have been responsible for nearly 800 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent, or about 12 percent of the total emissions of the U.S. and Canada in 2019.

Another half-dozen projects are currently contested, including the Line 3 pipeline in Minnesota, the Coastal GasLink pipeline in British Columbia, and the Rio Grande LNG project in Texas, for example. These projects representanother 12 percent of total U.S. and Canadian emissions, which, if opponents have their way, would bring the total carbon pollution avoided due to Indigenous resistance to 1.6 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent. That’s roughly equal to the pollution from 400 new coal-fired power plants or 345 million passenger vehicles.

As the report notes, this is likely an underestimate because it only includes 17 of the largest and most iconic fossil fuel projects in recent years.

Oceti Sakowin Camp, protest against Dakota Access pipeline. November, 2016. Credit: Becker1999. (CC BY 2.0)

“Indigenous peoples continue to exert social and moral authority to protect their homelands from oil and gas development,” the report stated. “Coupling these expressions with the legal authority of Indigenous Rights, frontline communities, and Tribal Nations have made tangible progress stemming fossil fuel expansion.”

Over the past decade, Indigenous lands in the U.S. and Canada have been targeted by dozens of large-scale fossil fuel projects, as the aggressive expansion of fracking and tar sands extraction subsequently led to a pipeline buildout across the continent.

“I spend a lot of my life fighting stupid projects. It’s like one unbelievably bad idea after another,” Winona LaDuke, program director of the Honor the Earth, an Indigenous environmental organization, told DeSmog. Over many years she has fought to protect both the White Earth reservation in northern Minnesota, where she lives, and other Native American communities from a slew of dirty projects, including coal mines, coal-fired power plants, incinerators and nuclear waste facilities. LaDuke is currently one of the most prominent leaders in the fight against the Line 3 pipeline in northern Minnesota.

“We don’t have another place to go. This is where we live,” she said.

Fossil fuel projects on Native lands often violate the principles of Free, Prior, and Informed consent, a concept that not only necessitates consultation with Indigenous peoples regarding projects on their territory, but requires their consent. That principle lies at the heart of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), a global resolution adopted by 144 nations in 2007.

Only four countries opposed the declaration: Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the United States.

Years later, all four holdouts changed their position and announced their support for UNDRIP, but the support has been mostly rhetorical, lacking the force of law at the national level. Decision-making for large fossil fuel projects on Indigenous lands still often takes the form of merely consultation, a check-the-box procedure that governments impose on Indigenous communities rather than conducting a process that would require their affirmative consent before moving forward.

“Free, Prior, and Informed Consent constitutes a much more rigorous standard than consultation, and it is a bare minimum standard needed to uphold the rights of Indigenous Peoples,” the IEN report noted.

More recently, Canada moved to codify UNDRIP in June 2021, but it remains to be seen how it is applied to extractive industries on Indigenous lands.

One of the most infamous examples of the disconnect between professed support for UNDRIP and how decisions are made in practice is the Dakota Access pipeline, which crossed treaty territories of the Oceti Sakowin people. In 2015, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe passed a resolution opposing the pipeline project due to the oil pipeline’s threat to water, treaty rights, and sacred cultural sites, including areas in what is now North Dakota. A broader resistance movement gained further momentum a year later.

Oceti Sakowin Camp, November, 2016. Credit: Lucas Zhao. (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Despite Indigenous opposition, the U.S. government approved the project in July 2016, and state police in North Dakota and private security contracts hired by the pipeline’s owner, Energy Transfer Partners, violently suppressed water protectors opposing the project in the months that followed.

“The tribe was denied access to information and excluded from consultations at the planning stage of the project and environmental assessments failed to disclose the presence and proximity of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation,” Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, the UN special rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples, said in 2016 when she called on the U.S. to halt construction of the pipeline.

As DeSmog previously reported, Energy Transfer’s decision to plow ahead with the project despite concerns of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe cost the company billions of dollars.

According to the recent IEN report, “what happened in Standing Rock should not be seen as an anomalous incident, but rather a disturbing commonality across Indigenous resistance efforts worldwide.”

It is important to note that the poor treatment of Indigenous peoples has occurred under governments from across the political spectrum, including both Conservative and Liberal governments in Canada, and Republican and Democratic administrations in the United States.

For example, the construction of the Line 3 pipeline in Minnesota continues under the Biden administration, which has said very little about the project despite loud and repeated protest by Anishinaabe peoples and their allies.

Aitkin County, MN, December 2020. Credit: Lorie Shaull. (CC BY-SA 2.0)

On August 25, 2021, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) sent a letter to the U.S. government regarding the violations of human rights of the Anishinaabe. The letter notes the allegations that the permit approval of Line 3 “has been conducted without adequate consultation with and without obtaining free, prior and informed consent,” and also that the pipeline presents threats to lands, food, and sacred sites of Indigenous peoples. CERD requested information and a response from the U.S. government.

“It’s like a bunch of old cronies up here acting like they own the world,” LaDuke told DeSmog, referring to both Enbridge, the pipeline’s owner, and state officials. “And there’s a bunch of us saying ‘no you don’t.’ And we’re going to keep fighting you guys.”

Both the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have argued that a rapid phaseout of fossil fuels is necessary to avoid catastrophic warming of global temperatures. New fossil fuel projects should therefore be off the table.

The IEN report argues that Indigenous resistance not only goes hand-in-hand with climate action, but it has been an effective strategy of blunting the fossil fuel onslaught. “Indigenous resistance to carbon is both an opportunity and an offering — now is the time to codify the need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, to safeguard both the climate and Indigenous Rights,” the report said.

For Winona LaDuke, there are obvious lessons to be learned from the victories against major oil, gas, and coal projects. “One, we are pretty resilient. Two, support us,” she said, referring to funders and other allies in the climate fight. “We’ve got one percent of the resources of the big NGOs, and we’ve got people all over.”

On September 3, several progressive members of Congress, including Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Cori Bush (D-MO), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), traveled to northern Minnesota to call on the Biden administration to shut down construction of the Line 3 pipeline.

A day later, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz was headlining a public event for the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (a state-level affiliate of the Democratic Party), where he was interrupted by activists opposing Line 3. Flustered, he tried to tamp down the outburst, but ultimately ended the event and left in a motorcade while protestors chanted: “Governor Walz, you can’t hide. Line 3 is genocide!”

On September 7, President Joe Biden visited New York to highlight the destructive damage of the recent floods that ravaged the northeast, where he drew connections to the climate crisis. “They all tell us this is code red,” Biden said. “The nation and the world are in peril. And that’s not hyperbole. That is a fact.”

While President Biden spoke passionately about the climate crisis in New York, his administration has been silent on Line 3, allowing construction to proceed. Enbridge has said that it is in the final stages of construction and oil could soon be flowing through the pipeline.

But when asked if she feels hopeful, LaDuke quickly responded: “Oh my God. I have all kinds of hope.” She pointed to the convergence of recent racial justice movements, growing climate concerns, and strengthening Indigenous movements.

Winona LaDuke at Minnesota Capitol, August 25, 2021. Credit: Peg Hunter. (CC BY-NC 2.0)

LaDuke also sees the oil industry in its own state of crisis, citing the array of major oil companies that have abandoned the Canadian tar sands amid financial troubles and an increasingly bleak future as the world moves on from fossil fuels. Canada’s tar sands are some of the dirtiest forms of oil production on the planet. ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips have sold off assets in Alberta and reduced their presence in the country. Insurance companies, pension funds, private equity, and major lenders have also cut off financial support for Canada’s tar sands.

“Line 3 is the most expensive tar sands pipeline in history. And the last. Nobody’s going to build another tar sands pipeline. It’s the end of the party,” she said. “The new Green revolution is here and the Tribes are pushing it. It’s just the damn state [of Minnesota] that is so backwards. And the Feds.”

She added: “My experience in fighting these guys … the longer you fight them, the better chance you have. So, I’m still in. We’re all in. None of us are backing down.”

*

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

Nick Cunningham is an independent journalist covering the oil and gas industry, climate change and international politics. He has been featured in Oilprice.com, The Fuse, YaleE360 and NACLA.

Featured image: Treaty People Walk for Water demonstration at Minnesota Capitol, August 25, 2021. Credit: Peg Hunter (CC BY-NC 2.0)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Attached is a letter that I have recently sent to my high school classmates.  This is a group with a shared experience spanning more than 50 years.  We know each other since our adolescence – all having attended an elite residential school1) for six years.  Ever since, contacts have been maintained with and within the group.

I sent the letter after realizing that they have excluded me from the next reunion, the decision having been taken behind my back.  Historically I have rarely participated in such events.  But this time, I have been expressing my interest to attend – primary because the planned reunion location is close to where my mother lives.

I have edited the original version of the letter a bit to provide some context for readers outside of the original recipient group.  I have also added a few reference links.

At this stage in my life, time is precious, and life is good.  Why then bother with such unpleasant matter?  For two reasons.  First, this incidence is a microcosm of what is happening in the larger society.  It reveals how our entire social fabric is being torn apart.  And the second one is the memory of pastor Martin Niemöller.2Today, a significant majority of Americans consider any questioning of the narrative coming from the government and the legacy media as heresy, even if the questioning is supported by factual arguments.  What happens next is generally as follows:

  • Instead of trying to understand the questions, or having a civil discussion, the majority immediately assigns certain labels to the questioner – conspiracy theorist, XYZ-denier, Trump supporter, Querdenker, etc.
  • ​If the questioning is done on social media, then those questions arcensored, ultimately leading to deplatforming of the questioner
  • ​If it is done within a physical social group (friends, neighbors, colleagues, even family) then, here too, there is rarely a factual discussion,   and the outcome is the same. But the process is different.  It all starts rather innocuously enough.  There is a quick exchange of glances, a faint smile or subtle turn of the eyes shared among the other members of the group, acknowledging that something is not quite right with the questioner.  If the questioner persists, it only goes downhill from there …. all the way to an exclusion from the group.

In my specific case, it all begun about 9 months ago when I had started raising questions about inconsistency and illogic of many things about the Covid-19 pandemic that were being told by the government, health authorities and the legacy media.  I did so within a closed WhatsApp group for our classmates only.  I have no social media presence.  I also put up a blog on my personal website listing the inconsistencies.  Back then, at the earlier stage of the pandemic, I was mostly guided by gut feel, coupled with scientific rationale, and some initial scientific data.  BTW, when I review the earlier post today, I am amazed how correct my gut feel was!

Anyway, back then I had concluded that considering the incomplete nature of the available safety and efficacy data, and my risk profile, it would be wiser for me to wait with vaccination until confirmed data become available.  Although my conclusion included a clear proviso that what is right for me may not be right for everyone, my conclusion did not sit well with my classmates.  Remember, at that time, vaccine promotion by the government, the health authorities, and the legacy media was already in full swing.  On further questioning on my part, I was accused of “confirmation bias” but was provided no examples.   At that point I left the WhatsApp group but kept in touch with them by other means.

Then came the preparation for a reunion.  This is the genesis of the letter to my classmates ….

***

Dear classmates,

I found out that I have been excluded from the upcoming reunion.  Fine – I haven’t attended many of them anyway. Annually wallowing in memories of adolescent mischiefs is not my cup of tea anyway.  But as the subgroup was making the decision behind my back, (yes, there always is such a subgroup), I wish that at least one person from that subgroup had the decency to inform me. There goes six years of education at our elite high school1) down the drain….

I assume that I was excluded from the event to protect other attendees from Covid-19.  What stupidity!  Obviously, you continue to uncritically consume misinformation, half-truths and lies spread by the government and the legacy media.  I know you are shocked by my strong statement.  After all, none of them have ever lied, right?

If you were not blinded by the propaganda, then you’d realize that your greatest risk of getting infected with SARS-Cov-2 comes not from an unvaccinated person but from a symptomatic person – irrespective of that person’s vaccination status (see here3) and here44)).  Interestingly, a recent study finds that some “vaccinated” persons can carry a delta variant viral load that is more than 200 times higher (than that of an unvaccinated person) before becoming symptomatic.  If that is true, then maybe you should keep your distance from “vaccinated” persons instead?

Or is it that you are trying to protect me?  That, of course, is none of your business.  As long I don’t endanger others (see last paragraph), then please leave it up to me to decide what risks I take in life.  This holds true for every adult.  But if you are still in the business of protecting responsible adults (on their behalf), then how about excluding those with multiple comorbidities and/or a weakened immune system? 

If you could think clearly, then the proper plan at the reunion would be to (a) primarily do outdoor activities, (b) have good ventilation by opening doors and windows, when you have indoor activities, (c) check everyone’s symptoms regularly, (d) wash hands frequently, etc. 

BTW, I have been jabbed once, which is obviously not good enough.  Just curious what your requirement will be for the next group event.  1 booster or 2?  And for the subsequent one?  3 or 4 boosters?  Or will it be an IV drip constantly pumping the “vaccine” in your body?  When something doesn’t work as promised, do you always double down on it?  Do you really think that the more the better, especially for an experimental drug based on an unproven technology? 

But I am not so naïve to think that protecting me/you was the primary reason for my exclusion.  If that were so, then at least one of the powerful decision-makers would have asked me about my vaccination status, and possibly asked about my willingness to take a second one.  No, my crime was much more serious – that of Thought Crime.  I question the truthfulness of government and legacy media.  I also do not blindly trust unsubstantiated claims by big pharma, like Pfizer, which was recently fined almost $3B for fraudulent claims.  Such crimes are inexcusable.

Now let’s consider a few examples that demonstrate your immense capacity to be gullible.  Despite what you are told ….

  • Strictly speaking, the jabs are not vaccines – these are experimental gene therapies made with experimental technologies. That’s why the quotation marks around these “vaccines”. The relevant technologies were developed for cancer treatment but were abandoned due to clinical failure.  None of the “vaccines” have completed clinical study.  Pfizer will be the first one to complete it in 2023!  All of them have skipped animal study and therefore, none of them have toxicokinetic data. 
  • The “vaccines” have questionable efficacy. The originally claimed 90+% referred to relative efficacy and not the more relevant absolute efficacy.  Besides, proper efficacy could not have been determined anyway because of the extremely shortened study protocol.  See how they have now moved the goal post to claim “reduced severity of symptoms”? Reduced symptoms is not a bad thing – but what else are they making up as they go along?  A lot, which you’d recognize if you did not have blinders on.
  • Covid-19 is not an exceptionally fatal disease. Its infection fatality rate in most countries is between 0.1% and 0.5% (the higher number applies to the elderly, institutionalized patients). Neither is it an untreatable disease – provided you don’t follow FDA guideline to wait at home until it gets so bad that you have to go the ER.  Long Covid is also not a unique Covid-19 phenomena.  Other viral infections have similar issues. 
  • None of the current “vaccines” can stop the infection chain because none provides sterile immunity. Neither do they provide immunity (from getting sick).  The only immunity that is iron clad is that of the “vaccine” manufacturers from getting sued for any harm caused by their experimental gene therapy products.
  • Dangerous mutants are more likely to be caused by those who have taken the current “vaccines“ vs. by the unvaccinated. You can understand this by drawing an analogy with antibiotics resistant bacteria. They emerge when incomplete and uncontrolled use of antibiotics leave behind some of the bacteria alive. These then become resistant to antibiotics (remember, what doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger).  Similarly, the current “vaccines“ kill only some of the viruses but leave others alive. These surviving viruses mutate to more resistant strains. There is a scientific term for this phenomenon – escape mutation (That’s why a golden rule of epidemiology is to vaccinate before, instead of during a pandemic).   Just as it is laughable to blame antibiotics resistant bacteria on those who have never used antibiotics, it is laughable to blame the more resistant Covid mutations on those who have not been “vaccinated“.  This doesn’t change even if Fauci says otherwise. He used to be a scientist but has long turned into a politician.
  • The Pfizer “vaccine” has not been recently approved by the FDA5). Instead, FDA has issued two simultaneous letters – in one of them the EUA of the current Pfizer vaccine was extended, and in the other, a vaccine called “Comirnaty” was approved.  Both are from BioNTech, and are manufactured and marketed by Pfizer.  The approved “vaccine” Comirnaty is not yet available in the USA.
  • Naturally obtained immunity is much stronger and longer lasting than one obtained by getting one of the currently available “vaccines”. That’s because the former relies on additional mechanisms than just antibodi
  • The PCR test can determine neither infection, nor infectiousness. The test method has neither been standardized, nor validated.  It certainly cannot determine a “Covid case” because it has never been approved as a diagnostic device, and because only a clinician can determine a “case” (with the help of some diagnostic test, if needed).  And yet, PCR test positives are being misrepresented as “cases” – primarily to scare people with large “case” numbers to justify unjustifiable and harmful blunt pandemic measures

I could go on with more examples but will stop here.  I had considered most of you to be smart enough to recognize so many inconsistencies, even without my help.  But either I was wrong about you, or Mark Twain was right when he said, “It is easier to fool people than to make them concede that they have been fooled”.  

But I digress.  In case your mind is drifting towards the response I typically on similar discussions, then here are a few hints:  I am not a Trump supporter, I am not a Covid denier, and I am not an antivaxxer.  Just last month I got my Pneumovax 23 against pneumonia.

Going back to our health authorities, do you know that about 80% of both FDA and WHO budgets come from private entities directly or indirectly linked to big pharma?  Do you know that several years ago WHO had changed the definition of a pandemic to exclude mortality as a criterion6)?  Do you know that late 2020, WHO had changed its statement on herd immunity to remove the role of natural immunity (version from June 20207) vs. version from Dec. 20208))?  Do you know that pharma and health products groups together are by far the largest lobby group in the USA.?  Unfortunately, many peer reviewed medical journals are increasingly financially dependent on big pharma as well because preprints make a huge chunk of their revenue.  These are not direct evidence of collusion – but let us not be naïve about human nature.

Then there is the issue of medical experimentation on humans.  Administration of an experimental drug (which all three “vaccines” are) without Informed Consent violates both Nuremberg Code (1947) and the Declaration of Helsinki (1964). Both were instituted to prevent horrors committed by the Nazi regime on prisoners – think Dr. Mengele.  When you got your shot, did any doctor tell you that clinical studies for the vaccine are not complete yet?  Did he explain the known and possible adverse effects?  If not, then you have been subjects of human experimentation!

I am not a legal expert.  But I have many years of professional experience in developing medical products and devices that required clinical studies.  In every case, we had to strictly abide by the above two conventions – even for the simplest, and apparently most benign, human clinical studies.

BTW, If Covid-19 is such a dangerous disease, don’t you find it odd that even after 18 months, the health authorities haven’t come up with any early treatment or prophylaxis recommendations?  Does resting at home, drinking a lot of water, taking aspirin as needed, checking temperature, etc., and going to the ER if symptoms become severe look like sound advice to you for such a dangerous disease?  And while many clinicians are claiming that they can reduce Covid-19 complications and hospitalization by 80+% by using existing safe medications, FDA ia doing everything in its power to shut such voices down.

I am not partial to any individual early treatment medication for Covid-19 because any severe disease requires a regimen of therapeutics.  But I will give an example with Ivermectin to show FDA’s shameful and deceptive, if not criminal, behavior.  FDA’s website9) suggests that dumb people are overdosing themselves with a horse medicine, thanks to misinformation from some clinicians.  First of all, Ivermectin, like many many other human medicines, is also produced for animal treatment.  Ivermectin has been in use for almost 40 years to treat humans – in fact, so successfully that two of its inventors were awarded the Medicine Nobel Prize in 2015.  A medicine Nobel prize for a horse medicine, right?  Not a single proponent of Ivermectin has ever suggested that anyone takes the animal version of the medication.  So, what FDA is spreading on its website is a perfect example of someone pointing finger at another person while three fingers are pointed at himself!  Then the only reason why some people are overdosing themselves with an animal version of Ivermectin is that FDA has made it extremely difficult for physicians to prescribe, and pharmacies to sell Ivermectin. BTW, Ivermectin is one of the safest medicines, based on a track record of almost 4 billion doses prescribed. 

On its website FDA also mentions that it has not yet reviewed clinical data that many clinician groups have been providing for review since more than a year now.  Why not?  I’ll provide you with some additional dots beyond the ones I have already mentioned earlier:  emergency use authorization (EUA) for the “vaccines” would not have been possible if there were any treatment available for the disease; Pfizer’s revenue from its Covid-19 “vaccine” already exceeds $30B+; all vaccine companies have been given complete immunity from any lawsuit concerning harms from these “vaccines”; etc.  Now you may choose to connect the dots or not.

Do you remember how within months of the pandemic we were told that we can go back to normal only after sufficient number of the population will be vaccinated – with a vaccine that was not even available?  Do you know that until then it took 8-10 years for any vaccine to be developed?  From the very beginning, the pandemic measures have in reality been vaccination measures.  There is a big difference between the two.  As a result, there has been no overall cost benefit analysis. – as if huge costs related to the economy, collateral health and psychological damages, disruption of the civil society, children’s education, etc. simply do not exist.    Our friend Khand**r’s health situation is just one example.

Yes, there may be benefits of taking these “vaccines” – for some.  I made sure that my mother gets one of the “vaccines”. But there is absolutely no medical, rational, ethical, and legal ground either for vaccine mandate or vaccine pass.

Just a few more things.  Have you noticed how in 18 months, a two-week lockdown (to flatten the curve) has morphed into “show your papers”?  Today F**k Checkers of unknown credential and technical competence decide what eminent scientific and clinical experts, including Nobel laureates, are allowed to share in the public. This is akin to killing science. Science, especially in a developing area, never has one single answer.  Asking questions, proposing alternative hypotheses, creating and sharing new data to support or refute the hypotheses are the ways science advances – not by any edict from the Ministry of Truth.  Yet, that’s exactly what is happening.  The Ministry of Truth has outsourced the job to private media corporations.  Therefore, good science is one of many victims of this pandemic.  If you question the official narrative then you get censored, banned, deplatformed or excluded from a reunion.

It is amazing how otherwise intelligent people are not only fine with all these irrational and harmful measures and policies, but they are even clamoring for more.  As if they want to prove both Sheldon Wolin right on his prediction of Inverted Totalitarianism, and George Orwell’s vision of the future: “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever”.

Life is too short and enjoyable to dwell much on such unpleasant experience.  But I had to pen this because my exclusion reminded me of Martin Niemöller, “First they came for the communists….”  

Wake the f**k up!

*

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

Sources

https://medium.com/@BJ_Murphy/a-little-known-story-first-they-came-for-the-communists-5e770708cae7

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774102

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/mainstream-media-fda-approval-pfizer-vaccine/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3haectEvDq0

https://web.archive.org/web/20201105013101/https:/www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-serology

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-hub/q-a-detail/herd-immunity-lockdowns-and-covid-19

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The Left is currently dividing very publicly over a viral clip on social media of AOC – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – arriving on Monday night at an exclusive gala event in New York in a slinky, white satin, off-the shoulder, Marilyn Monroe-style gown with large red writing across the back demanding: “Tax the Rich.”

Maybe “divided” isn’t quite the right word. As with most left politics nowadays, the two sides seem to be talking across each other. It is as if they speak two entirely different languages.

Tickets to the Met Gala are at least $30,000 a pop, though it seems AOC, a young New York City Congresswoman who identifies as a democratic socialist, did not pay for the ticket herself. She was invited and seized the moment to make her protest.

In an Instagram post, she wrote that she was helping “to kick open the doors at the Met. The time is now for childcare, healthcare, and climate action for all. Tax the Rich.”

Predictably, the right instantly leapt on her “hypocrisy”. Former President Donald Trump led the charge, calling her a “fraud”.

But some on the left were unhappy too. They dismissed her attendance as a performative stunt – another clever move by AOC to build her brand on Instagram as a rebellious truth-teller safely ensconced in the big-business-friendly Democratic party.

Ever the politician, they noted, she was desperate to get herself noticed. Could this be another salvo in her shot for an AOC presidential run in 2024 or 2028? 

But with Trump on the attack, liberals lost no time rushing to her side, labelling critics on the left as curmudgeons. They argued she had brought an uncomfortable message for the rich right into their midst. She had taken the fight to the elite. And, given the media attention she invariably attracts, that message has now reached many millions. That could only be a good thing. 

But there is, I think, a deeper reason why this clip makes parts of the left – rather than the rich – uncomfortable.

Watch the video above with the sound off, and it is hard not to notice that AOC is enjoying herself – enjoying the glamour and that very expensive, very chic dress – just a little too much to qualify as any kind of class-struggle warrior.

The impression that this is faux-protest derives, however, from more than AOC’s pleasure at playing a mildly subversive Marilyn Monroe.

Far from “kicking open” the door of the Met, she appears to have been welcomed with a warm embrace. Certainly, she did not appear to be rustling too many feathers among her fellow, wealthy guests. 

Turn the sound on, and the interviewers gushing over her and her dress simply confirm that this was a protest that posed no threat to anyone. It was a designer protest at a designer event. She fitted right in with the $30,000-a-head crowd.

If you want to see what happens when a real protest takes place at an elite gala event, watch this clip from two years ago in the UK. 

In it, Mark Field, an MP from the ruling Conservative party, assaults a peaceful and well-dressed woman, who like AOC has a ticket, at an expensive dinner in the City of London. To the apparent approval of other guests, Field grabs the woman by the throat – she is wearing a sash highlighting the City’s role in promoting the impending climate catastrophe – and frogmarches her out of the hall.

(I wrote a post at the time, arguing – as I could also here – that media debates around that assault missed the deeper political significance of what was going on and were chiefly intended to polarise opinion in more marginal, tribal terms centred on identity politics.) 

The more disturbing point about AOC’s protest – at least for the serious left – is that, rather than taking the fight to the rich, she appears to have become their willing mascot. Her protest is very much part of the bread and circuses provided by the rich as a sop to the poor. And at some level, as her coquettish smile indicates, she understands that. She is openly conspiring in her role as an entertainer, as a distraction.

Watching AOC twirl for the camera, to show us her designer-messaged derriere, I was reminded of the media frenzy at the weekend over Britain’s new tennis star, Emma Raducanu.

After winning the US Open on Saturday, she was encouraged to put on makeup and a similarly chic, if in her case black, dinner dress and lovingly kiss her trophy for the cameras. According to experts, she is about to become Britain’s most bankable sportsperson in decades. 

But Raducanu’s job is to entertain us. That is why she is in the headlines. She is being rewarded for her ability to amaze us, move us, distract us, even titillate us. Is that what AOC’s job is too?

That’s certainly how it looks.

Those who invited her to the gala event and those who spent the evening rubbing shoulders with her do not seem to have been overly troubled by her message of “Tax the rich.” And that is not because they actually want to pay more taxes. It is because they understand that nothing she is doing – including her gown protest – will lead to them paying more tax. In fact, she may even assist them in forestalling efforts to tax them fairly.

By having AOC at their event, New York’s liberal elite look open-minded and socially progressive. They want to present an image of social concern, of being reform-minded, even as they hoard their wealth and fritter it away on a seat at an exclusive gala dinner whose price could support a poor family for an entire year.

If AOC’s protest was a threat, the attendees would not be giggling with her. She played her role perfectly, asking a question – but most certainly not answering it – about “what it means to be a working class woman of color at the Met”.

Well, what does it mean – apart from as entertainment value? How exactly does her attendance advance social justice issues, apart from in flaccid, strait-jacketed, identity-obsessed terms that now pass for meaningful political action?

Having AOC at the Met Gala is the New York elite’s equivalent of billionaire Bill Gates flaunting his philanthropy, even as that same philanthropy actually helps Gates to grow his fortune even further. AOC is the New York elite’s version of a tax write-off.

But it’s worse than that.

AOC’s protest isn’t just toothless. It’s fully aligned with her evolution as yet another Democratic machine politician, even if one whose distinctive marketing campaign is premised on her being some kind of rebel.

AOC’s invitation to the Met Gala, and her acceptance, is just another stage in her cooptation by the elite. The brashly outspoken rookie politician of a few years ago has been gradually tamed into the more “responsible” politician looking to claw her way up the Democratic party career ladder.

She is becoming a parody of her old self. The rhetoric of political protest on the campaign trail in the 14th congressional district has – once put to the test – morphed into the empty spectacle of protest by a Congresswoman increasingly comfortable hobnobbing with the rich and famous.

She is becoming part of the very elite she supposedly disdains. She is a celebrity politician, just as Raducanu is a now celebrity tennis player. She plays to the camera because there is nothing more to her actions than performance and pageantry. And in these, at least, she can excel.

The point here isn’t primarily to apportion blame. AOC is playing the role she needs to fill to survive politically, a game Jeremy Corbyn failed to play when he was unexpectedly – and accidentally –  thrust onto centre stage on the other side of the Atlantic. British elites, liberal and conservative alike, hurriedly joined together to destroy Corbyn through the manipulation of popular political discourse, presenting him as a national security threat and an antisemite.

If they have to, US elites can and will do the same to AOC. But they are increasingly confident that they won’t need to.

Rather, focusing on AOC helps to clarify how our corporate-controlled political systems work; how protest in the mainstream must take the form of hollow spectacles and gestures; and how even the most principled politicians have to make grave compromises, accepting their role as entertainers rather than agents of meaningful change.

The gradual process of cooptation of AOC – her “maturing” as a politician – is already evident.

