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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

This article was first published in 2020, in commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing. We repost this important interview for the 76th anniversary.

“Not a particular country, not a particular city, and not a particular people.

The crux of the matter is whether total war in its present form is justifiable, even when it serves a just purpose. Does it not have material and spiritual evil as its consequences which far exceed whatever good might result? When will our moralists give us an answer to this question?”

John Hersey, Hiroshima [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The two state of the art weapons released over the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki constituted the most devastating blasts of all time.

According to the best estimates of anti-nuclear weapons scientists, anywhere from 110,000 to 210,000 people died in the twin holocausts. Two thirds of the city of Hiroshima were wiped out in a single attack, the equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT. [2]

These massive mushroom clouds would go on to become a symbol of the fate of humanity encapsulated in the threat of atomic horror. For all my life, I have contemplated the prospects of nuclear incineration and the aftermath that would follow if our leaders get caught up in a tragic misstep.

What has been the careful course of a wizened populace after 75 years of careful planning?

On January 23 of this year, the doomsday clock, created by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientist, announced the clock had revved up to 100 seconds before midnight. That is an all time record in the history of the time piece! Do the memories of the devastating attacks of Aug 6 and Aug 9, 1945 have some process of ever re-igniting the imaginations of a new generation of civilians and reversing the tide of Nuclear Armageddon? This is a subject we will explore on this special anniversary episode of the Global Research News Hour.

Our first guest is renowned academic and writer Professor Michel Chossudovsky. In the first half hour, he brings us up to date on how the U.S. has re-ignited interest in once again turning bombs like the ones dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki into “ready for use” weapons in the arsenal of conventional warfare.

Our second guest, Greg Mitchell, comes along in our second half hour. He elaborates on how early information about the nuclear warfare in Japan was concealed, and how a new blockbuster release from Hollywood served to falsify the news from the battlefields.

Professor Michel Chossudovsky is a professor of economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, and the Founder and Editor of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He is the award-winning author of numerous articles and of eleven books including Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2012) and The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity (2015).

Greg Mitchell is an author and journalist. He was editor of the magazine Nuclear Times and has become an outspoken expert and the role and build up of nuclear arms in Japan. His books include Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denial (co-written by Robert J Lifton, 1995) , Atomic Cover-up: Two U.S. Soldiers, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, and The Greatest Movie Never Made (2011), and his latest: The Beginning or the End: How Hollywood—and America—Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (2020).

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Notes:

  1. Hersey, John (1946), Hiroshima (p 105), EFL Club
  2. https://thebulletin.org/2020/08/counting-the-dead-at-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/

All Global Research articles 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 commemoration of the 76th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, we repost this important article first published on GR in 2018.

The film Hiroshima-Nagasaki 1945 was created in 1968 from Japanese footage that the US Defense Department had kept hidden for over 20 years. The filmmaker Erik Barnouw offered his 16 minute film to all the US main channels. None of them showed it. Why is obvious when looking at this three minute excert.

The atom bombs dropped by the US on those Japenese cities served no military purpose, as the Japanese were already suing for peace. President Truman, who ordered the bombs to be dropped, lied to the American people when he said that the atom bombs had saved lives and there were few civilian deaths. Up to 200,000 were killed.

Seeing the barbarous effect of these weapons, did our political and military leaders decide to rid the world of them? Far from it. Today’s nuclear weapons make the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs look like water pistols in comparison, and there are enough of them to destroy not just cities but the whole world.

And who has most of these weapons of mass destruction? The only country to ever use them — the United States.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: The Hiroshima and Nagasaki Film They Didn’t Want You to See

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Resist.

They can’t arrest us all. They can’t keep all your kids home from school. They can’t keep every government building closed – although I’ve got a long list of ones they should.

We don’t have to accept the mandates, lockdowns, and harmful policies of the petty tyrants and feckless bureaucrats. We can simply say no, not again.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi — you will not arrest or stop me or anyone on my staff from doing our jobs. We have all either had COVID, had the vaccine, or been offered the vaccine. We will make our own health choices. We will not show you a passport, we will not wear a mask, we will not be forced into random screening and testing so you can continue your drunk with power rein over the Capitol.

President Biden — we will not accept your agencies’ mandates or your reported moves toward a lockdown. No one should follow the CDC’s anti-science mask mandates. And if you want to shutdown federal agencies again — some of which aren’t even back to work fully — I will stop every bill coming through the Senate with an amendment to cut their funding if they don’t come to work.

No more.

Local bureaucrats and union bosses — we will not allow you to do more harm to our children again this year. Children are not at any more risk from COVID than they are for the seasonal flu. Every adult who works in schools has either had the vaccine or had their chance to. There is no reason for mask mandates, part time schools, or any lockdown measures.

Children are falling behind in school, and are being harmed physically and psychologically by the tactics you have used to keep them from the classroom last year. We won’t allow it again.

If a school system attempts to keep the children from full-time, in-person school, I will hold up every bill with two amendments. One to defund them, and another to allow parents the choice of where the money goes for their child’s education.

Do I sound fed up to you? That’s because I am.

I’m not a career politician. I’ve practiced medicine for 33 years. I graduated from Duke Medical School, worked in emergency rooms, studied immunology and virology, and ultimately chose to become a surgeon.

I have been telling everyone for a year now that Dr. Anthony Fauci and other public health officials were NOT following science, and I’ve been proven right time and time again.

But I’m not the only one who is fed up. I can’t go anywhere these days — from work, to events, to airports and Ubers, restaurants and stores, without people coming up to me thanking me for standing up for them.

For standing up for actual science. For standing up for freedom. For standing against mandates, lockdowns, and bureaucratic power grabs.

I think the tide has turned, and more and more people are willing to stand up. I see stories from across the country of parents standing up to teacher unions and school boards.

I see members of Congress refusing to comply with Petty Tyrant Pelosi.

We are at a moment of truth and a crossroads. Will we allow these people to use fear and propaganda to do further harm to our society, economy, and children?

Or will we stand together and say, absolutely not. Not this time. I choose freedom.

*

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 TRIPP

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sen. Rand Paul: Mask Mandates and Lockdowns from Petty Tyrants? No, Not Again. Choose Freedom
  • Tags:

The Enduring Myth of Hiroshima

August 5th, 2021 by John LaForge

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

We repost this important article for the 76th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing.

The U.S. atomic destruction of 140,000 people at Hiroshima and 70,000 at Nagasaki was never “necessary” because Japan was already smashed, no land invasion was needed and Japan was suing for peace. The official myth that “the bombs saved lives” by hurrying Japan’s surrender can no longer be believed except by those who love to be fooled.

The long-standing fiction has been destroyed by the historical record kept in U.S., Soviet, Japanese and British archives — now mostly declassified — and detailed by Ward Wilson in his book Five Myths about Nuclear Weapons (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2013).

The mushroom cloud from the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, on Aug. 6, 1945.

Image: The mushroom cloud from the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, on Aug. 6, 1945.

Greg Mitchell’s Atomic Cover-Up (Sinclair Books, 2011) also helps explain the durability of the “saved lives” ruse. Wartime and occupation censors seized all films and still photos of the two atomic cities, and the U.S. government kept them hidden for decades. Even in 1968, newsreel footage from Hiroshima held in the National Archives was stamped, “SECRET, Not To Be Released Without the Approval of the DOD.” Photos of the atomized cities that did reach the public merely showed burned buildings or mushroom clouds — rarely human victims.

In Hiroshima in America: 50 Years of Denial, (Grosset/Putnam, 1995) Robert Lifton and Mitchell note that Gen. Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, “left nothing to chance.” Even before Hiroshima, he prohibited U.S. commanders from commenting on the atomic attacks without clearance from the War Department.

“We didn’t want MacArthur and others saying the war could have been won without the bomb,” Groves said.

In fact, MacArthur did not believe the bomb was needed to end the war, but he too established a censorship program as commander of the U.S. occupation of Japan. He banned reporters from visiting Hiroshima or Nagasaki, expelled reporters who defied the ban and later said that those who complained that censorship existed in Japan were engaged in “a maliciously false propaganda campaign.”

That most people in the United States still believe the “saved lives” rationale to be true is because of decades of this censorship and myth-making, begun by President Harry Truman, who said Aug. 6, 1945, “Sixteen hours ago an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, an important Japanese Army base. … That was because we wished this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.”

In fact, the city of 350,000 had practically no military value at all and the target was the city, not the base three kilometers away.

Taking President Truman at his word, the 140,000 civilians killed at Hiroshima are the minimum to be expected when exploding a small nuclear weapon on a “military base.” Today’s “small” Cruise missile warheads ¾ which are 12 times the power of Truman’s A-bomb ¾ could kill 1.68 million each.

Official censorship of what the two bombs did to people and the reasons for it has been so successful, that 25 years of debunking hasn’t managed to generally topple the official narrative.

In 1989, historian Gar Alperovitz reported, “American leaders knew well in advance that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not required to bring about Japan’s surrender;” and later, in his 847-page The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (Random House, 1995), “I think it can be proven that the bomb was not only unnecessary but known in advance not to be necessary.” The popular myth “didn’t just happen,” Alperovitz says, “it was created.”

Kept hidden for decades was the 1946 U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey’s conclusion that Japan almost certainly would have surrendered in 1945 without the atomic bombs, without a Soviet invasion and without a U.S. invasion. Not long after V-J Day in 1945, Brig. Gen. Bonnie Feller wrote, “Neither the atomic bombing nor the entry of the Soviet Union into the war forced Japan’s unconditional surrender. She was defeated before either of these events took place.”

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a five-star general and the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, said in his memoirs he believed “that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary.”

Adm. William Leahy, the wartime Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in 1950, “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material success in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.”

Feller’s, Ike’s and Leahy’s opinions were conspicuously left out of or censored by the Smithsonian Institution’s 1995 display of the atomic B-29 bomber “Enola Gay.”

Admiral Leahy’s 1950 myth-busting and censor-busting about the Bomb could be an epitaph for the nuclear age: “I was not taught to make war in that fashion,” he said of Hiroshima’s incineration, “and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

John LaForge writes for PeaceVoice, is co-director of Nukewatch—a nuclear watchdog and environmental justice group—and lives at the Plowshares Land Trust out of Luck, Wisconsin.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Enduring Myth of Hiroshima

Freedom in the Coming Time of Madness

August 5th, 2021 by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Sadly, we are approaching a time in America during which our elected public officials will assault the liberties we have hired them to protect. Whatever the cause, the government will soon blame its failures to contain a virus on a small portion of the population and then impose restrictions on the inalienable rights of all of us.

We cannot permit this to happen again.

During the Civil War, when President Abraham Lincoln thought it expedient to silence those in the northern states who challenged his wartime decisions by incarcerating them in military prisons, he was rebuked afterward by a unanimous Supreme Court. The essence of the rebuke was that no matter the state of difficulties — whether war or pestilence — the Constitution protects our natural rights, and its provisions are to be upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, in good times and in bad.

Whether COVID-19 is coming back or not, our central planners have panicked. We do not have a free market in the U.S. in the delivery of health care; rather, we have thousands of pages of statutes, regulations and controls at the federal, state and local levels.

Those controls were revealed as manifestly deficient the last time around. The feds were so protective of their control of health care — an area of governance that the Supreme Court has ruled is nowhere delegated to them in the Constitution and, but for their power to tax those who defy them, is nonexistent — that they insisted that only the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta could be trusted to test for the virus.

It took weeks of begging by governors and mayors and health care professionals for the feds to relent. Of course, once they acknowledged that labs throughout the country were as competent as theirs, they realized that their incompetence had deprived all physicians as well as most private sector and state government-owned labs of the test kits themselves.

We all know how central economic planning diminishes freedom, produces scarcity and adds to the cost of products. Now we know that central micromanagement of health care kills people.

But these mayors and governors were not to be outdone by the feds in their totalitarian impulses. Many of them issued decrees that are as profoundly unconstitutional as Lincoln’s efforts to silence dissent.

They ordered the closing of most businesses and nearly all retail establishments. They acted as if they, and not we, owned our faces. They shuttered religious institutions. It took a year for the courts to interfere partially with this madness.

The fulfillment of these totalitarian impulses put millions out of work, closed and destroyed thousands of businesses and impaired the fundamental rights of tens of millions — all in violation of numerous sections of the Constitution that the totalitarians swore to uphold.

And now they are threatening to do this again.

The Contracts Clause of the Constitution prohibits the states from interfering with lawful contracts, such as leases and employment agreements. The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from interfering with life, liberty or property without a trial at which the state must prove fault. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires just compensation when the state meaningfully interferes with an owner’s chosen lawful use of his property.

Taken together, these clauses reveal significant protections of private property in the Constitution. Add to this the threat of punishment that accompanied these decrees and the fact that they were executive decrees, not legislation, and one can see the paramount rejection of basic democratic and constitutional principles in the minds and words and deeds of those who have perpetrated them.

Add to all this the protection in the First Amendment of the rights to worship and associate, and elsewhere the judicially recognized right to travel, and it is clear that these nanny state rules were profoundly unconstitutional, indisputably unlawful and utterly unworthy of respect or compliance.

Why is this happening again?

Throughout history, free people have been willing to accept the devil’s bargain of trading liberty for safety when they are fearful. We supinely accept the shallow and hollow offers of government that somehow less liberty equals more safety. It doesn’t. This is the government’s dream — dominance without resistance.

This happened here with the Alien and Sedition Acts in the 1790s when the Federalists feared a second revolution and punished speech critical of them, during the Civil War when Lincoln feared dissent and Congress feared defeat and they locked up innocents, during World War I when President Woodrow Wilson punished the speech he hated and feared, and during the Great Depression when President Franklin D. Roosevelt feared economic calamity and seized property without compensation. And, after 9/11, fearing another attack, Congress secretly crafted the Patriot Act’s circumvention of the Fourth Amendment and authorized the creation of the total surveillance state.

Of course, just one year ago, we free people were all in “lockdown” — a word used to describe confining prisoners to their cells.

This sordid history came about when the public was fearful of the unknown and trustful of the government’s bargain. But the liberty that was sacrificed for the safety that was promised is being taken away again.

Liberty is natural and personal. You can sacrifice yours, but you cannot sacrifice mine. Thus, personal liberty — the Declaration of Independence calls our rights inalienable, and the Ninth Amendment reflects freedom’s nature as limitless — is insulated from totalitarian and even majoritarian interference.

Today, the fear of contagion again gives government cover for its assaults on freedom and poses a question the government does not want to answer: If liberty can be taken away in times of crisis, is it really liberty; or is it just a license, via a temporary government permission slip, subject to the whims of the politicians in power?

We cannot permit this to happen 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.

Bayer Heads into Next U.S. Cancer Trial

August 5th, 2021 by Carey Gillam

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Despite Bayer AG’s efforts to put an end to costly litigation inherited in its acquisition of Monsanto, opening statements in yet another trial are set for Thursday as a woman suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma claims Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide caused her cancer.

A jury of seven men and five women have been seated in the case of Donnetta Stephens v. Monsanto in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County in California.  Judge Gilbert Ochoa was hearing last-minute arguments over evidence on Wednesday.

The trial comes a week after Bayer announced it would stop selling Roundup, and other herbicides made with the active ingredient glyphosate, to U.S. consumers by 2023. Monsanto was purchased by Bayer AG in 2018, and Bayer insists, just as Monsanto has for decades, that there is no valid evidence of a cancer connection between its weed killing products and cancer.

Bayer said the move to stop selling the  herbicides to consumers was “to manage litigation risk and not because of any safety concerns.” The company said it will continue to sell its glyphosate-based herbicides for commercial use and for use by farmers.

Bayer also said last week it was setting aside $4.5 billion – on top of roughly $11 billion already earmarked for Roundup litigation settlements – to cover “potential long-term exposure” to liability associated with claims from cancer victims such as Stephens.

Bayer further said with respect to ongoing litigation, it “will be very selective in its settlement approach in the coming months.”

Evidence at issue

Ahead of the opening statements in the Stephens trial, many issues were being argued without the jury present on Wednesday in front of Judge Ochoa, including the scope of allowable arguments by plaintiffs that Monsanto should have provided warnings to Roundup users that certain scientific research showed links between its products and cancer.

Judge Ochoa earlier ruled – in agreement with Monsanto – that federal law regarding Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversight of pesticide product labeling preempts “failure to warn” claims under state law, meaning Stephens’ lawyers would not be able to pursue such claims.

The plaintiffs still hope to argue, however, that separate from the labeling issues, Monsanto could have, and should have, warned consumers about the potential cancer risk in other ways, according to Stephens’ lawyer Fletcher Trammell. He and Stephens’ other lawyers will seek to prove that Monsanto made an unsafe herbicide product and knowingly pushed it into the marketplace despite scientific research showing glyphosate-based herbicides could cause cancer.

Lawyers for Stephens say that she was a regular user of Roundup herbicide for more than 30 years and it was that extended exposure to the glyphosate-based products made popular by Monsanto that caused her non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Stephens was diagnosed in 2017 and has suffered from numerous health complications amid multiple rounds of chemotherapy since then.  She is one of tens of thousands of plaintiffs who filed U.S. lawsuits against Monsanto after the World Health Organization’s cancer experts classified glyphosate – the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicides – as a probable human carcinogen with an association to non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The list of evidence to be presented at trial runs more than 250 pages and includes scientific studies as well as Monsanto emails and other internal corporate documents. A federal judge who has been overseeing nationwide Roundup litigation stated in a recent order that there is “a good deal of damning evidence against Monsanto—evidence which suggested that Monsanto never seemed to care whether its product harms people.”

Close to 70 people are listed as witnesses to testify at trial, either live or through deposition testimony, including many former Monsanto scientists and executives.

The first witness set to take the stand is retired U.S. government scientist Christopher Portier, who has been an expert witness for the plaintiffs in each of the prior Roundup trials. Portier has previously testified that there is clear scientific evidence showing glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations such as Roundup can cause cancer in people. He has also testified in the past that U.S. and European regulators have not properly assessed the science and have ignored research showing cancer concerns with Monsanto’s herbicides.

Before retiring, Portier led the National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Prior to that role, Portier spent 32 years with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, where he served as associate director, and director of the Environmental Toxicology Program, which has since merged into the institute’s National Toxicology Program. Portier was also an “invited specialist” to the International Agency for Research on Cancer unit of the World Health Organization when the group made its probable carcinogen classification of glyphosate in 2015.

Bayer hopes for help from Supreme Court

Monsanto has lost three out of three previous trials, with a jury in the last trial – held in 2019 – ordering a staggering $2 billion in damages due to what the jury saw as egregious conduct by Monsanto in failing to warn users of evidence – including numerous scientific studies – showing a connection between its products and cancer. (The award was later shaved to $87 million.)

In trying to free itself from the weight of Monsanto-related woes, Bayer said last week that in addition to  replacing its glyphosate-based products in the U.S. residential market with new formulations using alternative ingredients, it is exploring changes to Roundup labeling.

“It is important for the company, our owners, and our customers that we move on and put the uncertainty and ambiguity related to the glyphosate litigation behind us,” Bayer CEO Werner Baumann said during a recent investor call.

The company also said it will file a petition this month seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of one of its trial losses – the case of Hardeman v. Monsanto. Bayer said if the Supreme Court grants review,  the company “will not entertain any further settlement discussions” while the court reviews the appeal.