She has learnt that the political cost of pursuing a vitally important cause like Medicare for all she once espoused so passionately is too high. When she and the small group of democratic socialists in Congress had a once-in-a-lifetime chance to force a vote on Medicare in January, a move that would have put the donor-dependent leadership of the Democratic party in an impossibly difficult bind, they lost their nerve and crumpled. Their passionate campaign commitments turned into so much hot air.

Why would any of us imagine that, having fallen at that early hurdle, she will be ready to jump even bigger obstacles as she pursues a high-flying political career within the Democratic party.

For some on the left, none of that seems to matter. They think AOC deserves support precisely because she is so expert at spectacle, at sounding committed even as she sells out her principles. If they cannot get action, they will settle for performance.

As she justified her attendance at the Met Gala on Monday, AOC argued that “the message is the medium”. But really it was the spectacle that was her message. She was having fun, joshing with the rich as though she was now firmly one of them. And they loved it.

Which was the real point. She will need them to bankroll her political aspirations, and the billionaire media to play softball with her, when she leaves behind her New York congressional district.

A few years hence, the woman whose gown said “Tax the rich” will be all the more credible, and useful to the elite, when she subtly changes tune and demands it is time to “Stop the attacks on the rich”.

She may be more flamboyant and more publicity-savvy than her political rivals, but AOC is no less susceptible to the pressures of a political system systemically corrupt and designed to maintain the privileges of a wealth elite.

With that Met Gala gown, she read the room well. She is on her way up.

*

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

This essay first appeared on Jonathan Cook’s blog: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from AOC’s Instagram account

All Global Research articles 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.

***

 

 

 

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am a Public Interest Advocate. I have extensive training, clinical and professional practice experience supporting individuals in exercising their civil and human rights to Informed Consent, and accessing social justice in health care settings in B.C. 

In this article I present the following information:

  • Definitions of Biometric Identification (ID)
  • BC’s Biometric ID: The BC Vaccine Card, aka “Proof of Vaccination” App & QR Code
  • Bioethical, Socio-Economic, and Social Justice Analysis
  • How BC’s Biometric ID Will Work
  • Places the vaccine card will be required for entry in BC
  • Cybersecurity Threats from Biometric ID, Vaccine Apps and Potential Risk Mitigation Strategies (including some tips for parents to decrease potential risks and threats to their kids)

Introduction

On August 23rd, 2021, the BC government announced they were moving forward with their plan to implement a Biometric identification (ID) and social credit system in B.C. that is tied to peoples’  COVID-19 vaccine status. This is euphemistically being referred to as, “Proof of Vaccination” (POV) and the “BC Vaccine Card.” These terms are code for Biometric ID.

This creates a convergence, or fusion, of ones’ biological, digital, and physiological identity, vaccination and social status. Vaccine passports create social credit, or status, based on ones’ vaccination status. BC’s system is building upon, and adopting the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) government’s vaccine status and social credit systems of state control, coercion, and surveillance tied to biometric data and ID. Under the BCNDP government, the ability to participate in BC society will rely upon whether one is up-to-date with what the state tells citizens is their vaccination status. This formalizes governmental, institutional, and state definitions of who is considered an “insider,” “desirable,” or “worthy person,” and who must be considered an “outsider,” an “undesirable” or “unworthy” person in BC.

Adrian Dix, Minister of Health under the BCNDP, and Justin Trudeau, former Prime Minister with the federal Liberal Party, have both advised citizens that boosters are already being considered. This is because there is already statistical data from the BC Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC) and Canadian governments (as well as others’) that COVID-19 vaccines do not work as intended for specific populations, such as the elderly, and those with immune-suppression.

There are also strong indicators the vaccines wane within several months. The World Health Organization (WHO) states that “booster shots” have no scientific data to support them. However, some nations, most notably Israel, have already been administering third doses of COVID-19 vaccines. They are also already considering administering four doses in the first year that these experimental vaccines have been administered around the world.

Trudeau has publicly stated he has ordered “booster” doses, or “second generation” vaccines up to 2024. People will be required to take the state-sponsored and required number of vaccines, which will change over time. If they do not take them, their status in their passport/Biometric ID will show they are “unvaccinated.Their social credit and status will change. They will be socially and physically banned and excluded from all of the settings the B.C. government has decided will require this proof. That list will grow as the months go by.

What is Biometric Identification (ID)

  • Biometrics is defined as: the measurement and analysis of unique physical or behavioral characteristics (such as fingerprint or voice patterns) especially as a means of verifying personal identity (Merriam-Webster).
  • Biometrics are physical or behavioral human characteristics to that can be used to digitally identify a person to grant access to systems, devices or data (Korolov, 2019).
  • Biometric identification (ID): Biometric identification consists of determining the identity of a person. The aim is to capture an item of biometric data from this person. It can be a photo of their face, a record of their voice, or an image of their fingerprint (Thales, 2021).
  • Biometric ID now includes COVID-19 vaccination status. Over time, this information will potentially increase to include other biomedical personal information, which will confer social status and credit, and the ability to access services, and participate in ones’ community.

Proof of Vaccination ID & Biometric Vaccination Status in the BC Vaccine Card  

BC Biometric ID: “Proof of Vaccination” App & QR Code

BC Government: “Starting September 13, you need proof of vaccination to access some events, services and businesses. The easiest way to show proof is using the BC Vaccine Card.”

Source 

On Sept. 7th more details about the BCNDP & #BCgovernment’s implementation of their Biometric ID and social credit system via the “BC Vaccine Card” were released. Details are provided below. The picture above is what your vaccine status will look like in the BC COVID-19 vaccine app.

Bioethical, Socio-Economic, and Social Justice Analysis

BC Vaccine Passport: “Proof of Vaccination” is the coercive collection, use, and forced disclosure of personal health information and biometric data via BC vaccine passports. This represents a substantive violation of health-related ethics, bioethics, civil and human rights, and a variety of provincial, federal, and international laws, including the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005). The background and mandate of this international declaration states: “At its 32nd session in October 2003, the General Conference considered that it was “opportune and desirable to set universal standards in the field of bioethics with due regard for human dignity and human rights and freedoms, in the spirit of cultural pluralism inherent in bioethics” (32 C/Res. 24).
  • Social Exclusion, Marginalization and Barriers to Participating in Society: Many individuals and classes of people will be banned and further marginalized from participating in society through the BC government’s implementation of their social credit system. The BCNDP government is increasing barriers, creating institutional barriers, and excluding more and more people who they have decided are “unworthy” of being included in their communities, and BC society. This includes: poor and soci-economically disadvantaged people; people who have no PHN, no smartphones, and no access to the internet. People with inaccurate, or wrong ID. Seniors who may not know how to use technology, or how to navigate complex systems to access their biometric ID. People with disabilities and health conditions which prevent them from getting COVID-19 vaccines, and people who object to getting these vaccines for religious reasons, or conscientious objections will all be considered to have no social status in BC.
  • No “Do Over” – If/once you choose to download the BC Vaccine passport you will never again have autonomy, freedom, or liberty, or self-determination over your personal or health sovereignty. The state will own you, your biometric data, & your body forever. The state will also decide what health interventions you will be required to have in the future to maintain your social credit and status in BC (and later, in Canada). Once you give your own personal and health sovereignty, bodily autonomy and integrity away you will remain enslaved for the rest of your life, or you will become a non-status person.
  • In the case of COVID-19 vaccines: If you do not keep getting boosters when your COVID-19 vaccine has “expired” you will no longer have social status, or “social credit.” You will be considered “unvaccinated.” This means you will be banned from accessing the settings the province has decided you will be excluded from. This list will grow over time. They’re rolling out all of the plans incrementally.
  • There are NO EXEMPTIONS: This includes no exemptions even if you/a loved one has medical, or religious reasons for not receiving a vaccine (now it’s just COVID-19 ones, but new vaccines will roll out later that you will be required to take). This means if you had 1 dose and had a bad reaction, and can’t get a second dose (or third, fourth, fifth…), you will be considered unvaccinated and banned from participating in society.

Adrian Dix: “A major B.C. media outlet referred to him as a “dour Stalinist” after he became NDP leader last April. “[Josef] Stalin was a mass murderer . a totalitarian leader of the 1930s,” he said, exasperated.” (Todd, D. (2017). Vancouver Sun).

BC Definition of “Unvaccinated”: “No dose or <3 weeks since receipt of 1st dose.”

How BC’s Biometric ID Will Work

  • Downloading the App: To download the app you need your Personal Health Number (PHN); your date of birth; and the date of your 1st or 2nd vaccine dose. If you do not have a PHN, or smartphone, obviously you will be unable to use this app.
  • After inputting your biometric data: You will receive a BC vaccine card with a QR code that shows how many doses of the vaccine you’ve received.
  • You will need to show your QR code—either digital or paper—along with photo ID before entering specific events and settings.
  • Businesses will use a phone app to verify customers’ vaccination statuses. This means BC businesses and other settings will now be collecting customers’ Biometric & personal health information. Details about how, where, and what country/ies this data and information will be stored in, and whether third parties can access this data, and share it are not known at this time.
  • Permissions and Informed Consent: If you are going to download the BC Biometric app, ensure you have carefully read the Permissions and Consents that are required. These should tell you how, where, what country and whether third party access to your biometric and personal health information will be used. Permissions should also tell you if third parties can also share your personal health/biometric data, and for what purposes.
  • Exempted businesses and settings: Settings that have been designated as “Essential; “Fast food” restaurants, food courts, drive-thrus, and cafeterias are not included in the program.

Cybersecurity Threats from Biometric ID, Vaccine Apps and Potential Risk Mitigation Strategies

  • IT Security and privacy experts have already reported that COVID-related apps are highly targeted for hacking and cybersecurity breaches by cyber-criminals. This is because the information contained in these apps is probably enough to steal a person’s identity and commit other crimes in their name, specifically financial crimes.
  • Protecting Your Biometric Data and Personal Information: Consider getting an IT security assessment of your phone, and existing permissions from other apps and the phone manufacturer.
  • Additional Cybersecurity On Your Phone: Consider getting expert advice about adding additional layers of cybersecurity on your smartphone if you plan to download the app. Biometric ID and apps likely come with ongoing and chronic cybersecurity risks for you, and your personal health and biometric data.
  • Unknown Risks and Threats to Children & Youth: Because all of this is being implemented so quickly, with many parts unknown, and so many kids have smartphones, it is unclear to me what steps parents will be able to take to protect and decrease risks and threats from predators and cyber-criminals who will try to access the biometric and personal health information of their kids.
  • Suggestions for Parents: Not allow their kids to download the Biometric ID’s onto their phones until more is known about the risks and threats. Ensure that parents are present and aware of the permissions and consents if the app is downloaded. Try to do an IT cybersecurity assessment and install cybersecurity protections on their kids’ phones.

Dr. Bonnie Henry, March 31, 2020

Places your vaccine card is required for entry in BC

By order of the Provincial Health Officer (PHO), proof of vaccination is required to access some events, services and businesses. Starting September 13, you must have at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. By October 24, you must be fully vaccinated. The requirement is in place until January 31, 2022 and could be extended.

The requirement applies to all people born in 2009 or earlier (12+) and covers:

  • Indoor ticketed sporting events
  • Indoor concerts, theatre, dance and symphony events
  • Licensed restaurants and restaurants that offer table service (indoor and patio dining)
  • Pubs, bars and lounges (indoor and patio dining)
  • Nightclubs, casinos and movie theatres
  • Gyms, exercise facilities/studios, pools and recreation facilities
  • Businesses offering indoor group exercise
  • Indoor adult group and team sports for people 22 years old or older
  • Indoor organized events with 50 or more people. For example: Wedding receptions, organized parties, conferences and workshops
  • Indoor organized group recreational classes and activities like pottery, art and choir
  • Post-secondary on-campus student housing

*

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

Sources

Korolov, M. (2019. What is biometrics? 10 physical and behavioral identifiers that can be used for authentication. CSO. Retrieved from: https://www.csoonline.com/article/3339565/what-is-biometrics-and-why-collecting-biometric-data-is-risky.html.

Thales (2021). Biometrics: definition, use cases, and latest news. Retrieved from: https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/markets/digital-identity-and-security/government/inspired/biometrics

BCCDC. (2021). BCCDC Data Summary, Sept. 2, 2021. (Pg. 16). Retrieved from: http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/COVID_sitrep/2021-09-02_Data_Summary.pdf

All images in this article are from Advocacy BC

All Global Research articles 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 a state overextends itself strategically—by, say, the conquest of extensive territories or the waging of costly wars—it runs the risk that the potential benefits from external expansion may be outweighed by the great expense of it all.” Paul Kennedy (1945- ), British historian, (in ‘The Rise and Fall  of the Great Powers’, 1987)

“As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize—or do not want to recognize—that the United States dominates the world through its military power. Due to government secrecy, our citizens are often ignorant of the fact that our garrisons encircle the planet. This vast network of American bases on every continent except Antarctica actually constitutes a new form of empire—an empire of bases with its own geography not likely to be taught in any high school geography class.” Chalmers Johnson (1931-2010), American author and professor of political science, (in an article in TomDispatch, ‘America’s Empire of Bases’, Jan. 15, 2004).

“The task facing American statesmen over the next decades, therefore, is to recognize that broad trends are under way, and that there is a need to “manage” affairs so that the relative erosion of the United States’ position takes place slowly and smoothly, and is not accelerated by policies which bring merely short-term advantage but longer-term disadvantage.” Paul Kennedy (1945- ) British historian, (in ‘The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers’, 1987).

In 1987, British historian Paul Kennedy (1945- ) wrote a geopolitical book about how great powers rise and fall, in which he studied how economic and military factors can accompany or cause previously dominant  nations to lose their great power status. His main conclusion is that sooner or later a great hegemonic power will become overextended and its economy will struggle to keep its big military machine going. Indeed, an empire can increase its resources by launching wars abroad, at least for a while. However, sooner or later, a situation of permanent war and the military occupation of foreign lands result in more costs than benefits.

There are 193 countries that are members of the United Nations. But one country, the United States, operates an extended network of hundreds of military bases around the world, by far more than all the other countries taken together. Professor David Vine, in his 2020 book “The United States of War” established the total number of American military bases overseas to be close to 800 bases in more than 70 countries. This is enough to place the United States as the first truly global military empire in the history of the world.

Such a widespread collection of foreign military bases has two main consequences. First, it makes sure that the United States is likely to get involved in many foreign conflicts. And, second, it requires an important chunk of the U.S. public budget to be allocated to maintaining such a large military apparatus.

As a matter of fact, in the proposed total 2021-2022 U.S. budget ($6.8 trillion, of which $3.0 trillion or 44% is a deficit), $740 billion is allocated to the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). However, U.S. military expenditures are much higher than those allocated to the Pentagon. For instance, the 2021 proposed budget for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) amounts to $243 billion. One must also add the nearly $100 billion that the U.S. Department of the Treasury spends on pensions for retired military personnel. Then there is the C.I.A. budget, which was $85.8 billion in 2020 and might possibly be higher in 2021. This amounts to $1,168.8 billion of military-related expenditures, or more than 17% of the total U.S. budget for 2021-2022.

The overload of the office of American president

For many people, the American debacle in Afghanistan would seem to be proof that President Joe Biden is inept and incompetent, and that his advisers are clueless when it comes to making good decisions and to properly assessing a situation. This is a somewhat unfair appreciation of the circumstances. They are neither imbecile nor incompetent, but they could be overworked and distracted.

In fact, a case can be made that the function of American president has increasingly become way too complex and demanding for a single individual to handle, especially since the United States has assumed a global military role. The U.S. president has only twenty-four hours in his day like anybody else.

Indeed, the American head of state is obliged to manage a huge bureaucracy; he must tackle important domestic issues (pandemic, budget, Congress, etc.); and, as if this were not enough, he must also play the role of an emperor on the international scene and deal with Iran, China, Taiwan, Russia, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Israel, when not with North Korea, Somalia or Ukraine, etc. At the same time, the few trusted advisers who assist him are called upon to tackle many issues simultaneously. The president and his advisers can easily get distracted by the multitude of international problems that confront their administration.

The United States and the fall of Saigon in 1975 and of Kabul in 2021

It may be informative to compare two important American military failures, in 1975 and in 2021.

The fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975

The first instance when a major military expedition turned into a genuine fiasco for the United States occurred in 1975, with the fall of Saigon, capital of South Vietnam. The city could no longer benefit from the protection offered by the US Air Force, since an agreement to withdraw American forces had been concluded two years earlier. The date of April 30, 1975, marks the hasty and chaotic withdrawal of the last 6,000 Americans to leave SouthVietnam along with 50,000 Vietnamese, after Saigon fell to the North Vietnamese army.

Indeed, it’s very important to underline that in Paris, on January 27, 1973, the American Secretary of State Henry Kissinger signed an armistice treaty, called the Paris Peace Agreement. This agreement was concluded between the United States and South Vietnam, on the one hand, and the northern Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) and the Viet Cong, on the other hand. The agreement called for “an immediate cease-fire, the withdrawal of American military personnel within two months, the release of American prisoners, the end of the bombardments and the reunification of Vietnam by peaceful means.”

The goal was to allow the United States to extricate itself “with honor” from the Vietnamese quagmire. However, it was nothing more than a soft surrender on the part of the United States. The “peaceful reunification” clause between the North and South Vietnams was untenable. It was, in fact, not respected by the DRV and its allies, even if it was paramount to the Nixon administration.

The fall of Kabul on August 15, 2021

The parallel between the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975, and the fall of Kabul on August 15, 2021, is troubling. In both cases, the U.S. government had previously entered into an agreement with the enemy to withdraw its armed forces from the country, leaving the government in place without military air protection. Similarly, in both cases, the withdrawal of American civilians and local allies took place in an atmosphere of haste and chaos.

The difference between the two is that in the case of Afghanistan, Donald Trump’s administration left the Afghan governmentand even NATO alliesoutside of the negotiation process. The Trump administration signed an Accord of armistice with the Taliban, on February 29, 2020, in Doha, Qatar. The so-called “deal” was signed between American Special peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad (under the supervision of U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo) and the Taliban leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar.

The glaring absence of the Afghan government at the negotiating table greatly undermined its credibility. The fateful date of February 29, 2020, also marks the beginning of the demoralization and disintegration of the Afghan army, which felt abandoned and which could henceforth anticipate losing US military air cover and assistance in their fight against the Taliban.

The Feb. 2020 Trump-Taliban agreement called for the United States to reduce its forces from 13,000 to 8,600 over the next three to four months, with the remaining U.S. forces to be withdrawn in the following 14 months, or by May 1, 2021.

For their part, the Taliban pledged to put an end to attacks against American and coalition forces ❲but not against the Afghan army❳, prevent terrorism, including the obligation to renounce al-Qaida and “prevent this group or others from using Afghan soil to prepare attacks against the United States or its allies.”

Trump’s former Security adviser, Gen. H.R. McMaster, has since called Trump’s “deal” with the Taliban a “capitulation deal”, because it was clearly paving the way for the Taliban to regain power in Kabul. As McMaster put it, “The Taliban didn’t defeat us. We defeated ourselves!”

A joint responsibility Trump-Biden for the 2020-2021 Afghan disaster

Initiated in October 2001, by Republican George W. Bush, both incumbent Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump wanted to end the U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, without paying too much attention to the consequences. They believed that a military withdrawal without conditions could be done smoothly, and they counted on the collaboration of the Taliban to do so. —This was largely wishful thinking.

President Joe Biden was anxious to focus more on the current frictions that the United States has with Iran, China and Russia, and he endorsed the agreement reached by Donald Trump’s government in February 2020, for a complete and definitive withdrawal of the American military forces from Afghanistan, no later than May 1, 2021.

He announced his decision on April 14, 2021. i.e. that the U.S. and NATO troops were going “to be out of Afghanistan before we mark the 20th anniversary of that heinous attack on September 11th”, and that he was pushing back the final date for a complete withdrawal to August 31, 2021.

The option of extending the presence of a reduced U.S. military mission in Afghanistan until the country was truly stabilized and that there would be no possibility for a resurgence of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS)—and above all the Islamic State group in Khorasan (ISIS-K), as suggested by former American officials—was not retained.

Let’s add that the Biden administration left behind billions of dollars of military equipment recuperated by the Taliban!

Neither Trump nor Biden figured out that this would betray twenty years of a direct American commitment in Afghanistan, and that a complete and precipitous military exit would leave many thousands of Afghans who had worked for the U.S. government in clear danger for their lives. Similarly, they didn’t seem to have considered the worst-case scenario: that the Taliban would rapidly overthrow the pro-American government in Kabul and that total chaos would ensue. (N.B.: The C.I.A., for one, had predicted the collapse of the Afghan government and a quick Taliban victory if all American troops were to withdraw from the country.)

Nevertheless, even though both Trump and Biden were involved in planning the U.S. military exit from Afghanistan, it was the Democratic president who made the final decisions that led to the—preventable—August 2021 fiasco. This is why despite Biden’s denial, it’s likely that it will be the Democrats who will suffer an electoral backlash for his crisis mismanagement, in the 2022 and 2024 elections. It remains to be seen how important such setbacks will be.

Conclusion

The experience of the last fifty years has shown that the idea that prevailed after World War II, that the United States could count on its military supremacy to impose democracy and capitalism on other countries, is past due. No country, whatever its military might, can impose its will on other countries forever. This was an imperial idea that American neocon thinkers resurrected after the fall of the Soviet Empire (USSR) in December 1991, but nothing good came of it.

Since Bill Clinton’s administration (1993-2001), successive U.S. governments  have abandoned the United Nations and its peacekeeping mechanisms. They replaced U.N. operations with those of NATO, which are more flexible, for sure, but also much less legitimate. — This was a mistake. — A return to the legitimacy of a reformed United Nations Organization would seem to be the road to follow in the coming years, if the world is going to avoid falling back into destructive conflicts.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay.

International economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book about morals “The code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles” of the book about geopolitics “The New American Empire“, and the recent book , in French, “La régression tranquille du Québec, 1980-2018“. He holds a Ph.D. in international finance from Stanford University.

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

Please visit Dr Tremblay’s site or email to a friend here.
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Disorderly Retreat from Afghanistan: The U.S. Has Become an Overextended Military Empire Posing a Serious Threat to Its Long-term Security
  • 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.

***

 

An article in “The Guardian” of 13 September “Sharp rise in acute medical beds occupied by children with nowhere else to go” should not only alarm parents. “Uncut-news.ch” published the article. Quote:

“A third of intensive care beds in England are occupied by children who have nowhere else to go because of their illness. In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, these children are suffering from mental and neurological problems. Some exhibit violent or self-injurious behaviour, others have severe neurodevelopmental disorders. Still others are there because of an eating disorder. But despite their individual needs, many of them do not have a specific psychiatric diagnosis. And without a diagnosis, they are not entitled to a bed in a real psychiatric ward, even if they are so violent that they are a danger not only to themselves but also to those around them. This means that these children end up living in a normal hospital, sometimes for months. Even more worrying is that since the pandemic began, the number of children in these beds has increased dramatically. In the US, children’s hospitals across the country are reporting that the number of children needing psychiatric help has ‘exploded’, according to CNN. ‘Several children’s hospitals said they were running so low on inpatient psychiatric beds that they were having to house children in their emergency rooms – sometimes for weeks at a time.’ (1)

Screenshot from The Guardian

As early as last March, in a commentary “‘Lockdown Children’s Rights’: We’re Killing Our Children’s Souls” posted on various independent internet platforms, I demanded,

“If we don’t stand up against this lockdown madness right now, we are complicit in the soul murder of our children!”

Yet the majority of parents and educators in kindergartens and schools do not stand up, but silently accept that corrupt governments are driving their children into madness or even suicide and thus strangling the future of all of us.

Of course, all rational adults have suspected for over a year and a half that the political madness measures are not about protecting the health of the population, but solely about a worldwide political grand experiment with the help of which diabolical rulers are trying to impose their will. But these adults do not have the courage to force the rulers to stop this madness immediately.

On the contrary: due to the direct and indirect compulsory vaccination with a “killer vaccine” – even of children and infants – the worldwide situation for people has once again become decisively worse in the last six months. Even churches are now being turned into vaccination centres. And the fact that “COVID 19” does not play a role in election campaigns – for example in Germany – is an unmistakable sign that it is about quite different goals than health protection.

Who is able to speak into the conscience of parents and educators so that they finally stand up and say NO? Our children are in great need and our future is in danger.

*

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

Dr Rudolf Hänsel is an educationalist and qualified psychologist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

1. https://uncutnews.ch/die-krankenhausbetten-fuellen-sich-mit-kindern-aber-es-ist-nicht-das-was-sie-denken/

Featured image is from Xavier Donat

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Parents Sacrifice Their Children on the Altar of Obedience: Children in Need – The Future in Danger
  • Tags: ,

The Law that Gives the US President “License to Kill”

September 15th, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

On September 18, 2001, a week after September 11, the United States Congress unanimously approved Public Law 107-40 which stated: “The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons that he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

The Law, which gave Republican President George W. Bush full war powers, was drafted by Democratic Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Commission.

President Bush was thus authorized by Congress, in the name of the “war on terror”, to use military force not only against organizations or people but entire nations, whose guilt was decreed by the President himself, who passed the sentence without trial nor the possibility of appeal and ordered immediate execution by means of war. The only ones who have long called for the cancellation of this law are two senators, Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican Christopher Young, but their attempt has so far been unsuccessful.

The Law of September 18, 2001, still in force, was used after Republican President Bush by the Democrat Barack Obama, the Republican Donald Trump and the Democrat Biden (former Vice-president in the Obama Administration). It is estimated that it has been used by presidential order to “legitimize” in the last twenty years military operations carried out by the US armed forces in 19 countries around the world, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Tunisia, Kenya, Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, Cameroon, Niger.

Three weeks after the passing of the law, President Bush ordered to attack and invade Afghanistan, officially to hunt down Bin Laden protected by the Taliban; three months later, he ordered the opening of the Guantanamo prison camp, where alleged terrorists from various parts of the world were secretly deported and tortured; a year and a half later – prompted by a bipartisan resolution of 77 senators, promoted by Joe Biden – President Bush ordered to attack and invade Iraq with the accusation (later proved false) that it possessed weapons of mass destruction. The order was to use the knuckle duster to crush the resistance: this was confirmed by the images of the tortures in Abu Ghraib prison, which came to light in 2004.

Always on the basis of the 2001 law which authorized him to “use all necessary and appropriate force”, President Obama, ten years later, authorized the CIA to carry out covert operations in Libya in preparation for the NATO war that would demolish the Libyan State. According to the same “legal” procedure – the New York Times documented on May 29, 2012 – during the Obama administration the “kill list” was established, updated weekly, including people from all over the world secretly sentenced to death with the accusation of terrorism, who were eliminated for the most part with drone-killers after the President’s approval. The same procedure was followed in January 2020 by President Trump, who ordered the elimination of the Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, killed by a US drone at Baghdad airport. Similar attacks by US drones have been “legally” authorized in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.

Based on the authorization of President Biden, the most recent drone-killer attack was the one that hit a car suspected of carrying an ISIS bomb on August 29 in Kabul. An investigation by the New York Times (September 10) found that the car (followed for a long time by the drone pilot sitting thousands of kilometers away) was not carrying explosives but water tanks. A “Hellfire” missile was fired at this car in a densely populated neighborhood, killing ten civilians including seven children.

*

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

This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.

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

Featured image: Vice President Joe Biden, Austin, and Command Sergeant Major Earl Rice, at an event marking the award of the Iraq Commitment Medal in December 2011

“Covid-19 Mandates and Restrictions”: A Letter to Public Health Officers

By Dr. Anton de Ruiter, Dr. Jan Vrbik, Dr. Denis G. Rancourt, and et al., September 14, 2021

Civil liberties are under attack in Canada and worldwide. On the basis of public health acts and infectious disease laws, limitations to constitutional rights are imposed through emergency orders by Canada’s medical officers of health and by unelected bureaucrats elsewhere.

EMA: Almost a Third of COVID Vaccination Side Effects Are Severe

By Free West Media, September 14, 2021

The reported suspected side effects for the four Covid vaccines, which have only been conditionally approved in the EU, are record-breaking after just 8 months. Serious side effects have been reported.

Children’s Health Defense Responds to Biden’s ‘Declaration of War Against Unvaccinated’

By Mary Holland, September 14, 2021

In a “deeply disturbing” speech last week, President Biden exhorted medical coercion of an experimental gene therapy for a virus with a 99% survival rate for a large portion of the population, and for which no one bears financial liability in cases where injuries or deaths occur.

A Call for Mother Earth and Humanity. Analysis of “Military Geoengineering”

By Prof. Claudia von Werlhof, September 14, 2021

This man-made world is by definition a pater-arché one, a ‘creation’ of so-called human fathers instead of human mothers together with Mother Nature. During the time to reach this patriarchal utopia, which is several thousands of years old, much violence has already been applied.

Human Medical Experiments without Informed Consent: EMA and Members of the European Parliament (MEP) Put on Notice for Crimes Against Humanity

By John Goss, September 14, 2021

Let there be no mistake. What is happening today, before our very eyes, is what happened with human medical experiments during the Second World War. These experiments were without informed consent. Many prisoners were vaccinated with experimental drugs.

Sinophobia Meets Prison Labor in a Think Tank Down Under

By Pepe Escobar, September 14, 2021

The West has been literally swamped by a non-stop propaganda offensive about Uyghur forced labor camps – thoroughly debunked, for instance, here. Now let’s examine the other – Western – side of the story.