In the event of a “negative Supreme Court outcome,” Bayer said it would set up a claims’ administration program that will offer “pre-determined compensation values”  to “eligible individuals” who used Roundup and developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma over the next 15 years.

*

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Watch Behind The Headlines correspondent Dan Cohen explain how top foreign policy reporters are linked to the U.S. government, weapons industry and oil corporations – the very forces they are supposed to hold accountable. 

Imagine a country where there’s no separation between the government, the military, and the media. A lot of Americans would think of China, Russia or North Korea, but it’s a perfect description of the United States today. And here in Washington, the think tank inside this nondescript building – Center For A New American Security (CNAS) – is the clearest example of just that.

CNAS is a premier militarist think tank in the nation’s capital, especially for Democratic Party administrations. It is funded by the State Department and Pentagon and has taken more money from weapons companies over the last several years than any other think tank. On top of that, it’s funded by oil companies, big banks, and right wing governments – basically the most destructive forces on the planet.

For President Joe Biden, CNAS serves as a farm, from which key positions in his administration are cultivated. In fact, at least 16 CNAS alumni are now in key positions in the Biden Pentagon and State Department.

But what’s most shocking is that several national security and foreign policy reporters from elite U.S. media outlets are affiliated with CNAS – and therefore indirectly affiliated with, and likely paid by, the U.S. government and corporations – the very forces that they should be holding accountable.

For more than twenty years, New York Times Washington correspondent David Sanger has relentlessly pushed deceptions to con the public into supporting U.S. aggression and war.

From the George W. Bush administration’s lies about WMDs in Iraq to lies about Iran attempting to create nuclear weapons and evidence-free claims from intelligence agencies about Russian cyberattacks – these incendiary allegations were taken at face value with a clear goal to pressure then-President Donald Trump to ramp up aggression against Moscow while conveniently filling the pockets of Sanger’s weapons-industry benefactors.

Sanger’s neocon cyberwar fantasy was even turned into a movie by HBO. Today, David Sanger is onto the COVID-19 lab leak theory. He’s been at the forefront of every propaganda campaign that not only provides justification for aggression and war but also helps generate huge profits for CNAS funders.

Sanger is just one of several New York Times, Washington Post and Foreign Policy reporters who have residencies at CNAS. Presumably, that comes with a sizable financial component. I emailed CNAS to ask whether it pays these reporters but they didn’t respond.

Sanger’s colleague Eric Schmitt, senior correspondent covering national security for The New York Times, is also in residence at CNAS.

Back in 2020, Schmitt was promoting the obviously false Russian bounties story, which was later retracted after it had served its political purpose to force Trump to take a harder anti-Russia stance.

Of course, Schmitt was a reliable promoter of intelligence claims about Russian hacking – never displaying a scintilla of skepticism.

And he dutifully portrayed the Trump administration’s aggression against Iran as defensive.

The Washington Post, at one point, found this kind of blatant media corruption at least questionable. In 2011, Time magazine launched a series in collaboration with CNAS to promote war propaganda; the Post published an article questioning the ethics of that partnership.

Fast-forward to 2013: billionaire Jeff Bezos buys the Post, and its correspondent, David Finkel, becomes a writer in residence at CNAS. During that time, Finkel wrote two books on the U.S. war in Iraq: “The Good Soldiers” and “Thank You For Your Service.” Just the kind of whitewash of the war that CNAS’s funders would want the public to consume.

Michael Gordon is another. He spent three decades at the Times. Among his greatest accomplishments was, alongside Judith Miller, promoting the Bush administration’s Iraqi WMD deception. Gordon wrote that “Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb” – citing anonymous U.S. officials.

Now at The Wall Street Journal, Gordon has spent months pumping out Wuhan lab-leakpropaganda – once again promoting claims of intelligence officials without any skepticism.

Greg Jaffe is a Washington Post national security reporter and another writer in residence at CNAS. His article on the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan quotes Eliot Cohen – a former Bush administration official who is now a fellow at CNAS. Jaffe and Cohen’s shared affiliation is never disclosed in the article – an obvious breach of the most basic journalistic ethics.

Thom Shanker used to be part of the CNAS writer-in-residence program when he was at the Times writing on U.S. wars. In 2012, Shanker wrote this blog post promoting a CNAS study without revealing his affiliation. Once again, a major conflict of interest and ethics out the window.

There’s also Rajiv Chandrasekaran, who spent two decades doing public relations for U.S. wars at the Post and is now doing PR for Starbucks.

And Thomas Ricks, whose career has spanned posts at The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and Foreign Policy magazine. Ricks is a cold-warrior who has publicly stated that Putin is attacking the United States just like Osama Bin Laden did and that Americans defending Putin are no different from those defending Bin Laden.

Some of this information isn’t new. It was reported in The Nation more than a decade ago, but the issue has only gotten worse as U.S. politics have shifted right, spy agencies have gained more power in the media, and the new cold war has accelerated.

There’s no real separation between the myriad of revolving doors and cash flow between the weapons manufacturers, think tanks, the U.S. government and media. It’s an incestuous, bloviating blob capable of producing one thing and one thing only: war.

So when you think of the military industrial complex and the permanent war state, don’t forget about what might be the most important component of all: the media.

*

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

Dan Cohen is the Washington DC correspondent for Behind The Headlines. He has produced widely distributed video reports and print dispatches from across Israel-Palestine. He tweets at @DanCohen3000.

Featured image: Graphic by James Russo

A New Dawn Breaks in Tehran: New President Ebrahim Raisi

August 5th, 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.

***

On Thursday, Iran’s new president Ebrahim Raisi takes the oath of office in a ceremony in the Majlis in Tehran. This will be a defining moment in the Islamic Republic’s political history, since in many ways, the country is at the crossroads.

The Islamic system continues to enjoy a broad social base but erosion is taking place. The economy is in shambles and the lifting of sanctions will give much relief to people’s hardships. Rampant corruption has discredited the regime and caused alienation among the people. But, paradoxically, Iran’s inexorable rise as a regional power is today a compelling reality.

Raisi happens to be a popular figure, given his record as the chief justice to crack down on corruption. The participation in Iran’s national elections is restricted to candidates who are loyal to Velayat-e faqih — or, guardianship of the Islamic jurist— a system of governance that the country adopted after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which is rooted in Shia Islam and justifies the rule of the clergy over the state. But it allows free elections, since the empowerment of the people is the bedrock of legitimacy for the country’s political system. 

The United States has a problem with Raisi insofar as he was one of the deputy prosecutors associated with the trial and execution of the cadres of the militant organisation known as Mujahedin-e Khalq, which openly advocated the overthrow of the Islamic Republic through violent means.

Suffice to say, the human rights issue that is brought to the forefront to tarnish Raisi’s image is not the real issue today, but the ascendance of a new leader who is expected to consolidate Iran’s revolutionary legacy at a crucial juncture when the country’s domestic politics once again intersects with the relations with the US. 

The Shia politics is notoriously fractious. Imam Khomeini, in his far-sighted wisdom, installed in the political system checks and balances institutionally but factionalism continued, nonetheless. In this respect, Raisi’s election becomes a watershed event. For the first time since the end of the 1990s, the Presidency, the Majlis and the judiciary are set to move in tandem.

This would mean, on the one hand, much greater focus on the restoration of the social base of the revolution, which demands addressing the economic challenges of unemployment and poverty, social justice, equitable distribution of wealth and so on. At the inauguration ceremony in Tehran on Tuesday, Khamenei called on Raisi to “empower the middle and lower classes of society that are shouldering the burden of economic problems.”

On the other hand, the political system will gravitate back to the nationalist credo, turning its back on the clamour for Iran’s integration into the western economies, which had been the leitmotif of the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated by the Rouhani government. 

Suffice to say, the “reformists” navigating the Iranian strategies in the past 8-year period have lost ground. The Biden Administration’s calculation was that the reformist government of President Hassan Rouhani would conclude a nuclear deal that commits the Raisi presidency to a trajectory oriented toward downstream engagement with the West. read more

But that hasn’t happened, largely due to the forceful role played by the Majlis dominated by conservative forces, in a virtual war of attrition that Rouhani ultimately lost. 

According to the New York Times, Biden’s negotiators were so bullish that “a leading American negotiator left his clothes in storage at a hotel in Vienna, where the talks took place” during the interregnum after the sixth round in Vienna. So confident was he about a final round of talks before the transfer of power in Iran in August. 

But the Iranian negotiators didn’t return to Vienna. The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei spoke about the reasons why the US cannot be trusted in his “farewell speech” for Rouhani and his cabinet, implicitly censuring them for their naïveté about US’ hostile intentions toward Iran. read more

Even some of Iran’s partners who were keen to play a “constructive” role at Vienna were caught by surprise. On Monday, the Moscow daily Izvestia quoted Russia’s ambassador to the IAEA as lamenting, “Iran is departing further from its commitments under the initial JCPOA. In fact, there is something irrational in it because if talks lead to an agreement, all these deviations will have to be reversed. The further Iran departs from its initial obligations, the more time the process will take, which will affect the timeframe for the lifting of sanctions.” 

When asked how Russia viewed Tehran’s move to increase its enriched uranium stockpile, the ambassador noted: “We certainly aren’t enthusiastic about it.” Quite obviously, Russia is unhappy that the party broke up at Vienna. What we see here is the extent to which Iran will go to preserve its strategic autonomy.

Washington has since reacted petulantly by resiling from an understanding reached on a swap of prisoners on humanitarian grounds. The US rhetoric has also shifted to a hostile mode. The Biden Administration is hedging, as it realises that it will now have to deal with a formidable adversary in Raisi.

Basically, the US is unused to dealing with a Persian Gulf state on equal footing. Raisi has stated that he has an open mind on the negotiations at Vienna and also wants Iran to shake off the sanctions in order to realise the full potentials of development, but has underscored that he is not interested in negotiations for its own sake.