Medical Authoritarianism and the Burgeoning Biosecurity State: Boycott Vaccine Mandates and COVID Passports

By William Hawes, September 14, 2021

Just as many predicted over a year ago, the rollout of the vaccine for Covid-19 and its implementation has introduced intense polarization and social segregation through the implementation of mandatory vaccinations for employees and vaccine passports.

Historical Analysis: The Sino-American Cold War and the Fate of Korea

By Prof. Joseph H. Chung, September 14, 2021

This is the story of Korea in the latter half of the 19th century. China, Japan and Russia came and they fought to swallow Korea. Korea was important to them. Russia needed Korea for ice-free ports; China wanted to keep Korea as a vassal country and a buffer zone between Japan and China; Japan badly needed to have Korea as an expressway to China to conquer.

Revenge of the Technocrats: How Canada’s Liberal Party Became an Appendage of the Great Reset

By Matthew Ehret-Kump, September 15, 2021

Today, the Canadian political landscape is being remoulded by a nest of technocratic ideologues who aim to lead the nation into a post-nation state Great Reset.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: A Call for Mother Earth and Humanity. Analysis of “Military Geoengineering”

Guinean Coup Leaders Respond to Suspensions from ECOWAS and AU

September 15th, 2021 by Abayomi Azikiwe

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

A delegation from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), a 15-member regional grouping made up of heads of governments, visited the capital of Conakry, Guinea on September 10, just two days after a decision was made at an extraordinary virtual meeting to suspend the military junta from participation in the organs and functions of the organization.

On September 5, the Guinean Special Forces led by Lt. Col. Mamady Doumbouya launched an attack on the institutions of authority in Conakry later arresting President Alpha Conde and announcing to the world over national television that a National Committee for Reconciliation and Development (CNRD) had taken charge of the country.

ECOWAS and the 55-member states African Union (AU) are obligated to oppose and sanction any military seizure of power. Both ECOWAS and the AU can break relations with a coup regime in addition to imposing sanctions and other measures.

In efforts to fulfill its obligations, ECOWAS deployed its representatives to Conakry for discussions with Doumbouya and his cohorts. Issues surrounding the return to civilian rule, the release of ousted President Conde and the restoration of the constitution, were high on the agenda.

Inquiries regarding the health status of the overthrown Conde indicated that the ECOWAS delegation had met with the former president and described him as being in good health, although no specific details were forthcoming. The ECOWAS officials also said that the CNRD relayed to them that the former president would be released from detention soon.

Conde had drawn the ire of many people within Guinea when he altered the national constitution to seek a third term of office during 2020. There were widespread protests against the revision of the constitution when dozens of people were killed and hundreds more detained. Several leading figures in the protests of 2020 have been released from detention by the CNRD.

After winning another term of office which saw the opposition parties refusing to participate, discontent obviously grew within the mineral rich country. Conde had pledged to expand the mining operations of the bauxite and iron ore firms. Guinea has the largest known deposits of these valuable mineral resources. Yet the people remain impoverished and underdeveloped indicating that there is widespread corruption within the government and its economic partners.

Although ECOWAS and the AU have suspended the memberships of Guinea, there has not been any announcements that sanctions would be imposed. The effectiveness of such sanctions may be questionable based upon the actual structural orientation of the national economy which receives revenue from the contracts and mining operations of the foreign firms which dominate the extractive sectors.

The western region of the country lies on the Atlantic Coast allowing trade to continue with external states and interests. Three of the major rivers in West Africa, the Gambia, Niger and Senegal rise in Guinea. The land mass borders Guinea-Bissau in the northwest, Senegal to the north, Mali in the northeast, Ivory Coast to the southeast and Liberia and Sierra Leone in the south, making the enforcement of sanctions extremely difficult considering the military and economic resources available to ECOWAS and the AU.

Some observers have pointed to the contradictory posture of ECOWAS and the AU noting the failure of both institutions to raise criticisms, let alone suspensions or sanctions, against Conde and his Rally of the Guinean People (RPG) ruling party, when they arranged for the extension of the tenure of the ousted president in 2020. A similar situation occurred in Ivory Coast when the French-installed (2011) President Alassane Ouattara arranged to seek office for another period determined by the leader and his party in 2020. Unrest in Ivory Coast in opposition to Ouattara never prompted ECOWAS and the AU to suspend the country from membership.

In an interview by Al Jazeera with Adama Gaye, the former information director for ECOWAS, the official emphasized that:

“They have been sleeping on the wheels of the organization instead of really being proactive in addressing the challenges inside its member states. Its 15 member states have been really complacent with those that have been breaking the law within their countries from Conde to Ouattara … all of the problems at the end of the day they lead to the current situation we are seeing in Guinea, and somehow ECOWAS is coming like [the] doctor after death.”

CNRD Proposes National Conference to Form Another Government

Obviously in response to the suspension by ECOWAS and the AU, the CNRD military junta announced on September 14 that it was convening a four-day national conference involving opposition parties, civil society organizations and mining interests to discuss the political future of the country. Reports from various news agencies covering events in Conakry say that several opposition leaders have voiced support for the coup makers claiming that the putsch was justified due to the ousted president’s policies and behavior.

The political parties represented at the heavily guarded People’s Palace on September 14 blamed the fate of the ousted president on his refusal to relinquish power in 2020. This public show of support for the CNRD may not be enough to persuade the international community including ECOWAS, AU and the United Nations to accept the rule of military leaders as a legitimate government inside the country.

Members of Conde’s RPG party were quoted as saying they were deliberating over whether to participate in the conference organized by the CNRD. Other parties cited in the media, and there are many, have not taken a position against the concept of military rule, particularly within a state whose government has maintained close links with the imperialist countries since the advent of the first military coup by Col. Lansana Conte after the death of the founding President Ahmed Sekou Toure in 1984.

In an article published by the Associated Press, it summed up the attitude of one opposition figure in this manner:

“Sidya Toure, leader of the Union of Republican Forces party, said conditions already appear to have improved since the military takeover. He recalled how security forces had ‘tried to kidnap me in my home’ during Conde’s regime. We can see it all around the town in Conakry, absolutely the change amongst the military and policemen,’ he said. ‘I think we are going in the right way for the moment.’”

The Role of Imperialism in Military Coups in the Recent Period

All of the states that have experienced military coups from 2012 to the present in Mali, Chad and Guinea have maintained close ties with the United States Pentagon and the French Ministry of the Armed Forces. Doumbouya was a long-time member of the French Foreign Legion and has participated in operations alongside the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).

On the day of the September 5 military seizure of power, there were AFRICOM troops reportedly seen in the capital of Conakry. Al Jazeera in an article published on September 10 verified these claims.

According to the article:

“The United States embassy in Conakry on Friday (September 10) stated that Guinea should ‘immediately restore democracy’. On Thursday (September 9), the U.S. denied involvement after a video emerged of U.S. soldiers in a crowd of jubilant Guineans as the coup unfolded on Sunday (September 5). The U.S. State Department said a small U.S. team had been involved in a joint military training exercise outside Conakry. ‘Given the changing security situation, it was decided that the team would be relocated to the U.S. embassy in Conakry. Guinean security forces provided an escort to Conakry to ensure the safe passage of the team,’ the department said.”

This same situation holds true for Mali and Chad as it relates to the defense training by AFRICOM and France. Both imperialist states conduct routine military maneuvers known as Operation Flintlock along with Operation Barkhane organized by Washington and Paris respectively. Ostensibly the U.S. and France are in Africa to support governments in their struggles against Islamist insurgencies.

However, the U.S. and France have extensive economic interests in West Africa and this factor cannot be ignored when assessing their military presence within the ECOWAS region and the continent as a whole. Even with the interventions by France and the U.S., the overall security situation in West Africa has worsened over the last decade. The deteriorating economies marked by the unequal distribution of wealth and social instability in African nations are clearly illustrated by events in Guinea, Mali, Chad, Ivory Coast and other states which are aligned with world capitalism.

The questions of national and regional security cannot be separated from the political orientation of the state. As long as the western-influenced political parties and mass organizations remain dominant, there cannot be the necessary latitude to exert genuine independence from the legacies of colonialism, imperialism and neo-colonialism.

*

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

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

Featured image: Guinea coup leaders and AFRICOM forces (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Guinean Coup Leaders Respond to Suspensions from ECOWAS and AU
  • Tags: ,

9/11 at 20: Two Decades of Missed Opportunities

September 15th, 2021 by Lindsay Koshgarian

All Global Research articles 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.

***

 

Twenty years have now passed since 9/11.

The 20 years since those terrible attacks have been marked by endless wars, harsh immigration crackdowns, and expanded federal law enforcement powers that have cost us our privacy and targeted entire communities based on nothing more than race, religion, or ethnicity.

Those policies have also come at a tremendous monetary cost — and a dangerous neglect of domestic investment.

In a new report I co-authored with my colleagues at the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, we found that the federal government has spent $21 trillion on war and militarization both inside the U.S. and around the world over the past 20 years. That’s roughly the size of the entire U.S. economy.

Even while politicians have written blank checks for militarism year after year, they’ve said we can’t afford to address our most urgent issues. No wonder these past 20 years have been rough on U.S. families and communities.

After strong growth from 1970 to 2000, household incomes have stagnated for 20 years as Americans struggled through two recessions in the years leading up to the pandemic. As pandemic eviction moratoriums end, millions are at risk of homelessness.

Our public health systems have also been chronically underfunded, leaving the U.S. helpless to enact the testing, tracing, and quarantining that helped other countries limit the pandemic’s damage. Over 650,000 Americans have died from COVID-19 — the equivalent of a 9/11 every day for over seven months. The opioid epidemic claims another 50,000 lives a year.

Meanwhile extreme weather events like wildfires, hurricanes, and floods have grown in frequency over the past 20 years. The U.S. hasn’t invested nearly enough in either renewable energy or climate resiliency to deal with the increasing effects climate change has on our communities.

In the face of all this suffering, it’s clear that $21 trillion in spending hasn’t made us any safer.

Instead, the human costs have been staggering. Around the world, the forever wars have cost 900,000 lives and left 38 million homeless — and as the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan has shown us, they were a massive failure.

Our militarized spending has helped deport 5 million people over the past 20 years, often taking parents from their children. The majority of those deported hadn’t committed any crime except for being here.

And it has paid for the government to listen in on our phone calls and target communities for harassment and surveillancewithout any evidence of crime or wrongdoing, eroding the civil liberties of all Americans.

Fortunately, there’s a silver lining: We’ve found that for just a fraction of what we’ve spent on militarization these last 20 years, we could start to make life much better.

For $4.5 trillion, we could build a renewable, upgraded energy grid for the whole country. For $2.3 trillion, we could create 5 million $15-an-hour jobs with benefits — for 10 years. For just $25 billion, we could vaccinate low-income countries against COVID-19, saving lives and stopping the march of new and more threatening virus variants.

We could do all that and more for less than half of what we’ve spent on wars and militarization in the last 20 years. With communities across the country in dire need of investment, the case for avoiding more pointless, deadly wars couldn’t be clearer.

The best time for those investments would have been during the past 20 years. The next best time is now.

*

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

Lindsay Koshgarian directs the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. She’s the lead author of the new report State of Insecurity: The Cost of Militarization Since 9/11. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.

Featured image: An excerpt from the cover of “State of Insecurity.” Art by Sarah Gertler.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Today, the Canadian political landscape is being remoulded by a nest of technocratic ideologues who aim to lead the nation into a post-nation state Great Reset.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was among the earliest public figures who celebrated this new age stating in 2015 that Canada is “the world’s first post-national state”. Once the COVID pandemic had been used to justify the shutdown of the world economy, the same Trudeau stated in November 2020 that

“this pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset. This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to reimagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality, and climate change.”

As Canada moves into an election on September 20, 2021 with the Liberal government of Chrystia Freeland seeking a majority rule (and un-challengeable authority), the question remains: How did this all happen? How did a party which was once renowned during WW2 and the two ensuing post-war decades as a champion of progress led by such figures as C.D. Howe and Prime Minister St. Laurent to become a party devoted to technocratic management of a post-industrial/post-truth world order?

As I outlined this story in Origins of the Deep State in North America part 2, and How the Deep State Overthrew the Last Nationalist Government of Canada in 1963, the story of this liberal party takeover begins during a purge which occurred between 1957 and 1963 when the liberal party had briefly fallen from power and “a palace coup” took place.

This 1957-1963 destruction of the once pro-development spirit of the Liberal Party of Canada was replaced by a Fabian Society/Rhodes Scholar-run instrument of technocratic fascism culminating in the 1968-72 revolution in cybernetic affairs early on in the mandate of Pierre Elliot Trudeau. This federal “Quiet Revolution” put a complete halt to scientific and technological progress and ushered in a replacement of a formerly pro-development orientation that had hitherto dominated top down policy making and mass popular consciousness in Canada and replaced it with a new oligarchical system of control in government based on Trudeau’s commitment to Cybernetics and Systems Analysis. In real terms this meant “ecosystems management” at home and third world debt enslavement abroad with the guise of protecting nature from selfish humans.

The world was now become a process which could only be observed and interfaced with via a filter of “closed systems” driven by computer models and supposed “natural states” of homeostasis. Anything which disturbed said natural states of equilibrium (like hydroelectric dams or other forms of technological progress) would be thus defined as “un-natural”, destructive and hence “bad”.

Ushering in this new overhaul of the federal government, Pierre Trudeau delivered a speech in Hamilton Ontario stating: “We are aware that the many techniques of cybernetics, by transforming the control function and the manipulation of information, will transform our whole society. With this knowledge, we are wide awake, alert, capable of action; no longer are we blind, inert powers of fate.”

In fact, as Julian Huxley outlined over 20 years earlier, Cybernetics and Systems Analysis-thinking would be the tools selected to repackage “Eugenics” and “Malthusianism” under new names.

Gordon’s Thinkers Conference: 1960 Kingston

The original conference that brought this new Liberal makeover scheme together was known as the Kingston “Thinkers” Conference of 1960, led by agents of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs (CIIA) Walter Gordon, Maurice Lamontagne, Lester B. Pearson, Lionel Chevrier, Tom Kent, Keith Davey and other social engineers who were obsessed with cleaning out the political landscape of all forces committed to scientific and technological progress and continental cooperation with the pro-development America of John F. Kennedy[1].

Under the chairmanship of Gordon, the participants of the “Thinkers” conference created the Committee to Restructure the Liberal Party Organization which set itself to work to counter the challenge the brilliant young President John F. Kennedy was launching against the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy[2]. Under Kennedy’s leadership, Canada was in danger of slipping away from the hands of the oligarchy’s influence as a bold vision of new frontiers called forth the pioneering spirit of Canadian citizens and policy-makers.

Although the C.D. Howe Liberals and Diefenbaker Conservatives differed in their methods, both were fundamentally committed to achieving progress and increasing the productive powers of the nation through scientific and technological progress. Diefenbaker himself had attempted to found a new Canadian nationalism upon a bold vision for Arctic development which represented a grave threat to the oligarchy and had to be undermined at all cost.

C.D. Howe, Canada’s great continentalist “Minister of Everything” here ushering in a U.S.-Canada pipeline which was one of his many nation building initiatives. The Liberal Party was purged of most of his collaborators after his 1957 death through the intervention of Walter Gordon

In response to this danger, the Liberal party was wiped clean of C.D. Howe Liberals in what Henry Erskine Kidd, General Secretary for the Liberal Party, called “a palace revolution” run directly by Walter Gordon, while Gordon himself led in the destruction of Diefenbaker[3]. C.D. Howe himself, now nearing his last days watched the Thinkers conference with sadness when he wrote: “I am afraid that Mike [Pearson] is being advised by the wrong type of officers. The meeting of the Thinkers Club certainly didn’t help him politically”[4].

On top of this, a new Fabian-inspired centralized-socialist planning structure was adopted to provide social incentives for Canadians to remain complacent and controlled, a new national anthem and flag were adopted to promote the mythology that Canada had been freed from its British mother to become a sovereign country, and a new technocratic structure of bureaucracy and systems planning was adopted. The blueprint that was designed to implement this reform was led by Gordon’s partner at Clarkson-Gordon John Grant Glassco, who ran the Royal Commission on Government Organization in 1962 and Gordon’s protégé Maurice Lamontagne, who ran the Senate Commission on Science Policy from 1968-1972. Both Gordon and Lamontagne served as Presidents of the Privy Council consecutively.

To understand this structural overhaul which began to bring in a vast compartmentalized bureaucracy run by technocratic social scientists and accountants, it is worth noting that this 1960 conference was itself modelled on a yet earlier precedent that had occurred 27 years prior named the Port Hope Conference under the guidance of Gordon’s CIIA collaborator Vincent Massey. Both Gordon and Massey are credited as the fathers of Canada’s post 1963 “New Nationalism”. Key founding blueprints for this ‘New [anti-American] Nationalism’ were laid out in Gordon’s powerful Royal Commission on Economic Prospects for Canada from 1955-1957 which followed Massey’s 1949-1952 Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences.

Massey’s Conference: 1933 Port Hope

The 1933 Port Hope conference was sponsored by CIIA/Round Table leader Vincent Massey. The danger for the Canadian-British oligarchy represented by Massey even then was that pro-nationalist forces had dominated the Liberal Party throughout the 1920s in the form of the “Laurier Liberals” of O.D. Skelton, Chubby Power and Ernest Lapointe, all three of whom exerted enormous influence on the leader of the Liberal Party, William Lyon Mackenzie King, who became Prime Minister once again in 1935 after the party had fallen from power in 1930.

Then serving as President of the Liberal Party, Vincent Massey, a student of Lord Alfred Milner[5], noted that the 1933 Conference marked the transformation of the Liberal Party “from the laissez-faire traditions of the party to a new, more technocratic and interventionist view of government”[6]. Just as would occur 27 years later in Kingston, the challenge for the oligarchy involved 1) keeping Canada complacent by encouraging a technocratic managerial class and 2) blocking greater cooperation with an anti-Imperial America led by the great Franklin Delano Roosevelt. This conference was designed to coincide with the 1933 London Economic Conference that had brought together 66 nations to deal with the global depression by the establishment of a globalized standard of balanced budgets, and currency controls under the dictatorship of the Bank of England.

Fortunately in 1933, the London Economic Conference of 1933 was sabotaged by Roosevelt who refused to attend and decided not to sacrifice American sovereignty on the Wall Street altar of a globally extended bankers dictatorship. It was FDR’s sabotage of this conference that put a final nail in the coffin of the imperial League of Nations. Fabian Society eugenicist H.G. Welles blamed the rise of global fascism on FDR’s nationalist sabotage of this conference.

Canada 2020 and the Kingston Conference of the 21st Century

In the modern period, the 1933 Massey Port Hope Conference and 1960 Gordon Kingston Conference took the form of a June 2006 conference in Mont Tremblant, Quebec hosted by a London-run think tank known as Canada 2020.

The two-day conference which saw a young Justin walking around barefoot was sponsored by this new think tank and was keynoted by none other than Al Gore, who was brought in by high level members of the Queen’s elite Privy Council such as John Manley, Bob Rae and Anne McLellan, in order to reform the policy structures of the federal government, the Liberal Party and the Canadian culture itself after the controlled demolition of Prime Minister Paul Martin in February 2006.

The Liberal Party of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, which had been in power from 1993-2006, distinguished itself as being the last major federal party to resist, even in some small form, aspects of the Anglo-Dutch Empire’s global program in the form of their rejection of Canada’s participation in the Iraq war and the failed 1997 attempt to consolidate the “big 5” banks into the “big 3”. Battles between Chretien and such pro-British establishment figures as Lord Conrad Black expressed this lack of British control over its Canadian dominion to a large degree. Such lack of control of an important dominion within the British Commonwealth had to be reined in and a more virulent form of Canadian nationalism more conducive to globally extended empire had to be weaved in its place.

An important decision made during the conference of 2006 was to groom a young Justin Trudeau to become the spokesperson of the new Liberal party. Prize assets of Power Corporation, the World Wildlife Fund and the Canadian International Council (CIC)[7] were subsequently deployed to manage this new cult of “Justin” in preparation for the 2015 elections with CIC President Bill Graham playing a key role in the event. Both Al Gore and Larry Summers represent leading spokesmen of the Canada 2020 policy orientation on the economy and the environment.

Among the many interesting characters running this think tank was none other than Mark Carney’s Oxford-trained wife Diana Carney who was Canada 2020’s Vice President of Research from 2009-2013. Carney’s own intention to take the helm of Canada’s ship of state after the upcoming COP27 UK summit is no secret.

The Case of Axworthy and Manley

A vital player in this process is none other than former Principal Secretary to Pierre Trudeau, Thomas Axworthy. By the end of the 2006 conference, Axworthy had been made responsible for chairing the Liberal Party Renewal Commission in which he oversaw 36 task forces which examined each aspect of the party. The outcome of Axworthy’s 36 task forces resulted in the current Cass Sunstein-modelled behaviorist design now being adopted to brainwash the population to support the Great Reset.

Not only is Axworthy the President of the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation, Senior Fellow at Massey College, former Executive Director of the Charles Bronfman Foundation, but has gotten his start in social engineering working as research assistant directly under Walter Gordon on the 1967 “Task Force on the Structure of the Canadian Economy” (aka: Gordon Task Force). Axworthy was joined by Walter Gordon’s other surviving protégé Keith Davey, who also helped co-found Canada 2020 and who participated in the Gordon 1960 Thinkers Conference.

It is also noteworthy that both Thomas Axworthy and the 2006 Conference co-chair John Manley were both members of the Independent Task Force on North America to integrate the North American Economies under a European Union-modelled zone called the “North American Union”.

Although it is frightening for some to state this fact aloud in polite society, the ugly truth behind the Great Reset and the thing masquerading as a global pandemic is an intention to cataclyze a complete reform of human civilization under a Great Reset. The forms this reset has taken involve the creation of a new global caste system of subhuman unvaxxed deplorables on the one hand and well behaved citizens who only need to think the right thoughts and have the right behavior in order to access their universal basic income payments to feed themselves and their families as members of a new useless class.

The green energy reset that aims to cut global carbon emissions under a Green New Deal boondoggle as outlined by Mark Carney’s Climate Task Forces and upcoming COP27 summit is just a cover for depopulation under a new technocratic feudalism where the majority of the people on earth “will own nothing and be happy”.

The only way to stop this green zero-growth program from being acted upon is the immediate restoration of Glass-Steagall to break up the bankrupt Too Big to Fail system and the re-enactment of national banking measures to produce the productive credit necessary to finance those projects which can increase society’s ability to sustain itself.

Among the many such projects that could bring western states into harmony with the pro-development/anti-Malthusian dynamic shaping the Great Eurasian Partnership are NAWAPA, asteroid defence, the Bering Strait tunnel, Arctic development and industrialization of the Moon with the mining of Helium-3 for a fusion-based economy as outlined by Chinese space scientists. This means picking up the torch which was dropped with the demise of C.D. Howe, the Kennedy brothers, de Gaulle, W.A.C. Bennett and Quebec’s great statesman Daniel Johnson Sr.

*

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

Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1] It is important to note that Pearson was not terribly respected by these “new reformers” led by Gordon, and was largely used as their Nobel Prize winning instrument. When Pearson became too easily influenced by the pro-C.D. Howe Liberals remaining in his party such as Robert Winters and Mitchell Sharp, as well as JFK himself, Pearson was scrapped for a more effective replacement in the form of Pierre Trudeau in 1968.

[2] For the full story of Kennedy’s battle to liberate the world from the British Empire, visit http://www.larouchepac.com/jfk

[3] As Diefenbaker himself wrote in his autobiography “One of the ironies of recent Canadian history is that Walter Gordon, a man whom I only met for a few minutes when he delivered to me his Royal Commission Report, has stated that he decided to do everything in his power to make Mr. Pearson Prime Minister because he hated me and feared that my policies would wreck Canada”, Diefenbaker Memoirs, p.202. Rhodes Scholar Governor of the Bank of Canada, James Coyne, and two Rhodes scholars embedded in Diefenbaker’s own cabinet (J.M. Mcdonald, and Davie Fulton) played a key role in Diefenbaker’s final 1963 downfall and failure of his Northern Vision.

[4] Stephen Azzi, Walter Gordon and the Rise of Canadian Nationalism, McGill-Queens Press, 1999, p.80

[5] The young Massey, then on the cusp of inheriting the fortunes of his family’s farm equipment dynasty, had helped install a Round Table chapter in Ontario in 1910 and was rewarded for his services by being sent off to Oxford to study under the Round Table’s founder and controller, the eugenics obsessed “race patriot” Lord Alfred Milner in 1911.

[6] Vincent Massey is quoted from Richard Blake’s From Rights to Needs: A History of Family Allowances in Canada, UBC Press, p.33

[7] The Canadian International Council became the new name for the Canadian institute for International Affairs (CIIA) in 2007. The CIIA had been the new name for the Round Table Movement, formed in London by Lord Milner in 1910 and run by the Rhodes Trust network of Oxford scholars in order to advance Cecil Rhodes’ design to recapture America as a lost colony and form the rebirth of a new globally extended British Empire. For more on how this hive has mis-shaped the 21st century, see “British Dictatorship or American System part I and II” (2013) by this author in the Canadian Patriot #7 and 8, downloadable on http://www.canadianpatriot.org

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Revenge of the Technocrats: How Canada’s Liberal Party Became an Appendage of the Great Reset
  • Tags: ,

La Legge che dà al presidente Usa licenza di uccidere

September 14th, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

Il 18 settembre 2001, una settimana dopo l’11 Settembre, il Congresso degli Stati Uniti approvava con unanime voto bipartisan la Legge Pubblica 107-40 che stabiliva: «Il Presidente è autorizzato a usare tutta la forza necessaria e appropriata contro quelle nazioni, organizzazioni o persone che egli ritiene abbiano pianificato, autorizzato, commesso o aiutato gli attacchi terroristici avvenuti l’11 Settembre 2001, o ha dato rifugio a tali organizzazioni o persone, al fine di prevenire qualsiasi futuro atto di terrorismo internazionale contro gli Stati Uniti da parte di tali nazioni, organizzazioni o persone». pdf qui

La legge, che conferiva al presidente repubblicano George W. Bush pieni poteri di guerra, era stata redatta dal senatore democratico Joe Biden, presidente della Commissione per le relazioni estere.

Il presidente Bush veniva così autorizzato dal Congresso, in nome della «guerra al terrore», a usare la forza militare non solo contro organizzazioni o persone ma intere nazioni, la cui colpevolezza veniva decretata dal presidente stesso, che emetteva la sentenza senza processo né possibilità di appello e ne ordinava l’immediata esecuzione per mezzo della guerra. Gli unici che da tempo chiedono la cancellazione di questa legge sono due senatori, il democratico Kaine e il repubblicano Young, ma il loro tentativo non ha finora avuto esito.

La legge del 18 Settembre 2001, tuttora in vigore, è stata usata, dopo il presidente repubblicano Bush, dal democratico Obama, dal repubblicano Trump e dal democratico Biden (già vice-presidente dell’Amministrazione Obama). Si calcola che sia stata usata per «legittimare», negli ultimi vent’anni, operazioni militari effettuate dalle forze armate statunitensi, per ordine presidenziale, in 19 paesi del mondo, tra cui Afghanistan, Iraq, Libia, Siria, Yemen, Tunisia, Kenya, Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, Camerun, Niger.

Tre settimane dopo il varo delle legge, il presidente Bush ordinava di attaccare e invadere l’Afghanistan, ufficialmente per dare la caccia a Bin Laden protetto dai talebani; tre mesi dopo, ordinava l’apertura del campo di prigionia di Guantanamo, dove venivano segretamente deportati e torturati presunti terroristi di varie parti del mondo; un anno e mezzo dopo – sollecitato da una risoluzione bipartisan di 77 senatori, promossa da Joe Biden – il presidente Bush ordinava di attaccare e invadere l’Iraq, con l’accusa (poi dimostratasi falsa) che esso possedeva armi di distruzione di massa. L’ordine era di usare il pugno di ferro per schiacciare la resistenza: lo confermavano le immagini delle torture nel carcere di Abu Ghraib, venute alla luce nel 2004.

Sempre in base alla legge del 2001 che lo autorizzava a «usare tutta la forza necessaria e appropriata», il presidente Obama, dieci anni dopo, autorizzava la Cia a compiere operazioni segrete in Libia in preparazione della guerra Nato che avrebbe demolito lo Stato libico. Secondo la stessa procedura «legale» – documentava il New Tork Times (29 maggio 2012) – durante l’Amministrazione Obama venne istituita la «kill list», aggiornata settimanalmente, comprendente persone di tutto il mondo condannate segretamente a morte con l’accusa di terrorismo, le quali, dopo l’approvazione del Presidente, venivano eliminate per la maggior parte con droni-killer.

La stessa procedura veniva seguita nel gennaio 2020 dal presidente Trump, che ordinava l’eliminazione del generale iraniano Soleimani, ucciso da un drone Usa nell’aeroporto di Baghdad. Attacchi analoghi di droni Usa sono stati «legalmente» autorizzati in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libia, Pakistan, Somalia, Siria e Yemen.

Il più recente attacco di un drone-killer è quello che, in base all’autorizzazione del presidente Biden, ha colpito il 29 agosto a Kabul un’auto sospettata di trasportare una bomba dell’Isis. Una inchiesta del New York Times (10 settembre scorso) ha appurato che l’auto (seguita a lungo dal pilota del drone, a migliaia di km di distanza) non trasportava esplosivi ma taniche d’acqua. Contro quest’auto, in un quartiere densamente abitato, è stato lanciato un missile «Fuoco infernale», che ha ucciso dieci civili, tra cui sette bambini.

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on La Legge che dà al presidente Usa licenza di uccidere

All Global Research articles 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.

***

 

Why do people not want to know about the violence that is committed against Mother Earth?

Is it a taboo to reveal a secret? For instance, Dr Rosalie Bertell’s research about geoengineering has to this day still not been properly debated in public. Not only the powers that be, but also the social movements of today have not allowed this to happen. Very often, people reject radical new thoughts right away because they are too shocking for them. A first reaction typically consists of ignoring them instead of trying to learn and do something about these perilous matters. Most people simply deny the possibility that something like ‘military geoengineering’ may even exist. In an effort to avoid confronting these uneasy truths, they repeat the term prepared by those in power who want to do away with this sort of ‘evil knowledge’ and call it a ‘conspiracy theory’.

But we do need to confront the facts about the system we live in, which in itself is based on different forms of direct and structural violence against life itself, against nature and against human beings. This truth is a secret and thus it has become a taboo to speak about it. Whenever this taboo is violated, there is always a prompt and often violent reaction to stop any further discussion.

Of course, we know what the violence of our system – our ‘modern civilization’ – is based on. It is rooted in ‘patriarchy’, as I name it in my critical theory approach. The intention of patriarchy is to change all of life, nature and humanity, in fact the entire world into a ‘man-made’, artificial one, that is not allowing life to exist any longer in its organic, natural and motherly ways on Planet Earth.

This man-made world is by definition a pater-arché one, a ‘creation’ of so-called human fathers instead of human mothers together with Mother Nature. During the time to reach this patriarchal utopia, which is several thousands of years old, much violence has already been applied. This violence has turned into trauma, but at the same time, it is considered ‘forbidden knowledge’ and is suppressed. It has been hidden on all levels and cannot be addressed openly. And as long as this patriarchal ‘civilization’ has not totally succeeded in transforming life, nature, humans, the whole world – and the Planet itself – into a completely man-made world, more violence will continuously be applied as a necessary means of achieving its dangerous end goals.

This paradox is the secret of patriarchy. Because the patriarchal narrative tells us that there is no violence in the transformation process from the natural to the artificial – the machine – we are also always told that the result will be superior. It is called progress! But the secret we must reveal tells us that violence does not lead to the better and improved worlds we are promised, but to what it actually produces: destruction!

Destruction is the overall outcome of this ‘alchemical’ – as I call it – transformation process through violence. This is its logic, but nobody is allowed to name it. This is the ‘evil’ knowledge, the forbidden one, the forgotten one, the knowledge driven into the underground and thus made subconscious. I call it ‘the collective subconscious’.

Understanding this makes it clear how difficult it is to acknowledge what Rosalie Bertell is teaching us. She teaches us that patriarchy in the form of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), has started to destroy our living conditions and the Planet itself. I believe we are forced to do something against this, if we want to continue living on this earth. This means that we have to address patriarchy and its systemic, direct and structural violence, running the risk of becoming the ones who break the taboo.

My personal experience with breaking the taboo of this syndrome of avoidance and fear that we can see repeated today in the case of the worldwide Coronavirus Crisis, has led me to found the Planetary Movement for Mother Earth (PMME) in 2010.

This is how it happened: after an interview for a newspaper about the necessity to do research into a possible crime, namely the eventual participation of military geoengineering, mentioned by the Venezuelan president, the Russian Duma and others, that had led to the death of a quarter of a million people – the Haitian earthquake in 2010. Just for quoting those sources I was immediately called a ‘conspiracy theorist’. As a result I was publicly ‘murdered’ and discredited, robbed of my good reputation as an academic, an activist, a person and a woman. I was threatened by the Deep State and the Institute of Political Science at the University of Innsbruck where I had worked for more than 20 years. The official Austrian media threatened me – being instructed from above, as I was informed by a whistleblower. I lost many of my friends, even very old ones, from the left wing, the green and other alternative movements, even from matriarchy groups in Germany and Austria, with whom I had been working for many years. I lost publishers I used to work with, and I was never again invited for interviews or talks in the mainstream and even most of the alternative press.

This is an indication of the deep hatred of the patriarchal system against life and truth, the real knowledge that is now emerging everywhere. It shows patriarchy’s need to cover up the truth, as quickly and as brutally as possible, by using its paid defenders. This experience changed my life, as I did not run away or go into hiding to atone for my alleged sins. On the contrary, I then started my own research on geoengineering which had not been an issue for me until then.

The Haitian case had put me on the road to Rosalie Bertell´s knowledge that was completely unknown to me. With the help of her research I learned how to explain what might have really occurred in Haiti – and not only that, but much more. I wished that I had been wrong, but I wasn´t.

During these experiences of change in my life, I became ill. When I emerged from the hell Rosalie had opened for me, I had to decide what to do: either stopping to do anything at all, or starting anew – and with exactly those issues the social environment around me tried to suppress. I decided to do the latter. Otherwise, we would not celebrate the tenth birthday of the Planetary Movement for Mother Earth in 2020.

I chose this option because there was no alternative. I had felt the same tremors in my body as Mother Earth must have felt in her body during the earthquake. It was as if She was calling me, and loudly so. She said: “Yes, you are the one. You have to stand up for me, as you now know what it feels like what is being done to me! Someone has to do it! This is the moment …”

Knowing already what this decision of mine meant, I began my new life. I informed my friends overseas who – contrary to those in Europe – were full of solidarity and support. They started a campaign for me that passed through many parts of the world, as I had done research in earlier years in different places and had many colleagues from social movements in many countries. It was wonderful and it gave me strength so that I could move on. The people of Haiti, however, probably never knew about this debate that began after their disastrous experience. Even the NGOs kept it away from them.

At a large women´s congress in Germany in May 2010, I spoke about Rosalie Bertell’s book Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War which deals with geoengineering and proposed founding the PMME in order to distribute her knowledge. Hundreds of women applauded in agreement, and we began organising this movement from Austria.

The first and most important task was to translate Bertell’s book into German and publish it. We found a good translator, we got enough donations to pay for this work, and Rosalie sent us the new texts she had written after the first publication of her book in 2000. However, we could not find a publisher! It felt like a boycott on all levels. When we finally found one and succeeded in publishing Bertell’s work in German, at the end of 2011, there was a second wave of hatred, discrimination and defamation occurring that appeared to me as if some people wanted to take revenge for being unable to prevent us from publishing Bertell’s research. So I had to stand up to this new wave of insulting personal and fierce political attacks.

In amazing ways, however, we then gained new friends all over the world. Ever more people and groups became active in relation to geoengineering issues. Rosalie considered it an obligation for all of us to fight for Mother Earth as we are her children. Where did she gain her power and energy from to do this work by herself? Her ‘dynamo’ surely was her immense and deep love for Mother Earth, our beautiful fantastic planet that gives us everything we need. So, things were very clear for her. And things should be very clear for us, as well.

Rosalie Bertell had developed early on what I call a ‘planetary consciousness’. My experience in these difficult last ten years with the PMME taught me the same. I learned to love the Earth much more than I could have imagined, I learned about her as a huge cosmic living being, I learned to listen to her, to trust her, and to accept her power as mine as well. Because, the power to go on with this struggle stems from Her – not from patriarchy, of course.

Over these years, I learned that if we want it, we can establish a real relationship with the earth and ask her: “What can we do? What should we do? Please tell us what to do and what not to do?” For example, what should we give up?

I strongly believe this is the answer to the panic, anxiety and fear that reaches us when we start to speak about the systemic violence of patriarchy. The time has come to stop this destructive way of life. The time has come to change from the patriarchal hatred of life to the love of life again – which is the natural attitude of human beings. We have to re-awaken this love, so we become aware and develop a planetary consciousness.

Love should be the ‘virus’, the ‘dis – ease’ that ‘contaminates’ us all – to be open to the power of love for, from, and with our Mother Earth! What else can we do? There is no alternative!

If we look around, we see always more weaponry – not CO2! – threatening the earth, her climate, the ozone layer, her cycles and all life. Together with a ‘weaponization’ through mind control and neuroscience, 5G, artificial intelligence, digitisation, nano- and biotechnologies, geoengineering belongs to the fourth Industrial Revolution that has been proclaimed to build our future – or our no-future – in the twenty-first century. These technologies are already producing ‘lock-downs’ from above, from space, as well as from below. They are meant to use our bodies and brains, and I don’t think all of us are supposed to survive this process of becoming the ‘bio’-part of what I call the megamachine – the new global form of totalitarianism.

The problems we are confronting are all related to each other. The laissez-faire attitude towards the question of technology being welcomed as progress has to stop. There is a need to really look at patriarchy, the intentional destruction of the world including us humans. The vaccines against COVID-19 intending to turn us into genetically modified zombies with implanted chips and nanobots, are in the process of application right now. They are intended to lead us towards ‘transhumanism’, the end of mothers and of humanity.

This is my Call!

*

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

Dr. Claudia von Werlhof is Prof. Emerita of Political Science and Women’s Studies at the University of Innsbruck in Austria. She is the author of many books and has worked hard to make Rosalie Bertell’s important book Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War on Geoengineering available in German, Spanish, Italian, French and English again. Claudia was the founder of the Planetary Movement for Mother Earth (PMME) in 2010.

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

Sources

Bertell, Rosalie. 1985. No Immediate Danger: Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth. London: The Women’s Press

_____ 2011, 2013, 2016, 20^18, 2020: Kriegswaffe Planet Erde, 5 editions, Gelnhausen, J. K. Fischer Verlag

_____2020. Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War. Enhanced edition, Dublin: Talma Studios International.
Forschungsinstitut für Patriarchatskritik und alternative Zivilisationen. < www.fipaz.at >
Planetare Bewegung für Mutter Erde.

von Werlhof, Claudia. 2011. The Failure of Modern Civilization and the Struggle for a ‘Deep’ Alternative. On ‘Critical Theory of Patriarchy’ as a New Paradigm. Frankfurt/New York, Peter Lang.

_______ 2011: Die Verkehrung. Das Projekt des Patriarchats und das Gender-Dilemma, Wien, Promedia

_______ 2012: Der unerkannte Kern der Krise. Die Moderne als Er-Schöpfung der Welt, Uhlstädt-Kirchhasel, Arun

_______ 2015: Madre Tierra o Muerte. Reflexiones para una Teoría Crítica del Patriarcado, Oaxaca, Cooperativa El Rebozo, México

_______ 2014: Nell´ Etá del Boomerang. Contributi alla Teoria critica del patriarcato, Milano, Unicopli

_______ 2021: Väter des Nichts. Zum Wahn einer Neuschöpfung der Welt, 2 Bde, Höhr-Grenzhausen, zeitgeist, forthcoming.

_______(Ed.). 2021. Global Warning! Geoengineering is Wrecking our Planet. Dublin: Talma Studios International, forthcoming.

Featured image is from Media Lens

All Global Research articles 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 the European Parliament resumed on Monday September 13 2021, with their first order of business a debate over health and disease prevention to be followed by a vote on Tuesday, a letter of Notice of Liability for harm and death from COVID-19 vaccines was served on all members of the European Parliament, and sent to the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency.

The notice was a accompanied by a summary of the latest scientific evidence regarding vaccine-immune interactions, and a letter from Holocaust survivors demanding a halt to the vaccination program and an end to unlawful medical coercion. The notice read:

“The rush to vaccinate first and research later has left you in a position whereby COVID-19 vaccination policy is now entirely divorced from the relevant evidence-base.”

The full notice with supporting documentation, and pdf download, is below.

Link to the full document,

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 D4CE

All Global Research articles 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.

***

 

After the atomic bombing of Japan, the U.S. dropped powerful, more sophisticated deadly bombs.

It is 20 years since the criminal attack on the Twin Towers in New York and the world’s mass media remember those unique and unthinkable acts with justified pain and dismay.

However, while they forget and gloss over the horrendous crimes of the U.S. empire throughout history, they beat their chests. It is as if the innocent deaths of other nations do not have the same value as the citizens of the United States of America (USA).

Let us also remember from the most recent history, the countries bombed by the USA, after the abhorrent attack with atomic bombs against the civilian population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945. Thus ended the Second World War and provoked the surrender of Japan.

These powerful bombings, never before or since carried out by any power, were ordered by Harry S. Truman, President of the United States. It is estimated that around 150 to 200 thousand people were killed.

Tens of thousands more were burned by radiation and seriously injured, suffering from terminal illnesses such as cancer. The entire Japanese citizenry was traumatized by this barbaric imperial act, unprecedented in the history of mankind.

After the atomic bombing of Japan, the USA dropped powerful, more sophisticated but deadly bombs on this list of countries, causing millions of deaths and injuries.

No exact official figures are known, but in Vietnam and Iraq alone it is estimated that more than a million people died, mostly defenseless people and civilians.

More than 30 nations have been bombed by the U.S. between 1950 and 2021:

  • Korea and China- 1950 to 1953
  • Guatemala-1954
  • Indonesia- 1958
  • Cuba 1959-1961
  • Guatemala- 1960
  • Congo- 1964
  • Laos 1964 to 1973
  • Vietnam-1961 to 1973
  • Cambodia-1969 and 1970
  • Guatemala- 1967 and 1969
  • Grenada- 1983
  • Lebanon- 1983 and 1984
  • Libya- 1986
  • El Salvador- 1980
  • Nicaragua- 1980
  • Iran- 1987
  • Panama- 1989
  • Iraq- 1991 (Persian Gulf)
  • Kuwait- 1991
  • Somalia- 1993
  • Bosnia- 1994 and 1995
  • Sudan- 1998
  • Afghanistan- 1998
  • Yugoslavia- 1999
  • Yemen- 2002
  • Iraq- 1991 to 2003
  • Iraq- 2003 to 2015
  • Pakistan- 2007 to 2015
  • Somalia- 2007 to 2011
  • Yemen- 2009 to 2011
  • Libya- 2011 to 2015
  • Syria- 2014 to 2016
  • Afghanistan-2001-2021

The lives of all human beings have the same value and imperial barbarism has a first and last name. Nature has also suffered the onslaught of the US military-industrial-financial complex.

In truth, it is a disgusting business that has left more than a trillion dollars in profits in Afghanistan alone.

Let us not be fooled by the crocodile tears of rulers manipulated by big capital. They have no morals to accuse anyone when they are the main cause of the pain and suffering of millions of people, innocent victims of their wars.

*

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

Video: COVID-19/11 – Elizabeth Woodworth

September 14th, 2021 by Elizabeth Woodworth

All Global Research articles 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.

***

 

COVID19/11: Narratives Intertwined is OffG’s new series of short interviews with prominent voices in the alternate media, vocal Covid sceptics and leading figures in the 9/11 truth movement.

The series is intended to both mark the 20th anniversary of the World Trade Center collapse, and discuss how that event helped shape the modern world and, in turn, set the stage for the Covid “pandemic”.

*

Episode Six of Narratives Intertwined features Elizabeth Woodworth, author and former chief medical librarian for British Colombia.

Elizabeth is author of several articles and books, including 9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation (with Dr David Ray Griffin) and Unprecedented Crime: Climate Change Denial and Game Changers for Survival (with Dr Peter Carter).

In her interview she discusses how she woke up to the reality of 9/11 and how potential treatments for Covid19 were discredited in order to force through the emergency use authorization of the Covid mRNA “vaccines”.

You can follow Elizabeth on twitter here and read her article on hyrdoxychloroquine here. Her book 9/11 Unmasked was reviewed by several of our authors [123] and became the subject of a censorship campaign from Amazon.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The reported suspected side effects for the four Covid vaccines, which have only been conditionally approved in the EU, are record-breaking after just 8 months. Serious side effects have been reported.

The European Medicines Agency EMA currently lists 904 534 personal suspected cases with a total of 3 478 979 individual side effects for the Covid vaccines (as of September 3, 2021). Almost a third of them are categorized as serious. Thus 262 383 of the 904 534 the cases are severe.

The four Covid vaccines have only received limited approval and the final evaluation reports are not expected until the end of 2022 or 2023.

In the EMA EudraVigilance database, the data for the following vaccines are listed:

  • Covid-19 mRNA Vaccine Pfizer-Biontech (Tozinameran)
  • Covid-19 Vaccine Astrazeneca (Chadoxi NCoV-19)
  • Covid-19 mRNA Vaccine Moderna (CX-024414)
  • Covid-19 Vaccine Janssen (AD26.CoV2.S)

The total number of all suspected cases reported to the EMA increased by over 80 percent in the period May 29, 2021 to September 3, 2021. Contrary to some rumours, the majority of the reports are submitted by personnel from the health sector such as clinics or medical practices. With Biontech it is around 46 percent that are reported by EU medical practices or clinics.

This speaks for a solid database. Added to this are the control and monitoring mechanisms of the EMA, which have been tried and tested over many years, in order to secure the best possible data sets.

The reports are usually first sent to the national competent authorities (Germany PEI). These cases are often filtered and then reported to the EMA.

What proportion do the reported suspected cases of Covid vaccinations make up in the EMA database?

If one follows the information in the 2020 annual report, the 904 534 suspected Covid vaccination cases in the period of just 8 months from 2021 account for almost exactly 50 percent of the 1 821 211 suspected side effects of all 5 042 substances listed for drugs as well as vaccinations in 2020.

That is incredibly high.

France singles out Janssen’s product as a problem

A “significant number” of injuries as a result of Janssen’s Covid-19 vaccine, which works with a single dose, has been noted in France, said the Medicines Agency (ANSM) on Monday, which said it would be carrying out more investigations.

“A large number of cases of failure of the Janssen vaccine has been reported, with in particular serious forms (death, resuscitation) as well as an over-representation of patients vaccinated by Janssen in intensive care” in Marseille and Tours, noted the ANSM in its periodic vaccine surveillance report.

Since April, around one million injections of this vaccine (the only one to be administered with a single dose) have been carried out in France. Among all these people vaccinated with Janssen, 32 cases of Covid-19 infection have so far been reported (a rate of 3,78 per 100 000).

Of these 32 cases, 29 were serious and 4 deaths were recorded (people aged 73 to 87). For the 17 cases of infection where the variant was known, it was the Delta variant in each case.

Hospitalized in intensive care despite vaccination

In addition, two hospitals reported an unusually high number of patients vaccinated with Janssen among people hospitalized in intensive care despite vaccination.

In Marseille, out of 7 patients who were fully vaccinated but still admitted to the ICU (that is to say seriously affected), 4 had been jabbed with Janssen. In Tours, this proportion was  50 percent.

All these elements justify “additional investigations” to check whether the failures are more important with Janssen than with the other vaccines available in France.

On August 24, the French National Authority for Health (HAS) recommended that people vaccinated with Janssen receive a booster dose with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer or Moderna) from four weeks after their vaccination.

Several real-life studies have indeed shown that the first dose of Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccine provided insufficient protection. No data on this point is available for Janssen, but the HAS considered it likely that this is also the case.

The risk/reward ratio of Covid-19 vaccines is appalling

As the graph in this tweet shows, there are no valid reasons for pursuing mass vaccination against Covid-19.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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

Door Is Closing on an Iran Nuclear Deal

September 14th, 2021 by Philip Giraldi

All Global Research articles 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.

***

 

Critics of the foreign and national security policies of the Joe Biden regime were quick to note that the American soldiers being pulled out of Afghanistan were no doubt a resource that will be committed to a new adventure somewhere else. There was considerable speculation that the new model army, fully vaccinated, glorious in all its gender and racial diversity and purged of extremists in the ranks, might be destined to put down potentially rebellious supremacists in unenlightened parts of the United States. But even given an increasingly totalitarian White House, that civil war type option must have seemed a bridge too far for an administration plagued by plummeting approval ratings, so the old hands in Washington apparently turned to what has always been a winner: pick a suitable foreign enemy and stick it to him.

It is of course generally known that when Joe Biden was running for president, he committed himself to making an attempt to reenter the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) of 2015 which placed limits on the Iranian nuclear program and also established an intrusive inspection routine. In turn, the Iranians were to receive relief from sanctions related to the program. In 2018 President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement based on the false argument that Iran was cheating on the arrangement and was secretly engaged in developing a weapon. Trump’s neocon supporters on the issue also argued without any evidence that Iran was intending to use the agreement as cover for its efforts to accumulate enriched uranium, guaranteeing that they would be able develop a weapon quickly when the inspection regime expires in 2025.

The Trump move was, of course, backed by the Israel Lobby and it was widely seen as deferring to Israeli interests at a time when the agreement was actually good for the United States as it blocked an unfriendly country’s possible nuclear proliferation. Unfortunately, a US government’s bowing to Israel is not exactly unusual and the withdrawal was subject to only limited criticism in the mainstream media.

Joe Biden, who has described himself as a Zionist, is no less prone to pandering to Israel than is Trump. When he raised the issue of JCPOA during his campaign in a bid to appeal to his party’s progressives, he also caveated the move by indicating that the agreement would have to be updated and improved. The talks in Vienna, which Iran and the US are indirectly engaged in, have been stalled for several months due to Iranian elections and over Washington’s insistence that Iran include in the agreement restrictions on the country’s ballistic missile program while also ceasing its alleged interference in the political turmoil in the region. The interference charge relates to Iranian support of the completely legitimate Syrian and Lebanese governments as well as of the Houthi rebels in Yemen who have been on the receiving end of Saudi Arabian aggression supported by Washington.

As Iran insists that any return to status quo ante be based on the existing agreement without any additions, to include relief from sanctions which Washington has rebuffed, it has been clear from the beginning that there is nowhere to go. Recently it has been argued in neocon and media circles (essentially the same thing) that the new conservative president of Iran Ebrahim Raisi means that no arrangement with Iran can be trusted and they point to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports that suggest that Iran has started to enrich admittedly small amounts of uranium. To add to the confusion, there have been some reports suggesting that Israel deliberately targeted and destroyed IAEA monitoring equipment in a June raid to make clear assessments of nuclear developments more difficult to obtain.

To finish the charade, which was not expected to result in anything, Secretary of State Tony Blinken, traveling Germany to mend fences over the Afghanistan debacle, has now warned that the US is getting “closer” to giving up on renegotiating the Iran nuclear deal. Blinken declared to reporters that “I’m not going to put a date on it but we are getting closer to the point at which a strict return to compliance with the JCPOA does not reproduce the benefits that that agreement achieved.”

When Blinken refers to benefits he is now of course meaning the full package of demands being made by Washington, which, as noted above, go far beyond the original intention of the agreement. As Iran has repeatedly insisted that it is only willing to discuss the original formulation which would provide for them some sanctions relief, something that Blinken certainly knows, he evades the issue of Washington being the spoiler in the Vienna talks.

Now that Afghanistan has fallen with considerable blowback to the fortunes of the Biden Administration, the situation with Iran becomes potentially more important, even while recognizing the Iran does not threaten the United States or its actual interests in any way. Biden-Blinken are clearly interested in sustaining a purported vital interest in the Middle East so troop levels throughout the region can be maintained. There is a commitment with Baghdad to remove all US “combat troops,” however that will be defined, by year’s end, but there are also American soldiers in Syria fighting a war and large military bases in Kuwait, Doha, and Bahrain. The US also maintains a skeleton presence of air force personnel in Israel as well as large arms supply depots.

To justify all that an enemy is essential and Iran fits the bill. And it should surprise no one that steps are now being taken to confront the evil Persians in their home waters. The United States Navy’s Bahrain-based 5th Fleet announced last week that it will create a special new task force that will incorporate airborne, sailing and underwater drones to confront Iran. In the announcement the spokesmen revealed that in coming months drone capabilities would be expanded to cover a number of chokepoints critical to the movement both of global energy supplies and worldwide shipping, to include the crucial Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of all oil passes. It also will presumably include the Red Sea approaches to the Suez Canal as well as the Bab el-Mandeb Strait off Yemen.

The systems being deployed by what has been dubbed the 5th Fleet Task Force 59 will include some recently developed innovative technologies, to include underwater, long range, and special surveillance drones. Armed drones will use the same platforms and some of the drones will be small enough to be fired from submarines, which will confuse points of origin and permit plausible denial by Washington if they should be used to deter or intimidate the Iranians.

So, the fall of Afghanistan might be seen as welcome after all these years of mayhem, but it may have opened the door to heightened tension in the nearby Persian Gulf. Washington-Biden-Blinken are intent on proving to the world that in spite of Afghanistan the United States is nobody’s patsy. Unfortunately, putting the screws to Iran yet again is no solution to Washington’s inability to perceive its proper role in the world. The lesson that might have been learned in Afghanistan and also Iraq apparently has already been forgotten.

*

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

This article was originally published by The Unz Review.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]

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.

***

 

Civil liberties are under attack in Canada and worldwide. On the basis of public health acts and infectious disease laws, limitations to constitutional rights are imposed through emergency orders by Canada’s medical officers of health and by unelected bureaucrats elsewhere.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was written specifically to limit government overreach. In a crisis such as this, it is more important than ever to uphold Charter rights. Whether the COVID-19 mandates and restrictions represent reasonable and necessary limitations has yet to be seen.

Members of the newly formed group Canadian Academics for Covid Ethics and other independent scholars address these questions in a letter to our public health officials. The authors summarize the many uncertainties around the severity of the pandemic, reliance on problematic testing procedures and erratic modeling, ineffective non-pharmaceutical interventions, suppression of alternative treatments, disregard for natural immunity, and the destructive focus on vaccines as the only solution.

The Open Letter has been sent directly to the federal, provincial and Ontario regional Public Health Officers, to ensure that they receive it, and to politicians and the media.

Open Letter to Public Health Officers

After months of fear, misinformation, lockdowns, mandates, and broken trust, Canadians are starting to wake up in disbelief:

What have you done?!

You have convinced and continue to attempt convincing the public that we are in the midst of a major health crisis, and thrust our country into chaos. Meanwhile, all-cause mortality in Canada is in-line with trends from the past several years and indicates no such crisis. You have instilled fear in the general public of COVID-19 by publishing egregious data (such as daily cases and ICU numbers) without putting those numbers into context. How serious are those ‘cases’? How many were asymptomatic? What would similar case numbers be in any past years for other illness such as the flu? How does ICU occupancy compare to previous years? You are misleading the public and priming us for unwarranted future restrictions.

What have you done?!

You have not been transparent about the favourable survival rates from COVID. Instead, you convinced us that a positive test result is a death sentence, when in reality the virus overwhelmingly affects elderly people and those with specific vulnerabilities. COVID remains relatively harmless for the majority of the population.

What have you done?!

You have driven up case numbers by relying on the PCR test, deemed to be inappropriate as a diagnostic tool by its inventor and known to yield too many false positives at the cycle thresholds that have been used. In fact, the WHO recommended, on June 25 of this year, that ‘widespread screening of asymptomatic individuals is not a recommended strategy’. And yet, you insist on driving up the case numbers by mass testing of healthy, asymptomatic individuals. You have made Canadians irrationally fearful of one another, convincing us that asymptomatic transmission is a driver of infections, while multiple studies demonstrate that this is false. Yet, you fail to update the public on the changing science.

What have you done?!

You have coerced an entire population to wear masks, despite the fact that their ability to prevent transmission of COVID-19 has been seriously called into question by recent systematic reviews of the medical literature. This is also readily observed by comparing regions with and without mask mandates. Cloth masks and most mass-produced face masks are not approved medical devices, rather their real purpose appears to be the creation of heightened public anxiety, isolating the wearers, and posturing visual compliance to unfounded public health diktats. This insidious form of psychological control has immeasurable health, social and psychological consequences, especially for children, which you fail to acknowledge.

What have you done?!

You have utilized lockdowns as a sledgehammer to bring down COVID cases, while neglecting the resulting collateral damage from lost livelihoods, stalled cancer and transplant surgeries, and increased rates of depression, drug overdose, and suicide. You have failed to take a holistic approach, and your “cure” is proving far worse than the disease. There are multiple studies demonstrating the ineffectiveness of lockdowns, easily seen by simple comparison of jurisdictions that locked down with those that didn’t. You are failing us by failing to understand the evolution of knowledge.  We learn by and through mistakes.  The ethical principle is to own up to mistakes.  Without that first step, ignorance flourishes.

What have you done?!

You have provided madcap computer model predictions to justify lockdowns, proclaiming the lockdowns as successful, when the predictions did not materialize. This is not proof. This is manipulation. Computer models have provided too many nonsensical predictions and should have been ignored. After decades of model refinement, we still cannot accurately predict the weather, even a day in advance. Yet, you present COVID model results as if they are accurate over the span of months.

What have you done?!

You have not provided any solid scientific evidence that any of the measures you have imposed on the public are either necessary or effective. You have ignored a body of scientific literature that does not support your measures, and you have not engaged with experts who have raised concerns or evaluated the same evidence in a way that does not align with your views. You have not allowed public scientific debate on these issues, choosing rather to ignore, censor or smear those brave enough to bring them to the public.

What have you done?!

You have ignored early treatment protocols for safe, effective, and inexpensive treatments of COVID 19 with multidrug therapies, despite the massive evidence both from front-line doctors and meta-analysis of the medical literature, with published studies showing their efficacy around the world. Instead, you have convinced citizens that COVID-19 is a death sentence and that only vaccination, indeed vaccine mandates, will save us.  You have withheld important information from the public and from frontline doctors, and more shockingly, you have intimidated, demonized, and threatened with loss of license doctors who have had the courage to prescribe lifesaving treatment to their patients. What a waste of lives!