Raisi’s remarks at the inauguration ceremony in Tehran on Tuesday signalled once again that his presidency will prioritise the economy, especially the people’s livelihood. On the foreign policy front, he briefly noted, “In order to help establish sustainable security and regional stability, co-operation between regional states is needed, based on mutual trust and opposition to interference by foreign powers in the region.”

Significantly, Raisi devoted his speech almost entirely to  Iran’s internal issues. He is intensely conscious that his mandate quintessentially stems from the people’s desire for “change, justice, fight against corruption, discrimination and injustice and the message of the need to solve economic, social and cultural problems of the society.” Raisi has announced an “immediate, short-term transformation plan” to tackle 10 key issues that have been identified. read more

Raisi’s mandate is not about Iran-US relations. He will not be in any tearing hurry to negotiate a nuclear deal unless and until the US shows willingness to accommodate Iran’s key demands on the lifting of all sanctions and a verification mechanism as well as the guarantee that it will be a durable framework.

Raisi’s approach is going to put pressure on the Biden Administration since in the meanwhile Iran’s advanced centrifuges are enriching uranium at 63 percent purity already, as per IAEA estimates in early May, and the so-called “breakout time” is steadily narrowing.

*

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: Raisi speaking at a presidential campaign rally in Tehran’s Shahid Shiroudi Stadium (CC BY 4.0)

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.

***

As the golden hour cast its soft light on the remains of Beirut’s silos, thousands of people collectively held their breath as the seconds inched closer to 6:07 pm – the moment exactly one year ago the face of the city and its residents were changed forever.

With only the sounds of Lebanese flags fluttering in a light breeze and of ambulance sirens in the distance, a moment of silence, heavy with painful memories, was held at the port of Beirut.

Piercing that silence, suddenly, was a clap. First a few, back by the highway. Then the sound travelled, and applause charged towards the port like waves.

A woman began to sing. Alone, solo, singing the national anthem as an entire country mourned a disaster that was not just man-made, but made by a political class that has only sunk Lebanon deeper in the mire in the twelve months since.

At least 218 people were killed on 4 August 2020 when hundreds of tonnes of ammonium nitrate left to rot in a warehouse ignited. Vast stretches of the city were destroyed.

Now, people had come to mourn. Soon they would show their anger.

Sea of faces

It was clear early on that the crowd would be vast. Streets into central Beirut were jam packed with traffic – at least those the army hadn’t closed off.

Yet buses ploughed on, playing Fairouz and carrying determined Lebanese, Syrians, Palestinians and Beirut residents of all nationalities to the vigil. Some braved the afternoon sun to walk all the way, with the little shade available retreating the closer they got to the port.

In the sea of faces marching from the fire brigade headquarters, a nod to the firefighters who died trying to contain the warehouse fire, some cried silently, while others shouted slogans against the politicians they held responsible for the tragedy.

Many were simply unable to talk about that day.

“I’m sorry, it’s too hard for me to formulate words on a day like today,” one woman said as she turned a pained face towards her friends for support.

Others quickly spoke of a pain that has not begun to heal, and the utter lack of justice and answers provided by their leaders.

Not a single official has been held to account for the criminal negligence that allowed tonnes of the highly explosive chemicals to be stored in the heart of the capital. The official investigation has foundered and faced resistance at every turn.

And this was a fact seized upon by the victims’ families as they spoke at the port on Wednesday evening – reminding the crowd that many officials, from the prime minister to the president, had been warned of the danger.

“Our home is devoid of happiness. The cloud of that day is still hovering over us, and the flame keeps on flaring,” Abu Ziad Soboh, who lost his son Ziad in the explosion, told Middle East Eye.

“From the president to the lowest-level official, they are all responsible. None of them called me to apologise for their crime or to ask if we needed support,” he added.

“Ziad’s son was two years old when his father died, and I’m taking care of him now. He is the only reason why I’m living.”

As the memorial service was underway, news started coming in that security forces were firing tear gas at protesters near parliament, a half hour stroll from the port. People became agitated.

Beirut port blast

Not a single official has been held to account for the criminal negligence that allowed tonnes of the highly explosive chemicals to be stored in the heart of the capital (MEE/Hasan Shaaban)

“They have ruined our lives. This is a beautiful country, it’s unbelievable that such a system is still in control since the civil war. They need to know that this will not pass and they all need to go,” said 41-year-old Myriam, who lost a friend in the blast.

“After 4 August, I felt an emptiness inside me that lasted for a really long time.

“We spent that whole night trying to reassure our friend’s cousin that Christelle was fine, but the next morning we were told that she had instantly died after a wall fell on her.”

‘I’m afraid’

The plumes of tear gas rising from downtown Beirut were an early indication that the quietude of the vigil was being replaced by a police crackdown, as Lebanese began to express their fury outside parliament – a symbol of Lebanon’s endemic corruption.

As the crowd began marching into town, the popular chants of the October 2019 anti-government protest movement began to ring out.

In Martyrs’ Square, Joe, 24, watched on from the famous war-scarred bronze statue as protesters metronomically beat metal sheets boarding up expensive, empty buildings.

Lebanese protest in downtown Beirut (MEE/Hassan Shaaban)

Lebanese protest in downtown Beirut (MEE/Hasan Shaaban)

He and his friend Abby were in Broumana when the explosion happened and immediately drove back to eastern Beirut.

“We stood at the start of Gemmayzeh, staring, before taking the horrifying walk all along the street,” said Joe, whose school friend Jessica died in the explosion.

“At that moment I felt like we could never recover from this. The area was upside down.”

When Abby reached her Geitawi home, the windows and doors had disappeared. Two of her housemates were wounded.

“For around four months after the explosion, all of my friends were still deeply traumatised and tired, and it was hard for us to help each other process the trauma because we were going through the exact same thing,” Abby said.

But in truth, she said, 4 August was one of hundreds of difficult days in Lebanon, a country running out of basic necessities such as medicine and fuel as the economy nosedives. Abby said she feels angry every day, not only about the blast, but also about everything else going wrong.

For Joe, this anniversary has come too soon.

“Yesterday I took a small walk in Mar Mikhael, I almost felt like I was going to vomit from anxiety. I’m not ready for this day. I’m not ready to recognise that this had happened,” he said.

“I’m afraid. I’m afraid of my government. This government can easily kill us, remap our city, leave us without electricity, without any kind of commodity.

“I’m afraid that tomorrow something else is going to be mismanaged, and tomorrow it might be my life on the line.”

*

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 contingent of the marchers walked from the fire brigade headquarters to the port of Beirut in a nod to the firefighters who died trying to contain the warehouse fire (MEE/Hasan Shaaban)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ‘I’m Afraid of My Government’: Sorrow and Rage as Beirut Marks Blast Anniversary
  • Tags: ,

CAA Opens UK Skies to Military Drones

August 5th, 2021 by Chris Cole

All Global Research articles 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 Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has granted permission to US drone company General Atomics to conduct experimental flights of its new SkyGuardian drone in UK airspace. The MoD is buying 16 SkyGuardian drones, but renaming them as ‘Protector’. This is the first time that large military drones will be allowed to fly in the UK outside of segregated airspace and the decision will be seen as a breakthrough by the drone industry, who will see it as the beginning of opening UK skies to a whole host of drones to fly ‘beyond visual line of sight’ (BVLOS).

The news came in an ‘airspace alert’ issued by the CAA following the announcement that temporary airspace rules were to be put in place around the bases where the drone will be based. The terse, one-sentence paragraph in the alert said:

“The CAA has also completed an in-depth review and issued the authorisation to General Atomics operate within the UK.”

The lack of detail reflects the lack of transparency about the process to allow General Atomics to use its largely untried and untested ‘Detect and Avoid’ (DAA) equipment in the flights.

General Atomics has developed its DAA equipment to supposedly replicate an on-board pilot’s ability to ‘see and avoid’ danger. This is the bedrock upon which all air safety measures are built and – as we reported back in 2018 – regulators at the CAA were deeply sceptical as to whether remote technology can replace an on-board pilot in busy airspace such as UK skies. Test flights of the drone in the US last summer, which were due to fly over San Diego, were routed away from city after apparent concerns from US safety regulators. 

While the CAA is charged with responsibility for air safety, it says it also has a duty to implement government policy, which, under pressure from the drone industry, is to open UK airspace to large drones. Sir Stephen Hiller, former head of the RAF, was appointed as Chair of the CAA in August 2020.  However, although the use of drones is fast normalising, the technology to fly drones beyond visual line of sight is still far from mature and such drones repeatedly crash as the data we collate on military drone crashes demonstrates.

A poll of 2,000 people commission by our sister organisation, UK Drone Watch, earlier this year found that 67% were worried about the safety implications of BVLOS drone flights, while 70% agreed that if such drones were allowed to be flown in the UK, they should be flown in segregated airspace away from other aircraft.

While the MoD has had to go through a public consultation process to put in place a Temporary Danger Area (TDA) around RAF Waddington and RAF Lossiemouth to enable the drone to take-off and land, there has been no public consultation or information released about how the CAA made the decision to allow large drones to fly in UK airspace using DAA technology. We will continue to press the CAA to release more details about how and why it made this decision.

Chris Cole, Coordinator of Drone Wars UK said:

“We are extremely disappointed that the CAA has given the go-ahead to General Atomics to conduct experimental flights of its new drone in UK airspace without any public consultation.  While no doubt under pressure from those with a vested interest in expanding drone operations, as public regulator the CAA should absolutely prioritise safety and, given the public concern about such operations, at the very least, be open and transparent about its decision making process. “

As well as testing the new DAA equipment, the flights are also seen by General Atomics as a sales opportunity, with other nations being invited to observe the test flights.