What have you done?!

You are now relentlessly pushing experimental vaccines on the general population as ‘safe’. Nothing could be further from the truth, as shown by almost 14,000 deaths reported in the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Since December of 2020, the number of reported covid vaccine-related deaths are already more than one-and-a-half times the number of deaths reported in conjunction with all other vaccines combined since the implementation of the system in 1990. Furthermore, there is a lack of long-term safety data. These genetic-based therapies only received emergency interim authorization, and have not undergone the same type of review as fully approved products. You are not providing the public with the information they need to be able to give informed consent.

What have you done?!

You forced family and emergency doctors to abandon their Hippocratic oaths to “first do no harm.” You have destroyed the science surrounding COVID and replaced it with baseless behavioural prescriptions. You have divided citizen from citizen, parent from child, brother from sister. Overall, you have participated in destroying a country that was once prosperous, strong and free.

What should you do?

Publicly admit that your recommendations and orders are both harmful and baseless. Retract all of your recommendations and orders immediately. Stop vaccine mandates. Apologize to Canadians and resign.

Anton de Ruiter, PhD
Jan Vrbik, PhD
John Zwaagstra, PhD
Claudia Chaufan, MD, PhD
Maximilian Forte, PhD
Denis Rancourt, PhD
Angela Durante, PhD
Valentina Capurri, PhD
Alexander Andree, PhD
Janice Fiamengo, PhD
Laurent Leduc, PhD
Jens Zimmermann, PhD

*

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

Featured image is from The Post Millennial

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Covid-19 Mandates and Restrictions”: A Letter to Public Health Officers
  • 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.

***

 

In a “deeply disturbing” speech last week, President Biden exhorted medical coercion of an experimental gene therapy for a virus with a 99% survival rate for a large portion of the population, and for which no one bears financial liability in cases where injuries or deaths occur.

President Biden’s speech last week was stunning. As the Associated Press aptly reported, the president pivoted from a war on the coronavirus to a war on the “unvaccinated.”

Coercing the “unvaccinated” was the president’s first and foremost point — the only way back to normal is through vaccination, testing and masks, he said.

But the president went much further — he vilified the unvaccinated. They are not “doing the right thing.” They are “keeping us from turning the corner.” They are “blocking public health.”

“The refusal [of the unvaccinated] has cost all of us,” Biden said.

Addressing the 80 million refusers, the president said, as if speaking to unruly children, “our patience is wearing thin.”

He went further still, empathizing with the anger and anxiety of those who’ve been vaccinated and thus presumably protected. He threatened, “We cannot let the unvaccinated undo this progress,” although he muddled the words in delivery.

Biden also took a potshot at dissenting doctors, suggesting they are “conspiracy theorists,” not “real doctors.” His comments echoed the calls of others, including the Federation of State Medical Boards, to take away the medical licenses of doctors who dare to raise questions about vaccine safety.

The president’s speech was deeply disturbing. He exhorted medical coercion of an experimental gene therapy for a virus with a 99% survival rate for a large portion of the population, and for which no one bears financial liability in cases where injuries or deaths occur.

Furthermore, Biden misled the public on vaccine approval. He suggested that because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine on Aug. 23, there’s nothing more for the unvaccinated to “wait for.”

However, the FDA has not licensed the Moderna, Johnson & Johnson (marketed as Janssen) and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, and the licensed Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine is largely unavailable in the U.S.

The shots that are available are overwhelmingly Emergency Use Authorization only, to which federal law requires the right of refusal, under Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

As The Defender reported last month, the administration’s gambit on licensure is a cynical bait-and-switch tactic.

The president’s speech announced the full weight of the federal government against those who lawfully reject an unwanted, experimental medical intervention. Worse still, he sought to enlist the vaccinated in this divisive and dangerous campaign.

No president should seek to demonize citizens exercising the fundamental human right to informed consent. No president should play doctor and demand 100% vaccination rates.

Medical decision-making must be individual and individualized, and occur in the context of the doctor-patient relationship. No medical intervention can be safe and effective for all, as the president suggested. Science does not support dividing people by vaccination status and discriminating on that basis, as the president purported — nor do law or ethics support damaging discrimination.

The president failed to respect the individual rights to informed consent. The Nuremberg Code, which the U.S. promulgated and has expanded over time, says it best: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”

Suggesting the “large majority of Americans” may demonize and marginalize a minority for rejecting experimental medicine is abhorrent.

But what did President Biden really mean when he talked about the “unvaccinated?” Are people who refuse COVID shots actually unvaccinated?

No. The vast majority have had many vaccines during their lifetimes: polio, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, influenza and a battery of other ones. They simply have chosen not to take experimental COVID shots that have not yet finished phase 3 clinical trials (Moderna’s trials go to 2022, Pfizer’s until 2023) and that have blanket liability protection for manufacturers, healthcare providers and government officials.

They have decided it’s not right for them. Whether it’s because they object to all vaccination, or this one, whether it’s for scientific, religious or medical reasons, whether it’s because they’ve already been injured by a vaccine which puts them at increased risk, or whether they’ve acquired natural immunity because they’ve already had the virus, it’s their right.

Suggesting the government or the majority is entitled to marginalize the minority on COVID vaccination grounds is shocking.

Yet “unvaccinated” is likely to soon mean anyone who’s missing the latest booster dose. By late September, “unvaccinated” or “not fully vaccinated” likely will mean anyone who’s not had two or three doses of a COVID shot, depending on which brand the person took initially. Who knows how many more boosters are in store?

The president’s final blessing to those “on the front lines of this pandemic” and to “our troops” was particularly painful, because it is precisely these people with deep knowledge of the disease and the vaccines who are refusing the shots in large numbers, and who now are at risk of their livelihoods.

These people who put their lives on the line during the pandemic are being asked to lose everything if they exercise their right to refuse this medical treatment.

What can we do?

  1. Understand that you are the unvaccinated, no matter how many vaccines you’ve had. The administration is looking for scapegoats because COVID is still here, and it’s likely to be here for awhile. The “unvaccinated” term is likely to be a moving target, perpetually ratcheting up what it means to be “fully vaccinated” and “unvaccinated.”
  2. Get educated. Sign up for Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) The Defender. It’s free. Tell your friends.
  3. Speak up! If you think mandatory medicine with experimental products is not a good idea, now is the time to speak out. Let your elected officials know, call the White House, go to your school board meetings. Remember Pastor Martin Niemöller’s poem, “First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a communist.”
  4. Act on your conscience. Consider participating in Walk Out Week starting today, Sept. 13. Stay away from medically coercive schools and jobs.
  5. Find your tribe. Join CHD chapters on our website, or check out affiliated organizations including Health Choice, Millions Against Medical Mandates, National Vaccine Information Center, Informed Consent Action Network and others.
  6. Demonstrate. Show your support for health freedom at peaceful rallies across the country.
  7. Don’t quit your job. If your workplace is mandating vaccination, explore lawful exemptions. If your exemption is denied, force your employer to go through the steps of terminating you. While unpleasant, termination is the only way you can preserve your rights. Lawyers across the country are already bringing lawsuits based on discrimination, the Americans with Disabilities Act, constitutional grounds and others. You may be able to receive back pay and reinstatement if lawsuits succeed. If you resign, you will not be able to vindicate any rights — your departure will be considered voluntary, even if it was not.
  8. Vote your conscience. If you have the opportunity to vote in November, vote your conscience. If your elected officials are not honoring your most precious rights, vote them out!

Based on President Biden’s speech, the next few months may be challenging. Here’s what you can count on from CHD:

  • We will not give up.
  • We will stand with you.
  • We will provide daily need-to-know information.
  • We will advocate for your rights — in our Community Corner, on CHD Live! and in all the work we do.
  • We will keep fighting in court against medical tyranny. We will continue lawsuits against the FDA’s faux licensure, against federal censorship and against mandates for vaccines, masks and testing. We will continue to fight for the right to religious and medical exemptions and the right to free and informed consent, unfettered by government diktats.
  • And foremost we will fight for our future, our children.

*

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

Mary Holland is President and General Counsel of Children’s Health Defense. She has been writing and advocating for better vaccine law and policy for many years, including while she served on the faculty at NYU School of Law from 2002-19. She is co-author of two books on vaccines, Vaccine Epidemic and The HPV Vaccine on Trial, as well as several law review articles.

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.

***

 

Unaware that he was on a hot mic and being broadcast live on a TV station, Israeli health minister Nitzan Horowitz admitted that vaccine passports were primarily about coercing skeptical people to get the vaccine.

“Imposing “green pass” rules on certain venues is needed only to pressure members of the public to get vaccinated, and not for medical reasons, Israeli Health Minister Nitzan Horowitz said on Sunday, ahead of the weekly Cabinet meeting,” reports Jewish News Syndicate.

Unaware that his words were being broadcast live to the nation on Channel 12, Horowitz told Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked that not only should the green pass be removed as a requirement to dine at outdoor restaurants, but also, “For swimming pools, too, not just in restaurants.”

“Epidemiologically, it’s true,” said Horowitz, adding, “The thing is, I’m telling you, our problem is people who don’t get vaccinated. We need [to influence] them a bit; otherwise, we won’t get out of this [pandemic situation].”

The health minister went on to acknowledge that the system wasn’t even being enforced in most venues.

“There is a kind of universality to the ‘green pass’ system, other than at malls, where I think it should be imposed, [because] now it’s clear that it applies nowhere,” he said.

Israel was once lauded for its successful vaccine rollout and the speed with which it introduced vaccine passports.

The green pass was heralded as an “early vision of how we leave lockdown.” However, the country recently reported its highest ever number of daily COVID cases, with nearly 11,000 infections being recorded.

Although the early threat that the unvaccinated would be banned from entering numerous public venues convinced many younger people to get the vaccine, once it rolled out, the ‘green pass’ system was rarely even enforced and was subsequently scrapped at the end of May.

But once cases started rising again later that summer, Israel’s vaccine passport system was reintroduced and expanded.

Meanwhile, Sweden, which never imposed a hard lockdown, recently banned travelers arriving from Israel from entering the country.

*

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

Featured image is from BigPharmaNews.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.

***

 

Senior Doctors Caught Discussing How to Inflate Covid Deaths so as to Scare People into Accepting the Dangerous Vaccine, see this.

Los Angeles School Board Mandates Covid Vaccination for 600,000 kids 12 years old and up.

Many will have serious health problems and many will die.  It is all for nothing as healthy kids are essentially at zero risk from Covid.

It is a known fact that the Vaccine is a greater danger to the young than the Covid virus.  Why are the kids being forced to be vaccinated?  The most plausible answer is that the School Board is utterly corrupt and has been bought by Big Pharma.

Many of the sheeple parents who tolerate this will have dead and injured kids on their hands.

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

New GE Wheat to be Tested in UK Field Trials

September 14th, 2021 by GMWatch

All Global Research articles 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.

***

 

Genetically engineered (GE) wheat with a supposedly reduced concentration of acrylamide after baking is to be tested in field trials in the UK. Scientists there have successfully used CRISPR/Cas to block a gene function involved in production of the amino acid asparagine, which is important for the concentration of acrylamide after baking.

However, as reported by Testbiotech, asparagine is also involved in seed germination, the growth of the plants, their stress responses and disease defences. As scientific publications show, the risks are complex and need to be assessed in detail.

The field trials are being organised by Rothamsted Research. Using CRISPR/Cas, their scientists succeeded in reducing the concentration of free asparagine available in the kernels by up to 90 percent. They did this by knocking out several copies (alleles) of a gene (TaASN2-Gen). However, it was found that some lines of this CRISPR wheat almost lost capacity to germinate. The scientists are therefore planning to also grow a version of the wheat in the trials in which fewer copies of the gene have been knocked out.

For comparison purposes they are also planning to grow a conventionally bred wheat showing some genetic alterations (mutations). The pattern of genetic changes in this particular wheat is very different to the genotype of the CRISPR wheat, and the content of asparagine is reduced to a lesser degree.

The genetically engineered plants also show some unintended characteristics since the concentration of several amino acids was unintentionally changed. Furthermore, the concentration of asparagine in the GE plants fluctuates significantly. Therefore, says Testbiotech, more research is needed to determine whether additional unintended effects were caused in the metabolism of the plants. This should include taking all the steps of the genetic engineering process into account.

The first step consisted of introducing the DNA for the gene scissors and an additional gene for herbicide resistance into the plant genome. This was done using a so-called gene cannon (biolistic method). This method is used in “Old GE” and is known to frequently cause unintended changes in the genome. The additionally inserted genes are meant to be removed from the plants through further breeding. Nevertheless, even if this is successful, the genome still needs to be screened for further unintended genetic changes caused by the gene cannon.

Gene scissors also cause unwanted effects associated with risks to health and the environment, such as the insertion of additional DNA in the target region of the genome and production of erroneous proteins. A recent publication describes these on-target effects in detail. However, so far, changes in other sites of the genome (off-target) which can be caused by lack of precision of the gene scissors have not been investigated.

The whole genome of the plants would need to be screened in order to identify all these unintended effects. However, this is a complex undertaking due to the huge size of the wheat genome. Therefore, Rothamsted Research can in no way be sure that the CRISPR wheat only inherits the intended genetic changes. In addition, it is not known how the wheat will react to environmental stress, how it will interact with ecosystems or if it may be safe for consumption and the environment.

Testbiotech concludes that this GE wheat clearly shows how complicated the assessment of the specific risks can be that are caused by the processes of New GE. Without detailed examination, no conclusion can be drawn on safety of the plants. Nevertheless, contrary to all findings, industry is demanding that GE plants should be exempted from detailed risk assessment as long as no additional genes are inherited.

*

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

Historical Analysis: The Sino-American Cold War and the Fate of Korea

September 14th, 2021 by Prof. Joseph H. Chung

All Global Research articles 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.

***

 

Once upon a time, there was a cute little shrimp and there were three powerful fat whales. The three whales fought among themselves and one of them killed the other two and then, the victorious whale ate the cute little shrimp.

This is the story of Korea in the latter half of the 19th century. China, Japan and Russia came and they fought to swallow Korea.

Korea was important to them. Russia needed Korea for ice-free ports; China wanted to keep Korea as a vassal country and a buffer zone between Japan and China; Japan badly needed to have Korea as an expressway to China to conquer.

They fought and Japan won the Sino-Japan war (1894-1895) and the Russia-Japan war (1904-1905) and Japan annexed Korea in 1910.

We are now in 2021, more than one century after the trilateral whale fights. A part of Korea is no longer a shrimp; it is grown to be a smart dolphin but surrounded by the same old whales (China, Japan and Russia) in addition to a much larger whale (the U.S.).

A century ago, Korea was destroyed, because the big powers had different interests in Korea. But, now, Korea may be destroyed, because all the big powers have the same interest in Korea, namely the maintenance of tension and the prevention of reunification of Koreas.

In this paper, I will do the following.

First, I will show how Korea was destroyed a century ago by the trilateral fight among China, Japan and Russia. I will show how Japan annexed Korea in an illegal way because of its double victory of war against China and Russia on the one hand and, on the other, because of the betrayal of the pro-Japan traitors.

Moreover, I will discuss how the U.S. let Japan destroy Korea in exchange of Japan’s acceptance of America’s colonization of the Philippines.

Second, I will discuss why Japan, China and the U.S. want to maintain, at the present time, the tension on the Korean peninsula. I will explain why Russia is rather in favour of peace on the Korean peninsula.

Third, I will discuss how Korea can survive in the Sino-American hegemonic war.

Story of Shrimp and Whales in the Latter Half the 19th Century

The geopolitical situation in Northeast Asia in the latter half of the 19th century provided an arena of trilateral fight in which Korea was sacrificed for the greed of China, Japan and Russia.

In 1860, a revolutionary movement took place in Korea. This movement was a political and religious movement; it was called “Dong-hak” meaning Eastern Studies. It embraced several systems of thoughts including the Roman Catholicism designed to teach peasants the need for freeing themselves from the abuse of power of the “Yangban” group (Korean aristocrats).

In 1892, 69,000 peasants revolted and asked the government to punish corrupted bureaucrats, chase foreigners and impose more discipline on the bureaucrats. But, the government refused and the peasants fought to win battles and occupied the city of Jun-joo located in the Southwest region of South Korea.

The panicked government asked China to sent troops to fight the peasants and China sent an important number of troops. But, Japan also sent its troops in accordance with a previous Sino-Japan Treaty, the Li-Ito Treaty (1885) by virtue of which Japan had right to send its troops when Chinese armed forces come to Korea.

The Dong-hak army decided to avoid the war against the combined forces of the Korean government, the Japanese troops and the Chinese troops and the Jun-Joo Treaty was signed and the Dong-hak army was disbanded.

However, the Dong-hak movement succeeded in achieving social reform, according to which the Yangban class system disappeared and the dreadful slave list was destroyed in addition to the land reform in favour of the peasants.

There are several interpretations of the Dong-hak revolt, but, as far as I am concerned, it was the French Revolution of Korean style.

King Gojong asked China to withdraw its army from Korea, which China did. But, Japan kept its troops under the pretext of protecting Japanese citizens.

Two more battalions of the Japanese army came to Korea. From there on, Japan’s unlawful and barbaric behaviour began and nobody could stop it.

In June 1892, the Japanese armed unit invaded the palace and chased away the Min-cabinet which was pro-China and created a pro-Japan cabinet led by Dae-won-gun, farter of King Gojong. And, Japan provoked China in order to make China declare war which Japan was convinced it would win.

The Dong-hak army rose up again to fight the Japanese. In October of 1894, 100,000 Dong-hak troops gathered in Jun-joo and marched toward Seoul.

On the way, they met the combined forces of Korean army and Japanese army and fought for 7 days in the city of Kwang-joo not far from Jun-joo. The Dong-hak army was beaten. The Japanese were too well armed with modern weapons and the Dong-hak troops were literally massacred en masse.

In December, 1894, the Dong-hak leader, Chun Bong-joo was executed and the great revolution of the Dong-hak was over.

It was about this time that a pro-Japan Korean politicians begun to conspire with Japan to take over the power. On May 21, 1894, at dawn, the pro-Japan Group known as “Chin-il-pa:親日派:친일파” plotted with two Japanese battalions and attacked the palace to force the King to transfer power to his father, Dae-won-goon.

The plot was set to eliminate Chinese influence in Korea. Japan attacked without the declaration of war the Chinese navy in Nam-Yang Bay and won almost all the battles on land and sea including the large-scale battle of Pyongyang.

Thus, the short-lasting Sino-Japan War began in July 25, 1894 and China was defeated with humiliation. The war ended with Treaty of Simonoseki on April 17, 1895. China lost Taiwan, the Liaodong Peninsula and a few other minor territories

In the mean time, Russia became strong and did not hide its ambition to exert influence in Korea. And, in Korea, a pro-Russia group was formed and started to negotiate with Queen Min who helped to form a cabinet with pro-Russian people under Park Jeong-yang.

Dae-won-goon was suspected to be pro-China and he was removed from power.

Japan was worried to lose control in Korea and the new Japanese Consul, Miura Goro arrived to strengthen Japan’s power. On October 8, 1895, Samurai worriers and Japanese soldiers invaded the palace of Queen Min, captured Queen Min, cut her down with a Japanese sword and threw her into hellish fire.

On February 11, 1896, the Russian Consul brought 100 Russian navy sailors and literally kidnapped King Gojong in complicity with the new queen and put him in the underground floor of the Russian consulate and Russia could obtain a series of concessions to make a fortune. And, a pro-Russia cabinet was formed under Lee Byung-jin, minister of justice.

Russia obtained the management rights of mines and railroads for a large sum of money. For instance, Russia got the right to manage Kyung-in railway, Kyung-ui Railway and the gold mine in Gangwon Province. Some of the managers were non-Russian Europeans.

Many of the pro-Japan ministers were killed by the pro-Russia people in front of a palace. The remaining  pro-Japan politicians escaped to Japan to return later back to Korea and sell Korea for their personal greed and ambition.

Under Tsar Nicholas II, Russia began to develop the Eastern region of Russia and it became stronger by the day and Russia’s southward politics began to worry Japan, because Russia could chase Japan out of Korea.

Then something incredible happened! Japan proposed to Russia to divide the Korean peninsula into two halves along the 39th parallel, the southern part to be controlled by Japan, while the northern part to be occupied by Russia.

This was similar to the 1945 division of the Korea peninsula along the 38th parallel in accordance with the Soviet Union-the U.S. agreement.

 

Russia refused Japan’s proposition, probably because, Russia wanted to have the entire Korea.

The Russo-Japan War was inevitable. Japan sent the ultimatum on February 6, 1904 and two days later Japan attacked the Russian navy near Inchon.

General Nogi Maresuke won the decisive victory by capturing Port Arthur and Admiral Togo Heihachiro destroyed the entire Russian Baltic Fleet near Tsushima Island. These two victories of Japan have made Russia hesitant to continue the war with Japan.

The truth was that Russia had some resources allowing it to continue the war, while Japan had no longer any resources. It was US President Theodore Roosevelt who mediated the end of the war.

The U.S also had interests in the region. Washington did not like Russia’s southward expansion and, in a way, it was important for Japan to win, for Japan could become a useful ally.

In fact, Washington was a conspirator of Korea’s tragedy. There was the Katsura-Taft Agreement which gave free hand to Japan to destroy Korea which the U.S could save.

In July, 1905, Prime Minister Katsura Taro of Japan and the U.S. Secretary of War, William Howard Taft met and agreed that the U.S. recognize Japan’s idea of making Korea its protectorate, while Japan recognizes the Washington’s right to colonize the Philippines.

In a sense, the U.S. was another big whale who played a role of allowing Japan to destroy Korea.

Thus, the Russo-Japan war which started on February 10, 1904 ended on August 10, 1905 with the Portsmouth Treaty which allowed Japan to protect, supervise and colonize Korea.

Shortly after Russia’s defeat, a pro-Japan cabinet took power.

This was the beginning of a half-century of Korea’s nightmare of humiliation and suffering from cruel and brutal Japanese oppression.

On 17 November 1905 Japan imposed the Eulsa Treaty which made Korea Japan’s protectorate in such a way that Korea lost completely sovereignty in foreign relations. Many ministers of the pro-Japan cabinet protested; some of them killed themselves to protest.

But, Treaty was signed by traitors, especially Lee Wan -yong, one of the five ministers who supported the Treaty. Lee was the key person who supported the Korea-Japan Treaty of 1907 which made Japan to control further Korea’s foreign policy.

Finally, in 1910, Lee was the prime minister of the puppet pro-Japan government and signed the illegal and humiliating Korea Annexation Treaty.

For his treachery, Lee was knighted in 1921 by the Japanese emperor; he became Marquis; he became one of the richest men in Korea with confiscated assets including land.

The story we saw illustrates how a week country surrounded by big powers can be destroyed by them, especially, when the country is divided into pro-China group, pro-Russia group and pro-Japan group.

Story of Dolphin and Whales of the 21st Century 

We are now in 2021 and more than a century has passed since the Eulsa Treaty of 1905. But, Korea is still surrounded by big powers and it is divided between pro-Japan group of South Korean Conservatives (PJSKC), the pro-Korea South Korean Liberals (PKSKL) and North Korea (NK). Thus there are three Koreas.

Story of PJSKC

Let us begin with the PJSKC group. It is composed of the “chin-il-pa”, that is, pro-Japan group who sold Korea to Japan for personal glory, money and power in the 1900s.

The misfortune of Korea was the fact that they were not punished for their collaboration with Japan and, on the contrary, they ruled South Korea for 58 years out of 73 years since 1948.

They formed the conservative party led by former Japanese officers such as General Park Chung-hee and General Baek Sun-yup who identified themselves more with Japan than with Korea and who have done their best to make South Koreans feel inferior to the Japanese.

For the South Korean conservatives, North Korea is a dangerous enemy which will surely punish the chin-il-pa, if and when Korea is reunited. This is the first reason for the PJSKC’s not wanting peace on the Korean peninsula.

There are three more reasons for chi-il-pa’s wish to have the North-South tension and object the peace on the Korean peninsula.

First, the North-South tension has facilitated their electoral victories by fabricating a fear environment leading to the frightened people’s preference for the conservatives known for its militarism which is supposed to do better job of dealing with North Korean threats, the threats often fabricated by the conservative media led by Cho-Joong-Dong (Chosun Ilbo, Joongang Ilbo and Dongah Ilbo).

Second, since the U.S. does not wish to end the Korean War, South Korea being Washington’s forefront military base must do what Washington wants.

Third, the North-South tension justifies the increase of the budget for the purchase of weapons made in Korea or abroad, especially the U.S. It is a known secret that a very large portion of this money goes into the pocket of those involved in weapon deals who are mostly leaders of the PJSKC group.

Story of PKSKL-North Korea

If there are countries which desire peace on the Korean peninsula, they are the PKSKL and North Korea.

The honest efforts to bring peace and prepare for the reunification of Koreas began honestly with the Sun-Shine policy of Presidents Kim Dae-jung and Rho Moo-hyun (1998-2008). These two presidents created a promising foundation for peace through Joint Agreements (2000 and 2007).

But the conservative party of Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye did their best in destroying such foundation. By the way, these two former presidents are serving their prison terms for their abuse of power and corruption.

Since President Moon Jae-in of the PKSKL group took over the power in 2017, he had three summits in 2018 and 2019 with Kim Jung-un, President of North Korea and agreed to end the war, eliminate the inter-Korea tension and resume North-South economic cooperation and prepare for the reunification of Koreas.

Unfortunately, the lack of cooperation of Washington and the endless U.S.-led UN sanctions, the inter-Korea peace dialogue and cooperation have become impossible. President Moon has not succeeded in lifting the inter-Korean tension.

Story of Japan

The Case of Japan is complex. To understand Japan’s perception of Korea, in general, and North Korea, in particular, we have to understand the unusual characteristics of Japan’s leaders.

Since Kishi Nobusuke took power in 1957, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has ruled Japan for 58 years out of 64 years. Kishi Nobusuke was the maternal-side grandfather of Shinzo Abe who ruled Japan for 10 years in the 2010s.

Remember this. Kishi was A-class war criminal and sentenced for 5-year prison but liberated after the Americans left Japan. Kishi was one of the most vicious violators of human rights in Manchuria.

He was one of the worst racists; he compared the Chinese people with the Yangtze River which stinks.

He was the right-had man of Tojo Hideki who attacked Pearl Harbour in 1941 without the declaration of War and who put the Japanese people into the hell of the Pacific War.

Over the years, the LDP has become the center of a far-right wing political group which I qualify as the “Neo-Meiji Restoration Group“, or NMRG which has strong attachment to the glory and power of the pre-1945 Japan, which was the continuation of the Meiji Era Japan (1868-1912)

The NMRG has the following characteristics:

  • It does not recognize the Tokyo War Criminal Trial.
  • It argues that Japan has never surrendered; Japan has signed the cease-fire. Hence, Japan is still in war with the U.S. and its allies.
  • Its religion is Shintoism in which the Emperor is god; the Japanese are Emperor’s people, hence, they are divine people who could and did not commit such inhuman crimes as the sexual torture of 200,000 Korean girls, the Nanking Rape and labour slavery of Koreans.
  • It still believes in the Hakko-Ichi-U, that is, Japan is destined to rule the whole world.
  • It still has the project of the 1927 Tanaka Memorial which shows the roadmap of Japan’s world conquest starting with the conquest of Korea followed by that of China, Southeast Asia and the U.S.

In short, the ambition of conquering Korea and China is still there. But, to be ready for the eventual invasion of Korea and China, the LDP must remain in power eternally so that Japan can eliminate or modify Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution prohibiting Japan to make war. Here is the famous Article 9 of the Japanese constitution.

“Aspiring sincerely to an international order based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and threat or use of force as means of settling international dispute.” (A part of Article 9 of the Japanese New Constitution of 1947)

However, by virtue of an agreement with the U.S., Japan can join the American forces, if and when the U.S. is in war. In fact, Japan is suspected to hope for joining the U.S. forces attacking North Korea. This will allow the NMRG to satisfy partly its dream of re-conquering Korea and China.

At any rate, Japan does not want peace on the Korean peninsula; Japan wants the North-South tension to continue, because it produces the following benefits.

First, Japan needs North Korea as a threat to Japan, for it provides the occasion to unify voters in favour of the strong LDP. So, North Korea is a good electoral friend of LDP.

Second, the presumed threat of North Korea justifies additional military spending, which helps to build up strong armed forces needed for future invasion of Korea and China.

Third, Washington wishes to maintaining “tension” on the Korean peninsula. Japan being ally of the U.S. it has to go along with Washington’s wish.

Story of China

As for China, it also prefers “tension” on the Korean peninsula for the following reasons:

First, for China, the North-South tension allows China to make North Korea dependent on China for the trade. As much as 90% of trade of North Korea depends on China so that China can exert great influence on North Korea.

Second, for China, North Korea is a precious buffer zone protecting itself from the cultural influences of South Korea and the U.S. Moreover, if hostility occurs between China and the U.S., North Korea could become a military buffer zone.

Third, if peace is established on the Korean peninsula because of the removal of American sanctions, North Korea could become potentially establish closer relations with the US, which in turn would modify Pyongyang’s relations with Beijing. In turn, if this were to happen, North Korea could become a threat to China.

Story of Russia

As for Russia, it has little geopolitical interest in Korea; it has rather geo-economic interests; it wants to build the pan-Korea pipeline to sell Siberian gas. It prefers peace on the Korean peninsula. 

Story of the U.S.A.

Washington’s North Korea policy is as ambiguous as its Taiwan policy.

There could be several reasons why Washington has not solved the North Korean issue.

Moreover, it has retained the armistice of the Korean War for 68 years which has contributed to maintaining tension between North and South Korea.

The following reasons are examined below:

First, the U.S. maintains tension on the Korean peninsula partly because of the lobby (bribe) diplomacy of Japan and the PJSKC.

It is a well known fact that Japan and the PJSKC spend billions of dollars to demonize North Korea.

A great number of American and South Korean conservative politicians, academics, think tanks and especially mainstream media are funded by Japan and the PJSKC in order to demonize North Korea. These funds are, to put it bluntly, bribe money. Nobody knows how much.

Moreover, a PJSKC delegation recently went to Washington in order to convince Washington law makers of the need for the sanctions and the maintenance of the state of war on the Korean peninsula.

Second, Another possible reason for Washington’s wish to keep the Korea tension is the presumed threat of North Korean.

Is North Korea really a threat? The combined 2020 GDP of the trilateral alliance, Japan-Korea-the U.S. is USD 27,000 billion against North Korea’s GDP of USD 40 billion.

The combined defence annual budget of the trilateral alliance is almost USD 900 billion as against USD 4 billion in North Korea. How can North Korea be a threat?

Third, The U.S. says that it cannot tolerate the peace dialogue before the denuclearization of North Korea.

But, Washington could have denuclearized North Korea in 1994, 2005 and 2007.

In 1994, North Korea had no nuclear bomb; North Korea was ready to abandon its nuclear project by virtue of the 1994 Framework Agreement. But, Washington was instrumental in foreclosing this solution.

In 2005, Pyongyang was ready to abandon nuclear programmes because of the 2005 Joint Declaration of the 6-Party Talks. President George W.Bush ignored it.

In 2007, Kim Jong-un was ready to denuclearize North Korea because of the Action Plan of the 6-Party Talks. Once again, the U.S. did not take the good opportunity of denuclearization. Did Washington really want denuclearization?

Fourth, in a bitter irony, inter-Korea tension provides a large market for the American defence industry. South Korea spends about USD 7 billion a year to buy American weapons.

Moreover, it is a well known secret that weapon transactions produce large amounts of dark money which goes into the pockets of those involved, including bureaucrats, politicians, business leaders and other members of the corruption community.

Fifth, Washington needs inter-Korea tension to justify the presence of American armed forces in South Korea.

Thus, there are five reasons for Washington’s reluctance to end the Korean War and establish peace in the Korean peninsula.

The second and the third reasons are not very convincing. This leaves three reasons which are likely to be the real reasons, that is, the pressure from PJSKC and Japan, the weapon market attraction and the need for China containment.

How Can Korea Survive?

The future of Korea depends on how Korea deals with the South Korean “chin-il-pa” and the Sino-American cold war.

Integration of the Chin-il-pa

Korea has an important problem to be dealt with. It pertains to the relation between the PJSKC and PKSKL. In other words, how should one deal with the pro-Japan South Korean conservatives who identify themselves more with Japan than with Korea?

The strength of the PJSKC should not be underestimated. In terms of their number, they may represent perhaps 20% of the population. But their strength is their wealth.

They have ruled South Korea for 58 years since 1948; they have created a formidable corruption community and accumulated trillions of USD invested in land, businesses, buildings and other assets in Korea and abroad.

One of the indicators of the nature of the corruption community is the fate of the conservative presidents. Out of 6 conservative presidents who have ruled Korea since 1948, one was kicked out by students; one was assassinated by his CIA director, two were in prison; two are in prison. They have one thing in common; they have been condemned for abuse of power and corruption.

The sad story is that the corruption community is the elite community; they are lawmakers, judges, prosecutors, large companies and media. They commit crimes but they do not go to prison; if they have to go prison, they do not stay there long.

The future of Korea depends on how the people of Korea can clean the corruption community. It is true that, under the leadership of President, Moon Jae-in, important progress has been made in the fight against the corruption community.

Image left, Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong-un (2018)

However, to continue to fight the corruption community, the Democratic Party representing the PKSKL should remain in power for an extended period; the presidential election early next year has vital importance for the survival of Korea as a nation.

If the Liberals maintain power after the presidential election, the liberal government will do address important issues, which previously have not been addressed.

The leaders of the PJSKC should be punished for their betrayal to the Korean race. The remaining members should be made to repent for the anti-Korean activities. They should be pardoned and integrated into the mainstream population. In this way, Korea can free itself from the century-old nightmare of the anti-Korea behaviour of the PJSKC.

Koreas Should be United, if Not Reunified

The survival of Korea surrounded by big powers depends on how well two Koreas are united in dealing with the common challenge, especially the external challenges. Koreans should never forget how they lost their country to Japan because of internal divisions.

Sino-American Cold War

Two scenarios of  Sino-American relations can be envisaged.

The first scenario is the case in which China and the U.S. coexist in peace, although they may compete in trade and technology, and China will not be a threat to the U.S. In this case, there is no reason for Washington to block the inter-Korea peace dialogue. This is the ideal scenario for Korea.

The united Korea should undertake the long process of reunification starting with the formation of custom union followed by the creation of common market, labour integration, monetary integration, political integration and finally the reunification of Koreas.

Japan, the PJSKC and some neo-con groups in Washington may object to this process, but united Korea should ignore them. South Korea is now a developed country and it has now resources and power to do so.

The relation of the united Korea with China and the U.S. should be friendly; it should become pro-China and pro-U.S. and it should assume the leadership of fostering cooperative Sino-American relations.

The second scenario is the case is where the Sino-American Cold War continues and even gets hot.

Korea will find itself in a rather delicate situation.

To survive, the united Korea should remain neutral and, in particular, show leadership in collaboration with middle powers such as Canada and Australia and ASEAN countries to prevent the outbreak of a Sino-American war.

We should never forget the inevitable truth that the Sino-American war will kill us all.

The message of this paper may be summarized.

First, the internal political division makes the country vulnerable to foreign powers’ invasion. At the end of the 19th century, the pro-Japan Koreans (chin-il-pa) traitors allowed Japan to humiliate, rob and enslave Koreans for half a century.

Second, the same chin-il-pa has played a major part not only in dividing the Korean peninsula into North Korea and South Korea but also in maintaining the inter-Korea tension and conflict in collaboration with Japan and the U.S.

Third, the survival of the Korean race as a nation depends on how the two Koreans unite themselves, deal with the chin-il-pa and find wisdom and courage needed to survive in the dynamics of the Sino-American hegemonic war.

Finally, I wish to see, once again, a world in which the two super powers and the two civilizations cooperate for the creation of a better world in which love, peace, security and prosperity prevail 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.

Dr. Joseph H. Chung is professor of economics at Quebec University in Montreal (UQAM) and the advisor to the Study Center for Integration and Globalization (CEIM) of UQAM.

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

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Historical Analysis: The Sino-American Cold War and the Fate of Korea
  • 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.

***

 

Let there be no mistake. What is happening today, before our very eyes, is what happened with human medical experiments during the Second World War. These experiments were without informed consent. Many prisoners were vaccinated with experimental drugs.

After the war, when camps like Dachau were liberated, the survivors were able to identify their persecutors. Some of those rescued are alive today. And today they are fully supportive of Doctors for Covid Ethics (D4CE) in the accusations levelled, not just at the pharmaceutical profiteers and the regulatory authorities under their control, but at parliamentarians who sanction the ongoing global experiment without so much as a word against it.

Let there be no mistake. The emergency acts which were introduced even though there never was an emergency, are going to be useless when the rule of parliament and the rule of law returns. Then those who wittingly allowed these experiments to go ahead will have some life-changing questions to answer. Somebody else will be sitting Klaus Karl Schilling’s chair!

You can download and read the research behind Doctors for Covid Ethics’ Notices of Liability (NOLs) served on every member of the European parliament at the link below under the Posts tab. It also has appended the Holocaust survivors’ endorsement. You will need to click the Home button to take you to the site. Please read! Thanks.

*

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

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Human Medical Experiments without Informed Consent: EMA and Members of the European Parliament (MEP) Put on Notice for Crimes Against Humanity
  • 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.

***

 

In a paper published in the Lancet, experts warned there could be risks to boosters if they are widely introduced too soon, or too frequently, especially with vaccines that can have immune-mediated side-effects.

Current evidence on COVID vaccines does not appear to support a need for booster shots in the general public right now, according to an international team of vaccine scientists, including some from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the World Health Organization (WHO).

“Current evidence does not, therefore, appear to show a need for boosting in the general population, in which efficacy against severe disease remains high,” Marion Gruber and Phil Krause, two senior FDA vaccine leaders, wrote in an opinion piece published Monday in the Lancet.

The scientists said the benefits of COVID vaccination outweigh the risks, but there could be risks to boosters if they are widely introduced too soon, or too frequently, “especially with vaccines that can have immune-mediated side-effects (such as myocarditis, which is more common after the second dose of some mRNA vaccines, or Guillain-Barre syndrome, which has been associated with adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccines).”

“If unnecessary boosting causes significant adverse reactions, there could be implications for vaccine acceptance that go beyond COVID-19 vaccines. Thus, widespread boosting should be undertaken only if there is clear evidence that it is appropriate,” the scientists wrote.

The scientists said COVID vaccines continue to be effective against severe disease, including that caused by the Delta variant — but most of the observational studies on which that conclusion is based are preliminary and difficult to interpret due to potential confounding and selective reporting, they said.

As The Defender reported last month, studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed COVID vaccine effectiveness against infection has decreased over time, and is less effective in combating the Delta variant.

Gruber and Krause emphasized “careful and public scrutiny of evolving data will be needed to assure boosting is informed by reliable science more than politics.”

The team wrote:

“The message that boosting might soon be needed, if not justified by robust data and analysis, could adversely affect confidence in vaccines and undermine messaging about the value of primary vaccination. Public health authorities should also carefully consider the consequences for primary vaccination campaigns of endorsing boosters only for selected vaccines.

“Booster programmes that affect some but not all vaccinees may be difficult to implement — so it will be important to base recommendations on complete data about all vaccines available in a country, to consider the logistics of vaccination, and to develop clear public health messaging before boosting is widely recommended.”

The scientists noted boosting may be appropriate for some individuals where a one- or two-dose vaccine did not provide adequate protection — such as immunocompromised people — although they noted people who did not respond robustly to a primary vaccination, may also not respond well to a booster.

Both the FDA and CDC have already signed off on allowing third doses for immunocompromised people. But experts are divided on whether boosters are necessary for the general population.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet Friday to discuss Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to administer their COVID vaccine as a third dose, or “booster” shot, to people ages 16 and older.

The scientists also echoed the views of the WHO in arguing current vaccines could “save more lives” if they are used in people who are not yet vaccinated rather than for boosters.

The WHO last week called for a moratorium on boosters in wealthy nations until at least the end of the year.

In a statement to CNN on Monday, an FDA spokesperson said the new opinion paper does not reflect the views of the FDA:

“As noted in the article, the views of the authors do not represent the views of the agency. We are in the middle of a deliberative process of reviewing Pfizer’s booster shot supplemental approval submission, and FDA as a matter of practice does not comment on pending matters before the agency. We look forward to a robust and transparent discussion on Friday about that application.”

As The Defender reported Sept. 1, Gruber and Krause announced they will leave the FDA this fall, raising questions about the Biden administration and the way it sidelined the agency.

Gruber and Krause were upset that the Biden administration announced adults should get a booster eight months after they received a second dose — prior to boosters undergoing review or receiving approval by the FDA.

Neither Gruber or Krause believed there was enough data to justify offering booster shots yet, sources said, and both viewed the announcement, amplified by President Biden, as pressure on the FDA to quickly authorize them.

As The Defender reported earlier this month, the Biden administration announced a plan to begin offering a third booster dose to people who already received two doses of an mRNA vaccine beginning the week of Sept. 20.

U.S. health regulators have said there isn’t enough data to recommend booster doses for the general population.

Still, the White House has moved forward with its plan to make Americans eligible for a third dose of either Pfizer or Moderna’s vaccines eight months after the date of their second injection, even though that plan requires authorization from the FDA and CDC first.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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

First published on September 17, 2016

“Workers of my country, I have faith in Chile and its destiny.

Other men will overcome this dark and bitter moment when treason seeks to prevail.

Keep in mind that, much sooner than later, the great avenues will again be opened through which will pass free men to construct a better society.

Long live Chile! 

Long live the people! Long live the workers!”  President Salvador Allende‘s farewell speech (before he was assassinated), 11 September 1973.

“It’s hard to find someone with the fighting spirit, courage and the story of Allende. He was a man who actually had the branded name in history: democratically the left came to power, and by bombs he was removed from government.” Senador Pedro Simon

Chile: “Shock Treatment” and the Mechanisms of Economic Repression

Immediately following Allende’s election in September 1970 and prior to his inauguration in November 1970:

“Kissinger initiated discussion on the telephone with CIA director Richard Helm’s about a preemptive coup in Chile. “We will not let Chile go down the drain,” Kissinger declared. “I am with you,” Helms responded. Their conversation took place three days before President Nixon, in a 15-minute meeting that included Kissinger, ordered the CIA to “make the economy scream,” and named Kissinger as the supervisor of the covert efforts to keep Allende from being inaugurated. (National Security Archive)

The CIA was the lead organization behind the imposition of a neoliberal economic agenda in Chile. In August 1972, a year prior to the coup, the CIA funded a 300-page economic blueprint to be implemented in the wake of the overthrow of the Allende  government.

The ultimate objective of the September 11, 1973 military coup in Chile was the imposition of the neoliberal agenda (aka deadly “economic medicine”) leading to the impoverishment of an entire nation.

Wall Street was behind the coup, working hand in glove with the CIA, the US State Department and Chile’s economic elites. Henry Kissinger was the Go-Between.

After Allende’s election in November Wall Street’s major commercial banks (including Chase Manhattan, Chemical, First National City, Manufacturers Hanover, and Morgan Guaranty), cancelled credits to Chile. In turn,  in 1972, Kennecott Corporation “tied up Chilean copper exports with lawsuits in France, Sweden, Italy, and Germany”. (See  John M. Swomley, Jr. “The Political Power of Multinational Corporations,” Christian Century, 91 (25 September 1974), p. 881.

“Regime change” was enforced  through a covert CIA military intelligence operation, which laid the groundwork for the military takeover, the assassination of president Allende as well as the macro-economic reforms to be adopted in the wake of the military coup.

 

At the time of the September 11, 1973 military coup, I was Visiting Professor of Economics at the Catholic University of Chile. In the hours following the bombing of the Presidential Palace of La Moneda, the new military rulers imposed a 72-hour curfew.

Salvador Allende in the defense of the Palacio de la Moneda, September 11, 1973 (left)

When the university reopened several days later, I started patching together the history of the coup from written notes. I had lived through the September 11, 1973 coup as well as the failed June 29th coup. Several of my students at the Universidad Catolica had been arrested by the military Junta.

Chicago Economics, Chilean Style

Sweeping macro-economic reforms (including privatization, price liberalization and the freeze of wages) were implemented in early October 1973.

Barely a few weeks after the military takeover, the military Junta headed by General Augusto Pinochet ordered a hike in the price of bread from 11 to 40 escudos, a hefty overnight increase of 264%. This “economic shock treatment” had been designed by a group of economists called the “Chicago Boys,” many of whom were my colleagues at the Institute of Economics of the Catholic University.

These deadly macro-economic reforms were largely dictated by Wall Street in liaison with the CIA, with “Chicago Economics” providing an ideological “free market” paradigm and justification. Professors Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger of Chicago University were by no means the driving force behind these reforms.

While food prices had skyrocketed, wages had been frozen to ensure “economic stability and stave off inflationary pressures.” From one day to the next, an entire country had been precipitated into abysmal poverty; in less than a year the price of bread in Chile increased thirty-six fold (3700%). Eighty-five percent of the Chilean population had been driven below the poverty line.

In November 1973, following the dramatic hikes in the price of food,  I drafted in Spanish an initial “technical” assessment of the Junta’s deadly macro-economic reforms.

Together with a medical doctor, colleague and lifelong friend who was teaching at the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Chile,  I estimated the impacts of  the economic reforms on the levels of undernourishment, which had resulted from the collapse of the standard of living.

In the wake of the military coup and following the engineered hike in food prices, I estimated that approximately 85% of the Chilean population did not meet minimum calorie and protein requirements as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO).

In October 1973, the “official” food price index had increased by 82.3 percent (in relation to September), according to the Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, which had been taken over by the Junta.

The INE figures on the price of food commodities, however, had been falsified. In November, I  proceeded to collect and tabulate the actual rate of increase in food prices from directly observed prices in the Santiago Metropolitan area. I  discovered a substantial discrepancy in relation to the official statistics.

Food prices had increased by 211.1 percent in October and November 1973 in relation to September, according to my estimates of 31 food categories. (The official November figures pointed to an increase of 88.6 percent in relation to September). And thereafter, it was on the basis of these official (fake) statistics that the movement in real purchasing power was estimated and official wage adjustments were implemented.

Fearing censorship by the Junta led by General Augusto Pinochet, I limited my analysis to the collapse of living standards in the wake of the Junta’s reforms, resulting from the price hikes of food and fuel, focussing on statistical estimates, without making any kind of political analysis.

The Economics Institute of the Catholic University was initially reluctant to publish the report. They sent it to the Military Junta prior to its release.

 

The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author. Therefore, they are of the author’s responsibility and do not compromise the Institute of Economics

(This was first time that the Institute chose to publish a disclaimer)  

I left Chile for Peru  in December 1973. The report was released as a working paper (200 copies) by the Catholic University a few days before my departure. In Peru, where I joined the Economics Department of the Catholic University of Peru, I was able to write up a more detailed study of the Junta’s neoliberal reforms and their ideological underpinnings. This study was published in 1974-75 in English and Spanish.

Economic Repression

By March 1974, food prices in Chile (according to my estimates) had increased by 505.5 percent (since September 1973). Real wages had collapsed.

Chile: The movement of real wages (1970-77) based on official statistics

Source: Rudiger Dornbusch, Sebastian Edwards. Macroeconomic Populism in Latin America http://www.nber.org/papers/w2986 (p20)

The above graph (based on official statistics) shows that real wages collapsed by close to 70 percent in relation to the base period (1970), which also corresponds to the beginning of the Unidad Popular (UP) government of Salvador Allende. The collapse in real wages was greater than that indicated by the official statistics.

It is worth noting that in 1971, the Allende government increased real wages by 20%. The collapse from its 1971 level to early 1974 was of the order of 75% based on official statistics of the cost of living.  A wage increase was implemented by the Junta in early March of 1974 (see graph above).

The Destruction of Economic Life

The events of September 11 1973 marked me profoundly in my work as an economist. Through the tampering of prices, wages and interest rates, people’s lives had been destroyed; an entire national economy had been destabilized. Macro-economic reform was neither “neutral” –as claimed by the academic mainstream– nor separate from the broader process of social and political transformation.

I also started to understand the role of military-intelligence operations in support of what is usually described as a process of “economic restructuring”. In my earlier writings on the Chilean military Junta, I looked upon so-called “free market” reforms as well-organized instruments of “economic repression.”

Macro-Economics and Geopolitics are intertwined. The economic dimensions of US led wars must be understood. The destruction of economic life in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya constitutes a crime against humanity, i.e. an “Economic Genocide” which consists in destabilizing and deliberately sabotaging a national economy.

  • Today, wars are being fought in the Middle East. Several Latin American countries are the object of  US dirty tricks with a view to implementing regime change.
  • Poverty is engineered by the IMF’s debt conditionalities.
  • The prices of food and energy are deliberately manipulated through speculative trade, e.g. on the Chicago and New York mercantile exchanges.
  • Currency devaluations are engineered through speculative operations on the foreign exchange markets.

While the contemporary mechanisms of intervention (“color revolutions”, “war on terrorism”, economic destabilization, sanctions, etc) are different to those of the 1970s, the ultimate objective is the derogation of national sovereignty and the imposition of neoliberalism:

  • corporate control, privatization,
  • the “free market” pillage of natural resources,
  • deadly economic medicine, austerity measures,
  • the repeal of social programs,
  • the deregulation of trade
  • the collapse of wages,
  • the instatement of a cheap labor  economy,
  • the transformation of countries into territories.

I recall that  in the months leading up to the September 1973 coup in Chile, the distribution of basic consumer goods and food had been deliberately disrupted through market manipulation. No bread, no milk, no sugar were available at government regulated prices. Chile’s escudo was worthless. The black market prevailed.

A similar situation is now unfolding in Venezuela where the national currency has collapsed. Black market prices for food and essential commodities have spiralled.   Reminiscent of Chile in 1973, foreign exchange (Forex) market manipulation in Venezuela coupled with sabotage triggers food shortages, poverty and political instability. Concurrent with the engineered collapse of the Bolivar, real purchasing power has plummeted. (see below)

Source: Los Angeles Times, May 31, 2016 

Michel Chossudovsky, September 17, 2016

sources:

Michel Chossudovsky, La medicion del ingreso minimo de subsistencia y la politica de ingresos para 1974, Documentos de Trabajo no. 18, Noviembre de 1973.

Michel Chossudovsky, The Neo-liberal Model and the Mechanisms of Economic Repression, The Chilean Case, Research Paper No. 7411, Department of Economics, University of Ottawa, 1974, published in Co-Existence, Vol 12, 1975

Michel Chossudovsky, Hacia el nuevo modelo economico chileno : inflación y redistribución del ingreso,  El trimestre económico.  Mexico, Vol. 42. 1975, 2, p. 311-347.

*       *      *

The videos below describe the preparation of the September 11, 1973 military coup and its aftermath.

Video: CIA, Chile and Allende

Chile: The First Start. The Inauguration of  Neoliberalism

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Chile, September 11, 1973: The Inauguration of Neoliberalism,”Shock Treatment” and the Instruments of Economic Repression: The Junta’s Deadly “Economic Medicine”

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

According to the Pentagon’s annual reports on military justice, there have been more than 1.3 million cases of discipline in the U.S. military since 2001, mostly relating to the so-called “War on Terror.” But as The Intercept highlighted, the generals who misled Congress and the American public about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have not only avoided repercussions after conducting a disinformation campaign for 20 years, but were instead rewarded for their deceivingly positive assessments. “When they retired with generous military pensions, they landed high-paying jobs on corporate boards, further profiting from their disingenuousness,” Peter Maass wrote in The Intercept.

Following the terrorist attacks against the U.S. on September 11, 2001, then president George W. Bush took his country into destructive wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. What also followed the 9/11 attacks was an outpouring of ignorance, racism and violence against supposedly Muslim-appearing Americans. This even culminated in the murder of Indian-born Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh, by 43-year-old Frank Silva Roque who during his arrest shouted slogans like “I am a patriot!”, “I stand for America all the way!” and “I wish that my punishment would be sending me to Afghanistan with a lot of [expletive] weapons.” Sodhi’s murder is considered the first post-9/11 backlash against non-Christian America.

However, Roque’s actions and calls to fight in Afghanistan was not in isolation, and in fact, many Americans with similar extremism joined the military. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq saw entire infrastructures destroyed, hundreds of thousands of civilians killed, millions of refugees, and over $6 trillion of American taxpayer money wasted. Much of this devastation was caused by American soldiers, often with impunity. In fact, the Americans were not alone in such war crimes, with many British, Australian and other soldiers from partnered countries responsible for murder, rape, extortion and theft in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What is most concerning though is that the upper echelons of the U.S. military had little to no concern for the war crimes perpetrated by NATO forces. Instead, they focused on creating a narrative, portraying the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq as constantly improving. Journalist Craig Whitlock’s new book, “The Afghanistan Papers,” provides evidence that military leaders knew the war in Afghanistan was failing but lied about it. Colonel Bob Crowley claims in the book that “every data point was altered to present the best picture possible” and Whitlock described the military’s positive assessments as “unwarranted and baseless” that “amounted to a disinformation campaign.”

The main question is why the top military leaders were adamant in their claims that the war situation in Afghanistan and Iraq was improving. It can be suggested that their lies about the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq was motivated by self-interest to advance their own careers and capital. They were certainly not going to allow the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as over 1.3 million cases of ill-discipline in the military, including rape, torture and murder, ruin their prospects.

Take for example the current U.S. Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin. During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Austin was the assistant commander of the 3rd Infantry Division. The Intercept recounts an exchange in May 2013, just weeks after the U.S. captured Baghdad, between Austin and Dathar Khashab, director of the Daura oil refinery. No matter about Khashab’s insistence that Baghdad was more crime-ridden under U.S. occupation then under Saddam Hussein’s rule, Austin could only say that “two months ago was a brutal dictator who killed thousands of people.”

Austin, who from the very beginning of Iraq’s occupation insisted everything was fine, eventually became the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, then took charge of Central Command that covers all operations in the Middle East, retired with a $15,000 a month pension, and then joined several corporate boards, including the board of directors of United Technologies Corporation, the military contractor that merged with Raytheon in 2020. With these corporate gigs, he became a multimillionaire with a $2.6 million mansion that boasts seven bedrooms, a five-car garage, two kitchens and a pool house in the Washington D.C. area.

Along with Austin was also David Petraeus, who at the start of the Iraq War was a major general. But as The Intercept author recounts, “Petraeus was doing what pretty much every general who served in Iraq and Afghanistan would do, stringing together any data he could find that would masquerade as a narrative of success. The statistics on his PowerPoint were vintage Vietnam — find big numbers and call them victory.”

In 2007, Petraeus was named the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and hailed as a savior. He then went on to command U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan from 2010 to 2011. Although Petraeus assured Congress in 2011 that the situation in Afghanistan was improving, Whitlock’s book notes that “military officers in the field knew the blizzard of numbers meant nothing.”

One of Petraeus’ advisers in Afghanistan, Sarah Chayes, recalled how she suggested ideas to stem corruption in the U.S.-backed government in Kabul, but none of those plans were ever implemented. “I responded to request after request from Petraeus until I realized that he had no intention of acting on my recommendations; it was just make-work,” she wrote.

In late 2011, Petraeus then headed the CIA, but in 2012 was caught sharing highly classified information with his girlfriend and resigned, avoiding felony charges and lengthy prison sentences that haunt the likes of Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. Following the CIA, Petraeus was rewarded with a lucrative partnership at the private equity giant KKR, securing his wealth in his retirement years.

Effectively, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been allowed to drag on for the second decade because those at the very top of the U.S. military were more concerned about advancing their own careers. By doing so, the U.S. unleashed thousands of soldiers with similar thinking to Frank Silva Roque that wanted to exact revenge on those they held responsible for the 9/11 attacks, thus resulting in countless NATO war crimes against innocent civilians.

*

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

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

All Global Research articles 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.

***

 

Just as many predicted over a year ago, the rollout of the vaccine for Covid-19 and its implementation has introduced intense polarization and social segregation through the implementation of mandatory vaccinations for employees and vaccine passports. Medical authoritarianism and the burgeoning biosecurity state are here, expanding in real time. In New York City, San Francisco, France, and Italy, vaccine passports are mandatory for entrance to nearly any indoor public venue: restaurants, bars, museums, cinemas, and more. Also, hundreds of corporations, colleges, federal and state agencies are mandating rushed emergency experimental injections with no long-term knowledge of side effects.

Yes, we’re all well aware that the Pfizer vaccine just got full FDA approval. Did anyone think that it wouldn’t? Did anyone in the media bother to ask if the forces of power, money, and technocratic medical tyrants would back down and not give full approval, considering how these forces have managed to shape reality and scare to death half of the population over a disease with a very low mortality rate?

Regardless of your opinion of how severe the disease is, mandates and passports are incontrovertibly coercive, tyrannical measures. If the vaccines do not stop transmission, which the medical authorities have already admitted to varying degrees, then what is the point of these mandates and passports?

Furthermore, the vaccine passport will effectively be discriminatory since minorities are less likely to get the vaccines. African Americans especially have lower vaccination rates, for good reasons, the US medical establishment experimented on black populations throughout the Cold War and even beyond. It’s not difficult to see the ramifications of bio-digital segregation, one does not need a PhD or medical degree; in fact these “credentials” seem to blinker one’s view in support of this new form of discrimination.

In the view of what we might term the technocracy, or perhaps the emerging biosecurity establishment, it is virtuous to separate the “clean” vaxxed from the supposedly disease-carrying, uneducated, lower classes who won’t take these experimental shots.

All of the power and money, all the “Science ™” snowballed into an unstoppable corporate/government momentum which shows no signs of letting up.

All that propaganda, the deliberate lies about mask efficiency (they don’t work) and vaccine holiness (they don’t prevent transmission) they’ve been shoving down the public’s throats for over a year and a half? Yeah, the nanny-state politico-medical tyrants are not going to give up this narrative without a fight.

They are doubling down on the fear and quest for total obedience and control. It suits late-stage capitalism just fine if small and medium-sized businesses go under and the excess labor supply of the unemployed are evicted and go hungry. They are extraneous to the monopoly cartels which run the “economy”, which is run by giant tech corporations, the stock market, the military-industrial complex, the FIRE sector, and crucially the health care and pharmaceutical corporations, nearly all of which are multinational conglomerates who operate with almost no competition in nearly every industry.