Drone Wars UK and a number of other national organisations are organising protests against the  US drone’s flights in the UK.  Do join us on Saturday 14 August at RAF Waddington and Saturday 18 October at RAF Lossiemouth.  More details here.

*

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

Featured image is from Drone Wars UK

All Global Research articles 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 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continues to come under fire for changing positions on masking and a lack of transparency surrounding adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines, new concerns about the agency’s guidance over PCR tests has prompted America’s Frontline Doctors to consider filing a Freedom of Information Request.

The CDC’s July 21st statement (Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS CoV-2 Testing) has raised serious concerns about the reliability of the approved PCR testing regime. The official CDC statement says in part, “CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses…” This assertion would seem to indicate that the current generation of PCR tests do not reliably distinguish COVID from influenza, or other viral diseases. Such reliability issues would call into question data regarding cases upon which lockdowns and other government mandates have been based since the beginning of the pandemic.

AFLDS Communications Director, Dr. Teryn Clarke stated,

“This constitutes an extremely damaging lapse. If PCR testing cannot distinguish between COVID and influenza, then at least a portion of last winter’s COVID spike was likely to have been due to the normal flu season. Is this reason influenza all but “disappeared” during COVID? The CDC’s lack of transparency regarding the limitations of the PCR test caused severe and irreversible harm worldwide.”

The AFLDS Legal Team is considering options to force government transparency.

Dr. Simone Gold, founder of AFLDS added,

“The entire pandemic has been based on PCR testing– to identify cases, justify lockdowns and to ascribe cause of death. Now the CDC is saying these COVID “cases” might actually have been influenza cases? It is absolutely essential these tests are accurate, reliable, and validated. The public has a right to know how the CDC made the decision to recommend that the public rely on this test. Anything less than full transparency is tantamount to an admission that CDC manipulated data and intentionally or through incompetence misled the public.”

*

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

Featured image is from OffGuardian

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on When Did CDC Know Their Approved COVID-19 Tests, Faulty PCR Testing Would Make Case and Death Data Unreliable?
  • 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.

***

India’s and Iran’s refusal to participate in the Extended Troika on Afghanistan alongside Russia, Pakistan, China, and the US due to New Delhi’s reluctance to publicly talk to the Taliban and Tehran’s disagreements with Washington means that this peacemaking structure will always remain incomplete even though it’ll still likely manage to accomplish most of its goals without them.

The Extended Troika comprised of Russia, Pakistan, China, and the US is arguably the world’s most important peacemaking structure at the moment considering the pivotal role that it’s playing in shaping the future of Eurasia upon the US’ military withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of August. These four countries are coordinating their efforts to facilitate a political solution to the ongoing Afghan Civil War even if their interactions are imperfect and a tangible outcome has yet to be achieved. All four of them are finally on the same page with respect to their shared geo-economic vision for post-war Afghanistan related to the landlocked country functioning as the irreplaceable transit state for advancing Central Asia-South Asia connectivity.

Russia hoped that India and Iran would also join this structure due to the stakes that they have in Afghanistan’s future, but this has yet to happen due to New Delhi’s reluctance to publicly talk to the Taliban (which is a precondition for participation) and Tehran’s disagreements with Washington. This means that the Extended Troika will always remain incomplete. India will consequently have difficulty ensuring and expanding its entrenched economic interests in Afghanistan just like Iran will struggle to do the same as well as defend its security interests there too. By voluntarily declining to take a seat at the table where all relevant stakeholders are determining this interconnected region’s future, India and Iran are depriving themselves of opportunities.

In their leaderships’ minds, they’re apparently prioritizing optics over substance after calculating – whether rightly or wrongly – that it’s better to maintain their images than risk the potential soft power consequences connected with backtracking on their present policies of pertinence. To explain, India wants to show the world that it’s consistently opposed to the Taliban, which its Hindu nationalist government insists its an irredeemable terrorist group. Iran, meanwhile, doesn’t want to discuss anything with the US even in a multilateral framework until bilateral ties first improve since it’s concerned that doing otherwise might project an image of weakness when it comes to the nuclear talks and other seemingly more pressing issues for it such as Gulf security.

The emerging situation is such that India’s and Iran’s voluntary decisions to remain outside the Extended Troika place them in a position to act as spoilers to the Afghan peace process. Nevertheless, the likelihood of them successfully perpetuating the ongoing civil war there for any significant length of time is low. That’s because the Taliban controls a sizeable length of the country’s borders, Iran’s new principalist (“conservative”) government might also understandably feel uncomfortable facilitating the Indian Air Force’s overflights through its airspace to continually resupply US-backed Kabul, and New Delhi might rightly wager that the expected costs of such a campaign far outweigh the expected benefits. Even so, this is a scenario that shouldn’t be totally dismissed.

Part of the reason why Russia presumably wanted both of them to participate in the Extended Troika was to reduce the chances of this happening. If India and Iran felt empowered by this peacemaking structure and were confident that it could most effectively ensure their respective interests, then they’d be less likely to speculatively contemplate various ways to unilaterally (or perhaps even jointly with one another) promote their goals at others’ possible expense. Regrettably, neither of their leaderships want to risk the potential soft power consequences connected with backtracking on their present policies of pertinence. So long as they don’t meddle in Afghanistan, though, then none of the Extended Troika’s members have much to worry about.

In the event that one or both of them end up doing something disruptive, then they might worsen their ties with all four of that peacemaking structure’s members. The US might not be too concerned for the short term, especially if India’s responsible for stirring up trouble, since such a development would temporarily offset its Russian and Chinese rivals’ connectivity plans though as at the expense of America’s own. Be that as it may, the US can strategically afford to delay the Central Asia-South Asia integration process for the time being since the interim period of uncertainty would be more counterproductive to those two’s interests than its own, but this destabilizing scenario would still stand no choice of materializing if India and Iran joined the Extended Troika.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Truth and revolution are in the air. With the unveiling of so many known health hazards linked directly to the Big Pharma industry’s Covid-19 vaccine rollout, the international crime cabal is now on the defensive, using the adage that the best defense is a good offense.

Harder than ever, the ruling elite is aggressively pushing for more worldwide mandates for forced vaccination, permanent lockdown and mask mandates.

Yet the more the authoritarian governments push us, the more pushback they’re receiving from the people who are fed up and reaching their limits living under such increasing draconian tyranny.

As constitutional lawyer John Whitehead advocates, it’s time for citizens to take back their sovereign power by “recalibrating” the overreaching federal government. While the illegitimate Biden regime attempts to put the squeeze on state issued mandates for vaccines passports, more enforced mask wearing and nonstop lockdown, a number of states in America either have signed executive orders or already passed legislation against vaccine passports and/or anti-mask mandates.

Florida and Montana prohibit both private businesses and state institutions from requiring proof of vaccination. Vaccine passports are banned in all state buildings in Idaho, Arizona, Utah, South Dakota, South Carolina, Arkansas, Indiana and Texas, but sorely need to be extended across the board to all businesses. Legislation is pending on no vaccine passports or discrimination based on vaccine status in another ten states. As more truth comes out against the dangers of vaccination, the pendulum is swinging toward more states following suit to protect citizens against the elite’s genocidal insanity.

Despite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in late July 2021 re-recommending the wearing of face masks indoors due to the reportedly high transmissibility of the Covid-19 so called variants, Texas, Florida, Missouri, Arizona and Iowa have already made masks optional. Generally the Republican states are taking a stand against vaccine mandates while the Democrat run cities and states on the East and West Coasts tend toward the strictest mandates and full lockdown control. The party of the onetime progressives in America has degenerated from a broken, infiltrated education system into the brainwashed wokeism generation, cancel culture, race identity politics, and steeped in Marxist Communism, Political Correctness and victimization as a proudly worn social identity and banner.

Meanwhile, over the last week of July in nations across the world, an over-the-top globalist assault on humanity appears to be growing more desperate and extreme by the day. The lies and crimes of the biggest, deadliest fraud in human history are now becoming more fully exposed virtually every day.

The medical mafia led by the son of a former eugenicist head of Planned Parenthood, Bill Gates has bought and paid for the World Health Organization.

Bill Gates and his cohort Dr. Anthony Fauci have both been among the ringleaders in funding appalling “Frankensteinian” research, using aborted babies’ organs grafted onto mice in the latest exposure.

With Fauci dubbed the 21st century Dr. Mengele, this Gates-Fauci duo are today’s emperors without clothes, exposed as  potential war criminals against all humanity and life.

The latest recycled version of the elite’s divide and conquer strategy is now pitting the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated, falsely blaming death jab resistors for the current wave of so-called delta variant flareup.

National governments, the WHO and corporate media propagandists like Reuters are all now claiming hospitals everywhere are filling up with the latest declared enemy – the unvaccinated.

With the huge 80% majority of new Covid-19 cases with the dreaded “delta variant” in the US, reports from Spain (80%) to California (80%) to Utah (95%+) are all insisting that it’s the unvaccinated accounting for so many new cases, hospitalizations and deaths.

But in actuality, it’s the reverse, the majority of 60% of recent Coronavirus hospitalizations in the UK have already been fully vaccinated, matching the 60% of newly diagnosed cases in the US also fully vaccinated while 75% in Singapore during the last four weeks were fully inoculated.

All these incoming datapoints appear to indicate that wherever people are the most vaccinated, from Singapore to California, that’s where Covid-19 is the fastest spreading.

Unable to come close to meeting his masters’ quota demanding at least 70% of all Americans get the jab by July 1st, with time running out at 78 years old and unable to intelligibly articulate a single spoken sentence, sleepy Uncle Joe’s coming under mounting pressure if he wants to keep his current job… tick tock, the 25th Amendment alarm clock’s about to go off, leaving us with one of the most unpopular politicians of the modern era – Kamala Harris. One thing that’s never changed, Joe Biden’s pathological lying has him frantically drawing the battle line between the good little vaccinated robots and those evil, unruly, unvaccinated troublemakers that CNN just declared should be made to starve to death. From his website whitehouse.gov, Biden, or more probable his proxies, write:

What is happening in America right now is a pandemic — a pandemic of the unvaccinated.  Let me say that again: It’s a pandemic of the unvaccinated. Last month, a study showed that over 99 percent of COVID-19 deaths had been among the unvaccinated — 99 percent!

Biden just got the legal go-ahead from his Department of Justice to require all US federal employees as the nation’s largest workforce to undergo mandatory vaccination. On August 1, 2021, Biden’s National Institute of Health (NIH) director said that proof of vaccination would be a step “in the right direction.” When recently asked about state and municipalities issuing vaccine mandates as his backdoor method for the jab, the puppet replied:

I don’t know that yet, I’d like to see them continue to move in that direction, and that’s why I point it out. I had asked the Justice Department to determine whether that is — they’re able to do that legally, and they can. Local communities can do that. Local businesses can do that. It’s still a question whether the federal government can mandate the whole country. I don’t know that yet.

So, obviously we know the national and global agenda is hankering to enforce vaccinations on all of us, violating our sovereign right to voluntary consent as “experimental human subjects.” The criminal cabal’s stale, worn-out tactics of divide and conquer today center on demonizing the unvaccinated. But as hard as they try, it will never work because the cat’s already been let out of the bag – they’re killers!

Going back to race-baiter Obama’s time in office, another of their favorite, over-the-top ploys to divide us is with false flag mass shootings that pit races against each other. The oft-repeated meme of “white supremacist groups” lurking as America’s most dangerous threat is spewed forth by deceitful puppet talking heads – imposter Biden and FBI’s Christopher Wray. But again, that’s not working either as the vast majority of Americans are not nearly so racially divided as malicious false propagandists insist.

Their overkill desperation to divide us, especially during their death jab frenzy, has citizens around the globe finally waking up faster than ever. We the People are onto all the government and media lies and chicanery, because of their overplayed Coronavirus narrative quickly unraveling now, further exposed each passing day.

People are realizing the real public enemy #1 is the controlling Deep State puppet masters and their shamelessly desperate puppets because they know they’re losing control, over the prospect of facing military tribunals for their crimes against humanity.

Speaking of puppets, on Wednesday July 28, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) head, Dr Rochelle Walensky, actually confessed:

With prior variants, when people had these rare breakthrough [re]infections, we didn’t see the capacity of them to spread the virus to others… We have a very transmissible virus, which has the potential to evade our vaccines in terms of how it protects us from severe disease and death.

The CDC boss just admitted all their vaccines are useless in preventing the spread of the present delta virus and incoming other prescheduled variants. Back in March 2021, Dr Walensky was cocksure that those who were vaccinated could not possibly infect or spread the virus to others. But this week in yet another 180-degree bombshell turnaround, another pawn masquerading as a leading expert has been forced to admit all the vaccines will not protect recipients from the latest variants, no more than the unvaccinated, admitting that both the vaccinated and unvaccinated infected with the delta variant carry the same high viral loads.

This admitted fact alone gives zero benefit to receiving the kill shot, but only risk a whole plethora of now known adverse health effects, like premature death. Another disconcerting finding that’s emerging among the vaccinated is that their injections only provide temporary immunity lasting about six or seven weeks before it fades, which sets up the need for constant “booster” shots, feeding the Big Pharma money grab. With the fact that vaccines are useless in combating new variants, there’s absolutely no real or lasting benefit at all to death jabs, only potentially disastrous complications that risk extinction of the human species.

Tricking the public into feeling safe with the promise they wouldn’t have to wear masks once inoculated, now that their human DNA’s been permanently altered, the vaccinated are facing a potentially grim fate, with spike proteinsgraphene oxide and nanoparticles linked to serious cardiovascular disease, neurological impairment, killer blood clots, rampant infertility and possible early death.

Until death do them part, they’re now considered super-spreaders, endangering the unvaccinated, grandma and the grandkids all remaining unprotected from contagious shedding through either skin-to-skin contact or aerial transmission.

Thus, Walensky and company are back to square one, feebly recommending wearing masks even indoors on a permanent basis, and without an optimally functioning autoimmune system to boot, the vaccinated are targets for contracting the delta and other mutated variants. Per the New York Times, as of July 31, 2021, 54% of the world population has received at least one jab of the 4.13 billion total doses of Coronavirus vaccinations already administered. If those statistics are true, any way you look at it, the majority of humans on earth today are getting a raw deal – a probable one-way ticket to the nearest graveyard.

So much for putting your gullibly misguided faith into trusting today’s “science” and its so-called “experts,” claiming as their excuse the fallible limits of changing science as new information comes in. But that too is another lie as evidence shows that all the susceptibilities of medical injury were already known about prior to jabbing millions of human guinea pigs. Bottom line, everything the medical authorities and establishment have been telling us over the last year and a half are malevolent lies. As card-carrying members of a Satanic death cult, the controllers of science, mainstream media and virtually all the governments want us dead sooner than later. So, do as you’re told and get in line for your genocidal slaughterhouse death jab.

Just a week before her latest admission, on July 21, 2021 Dr Walensky and her CDC were busily once again eating crow, reluctantly forced to admit that the entire Covid-19 “pandemic” was based on a humongous fraudulent lie – the PCR test. It was publicly exposed that the PCR test never accurately diagnosed the “ever-elusive,” nonexistent virus, but only gave millions of false positive results used for misdiagnosing huge swaths of the global population while the pandemic creators knew it was totally bogus. The scamdemic plotters purposely rigged the “science,” or in this case, the PCR device was intentionally, deceptively set at too high a number of cycles to enable millions of false positive results worldwide in order to launch their global Covid-19 Dem panic (note it was also used to get anti-globalist Trump out of office).

***

 

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

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century. Since 2014 Joachim has turned to independent journalism and recently completed a 5-book series published and sold on Amazon entitled Pedophilia & Empire: Satan, Sodomy and the Deep State. All his chapters can be accessed for free on his blog site at: http://empireexposed.blogspot.com as well as  https://pedoempire.org/.

Featured image is from Vaccine Injury News

History of the Communist Party of China (CCP).

August 5th, 2021 by Marc Vandepitte

All Global Research articles 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 hundred years ago, 13 men gathered for the secret foundation meeting of the Communist Party of China. Through many wanderings and adventures, the party has grown to become the largest political group in the world. It will undoubtedly and to a large extent determine the course of the 21st century. An analysis by China expert Marc Vandepitte.

Historical context

For centuries, China had been a leading and powerful empire. That situation changed dramatically after the opium wars starting in 1840.[i] The country was relegated to the status of a semi-colony. Large areas were occupied by foreign powers or fell under their sphere of influence. The imperialist countries destroyed the fledgling industrialization. The population was totally impoverished, riddled with famines.[ii] Tens of millions of Chinese perished during that period through deprivation and political violence. It was also during this period that the black slave trade was replaced by the yellow trade in Chinese people.

Repeatedly, the Chinese revolted against the poor living conditions and for national independence. In 1911 there was a revolution in which the emperor was ousted. The new president Sun Yat-sen was the founder of the Republic of China. However, he failed to get rid of foreign domination and the feudal structures of the country.

That was the context in which, ten years later, thirteen men met in secret to establish a new, Communist Party (CPC). One of them was Mao Zedong. Their great example was the Russian Revolution of 1917. At the time, the party had only 53 members.

A party focused on development

Political parties play an important role in the political life of modern societies. Historically, they originated broadly in two ways. In the center of capitalism, electoral or “election-oriented” parties emerged. After the nobility’s monopoly had been broken, the emerging bourgeoisie and later the labor movement set up their own parties to defend their own interests and facilitate participation in elections and state administration. In those countries, a strong and modern state structure had already been established.

The second type could be described as “developmental” parties. They originated in a very different context, more specifically in the periphery of capitalism. They usually grew in the womb of national liberation movements after World War II. They sought national independence and rapid development of their countries. They wanted to put an end to appalling living conditions and imperialist oppression.

In most of those countries there was no modern state structure yet. The creation of a strong and well-organized political party was necessary to achieve this.[iii] This type of political party was not created to realize political ideals through parliamentary competition. On the contrary, political parties like that strive for a new political and/or economic order. This often happens through a revolution. In order to overthrow the old systems and build a new order, development-oriented parties believed that they needed a strong organization and tight discipline.

One-party system

After the revolution in 1911, Sun Yat-sen opted for a multi-party system based on the model of Great Britain and the US. But as in most third world countries, that failed. It soon became clear to him that the model of the Russian revolution was more suited to advancing China. He organized his revolutionary party, the Guomindang (KMT), along the lines of a Leninist party.[iv]

In 1925 Sun Yat-sen died and Chiang Kai-shek became the new leader of the KMT. He was much more conservative and unleashed a veritable witch hunt against the communists, killing many. During the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945), the KMT allied with the Communist Party to fight the Japanese occupation. At the time, Japan was a fascist empire, and one of the Axis powers, allies of Hitler Germany. The war became an important chapter of World War II. After the victory over Japan, the civil war between KMT and CPC started again.

The CPC had far fewer men and resources than the KMT, but was better organized and disciplined. The Communists were also much more in touch with the peasantry. It was the communists and not the KMT who were seen by the people as the patriots and the standard-bearers of the struggle against the Japanese and for China’s independence.[v] Eventually this civil war was won by the CPC in 1949 and Mao Zedong proclaimed the People’s Republic of China. The leaders and many supporters of the KMT fled to the island of Taiwan.