There is no way to fight back against these abuses of power through the court system. In my opinion, the most rational approach would be to boycott, in any way possible, the corporations and public institutions that are going along with vaccine mandates and passports. Part of this involves the vote with your dollars approach. Hurting the corporate lemmings and technocrat sociopaths in their wallets and lack of tax revenues are the only things they will understand.

If you were thinking of traveling to Europe, skip France and Italy. Guess what, if globally millions of tourists suddenly gave the middle finger to these two countries and vacationed elsewhere, the dent in lost revenue and GDP might actually have some effect on the political establishment. In France and Italy citizens are rightly fed up with protests occurring everyday against the passports, and many vaccinated people have burned their vaccine papers in solidarity.

Similarly, if people in the US abstained from traveling to and spending money in NYC and SF, every restaurant owner, museum board, theater, and small business would then put immediate pressure on city, state, and federal politicians to ban vaccine passports, hopefully for good. If millions of people refuse to shop and do business with companies that have mandatory vaccination requirements for their employees, it would also put immense pressure on governments to relent.

Investors should also divest from corporations that insist on mandating vaccines for employees. It may in fact be legal for companies to do so, but it is frankly coercive and is a sort of crossing of the Rubicon; blurring one’s private life and medical choices with public duties to create a new type of “good citizen”, a biopolitical subject serving capitalism with zero critical thinking skills.

For those in the workforce facing mandates, such as federal/state public employees and health care workers, if possible it is definitely worth considering if another career/job can be found. If enough teachers, nurses, etc., quit or go on strike against their employee mandates, pressure can be applied and the mandates could potentially be lifted.

It’s worth pointing out that the goalposts continue to be changed from slowing the pace of transmission to eradicating the virus- from two weeks to flatten the curve (tacitly acknowledging that coronaviruses cannot really be stopped) to mandates for wide swaths of public and private work, as well as military and police presence on the streets of Australia, to name one of the most obvious police state measures. The goalposts are changing to determine our “good citizen” status. Before, one simply had to go along to get along, obey the laws, pay taxes, and keep one’s head down; now, not only are we expected to do and say the right things, but to inject the right experimental drugs into our bodies.

My humble prediction is the goalposts are going to continue to move. The game is akin to the frogs boiling slowly in the pot; by consenting to our own freedom being curtailed and our own imprisonment, the establishment gets what it wants without having to crack down using excessive force and coercion. The innate desire of have access to public spaces, to go on vacation, will lead many people ignorant of the wider implications to accept these new dystopian measures.  The horizon of getting “back to normal” will recede faster as new variants naturally emerge, as viruses tend to do, and this will continue to be used as a new scare tactic, even as death rates effectively returned to normal four months ago (May of 2021) in the US, and many other countries show no more excess deaths, or none outside normal yearly variations, as well in 2021.

The virus is now endemic, but the powers that be are going to insist upon using it as a weapon for total control over the population. We’re through the looking-glass; we now have a form of “scientism” which is irrefutable no matter how unsettled the truth really is.

Statistics such as death counts from Covid are unreliable, with doctors confessing to listing Covid-19 as the primary cause of death when it’s not- dying “from Covid” is conflated as dying “with Covid”, and many nurses, doctors, and funeral directors are on record stating that Covid-19 was listed as C.O.D. when no tests were run and also when another condition ultimately led to death. Deaths from the lockdowns are not seriously considered, even though many scientists are on record stating that the lockdowns led to a large chunk of the excess deaths.

Frankly, the near future looks pretty bleak for the US and the chances to have an open, honest dialogue about the seriousness of the pandemic, about the capitalist world system which stands to gain by using a 21st century tech-driven shock doctrine, and the police state that will be built on the back of the panic caused by incessant propaganda.

The fault lines are deepening and Democrats yammer to “trust the science” without any understanding themselves, and are willing to demonize anyone who doesn’t get an experimental jab or wear two masks while alone in their car; while Republicans continue to frame the “reopen the economy” debate in terms of those supposedly wonderful job-creating corporations, all the while being willing to sell the average worker out for an extra buck or two. Both parties are more than willing to screw over the poor, minorities, and working classes; if either cared about their citizens’ lives they wouldn’t throw people out into the streets via the mass evictions that are already underway.

As imperial decline and rot deepens, and the domestic surveillance apparatus pulls its noose tighter against our necks, our best bet to resist these freedom-crushing decrees is to deploy citizen power, mass protests, and coordinated direct action against inhumane vaccine mandates and police state vaccine passports.

*

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

Featured image is by Ali Raza from PxHere.

Constitution Day 2021: It’s Time to Make America Free Again

September 14th, 2021 by John W. Whitehead

All Global Research articles 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.

***

 

“That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary. There wasn’t even any rioting in the streets. People stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction. There wasn’t even an enemy you could put your finger on.”—Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale

The Constitution of the United States represents the classic solution to one of humankind’s greatest political problems: that is, how does a small group of states combine into a strong union without the states losing their individual powers and surrendering their control over local affairs?

The fifty-five delegates who convened in Philadelphia during the sweltering summer of 1787 answered this question with a document that called for a federal plan of government, a system of separation of powers with checks and balances, and a procedure for orderly change to meet the needs and exigencies of future generations.

In an ultimate sense, the Constitution confirmed the proposition that original power resided in the people—not, however, in the people as a whole but in their capacity as people of the several states.  To bring forth the requisite union, the people through the states would transfer some of their powers to the new federal government.  All powers not reserved by the people in explicit state constitutional limitations remained in the state governments.

Although the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, the fear of the new federal government was so strong that a “bill of rights” was demanded and became an eventuality.

Intended to protect the citizenry’s fundamental rights or “first liberties” against usurpation by the newly created federal government, the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments of the Constitution—is essentially a list of immunities from interference by the federal government.

Unfortunately, although the Bill of Rights was adopted as a means of protecting the people against government tyranny, in America today, the government does whatever it wants, freedom be damned.

“We the people” have been terrorized, traumatized, and tricked into a semi-permanent state of compliance by a government that cares nothing for our lives or our liberties.

The bogeyman’s names and faces have changed over time (terrorism, the war on drugs, illegal immigration, a viral pandemic, and more to come), but the end result remains the same: in the so-called name of national security, the Constitution has been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded with the support of Congress, the White House, and the courts.

A recitation of the Bill of Rights—set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole body scanners, stop and frisk searches, vaccine mandates, travel lockdowns, and the like (all sanctioned by Congress, the White House, and the courts)—would understandably sound more like a eulogy to freedoms lost than an affirmation of rights we truly possess.

What we are left with today is but a shadow of the robust document adopted more than two centuries ago. Sadly, most of the damage has been inflicted upon the Bill of Rights.

Here is what it means to live under the Constitution, post-9/11 and in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic.

The First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom to speak your mind, assemble and protest nonviolently without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans should not be silenced by the government. To the founders, all of America was a free speech zone.

Despite the clear protections found in the First Amendment, the freedoms described therein are under constant assault. Increasingly, Americans are being arrested and charged with bogus “contempt of cop” charges such as “disrupting the peace” or “resisting arrest” for daring to film police officers engaged in harassment or abusive practices. Journalists are being prosecuted for reporting on whistleblowers. States are passing legislation to muzzle reporting on cruel and abusive corporate practices. Religious ministries are being fined for attempting to feed and house the homeless. Protesters are being tear-gassed, beaten, arrested and forced into “free speech zones.” And under the guise of “government speech,” the courts have reasoned that the government can discriminate freely against any First Amendment activity that takes place within a so-called government forum.

The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Essentially, this amendment was intended to give the citizenry the means to resist tyrannical government. Yet while gun ownership has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as an individual citizen right, Americans remain powerless to defend themselves against SWAT team raids and government agents armed to the teeth with military weapons better suited to the battlefield. As such, this amendment has been rendered nearly null and void.

The Third Amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military by prohibiting the military from entering any citizen’s home without “the consent of the owner.” With the police increasingly training like the military, acting like the military, and posing as military forces—complete with heavily armed SWAT teams, military weapons, assault vehicles, etc.—it is clear that we now have what the founders feared most—a standing army on American soil.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits government agents from conducting surveillance on you or touching you or invading you, unless they have some evidence that you’re up to something criminal. In other words, the Fourth Amendment ensures privacy and bodily integrity. Unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment has suffered the greatest damage in recent years and has been all but eviscerated by an unwarranted expansion of police powers that include strip searches and even anal and vaginal searches of citizens, surveillance (corporate and otherwise) and intrusions justified in the name of fighting terrorism, as well as the outsourcing of otherwise illegal activities to private contractors.

The Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment work in tandem. These amendments supposedly ensure that you are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty or your property without the right to an attorney and a fair trial before a civilian judge. However, in the new suspect society in which we live, where surveillance is the norm, these fundamental principles have been upended. Certainly, if the government can arbitrarily freeze, seize or lay claim to your property (money, land or possessions) under government asset forfeiture schemes, you have no true rights.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a jury trial. Yet when the populace has no idea of what’s in the Constitution—civic education has virtually disappeared from most school curriculums—that inevitably translates to an ignorant jury incapable of distinguishing justice and the law from their own preconceived notions and fears. However, as a growing number of citizens are coming to realize, the power of the jury to nullify the government’s actions—and thereby help balance the scales of justice—is not to be underestimated. Jury nullification reminds the government that “we the people” retain the power to ultimately determine what laws are just.

The Eighth Amendment is similar to the Sixth in that it is supposed to protect the rights of the accused and forbid the use of cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Supreme Court’s determination that what constitutes “cruel and unusual” should be dependent on the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” leaves us with little protection in the face of a society lacking in morals altogether.

The Ninth Amendment provides that other rights not enumerated in the Constitution are nonetheless retained by the people. Popular sovereignty—the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers—is clearly evident in this amendment. However, it has since been turned on its head by a centralized federal government that sees itself as supreme and which continues to pass more and more laws that restrict our freedoms under the pretext that it has an “important government interest” in doing so.

As for the Tenth Amendment’s reminder that the people and the states retain every authority that is not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution, that assurance of a system of government in which power is divided among local, state and national entities has long since been rendered moot by the centralized Washington, DC, power elite—the president, Congress and the courts.

If there is any sense to be made from this recitation of freedoms lost, it is simply this: our individual freedoms have been eviscerated so that the government’s powers could be expanded.

Yet those who gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights believed that the government exists at the behest of its citizens. It is there to protect, defend and even enhance our freedoms, not violate them.

It was no idle happenstance that the Constitution opens with these three powerful words: “We the people.” As the Preamble proclaims:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.

In other words, we have the power to make and break the government. We are the masters and they are the servants. We the American people—the citizenry—are the arbiters and ultimate guardians of America’s welfare, defense, liberty, laws and prosperity.

Still, it’s hard to be a good citizen if you don’t know anything about your rights or how the government is supposed to operate.

As the National Review rightly asks, “How can Americans possibly make intelligent and informed political choices if they don’t understand the fundamental structure of their government? American citizens have the right to self-government, but it seems that we increasingly lack the capacity for it.”

Americans are constitutionally illiterate.

Most citizens have little, if any, knowledge about their basic rights. And our educational system does a poor job of teaching the basic freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For instance, a survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that a little more than one-third of respondents (36 percent) could name all three branches of the U.S. government, while another one-third (35 percent) could not name a single one.

A survey by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that only one out of a thousand adults could identify the five rights protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, more than half (52%) of the respondents could name at least two of the characters in the animated Simpsons television family, and 20% could name all five. And although half could name none of the freedoms in the First Amendment, a majority (54%) could name at least one of the three judges on the TV program American Idol, 41% could name two and one-fourth could name all three.

It gets worse.

Many who responded to the survey had a strange conception of what was in the First Amendment. For example, 21% said the “right to own a pet” was listed someplace between “Congress shall make no law” and “redress of grievances.” Some 17% said that the First Amendment contained the “right to drive a car,” and 38% believed that “taking the Fifth” was part of the First Amendment.

Teachers and school administrators do not fare much better. A study conducted by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis found that one educator in five was unable to name any of the freedoms in the First Amendment.

In fact, while some educators want students to learn about freedom, they do not necessarily want them to exercise their freedoms in school. As the researchers conclude, “Most educators think that students already have enough freedom, and that restrictions on freedom in the school are necessary. Many support filtering the Internet, censoring T-shirts, disallowing student distribution of political or religious material, and conducting prior review of school newspapers.”

Government leaders and politicians are also ill-informed. Although they take an oath to uphold, support and defend the Constitution against “enemies foreign and domestic,” their lack of education about our fundamental rights often causes them to be enemies of the Bill of Rights.

So what’s the solution?

Thomas Jefferson recognized that a citizenry educated on “their rights, interests, and duties”  is the only real assurance that freedom will survive.

As Jefferson wrote in 1820: “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of our society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

From the President on down, anyone taking public office should have a working knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and should be held accountable for upholding their precepts. One way to ensure this would be to require government leaders to take a course on the Constitution and pass a thorough examination thereof before being allowed to take office.

Some critics are advocating that students pass the United States citizenship exam in order to graduate from high school. Others recommend that it must be a prerequisite for attending college. I’d go so far as to argue that students should have to pass the citizenship exam before graduating from grade school.

Here’s an idea to get educated and take a stand for freedom: anyone who signs up to become a member of The Rutherford Institute gets a wallet-sized Bill of Rights card and a Know Your Rights card. Use this card to teach your children the freedoms found in the Bill of Rights.

If this constitutional illiteracy is not remedied and soon, freedom in America will be doomed.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we have managed to keep the wolf at bay so far. Barely.

Our national priorities need to be re-prioritized. For instance, some argue that we need to make America great again. I, for one, would prefer to make America free again.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

220,000 Military Service Members Say ‘No’ to Biden’s Forced COVID Injections: File Lawsuit Claiming They Already Have Natural Immunity

By Leo Hohmann, September 13, 2021

The Biden administration is trying to redefine the meaning of the word “immunity” in its attempt to force the Covid injection on 220,000 U.S. military service members who have already contracted and survived the SARS COV-2 virus that originated in Wuhan, China.

Digital Tyranny and the Rockefeller-Gates WHO “Vaxx-Certificate Passport”: Towards a World War III Scenario

By Peter Koenig, September 13, 2021

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.

West Virginia Governor Tells the Truth About COVID Jabs

By Global Research News, September 13, 2021

According to Gillian McKeith on her Twitter account, USA West Virginia Governor tells some home truths about what’s going on with the double jabbed in his state.

Israel’s ‘Fourth Wave’ Data: Vaccination Does Not Appear to Prevent Infection

By David Heller, September 13, 2021

With the “fourth wave” of infections having started in June, the vaccination campaign is put to its first real-world test in combating a new wave of COVID. The results show that vaccination using Pfizer’s two-dose protocol does not appear to prevent infection.

Biden as Dictator in Chief, Imposes Nationwide Compulsory Covid-19 Vaxx Mandate

By Renee Parsons, September 13, 2021

In the aftermath of President Joe Biden’s public announcement mandating a national vaccination program during which he refused to take any questions, there is something ludicrously bizarre for an illegitimate President who is obviously experiencing massive dementia related disorders; for that same feeble minded, mass of confusion to then dictate a national mandate affecting up to 100 million Americans as if he or his executive order are either rational, competent or constitutional.

British Columbia Health Professionals Challenge B.C. Government Regarding Covid-19 Restrictions

By Voices Of Silenced Okanagan Health Professionals, September 13, 2021

We are a group of extremely concerned health professionals in the Okanagan Valley, B.C. We have some critical questions regarding COVID-19, specifically about the current reporting of case numbers, statistics, and testing, and the restrictions imposed by your health orders.

Teens 50X More Likely to Have Heart Disease after COVID Shots than All Other FDA Approved Vaccines in 2021 Combined – CDC Admits True but Still Recommends It

By Brian Shilhavy, September 13, 2021

Data released by the U.S. Government in their Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) continues to show just how deadly the experimental COVID shots are on teenagers and young people.

The COVID-19 Injection / Inoculation Is Not a Vaccine. The Spike Protein is Deadly

By Dr. Paul Elias Alexander and Dr. Howard Tenenbaum, September 13, 2021

This injection for COVID-19 is NOT a vaccine and all it has shown as reported by the injection developers, is an effect on reducing mild COVID-19 symptoms (the vaccines do not stop infection, transmission, severe COVID, hospitalization, or death).

COVID-19: Pregnant Women and Their Unborn Babies Dying in Brazil as Deaths Set to Pass 500k Mark

By Stuart Ramsay, September 13, 2021

Brazil is likely to pass the awful mark of 500,000 COVID-related deaths in the next two days. Only the United States has a higher number of dead across the world.

Covid-19 Crisis: New Heights of Medical Censorship in America

By Alliance for Natural Health, September 13, 2021

Now doctors are being threatened with the loss of their license if they fail to toe the line of mainstream medicine on how to prevent and treat COVID.

The Fake “Delta Variant” and the Fourth Wave: Another Lockdown? Upcoming Financial Crash? Worldwide Economic and Social Sabotage?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 12, 2021

The biggest lie, which is firmly acknowledged both by scientific opinion and the WHO is that the RT-PCR test used to “detect” the spread of the virus (as well as the variants) is not only flawed but TOTALLY INVALID.

Video: Does the Virus Exist? Has SARS-CoV-2 Been Isolated? Interview with Christine Massey

By Christine Massey and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 13, 2021

The Chinese authorities announced on January 7, 2020 that they had isolated and identified “a new type of virus”.  Then on the 28th of January 2020, the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated that the novela corona virus had been isolated.

Mikis Theodorakis: A Life of Music and Resistance

By Muhammed Shabeer, September 13, 2021

Theodorakis’ works were censored for his political views and activities. He was jailed, tortured, and forced into exile. He was associated with the Greek left for most of his life and was elected to the Greek parliament several times, twice from the leftist/communist platforms.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: 220,000 Military Service Members Say ‘No’ to Biden’s Forced COVID Injections

Bitcoin the Messiah: El Salvador Goes Crypto

September 14th, 2021 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

In a particular deli store in South Melbourne, a tongue-and-cheek message is attached to the cash register.  “Bitcoin accepted there,” it proclaims brightly.  Naturally, it is nothing of the sort, a teasing ruse for the punters and those casting an eye in the direction of the store.  Cold hard cash remains king, albeit one with a tarnished crown; pandemic times have driven consumers towards such non-intimate transactions as contactless payment.       

One country has decided to make using cryptocurrency a reality, sticking its neck out in adopting bitcoin as something akin to an economic messiah.  Few thought it would be El Salvador, whose government made the currency legal tender on September 7.  To mark the occasion, each citizen signing up to Chivo, the national digital wallet, has received US$30.  Foreigners adventurous enough to invest three bitcoins in the country are promised residency.

The introduction was far from spontaneous.  The surf town of El Zonte, with its Bitcoin Beach project, began an experiment to adopt the currency in 2018, a venture aided by the Californian cryptocurrency zealot Michael Peterson.  Through the Evangelical Christian church, Peterson combined God and crypto, proselytising the value of such currency.  Each local family received US$50, and the currency came to be used for such projects as rubbish collecting and lifeguarding.

Leaving aside Bukule’s own wish to mark the history books, this move into the world of digital currency has various motivations.  One is the portion of income received from international money transactions from citizens abroad, which amounts to something like a fifth of the country’s GDP.  With such transactions come high fees which whittle away the value of the transfer.  To this can be added the need for having a bank account.  (Only 30% of Salvadorans have one.)  Bitcoin alleviates any such need, while also facilitating cheap payments. 

Then there is the prevalence of the US dollar, which is also accepted as legal tender.  President Nayib Bukele has been keen to give his citizens another option, a move intended to encourage greater expenditure in the country.  Over 200 bitcoin machines are being put in place across the country to convert cryptocurrency into dollars.

The introduction of such currency presents a paradox of mighty dimensions.  A degree of technological literacy is required, a challenge, to say the least.  The Bitcoin law stipulates that “the necessary training and mechanisms” will be supplied by the government to aid Salvadorans access bitcoin transactions.  This promises to be a herculean venture, given how many people actually understand the currency works.  A survey by the Central American University of 1,281 people found that a humbling 4.8% actually comprehended what the currency was and how it was used.  Of those, 68% took issue with using it as a legal tender.

The process of mining bitcoin is also a headache for policymakers, as it requires vast reserves of electricity and poses an environmental challenge.  (Elon Musk was at pains to emphasise the latter in reneging on his decision to permit customers to purchase Tesla cars using the cryptocurrency.)  The Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, looking at figures generated last year, puts the amount of energy used by global bitcoin mining at 105 terawatt hours of electricity. 

In June, the state-owned geothermal electric company was instructed by Bukele to come up with a plan to facilitate bitcoin mining “with very cheap, 100% clean, 100% renewable, 0 emissions energy from our volcanoes.”  

Then comes that testy issue of its status as legal tender.  Under general circumstances, currency deemed legal tender must be accepted as payment for a debt.  In the absence of a debt, the store owner, retailer or company may accept some other form of payment (credit card, online transactions).  El Salvador’s Bitcoin law, however, has muddied matters by stating that “every economic agent must accept bitcoin as payment when offered to him by whoever acquires a good or service.”

Such financial coercion did not sit well. It caused a flurry of protests.  Economists squawked in alarm.  President Bukele had to relent, issuing a grumpy clarification last month that businesses would not be compelled to accept bitcoin.  In doing so, he could not resist a snarky remark that those not seeking to win over customers with the currency were essentially discouraging growth and continuing the daft practise of paying fees on remittances.

The forces of orthodoxy have also baulked.  When asked for assistance by El Salvador to implement the bitcoin scheme, the World Bank was dismissive.  “While the government did approach us for assistance on bitcoin,” a spokesperson revealed in June, “this is not something the World Bank can support given the environmental and transparency shortcomings.” The International Monetary Fund, severe as ever, disapproves of a currency that presents “macroeconomic, financial and legal issues that require very careful analysis”.

The response to the introduction has been fairly predictable.  Bond prices have fallen and bitcoin’s value has fluctuated.  The naysayers suggest that the general adoption by residents will be small, fearing the currency’s volatility.  Protestors fear that the cryptocurrency will simply enable further corrupt practices to take place.

The converse may also be true: given Latin America’s long history of fiscal instability, banking collapses, and failed economic advisors, bitcoin promises an unorthodox form of insulation from shock.  “With bitcoin, for the first time in a very long time, people in Latin America saw an asset appreciate in dollar terms,” Mauricio Di Bartolomeo, chief executive of the Toronto-based digital asset company Ledn remarked.  The time for this experiment, on the surface a quixotic one, is nigh.

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Sinophobia Meets Prison Labor in a Think Tank Down Under

September 14th, 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 West has been literally swamped by a non-stop propaganda offensive about Uyghur forced labor camps – thoroughly debunked, for instance, here. Now let’s examine the other – Western – side of the story. 

In early 2021, Defense for Children (DCI) took the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) to court in New South Wales. DCI’s lawsuit charges that ASPI may have been receiving funds from a number of weapons manufacturers and government agencies in the US and UK profiting from prison labor.

Although lawyers for ASPI assured these funds would be cut off if any serious evidence surfaced, the case got murkier, and there are doubts it will ever go to trial.

Sources that prefer to remains anonymous insist ASPI exercised serious pressure directly on DCI’s headquarters in Geneva to drop the case.

So why is this so important?

Like many of its peers in the Five Eyes constellation, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) bills itself as an “independent, non-partisan think tank”.

ASPI, based in Canberra, was founded in 2001 – the year of 9/11. Its funding comes from a mixed bag of Australian institutions, especially the Australian Department of Defense, as well as “overseas government agencies”, including the US State Department, the Pentagon and even NATO, which financed a quirky “social media research project”.

The US industrial military complex is well represented by Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon. Other NATO stalwarts like BAE Systems, Thales and Saab also show up.

The bottom line is that like reams of other Five Eyes think tanks, ASPI is directly funded by corporate Weapons Inc..

ASPI had at least 56 sources of income in 2018-19 – blandly described as either “sponsorships” or “commissioned income.” Yet what raises eyebrows is that a significant part of these funds from at least 11 donors can be directly and indirectly tied to prison labor, which is equated all across the industrialized West as modern slavery.

At least 4 ASPI donors – Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon and BAE Systems – have been connected to the use of prison labor in manufacturing components for their military hardware.

Raytheon, for instance, may have exploited prison labor directly for the assemblage of electronic parts for surface-to-air Patriot missiles. A report showed how “it costs prisoners 23 cents an hour to make parts for the missile”, and prison management is entitled to withhold some or all of the prisoners’ wages at will.

The US federal report on prison labor actually states, unambiguously, that “all able-bodied sentenced prisoners” are required to work. The operative word is “required”.

UNICOR, which operates no less than 110 factories in 65 federal prisons, is blandly described as the trade name for the Federal Prison Industries (FPI) in the US, a “self-sustaining government corporation that sells market-priced services and quality goods made by inmates”. Including, of course, weapons for the industrial-military complex.

According to 2019 figures, the US government – which de facto operates the prison factories – funded ASPI with $1.37 million.

Unisystems, an IT firm that sells interphones for US prisons, also funded ASPI from 2005 to 2019. Inmate labor may be dirty cheap, but if they want to place a call to their lawyers or their family they need to shell out up to $24 for 15 minutes.

BAE Systems funded ASPI between 2014 and 2019. BAE Systems profits from components made by prison labor in the aerospace system of the notorious Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

Weapons Inc. fully in charge

Compounding the picture of a Five Eyes system weaponizing and profiting from serial disasters for years in Afghanistan, the Australian military have also been exposed to serious scrutiny.

On November 2020, Australian Defense Force commander Angus Campbell confirmed Australian Special Forces have been involved in serious crimes in Afghanistan. A long-running inquiry recommended that 25 soldiers, most within the elite SAS, should be investigated for a handful of cases leading to the assassination of 39 Afghan prisoners, including civilians – women and children -, as well as torture of 2 others.

As if accusations of Australian soldiers committing murders in Afghanistan while corporate donors to an Australian outfit profit from prison labor was not a toxic enough mix, the overarching twist is that ASPI happens to be regarded as the most authoritative, “independent” source for Chinese matters in Australia.

Similar to its American counterparts, ASPI as a branch of Weapons Inc. pursues a clear agenda. One vector churns out hefty literature  demonizing China – complete with detailed Uyghur “forced labor” reports – and actively promoting the specter of a “China strategic threat”.

The other vector lobbies – what else – for increased defense spending especially in missiles. That’s Quad territory (US, Japan, India, Australia). Quad needs to contain China at all costs.

And that’s what qualifies ASPI as a de facto lobby for Weapons Inc., much more than a think tank.

It gets curioser and curioser when one learns that the Australian government wants to equip itself with the AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) manufactured by none other than ASPI donor Lockheed Martin.

So have fun with our little Five Eyes tale, where an Australian “think tank” focused on demonizing China 24/7 gets some of its financial kicks from a Weapons Inc. handsomely profiting from Western prison labor.

*

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

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

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.

***

 

In the aftermath of President Joe Biden’s public announcement mandating a national vaccination program during which he refused to take any questions, there is something ludicrously bizarre for an illegitimate President who is obviously experiencing massive dementia related disorders; for that same feeble minded, mass of confusion to then dictate a national mandate affecting up to 100 million Americans as if he or his executive order are either rational, competent or constitutional. 

This requirement will apply to over 80 million workers in private sector businesses, the White House said.  …

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will require COVID-19 vaccinations for workers in most healthcare facilities … This requirement will impact over 17 million healthcare workers at hospitals and other facilities that take these patients.  …

The administration will require that teachers and staff in Head Start Programs, Department of Defense schools, and Bureau of Indian Education-operated schools be vaccinated.

Biden will also call on all states to adopt vaccine requirements for all school employees.

Biden’s plan calls on entertainment venues like sports arenas, large concert halls, and others where large groups of people gather to require that patrons be vaccinated or show a negative coronavirus test in order to enter.  (Reuters, emphasis added)

In a frenzy to avoid the constant reminder of his immense lack of leadership that led to the screw up in Afghanistan, as his approval poll numbers tank to nearly unfathomable depths and as the twentieth anniversary of 911 adds more American grief to the entire tragedy, the Biden White House dared to adopt an indefensible malicious policy with the end goal of replacing a constitutional republic with a not-so-benign one-man tyranny.

Even in the early reaction to Biden’s announcement, there is an emerging existential fight of a lifetime brewing; stimulating Americans with massive civil disobedience and widespread constitutional and legal challenges.

Two days after the announcement, the feckless Biden traveled to Denver proving who controls the White House for what was called a “Build Back Better” event although details were not disclosed.   BBB is associated with World Economic Forum efforts to  preordain a new world economic order while using Covid as the initial precipitating event.  In other words, what has been described as a global Covid health crisis is merely the next chapter in the globalist effort to takedown civil society and remake the entire planet into the WEF’s world vision.

It is no longer secret that the UN’s Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development which is also referred to as the Green New Deal, George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and Bill Gates Foundation, as the UN’s WHO (World Health Organization) major funder and including the Rockefeller 201 event have been in collusion for decades.

Their overall intent has been destroying every shred of a democratic republic and our national sovereignty to be replaced by a totalitarian One World Government. The WEF was created in 1971 to support UN Agenda 21 which has since morphed into UN Agenda 2030.

Adding the finishing touches, the elite media industry, Silicon valley social media conglomerates and the Democratic party are all on-the-ground agents to make that transition a reality.   Voila – here we have Biden’s national mandate to force every citizen to be innoculated with a serum of suspicious contents and origin.

In June 2019, the WEF and the UN signed a strategic partnership agreement to outline areas of cooperation to implement Agenda 2030 which reads like an idealistic wish list for every global citizen – until scratching below the surface to its actual implementation.

Immediately after Biden’s press announcement, nineteen Governors and two state attorney generals (all Republicans) announced their opposition. 

Most Governors then instructed their Attorneys General to prepare legal action as the Republican National Committee announced a lawsuit and The Daily Wire which has over one hundred employees, announced it will not obey the mandate.  Florida Governor Ron diSantis summed up the opposition with “It’s not based on science. He’s saying he’s losing patience with people?… We don’t live with a one-person rule in this country. We live in a Constitutional system.”

Biden‘s lecture to the non-vaxxers sounds as George III might have chastised those pesky colonists. “We’ve been patient, But our patience is wearing thin, and your refusal has cost all of us.” Biden then failed to reveal how all members of Congress and their staff are exempt from the mandates as are US Postal Service employees.  None of the thousands of immigrants crossing the southern border or the newly arrived unvetted Afghani immigrants are required to be vaccinated.

Before the announcement, Biden, who finished 76th  in his class out of 85 in Syracuse Law School,  promised that ‘if Governors won’t help us beat the pandemic, I’ll use my power as President to get them out of the way.”  Former Congressman and White House Senior Advisor Cedric Richman offered  further assurance that Biden is willing ‘to run over” any Republican Governors who resist.

What Biden and his Democratic bumblers have forgotten is that they cannot ‘make’ law without the legislative branch and that Biden cannot dictate policy to any State.  In other words, no Governor or President can mandate any lockdown without the force of law or those mandates are legally  unenforceable.  The Democrats, never fans of state’s rights or apparently the Constitution, will be taken to court as a reminder that Amendment X of the US Constitution provides each state with ‘powers not delegated to the United States … reserved to the States, respectively or to the people.”

After Covid, the WEF already has the Fourth Industrial Revolution, also known as the Great Reset, lined up and ready to impose itself on what remains of American society.   For all American citizens, the Biden Mandates threaten the very future of our American tradition, our families and friends.  It is the responsibility of all of us to actively engage in the struggle to thwart the globalist agenda from achieving its ultimate goal:  a Totalitarian One World Government.

In its most pessimistic, dehumanized form, the Fourth Industrial Revolution may indeed have the potential to “robotize” humanity and thus to deprive us of our heart and soul.”

Many thanks to Susan Westall for providing a list of attorneys willing to provide legal guidance against the Biden Mandates.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 is from Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Biden as Dictator in Chief, Imposes Nationwide Compulsory Covid-19 Vaxx Mandate
  • 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.

***

 

Here’s a study that wasn’t covered at all by the media, despite it’s chilling findings, which cut against claims by American health experts that COVID lockdowns haven’t led to an increase in suicides.

A recent UK study showed 5x as many children have died via suicide since the start of the pandemic than the number who have died from COVID (almost no children – and no healthy children – have died from COVID in the US and UK). And the fact that suicides have increased in Japan over the past year has already been documented.

According to this new study, which was carried out via scientists from a Japanese university along with Japan’s Infectious Diseases Surveillance Center, 2,665 excess cases of mortality were identified between July 2020 and March 2021. The study’s methodology was similar to that from an earlier study. “Excess mortality” was defined as the difference between the actual number of deaths, and the expected epidemiological threshold (assuming the actual number exceeds the expectation).

The study used data from all causes, as reported, from 2005 through February 2021. Deaths reported from across Japan were incorporated.

Using their model, the researchers determined that “significant excess mortality attributable to suicide” was seen between July 2020 and March 2021, with the biggest excess seen in October of last year, which we noted at the time.

The number of COVID deaths during that period was 8,153, meaning excess suicide deaths attributable to lockdowns and other pandemic-related circumstances were almost equivalent to one-third of the total deaths from COVID.

The study’s authors concluded that governments should examine cost-effectiveness analysis. The impact on quality of life should be considered among the various drawbacks of lockdowns and other restrictions on economic and social activity as a major part of countermeasures.

“Continued careful monitoring of excess mortality attributable to suicide is expected to be necessary.”

Interested parties can read the study preprint below:

2021.02.13.21251670v6.full on Scribd

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 Pixabay

All Global Research articles 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.

***

 

Data released by the U.S. Government in their Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) continues to show just how deadly the experimental COVID shots are on teenagers and young people.

I did another analysis looking at deaths and injuries in the 12 to 19-year-old age group following experimental COVID shots, as compared to all other vaccines that this age group receives before they leave high-school.

Here is the data based on the last VAERS update from this past Friday, 9/10/21.

As you can see, VAERS is reporting that for ages 12 through 19 (I choose to start with age 12 because that is the youngest age that the COVID injections are currently authorized to be injected with), there have been 31 deaths, 181 permanent disabilities, 3,679 ER visits, 1,655 hospitalizations, 331 life threatening events, and 748 reports of heart inflammation (all forms of “carditis”).

(Source. Note that the search separates 12-17 year olds, and 17-44 year olds, although we only searched through age 19, so you need to add the two tables together to get the numbers in the graph above.)

Next, I searched the exact same age group, for the same time period (December 2020 through the most recent data dump on Friday), and excluded COVID-19 shots but included every other vaccine listed. They include these vaccines:

  1. 6VAX-F
  2. ADEN
  3. ADEN_4_7
  4. ANTH
  5. BCG
  6. CEE
  7. CHOL
  8. DF
  9. DPIPV
  10. DPP
  11. DT
  12. DTAP
  13. DTAPH
  14. DTAPHEPBIP
  15. DTAPIPV
  16. DTAPIPVHIB
  17. DTIPV
  18. DTOX
  19. DTP
  20. DTPHEP
  21. DTPHIB
  22. DTPIHI
  23. DTPIPV
  24. DTPPHIB
  25. EBZR
  26. FLU(H1N1)
  27. FLU3
  28. FLU4
  29. FLUA3
  30. FLUA4
  31. FLUC3
  32. FLUC4
  33. FLUN(H1N1)
  34. FLUN3
  35. FLUN4
  36. FLUR3
  37. FLUR4
  38. FLUX
  39. FLUX(H1N1)
  40. H5N1
  41. HBHEPB
  42. HBPV
  43. HEP
  44. HEPA
  45. HEPAB
  46. HEPATYP
  47. HIBV
  48. HPV2
  49. HPV4
  50. HPV9
  51. HPVX
  52. IPV
  53. JEV
  54. JEV1
  55. JEVX
  56. LYME
  57. MEA
  58. MEN
  59. MENB
  60. MENHIB
  61. MER
  62. MM
  63. MMR
  64. MMRV
  65. MNC
  66. MNQ
  67. MNQHIB
  68. MU
  69. MUR
  70. OPV
  71. PER
  72. PLAGUE
  73. PNC
  74. PNC10
  75. PNC13
  76. PPV
  77. RAB
  78. RUB
  79. RV
  80. RV1
  81. RV5
  82. RVX
  83. SMALL
  84. SSEV
  85. TBE
  86. TD
  87. TDAP
  88. TDAPIPV
  89. TTOX
  90. TYP
  91. UNK
  92. VARCEL
  93. VARZOS
  94. YF

These are ALL the vaccines listed in VAERS, minus the 3 COVID shots. Some of them are no longer in use, and many of these teenagers do not get, although many from this age group will get “catch up” shots if they missed a shot previously that was scheduled for a younger age.

So by including ALL non-COVID vaccines, we are assured of getting all of the adverse reactions from every other vaccine they receive where an adverse reaction was reported to VAERS.

From all of these vaccines that include every non-COVID shot that 12 to 19 year-olds have received this year so far, there have been 4 deaths, 12 permanent disabilities, 78 ER visits, 36 hospitalizations, and 14 life threatening events during the same time period as the COVID-19 shots were administered. (Source. Note that the search separates 12-17 year olds, and 17-44 year olds, although we only searched through age 19, so you need to add the two tables together to get the numbers in the graph above.)

As you can see, COVID-19 shots given to our teenagers have 7.75 X more deaths, 15 X more disabilities, 47 X more ER visits, and 46 X more hospitalizations than all other FDA-approved vaccines COMBINED that these teenagers are receiving.

This week I also included all cases of “carditis,” inflammation of the heart, since we have seen so many reports of injuries and deaths in this age group related to inflammation of the heart, or “enlarged heart.”

Source: Health Impact News

This age group has already recorded 748 cases of all forms of carditis (source), while cases filed of carditis following all other FDA approved vaccines for the same time period is only 15. (Source.)

That is 50 X more cases of heart inflammation being recorded for this age group after COVID-19 shots, than all other FDA approved vaccines combined.

And actually, that number is probably higher, because there are 1,605 cases of heart inflammation following COVID shots in VAERS where the age is “unknown,” but which most certainly contains a portion from this age group. (Source.)

This is the age group that typically gets the Gardasil HPV vaccine, among others, which prior to COVID was the vaccine that caused the most injuries and deaths in this age group.

Sales of Merck’s Gardasil were up 88% through the the first two quarters of this year, 2021. (Source.) Gardasil is a two-dose or three-dose vaccine. So even though they are pushing the COVID shots for this age group, it is most certainly NOT at the expense of reducing other vaccines, as evidence suggests just the opposite.

This problem of otherwise healthy young people taking a COVID shot and then suffering from heart disease, is a very serious issue.

And the FDA and the CDC know about it. That’s what makes this a criminal issue.

Here is what the CDC reported last week regarding “Myocarditis and Pericarditis After mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination.”

As of September 1, 2021, VAERS has received 1,404 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis among people ages 30 and younger who received COVID-19 vaccine. Most cases have been reported after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna), particularly in male adolescents and young adults. Through follow-up, including medical record reviews, CDC and FDA have confirmed 817 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis. CDC and its partners are investigating these reports to assess whether there is a relationship to COVID-19 vaccination. (Source.)

Since they included statistics for 30 and younger, but only for two forms of carditis, “myocarditis or pericarditis,” we ran the same report to include all cases of carditis.

We found another 135 cases, but most of the cases are most definitely myocarditis or pericarditis. Out of the 1,543 cases of heart inflammation reported, 1,146 of those resulted in hospitalization, an extremely high percentage. (Source.)

The FDA and CDC are also correctly reporting that this affects males far more than females. Over 82% of these cases of heart inflammation are being reported in males. (Source.)

Since the CDC is basically admitting all this with their reports, what is their recommendation for the these shots that are destroying the health of our youth?

CDC continues to recommend that everyone aged 12 years and older get vaccinated for COVID-19. The known risks of COVID-19 illness and its related, possibly severe complications, such as long-term health problems, hospitalization, and even death, far outweigh the potential risks of having a rare adverse reaction to vaccination, including the possible risk of myocarditis or pericarditis. (Source.)

Given the fact that the cases reported in VAERS is only a tiny portion of what is represented in the public, most experts agreeing that it is probably less than 10% and as low as 1%, how can they make such a statement when the cases of heart inflammation for these young people is 50 X higher than all other vaccines?

And what is the risk of COVID-19 for this age group?

Source.

And we KNOW that these statistics that list COVID-19 as a cause of death are inflated, as federal funding kicks in to record a death as a COVID death leading to massive over-reporting of these deaths, not to mention that the tests to determine if COVID-19 actually exists are highly suspect.

But just by using their own statistics, this age group only represents 0.005% of all COVID-19 deaths.

Based on CDC stats for 2019 for the top causes of death, before COVID started, this age group had a higher risk of death for suicide (which has gone up dramatically since COVID started), unintentional injuries (mostly car accidents probably), cancer, and homicides. (Source. Please note that to make this comparison you have to take the monthly average for each age group and then add together. Total deaths from COVID-19 started in January, 2020, so we are now into the 19th month.)

And now this age group is going to be mandated to get these dangerous shots as a condition for attending school.

This is criminal!

Ok, enough math and cold statistics. Here are some faces and tragic stories in real life about how these shots are affecting these young people and their families.

We start with a video report, which includes a very emotional interview between Alex Jones and Ernest Ramirez yesterday who lost his 16-year-old son after he took a Pfizer shot. Another young man talks about how his competitive sports days at school are ended after taking a COVID-19 shot.

After the video we have a few more stories below.

Oh and by the way, the first story in this video of 16-year-old Ernest Ramirez who died from an enlarged heart, is NOT found in VAERS. There are three deaths listed in VAERS for a form of carditis, and all three are females, even though over 80% of the cases are males.

So we KNOW that VAERS is missing a LOT of data.

This is from our Bitchte channel, and it should also be 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 Children’s Health Defense

Covid-19 Crisis: New Heights of Medical Censorship in America

September 13th, 2021 by Alliance for Natural Health

All Global Research articles 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.

***

 

Now doctors are being threatened with the loss of their license if they fail to toe the line of mainstream medicine on how to prevent and treat COVID.

The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) recently announced that doctors who “spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation” risk disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the revocation of their medical license. The American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) issued a similar warning, stating that physicians who publicly spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic risk losing their board certification. What exactly constitutes “misinformation” is not defined in either case and likely includes anything that doesn’t adhere to what government health authorities dictate. This gagging of free speech about alternative treatments violates patients’ rights and the legal requirements of informed consent.

Who decides what counts as “misinformation”? One thing we’ve learned from the pandemic is that available information can change, often quite rapidly. The CDC’s masking guidelines changed multiple times. Initially we were told that the virus could be spread on surfaces before subsequent investigations revealed that the virus mostly spreads when aerosols and droplets containing the virus are inhaled. As we’ve said before, the Wuhan lab leak theory was first dismissed as a conspiracy theory, but is now acknowledged as a legitimate, even likely, explanation of the virus’ origin. Often the “misinformation” of today becomes the established facts of tomorrow.

Take ivermectin, for example. Informed consent legally requires your doctor to discuss the risks and benefits of alternatives to vaccines to address COVID-19. Would it be misinformation to talk about the successes of ivermectin and the impressive body of evidence that recommends its use to prevent and treat COVID-19? Is a doctor risking their license if they talk about the drop in COVID case counts in South American cities that instituted massive, prophylactic ivermectin distribution campaigns compared to cities that didn’t? Despite this compelling evidence, the FDA stubbornly recommends against using ivermectin for COVID, likely because Big Pharma and their government cronies want mandatory vaccines, not ivermectin, as the answer to COVID because vaccines will make the most money.

The ABEM’s edict against spreading “misinformation” may be in response to the MATH+ protocol developed by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance for hospitalized COVID patients. Their protocol includes proven natural medicines like vitamin C, zinc, melatonin, and vitamin D (in addition to ivermectin and other medicines). Supplements like these are generally not patentable and thus unable to become FDA approved for the treatment of COVID, which requires expensive clinical trials. This is why the FDA and FTC launched a massive censorship campaign to silence discussion of how these “unapproved” medicines can help with COVID. It is shameful that doctors may risk their medical license by discussing these plausible alternatives for addressing COVID.

The vaccination issue has become a highly controversial topic with strong feelings on all sides. The government is recommending COVID vaccination for almost everyone above the age of 12. Informed consent legally requires doctors to discuss the risks and benefits of any medical procedure. Is it spreading “misinformation” to discuss with patients the 488,318 adverse events, including close to 5,000 deaths, reported in the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)?

This isn’t hyperbole. We saw one “fact-checker” call out a post citing VAERS data as false because, the fact-checker claimed, VAERS is unreliable and doesn’t establish causation. That is true, but it’s also true that a major limitation of VAERS is that adverse events are severely underreported, perhaps even less than 1 percent. This would mean that VAERS arguably understates the dangers and side effects caused by vaccines. Is it “misinformation” if your doctor informs you of these facts?

Is it “misinformation” if you have an autoimmune condition and your doctor warns that you may be at increased risk of serious adverse events like blood clots, as we discussed in our Right to kNOw campaign? To us, this seems to be legally required by informed consent for vaccination—a complete picture of the benefits but also the risks of vaccination.

It’s easy to see this as a slippery slope, making it a license-threatening offense to discuss ways to boost immune resilience with supplements and other natural medicines.

As we argued with the federal bill that attempts to attack medical “misinformation,” attempts to control the information we are given hands power over to Big Pharma and the one-size-fits-all paradigm.  Natural medicine is predicated on the idea that each patient has individual needs based on unique biology and genetics. If doctors aren’t allowed to discuss alternatives to the mainstream medical approach, not only are the legal requirements of informed consent not being satisfied, but integrative doctors’ ability to treat individual patients will suffer.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 ANH

West Virginia Governor Tells the Truth About COVID Jabs

September 13th, 2021 by Global Research 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.

***

 

According to Gillian McKeith on her Twitter account, USA West Virginia Governor tells some home truths about what’s going on with the double jabbed in his state.

Watch the video below.

*

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

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The Biden administration is trying to redefine the meaning of the word “immunity” in its attempt to force the Covid injection on 220,000 U.S. military service members who have already contracted and survived the SARS COV-2 virus that originated in Wuhan, China.

This has opened the door for a federal lawsuit filed August 30 by two active-duty service members against Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Homeland Security Director Xavier Bacerra and U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Janet Woodcock.

The Navy this week gave its sailors 90 days to get the shot and the Army and Air Force were poised Thursday to enforce their own timetables, reported Military.com.

The suit, filed August 30 in U.S. District Court in Colorado, seeks immediate injunctive relief.

The two plaintiffs, Daniel Robert, a 33-year-old drill sergeant at Fort Benning Army base in Columbus, Georgia, and Hollie Mulvihill, a 29-year-old staff sergeant at the Marine Corp base in Jacksonville, North Carolina, are asking the court for a temporary restraining order preventing the forced injections before a full hearing can be scheduled. They are ultimately seeking a permanent injunction and declaratory judgment against Biden’s Department of Defense.

The two defendants represent 220,000 other U.S. military active-duty members who have natural immunity and do not want any of the three synthetic gene-based “vaccines” shot into their bodies.

All three injections, manufactured by Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, are based on an all-new technology, never before used in any previous vaccine, and have never been tested for the long-term health effects on the human body.

The three shots combined have resulted in an unprecedented number of adverse reactions being reported to the government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, including over 13,000 reported deaths, more than double the number of all the other vaccines combined since VAERS was established in 1990.

According to the lawsuit, Army Regulation 40-562 is the all-service publication that governs the administration of “Immunizations and Chemoprophylaxis for the prevention of infectious diseases.”

AR 40-562 clearly states that documented survivors of an infectious disease have a “presumptive exemption from vaccination due to natural immunity acquired as a result of having survived the infection,” the lawsuit states.

Army Regulation 40-562 states:

“General examples of medical exemptions include the following …Evidence of immunity based on serologic tests, documented infection, or similar circumstances.”

U.S. Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary Dr. Admiral Bret Diroir stated on August 24 in an interview with Fox News:

“So natural immunity, it’s very important… There are still no data to suggest vaccine immunity is better than natural immunity. I think both are highly protective.”

In fact, data exists that would suggest it’s the other way around – that natural immunity far exceeds that of vaccine immunity. A recent study out of Israel showed natural immunity is significantly stronger and lasts longer than the synthetic immunity delivered by the vaccines, protection from which even the CDC has admitted begins to wane after three to five months.

Yet, on the very same day that Diroir was playing up the importance of natural immunity on Fox News, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin issued a memo mandating the entire Armed Forces be inoculated with the Covid shots.

In that memo, Austin created an all-new concept never before existing in the history of medical science and in complete contradiction to the plain language of the DoD’s own regulations. He said “those with previous COVID-19 infection are not considered vaccinated.”

The lawsuit states that the DoD regulation “contains no such term, nor concept, and the defendant Secretary of Defense’s new definition effectively wipes away the DoD’s own regulation. The secretary of defense is not a doctor, and this declaration has no basis in medical science at all, nor did this instant change to the regulation go through any notice and comment period, nor rulemaking process, nor any process at all. Indeed, the Secretary of Defense simply declared it without a scintilla of evidence to support it.”

Dr. Lee Merritt, a retired U.S. Navy surgeon, speaking at a White Coat Summit of America’s Frontline Doctors in July 2021, said more U.S. service members have likely died of the vaccine in 2021 than the combined total who died of Covid in all of last year. She stated at that conference:

“One of my big problems is our vaccination of the military. I was a 10-year Navy surgeon so I have Navy people and Army people calling me. There were only 20 deaths of all the active duty in 2020 for Covid, in all the services put together. They have a big epidemiological base and they can find out exactly what’s going on. There were only 20 deaths and we are vaccinating everybody. We’ve already had tumors and we’ve had 80 cases of myocarditis, which has a significant five-year mortality rate, I think it’s 66 percent… So, with the vaccination program we have ostensibly killed more of our young active-duty people than Covid did.”

Lawyers for the plaintiffs, led by Todd Callender in Denver, stated in the lawsuit that repeated attempts to leave voicemail messages for Austin in an attempt to settle the grievance out of court have been ignored by Austin, leaving them no choice but to file suit.

The lawsuit concludes: “On August 30, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an emergency restraining order in the form of a stay pendente lite, preventing the Defendant Department of Defense from inoculating them and anyone similarly situated that comprises the class of service members who can document that they previously had Covid-19 and as a result have developed natural immunity that exempts them from inoculation under AR 40-562.”

A lot of active-duty service members and their parents are pinning their hopes on this lawsuit.

“This may be the last stand,” the father of an Air National Guardsman stationed at Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Harrison Township, Michigan, told LeoHohmann.com.

If the lawsuit fails, it is feared that Biden’s Defense Department could try to up the stakes by dishonorably discharging those who reject the jab. So far, the Pentagon has stopped short of such threats and is allowing for religious exemptions.

A movement is afoot in the U.S. House where some lawmakers are getting behind legislation prohibiting dishonorable discharges for troops who refuse the Covid shot.

Legislation sponsored by Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., requires only honorable discharges for anyone who is separated from the military over rejecting the injection. It was added to the fiscal 2022 defense authorization bill, passed by the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday. [See Lawmakers Try to Ban Dishonorable Discharges for Troops Who Refuse Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccines, Sept. 2, 2021, by Travis Tritten, Military.com]

“No American who raises their hand to serve our nation should be punished for making a highly personal medical decision,” Green said in a statement.

Military.com reported on a Marine corporal who said she was discharged for refusing to wear a mask, possibly the first service member to be pushed out of the military in connection with COVID-19 rules.

According to the Pentagon, roughly 63 percent of all U.S. forces had received at least one dose of the controversial vaccine as of Aug. 18.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 Shutterstock

Kabul Drone Strike Was CIA-Military Murder

September 13th, 2021 by Patrick Martin

All Global Research articles 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 York Times analysis of the August 29 US drone strike in Kabul, Afghanistan, based on military-intelligence sources as well as interviews with survivors and co-workers of the victims, demonstrates that the incineration of ten members of an Afghan family, including seven children, was a wanton act of mass murder.

Despite claims by General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the attack followed a rigorous protocol and was a “righteous strike,” the Times report, published September 11, indicates that every step, from the initial identification of the target to the final decision to launch, was carried out in a reckless fashion, entirely indifferent to the human consequences. Every stereotype of punch-button, remote-control warfare is confirmed.

Military-intelligence sources admitted to the Times that they did not know the identity of the driver of the white Toyota Corolla when they gave the orders to strike it with a Hellfire missile, nor did they know who lived in the home where the car had just stopped in the courtyard. The decision to attack was based entirely on the “pattern” of conduct by the driver, who allegedly visited an Islamic State-Khorasan (ISIS-K) “safe house,” and was later seen loading heavy objects carefully into his car, in a way that supposedly suggested bomb materials (they were actually water canisters).

The initial claims from the Pentagon were that four ISIS-K militants had been killed, along with three civilians, and that a secondary blast, much larger than the first, had taken place, indicating that the US missile had caused a large cache of explosives to detonate. The actual toll was three adults and seven children, six of them ten or younger, and there was no secondary explosion.

The prime target of the attack, Zemari Ahmadi, the driver of a vehicle that was supposedly being prepared to carry out a bomb attack on US forces at the Kabul airport, was actually a long-time employee of a California-based aid group, Nutrition and Education International. He and another victim, his cousin Naser, had applied to the US Embassy for refugee status in the United States, fearing they would be targeted by the Taliban because they worked for an American non-governmental organization. Instead, they were murdered by the US government.

Ahmadi had gone to his job at the group’s office in Kabul, a longtime location of a US-based organization which would certainly have been known to the US Embassy and US intelligence services, and in the course of the day loaded his car with canisters of water for his family and neighbors, because there was no water service there in the chaos following the collapse of the Afghan government.

When he returned home, which he and his three brothers and their families shared, in the fashion typical of Afghanistan, the children ran out to welcome him—and all were incinerated in the fireball caused by the detonation of a Hellfire missile launched by a circling drone.

The victims included Ahmadi, 43; his sons, Zamir, 20, Faisal, 16, and Farzad, 10; three nephews, Arwin, 7, Benyamin, 6, and Hayat, 2; his cousin Naser, 30; and two 3-year-old girls, Malika and Somaya, whose relationship to the family is unclear.

According to information supplied to the Times by military-intelligence sources, Ahmadi was initially identified as a potential target because on his way to work he stopped at a home that had been identified as a “safe house” for ISIS-K, the terrorist group that carried out a suicide bomb attack August 27 at the Kabul airport, killing 13 US soldiers and at least 170 Afghan civilians.

Ahmadi reportedly made three stops on his way to work, two to pick up co-workers, one to visit the home of his boss, the director of the Kabul branch of Nutrition and Education International. How any of these locations—all belonging to employees of a US-based charity—could be identified by US intelligence as havens for terrorism was not explained.

The actual decision to fire at this alleged ISIS-K target was equally unexplained. According to the Times, “Although the target was now inside a densely populated residential area, the drone operator quickly scanned and saw only a single adult male greeting the vehicle, and therefore assessed with ‘reasonable certainty’ that no women, children or noncombatants would be killed, U.S. officials said.”

Eyewitness accounts gave a diametrically opposed picture. The Times report continues:

But according to his relatives, as Mr. Ahmadi pulled into his courtyard, several of his children and his brothers’ children came out, excited to see him, and sat in the car as he backed it inside. Mr. Ahmadi’s brother Romal was sitting on the ground floor with his wife when he heard the sound of the gate opening, and Mr. Ahmadi’s car entering. His adult cousin Naser had gone to fetch water for his ablutions, and greeted him.

The car’s engine was still running when there was a sudden blast, and the room was sprayed with shattered glass from the window, Romal recalled. He staggered to his feet. “Where are the children?” he asked his wife. “They’re outside,” she replied.

The report on the Kabul drone strike does more than expose the monstrous carnage for which the US military-intelligence apparatus is responsible in this instance. There are countless such episodes over the past two decades, always justified in the same fashion: US intelligence identified a terrorist “operative” or “facilitator,” the “pattern of activities” indicated that an attack on a US target was “imminent,” the strike was carried out in a fashion calculated to “minimize civilian casualties,” and all of these actions were taken on the basis of “reasonable certainty.”

Most of these drone-missile strikes have been carried out in rural areas or remote towns inaccessible to media investigation, unlike the Kabul strike which was conducted, in a sense, with the whole world watching. But there is no doubt that if a serious investigation were conducted into any of thousands of such missile strikes, which have incinerated tens of thousands of people in an area stretching from Central Asia to North Africa, the results would be similar to those found by the Times in Kabul.

American imperialism is, in the full sense of the word, a gigantic criminal enterprise. Its leaders should be tried, convicted and punished to the fullest. And its apologists—like the Times itself, on 364 out of 365 days every year—should be branded as such. One day’s truth cannot outweigh the years of deliberate lying and cover-up that have served to conceal from the American people the reality of the imperialist “war on terror.”

*

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

Featured image: US MQ-9 Reaper Drone (Image credit: U.S. Air Force/Paul Ridgeway 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.

***

 

New data from Israel confirms that four months after mass vaccination the vaccinated public becomes infected with COVID at about the same rate as the unvaccinated.

With the “fourth wave” of infections having started in June, the vaccination campaign is put to its first real-world test in combating a new wave of COVID. The results show that vaccination using Pfizer’s two-dose protocol does not appear to prevent infection.

1. https://data.gov.il/dataset/covid-19/resource/bd7b8fa9-7120-4e8d-933f-a1449dae8dad

2.https://datadashboard.health.gov.il/COVID-19/general?tileName=vaccinatedByAge

[The data excludes ages 70+ since many started taking the third injection]

What has become clear is that the vaccinated population became infected at about the same rate as the vaccination rate in a given age group – meaning vaccination did not correlate with a decrease in infection. Sampling bias is also matter for concern, as the unvaccinated are tested far more than the vaccinated due to the Green Passport that requires the unvaccinated to be tested in order to go to indoor events, restaurants, etc. This would indicate that the unvaccinated became infected to a lesser extent than the vaccinated, however, since the Ministry of Health stopped publishing the vaccination status of all those who are tested, the degree to which the selection bias is a factor is unknown.

This data has wide policy implications, including Israel’s decision to start the third injection. Perhaps most significant is that vaccine passports are based on the assumption that the vaccination limits the spread of the virus, which this data shows not to be the case.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 iStock