The CPC faced a formidable challenge. The party had to cope with a broken state, a destroyed economy and a totally impoverished population. At that time, China was one of the poorest countries in the world. With more than a fifth of the world’s population, the GDP was barely 4.5 percent of the world total. The standard of living, expressed in GDP per capita, was half that of Africa and one-sixth that of Latin America. Average life expectancy was 35 years.[vi]

Meeting those challenges required a strong, centralized and disciplined party. But that was not the only reason that it did and still does. The country’s proportions are enormous. China has the size of a continent: it is 40 times the size of the United Kingdom and has as many inhabitants as Western Europe, Eastern Europe, the Arab countries, Russia and Central Asia combined. Translating that into the European situation would mean that Egypt or Kyrgyzstan would have to be governed from Brussels. Given these proportions, the very large differences between the regions, and the enormous challenges the country faces, a strong cohesive force is necessary to keep the country governable and to lead it vigorously. The Economist says about this: “China’s rulers believe the country cannot hold together without one-party rule as firm as an emperor’s (and they may be right)”.

In short, the current system in China is appropriate to the scale of the country and has its roots in the struggle against the Japanese occupation, against the reactionary Guomindang and against the terrible misery and backwardness in which the country had been plunged. From that struggle, the CPC has emerged as the country’s leading power, a power that has set itself the task of restoring dignity, preserving the sovereignty of the Chinese nation, lifting the country out of underdevelopment, and striving for a humane, socialist society.

The burden of history

To paraphrase Marx, “parties make their own history, but they do not make it under self-selected circumstances.” For the CPC, those circumstances were particularly harsh. The country was underdeveloped and the economy had been totally destroyed. The Cold War raged in full force, subjecting the country to a technological embargo from the West. This lasted until 1971, when relations with the US improved.

At the beginning of the revolution there was a lot of assistance from the Soviet Union, but in 1958 a conflict broke out between the two countries. All assistance was stopped and Soviet technicians were withdrawn. Mao had counted on revolutions breaking out in several Third World countries. Those countries could then form a front and strengthen each other. However, those revolutions did not materialize and China was on its own.

In the early years, there was also a real military threat from the US. Twice, in 1954 and in 1958, the US president threatened to use atomic weapons against China. Mao also saw how the Soviet Union under Khrushchev began to take an increasingly capitalist course.

Rushing ahead

In those circumstances, Mao increasingly felt the need to accelerate the country’s development and overcome backwardness in a short period of time. He launched the slogan ‘let’s overtake England in fifteen years’ time’. He thought he could compensate for the unfavorable conditions by a massive and incessant mobilization of the population.

The short sprint to Utopia led to reckless and foolish experiments. The Great Leap Forward (1958-1961) was a voluntaristic attempt to bring about the rapid industrialization of the countryside, without any serious study or preparation. The party was inexperienced and had insufficient knowledge of economic laws. The overoptimistic attempt failed completely and led to a famine resulting in millions of deaths.[vii]

Mao feared that China would follow the same path as the Soviet Union. That is why he wanted to do everything possible to suppress the pro-capitalist ideas within his own party. To this end he launched the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976).[viii] This mass mobilization got completely out of hand and eventually led to an anarchy, the counteracting of which even the army had to be deployed. The Cultural Revolution was a tragic period and did much damage to the CPC.

However, Mao’s rushing ahead was not a total failure. Despite the blunders of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, China managed to feed its population quite quickly, unlike India, for example.[ix] During the first thirty years of the revolution, the country experienced a more than decent annual economic growth rate of 4.4 percent. The foundation was laid for the rapid industrial development that was to follow. During that period, per capita income tripled and the Human Development Index[x] increased by a factor of 4.5.[xi]

Economic reforms

Yet by the end of the period, the insight had grown that economic policy was due for a change of direction. The West still had an overwhelming scientific and technological monopoly, which left China particularly vulnerable. And economically, the country lost ground to the four Asian Tigers: Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong.

On the path toward communism, socialism is a long transitional phase in the course of which one had better not skip any stages. At least that was what the debacles of the recent years had taught. It was, according to Marx, the “historical mission of capitalism” to develop the productive forces (mainly technology).[xii] That’s what the Chinese were now fully committed to.

In the first thirty years the emphasis had mainly been on the relations of production (property relations) and class struggle. Everything had been collectivized as much as possible and the aim had been to achieve as much equality as possible. From 1978 the emphasis was placed on the development of the productive forces.[xiii]

To achieve this, two tracks were followed. First, the communists integrated the dynamizing effects of market forces into the country’s economic development. Private capital was allowed. There was still firm planning at the macro level, drawn up under the direction of the central government and geared to global development goals. But the rigid and hyper-centralized planning of the initial phase was relaxed and decentralized. The metaphor of the “bird in a cage” was used for this purpose. The bird (market forces) has some freedom to fly around, but it cannot leave the cage (central planning). The future will show whether this controlled market-oriented dynamic can be kept in check.

A second track was to attract foreign capital. Foreign investors were welcomed on the condition that they made some of their technology and know-how available. In many Third World countries, opening up the economy to foreign countries – trade, investment and financial capital flows – has had disastrous consequences. In China, this opening has been successful because it was driven by domestic needs and objectives, and because it was fully integrated into a solid development strategy.[xiv]

Success story

This two-track strategy has paid off. From 1978 to 2020, the annual average growth was nearly 10 percent. That is the fastest economic growth ever recorded by a major country. In 75 years, China will have risen from being almost the poorest country in the world to a high-income economy. The country has also managed to keep its economy afloat in the storms of the last 25 years: the Asian financial crisis in 1997, the dot-com crisis in 2001, the homegrown SARS crisis, the great financial crisis of 2008 and now most recently the COVID crisis. Reflecting on the 2008 crisis, Richard McGregor, a former Financial Times journalist, wrote that “China was better equipped than just about anywhere in the world to handle the sudden downturn”.[xv]

Great strides have also been made in technology and science. Today, Chinese companies are widely recognized as world leaders in 5G telecommunications equipment, high-speed trains, high-voltage transmission lines, renewable energies, new energy vehicles, digital payments, artificial intelligence and many other fields. In 2018, China overtook the US in the number of scientific publications, in 2019 this was the case for the number of patents.

Since 1981, 853 million Chinese have been lifted out of poverty, according to the UN. That’s 76 percent of all people lifted out of poverty worldwide from 1981 until now. Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations calls it “the greatest anti-poverty achievement in history”. The most important social development indicator of a country is child mortality. At 9 per thousand, China’s score is outstanding. If India, for example, provided the same medical care and social support to its citizens as China, 680,000 fewer Indian children would die each year.[xvi]

While wages are stagnating or declining in many countries, they have tripled in China in the last decade. Between 1978 and 2015, the income of the 50 percent poorest Chinese rose by 400 percent, while in the US it fell by one percent during that period.

The resilience of Chinese society has clearly emerged during the past COVID crisis. The WHO describes the Chinese approach as “perhaps the most ambitious, agile and aggressive disease containment effort in history”. The important role of the communist party in this has not gone unnoticed by a magazine like The Economist: “China’s efforts have involved not just mobilizing the obvious people like medical staff, community health workers, scientists and police. It has also made extensive use of the party’s network of branches to provide manpower and management expertise for a party-led operation on a scale rarely seen in the post-Mao era.”

Drawbacks

This success story also has important downsides. The introduction of market elements from 1978 onwards has reintroduced capitalist exploitation, albeit in a controlled manner. The existing gap between urban and rural areas has widened further. A huge group of 280 million “internal migrants” possess fewer social rights and are often discriminated against. Grandparents often have to step in to raise their grandchildren. The one-child policy (from 1979 to 2015) has led to illegal selective abortions and a male surplus of more than 30 million, with all the social consequences this entails.

Rapid economic development caused abuse of power and widespread corruption. The admission of private capital led to the creation of a top layer of capitalists. Both phenomena are difficult to reconcile with socialist ideals. Individualism and careerism, consumerism and the desire for luxury and glamour have affected the ideology of the CPC.

Great legitimacy

However, the downsides do not outweigh the upsides. The party can count on a broad popular support. Almost three-quarters of Chinese say they support the one-party system. In fact, support for the central government in recent years has been between eighty and ninety percent. That score is head and shoulders above that in Western countries. According to The Economist, anything but a friend of China, this should come as no surprise: “The Communist Party of China has a powerful story to tell. Despite its many faults, it has created wealth and hope that an older generation would have found unimaginable.” This also explains the great political stability of the past thirty years.

From a Western point of view this is too difficult to understand because in our view Chinese society is not democratic. But for most Chinese, democracy primarily means governing in the public interest and good governance.[xvii] We place much more emphasis on how and by whom decisions are made. The Chinese attach more importance to the quality of their politicians than to selection processes.

According to China expert Daniel Bell, the political system in China is a combination of meritocracy at the top, democracy at the bottom and room for experimentation at the intermediate levels. Political leaders are chosen on the basis of their merit and before they reach the top they go through a very tough process of formation, practice and evaluation. Direct elections are held at municipal level and for provincial party congresses. Political, social or economic innovations are first tested on a smaller scale (a few cities or provinces) and introduced on a large scale after thorough evaluation and adjustment.[xviii]

In addition, the central government conducts opinion polls on a very regular basis that evaluate government performance in the areas of social security, public health, employment and the environment, as well as polling the popularity of local leaders. Based on this, the policy is adjusted or corrected if necessary.

The political system certainly has room for improvement. Chinese leaders themselves explicitly acknowledge this. Nor are they afraid to openly admit their mistakes.[xix] The quest for a better decision-making system is far from over. But the current system has proved its worth. According to Francis Fukuyama “the most important strength of the Chinese political system is its ability to make large, complex decisions quickly, and to make them relatively well, at least in economic policy. China adapts quickly, making difficult decisions and implementing them effectively.”

Challenges

The list of challenges facing the CPC and the country is long. We limit ourselves to the most daunting. At the social level, there is the necessity of redistributing wealth and the question of the “internal migrants”. In the economic field, there is the question of ageing, the transition to an internal market and the huge debts. At the political level, there is the harmonious coexistence of the various ethnicities, the suppression of nationalist resentments, the tackling of corruption, the further development of the rule of law, a further democratization of decision-making, keeping the capitalist top layer in check, restoring socialist morality and filling the ideological vacuum. On an ecological level, there is of course global warming, mainly to be coped with by the phasing out of coal, but also by the elimination of environmental pollution.

The clash of the century

The biggest challenge, however, is the growing threat emanating from the US. After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dismantling of the Soviet Union, the US established itself as the undisputed leader of world politics. The Pentagon in 1992: “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” (o.c.) Thirty years later, China has become the main “rival” to be reined in. As Domenico Losurdo puts it, “China remains the last major area to escape US political influence, it is the last frontier to be conquered”.[xx]

That’s why the US has identified the People’s Republic of China as its main enemy. As part of the 2019 budget talks, Congress declared that “long-term strategic competition with China is a principal priority for the United States”. This is about a comprehensive strategy that must be pursued on several fronts. The US is trying to thwart, or as they themselves say, to “blunt” China’s economic and technological ascent.[xxi]

If necessary, this will be done by extra-economic means. The military strategy towards China follows two tracks: an arms race and an encirclement of the country.[xxii] Five strategic themes are used by the U.S. to incite hostility towards China: Taiwan, the Uyghurs, Hong Kong, Tibet and the South China Sea.  They serve on the one hand to weaken China internally and on the other hand to turn public opinion worldwide against China[xxiii] and thus justify future aggressions.

Warmongering is in the DNA of the US. The Yankees have fought in 227 years of their 244-year history. Over the past twenty years, they dropped an average of 46 bombs a day. Obama, the president who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, bombed seven countries simultaneously in 2016. The last war China fought was in 1979 against Vietnam. Except for the border incident with India of 2020, the rise of China in East Asia has been remarkably conflict-free.[xxiv]

Meanwhile, Trump’s unbalanced grandstanding on China has turned Joe Biden into a well-thought-out doctrine. That is very disturbing. “The increasingly aggressive statements and actions being taken by the US government in regard to China (…) constitute a threat to world peace and are an obstacle to humanity successfully dealing with extremely serious common issues which confront it such as climate change, control of pandemics, racist discrimination and economic development” the No Cold War Declaration states.

Beyond the Western perspective

In his influential book Clash of Civilizations Huntington wrote, “if it occurs, China’s emergence as a major power will dwarf any comparable phenomena during the last half of the second millennium”.[xxv] It could not be otherwise. The emergence of the US as a superpower from 1870 already profoundly changed world relations. But China’s 1978 population was 24 times larger than the US then, and it had a growth path more than twice as high.[xxvi] After a century of imperialist wars, occupations and humiliations, the country with a civilization that is thousands of years old is reclaiming its place on the world stage.

Until recently, the West had an absolute monopoly on technology, weapons of mass destruction, monetary and financial systems, access to natural resources and mass communications. With that monopoly it could control or subjugate the countries of the South.[xxvii] The West, led by the US, is now in danger of losing that monopoly. A unipolar world is giving way to a multipolar world. China, and in its wake India and other emerging countries, are overturning world relations at an accelerated pace and transforming the world in a way never seen before.

For the first time in recent history, a poor, underdeveloped country has risen to become an economic superpower in no time. China has shown the world that the Western model is not the only way to modernize.[xxviii] The 2008 financial crisis and the disastrous handling of the COVID crisis in the West has further challenged our capitalist model.

This is a confronting thought for us. That’s why we find it extremely difficult to look at China in an open-minded way. Martin Jacques puts it this way: “Any discussion is almost invariably colored by a value judgement that, because China has a Communist government, we already know the answers to all the important questions. It is a mindset formed in the Cold War that leaves us ill-equipped to understand the nature of Chinese polities or the current regime.”[xxix]

Whatever the case, the Chinese project is far from finished. The communist ideal is far from being achieved; the system contains too many serious imbalances for that. It is a long process that is in full swing. Extraordinary results have been achieved, but there is still a long and difficult road ahead, full of contradictions, risks and challenges. It took the French Revolution more than eighty years of mistakes, experiments and bloody wars to form a stable parliamentary republic. In any case, the Chinese leaders see their project in the context of a “longue durée”. For our judgments we had better take into account a similar long-term perspective.

*

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

[i] Between 1839 and 1860, two opium wars were fought between Britain and China. Britain smuggled opium into China, causing millions to become addicted. When China took action against this, the British launched a war against China. The wars basically served to keep China in line and impose unfavorable trade terms.

[ii] Sesam Atlas bij de wereldgeschiedenis, Deel 2, Apeldoorn 1989, p. 91; Shouy B., An Outline History of China, Beijing 2002, p. 388v.

[iii] Yongnian Z., The  Chinese Communist Party as Organizational Emperor, London 2010, p. 12-4.

[iv] McGregor R., The Party. The Secret World of China’s Communist Rulers, New York 2010, p. 123; Yongnian Z., op. cit., p. 60; Chuntao X. (ed.), Why and How The CPCCPC Works in China, Beijing 2011, p. 107

[v] Jacques M., When China Rules the World. The Rise of the Middle Kingdom and the End of the Western World, London, 2009, p. 92.

[vi] Maddison A., The World Economy. A Millennial Perspective, OESO 2001, p. 263, 304 and 330; Hobsbawm E., Een eeuw van uitersten. De twintigste eeuw 1914-1991, Utrecht 1994, p. 540; Chuntao X. (ed.), op. cit., p. 72.

[vii] Losurdo D., Fuir l’histoire? La révolution russe et la révolution chinoise aujourd’hui, Paris 2007, p. 69-72 and 175-6; Chuntao X. (ed.), op. cit., p. 29-30.
With the Great Leap Forward, the death rate in China doubled from 12 per thousand to 25.4 per thousand in 1960, after which it fell back to 14 and 10 per thousand in 1961 and 1962 respectively. In the deadliest year, 1960, however, that death rate hardly differed from that of India. It was 24.8 per thousand, which was a “normal” for India.

[viii] Launched by Mao Zedong, the Cultural Revolution was a revolt by Chinese students and workers to preserve socialist gains. Targeted were some party bosses and executives in the state apparatus who had settled into a comfortable position of power and cared less and less about the communist ideals of equality and solidarity. This happened against the background of a growing (political and ideological) distance from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which was accused of pursuing a pro-capitalist course (“revisionism”).

Called “social re-education”, many intellectuals, executives and students were temporarily sent to the countryside to do physical labor and learn to show solidarity with the peasants or workers. The first years of the Cultural Revolution were particularly turbulent and at one point the army had to be deployed to restore order.

[ix] By 1976, food production had increased by half compared to 1965. Petroleum production increased sevenfold during that period. Chuntao X. (ed.), op. cit., pp. 34-5.

In India, the Global Hunger Index (GHI) is 27.5, placing it among the group of countries with a serious problem. There are nearly 200 million Indians who are starving. China belongs to the category of ‘low problem’ countries (GHI < 5).

[x] The Human Development Index (HDI) is a measure of a country’s development based on, among other things, GDP per capita, standard of living, education and health. The HDI is being developed by UNDP, the UN body that deals with development and poverty in the world.

[xi] Jacques M., op. cit., p. 99.

[xii] “It is the historical mission of the capitalist system of production to raise these material foundations of the new mode of production to a certain degree of perfection.” Marx K., Capital III, p. 306. Marx elaborated on this theme in De Grundrisse.

[xiii] Thompson I., ‘China and the ‘socialist market economy’, in China: Revolution and Counterrevolution, San Francisco 2008, 87-97.

[xiv] Herrera R. & Long Z., La Chine est-elle capitaliste ?, Paris 2019, p. 29-30.

[xv] McGregor R., op. cit., p. 28.

[xvi] Calculated based on UNICEF, The State Of The World’s Children 2019, New York, p. 193-197.

[xvii] Shambaugh D., China’s Communist Party. Atrophy and Adaptation, Washington D.C. 2009, p. 37.

[xviii] Bell D., The China Model. Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy, Princeton 2015, p. 179-188.

[xix] For example, before and during the Eighteenth Congress, the country’s major problems were listed one by one, discussed and turned into action items.

[xx] Losurdo D., op. cit., p. 18.

[xxi] Rush Doshi, the new China director on President Biden’s National Security Council, describes this subversion strategy as “asymmetric blunting”.

[xxii] For a more comprehensive treatment of this, see Vandepitte M., Trump and China: Towards a Cold or Hot War?

[xxiii] This objective has already been quite successful. According to a recent Pew Research Center survey in 14 countries, unfavorable views on China have skyrocketed in the past year. The five strategic points mentioned and the reporting about them play a large part in this.

[xxiv] Jacques M., op. cit., p. 315.

[xxv] Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York 1996, p. 216.

[xxvi] Maddison A., op. cit., p. 183, 262 en 292; Herrera R. & Long Z., op. cit., p. 53.

[xxvii] Amin S., Obsolescent Capitalism, London 2003, p. 63-4.

[xxviii] McGregor R., op. cit., p. 272

[xxix] Jacques M., op. cit., p. 206.

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Global Research Editor’s Note and Update

The outcome of  this legal procedure was not in favour of Patrick King.

Although successful in the court of public opinion, Patrick did not win the court case, at least NOT YET.

We suggest you view the original interview and then scroll down to view Patrick King’s powerful followup interview on Truth Talk

Patrick King has been trending on twitter due to a viral video where it is claimed that the province of Alberta rolled back on their lockdown measures as a result of Patrick’s court proceedings and this is not true as Patrick states  “I Wasn’t Successful, No I did Not Win The Court Case”.

In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth speaks with Patrick King in order to clear up some discrepancies in regards to what is happening with his case. 

***

Patriot Patrick King represented himself in court after being fined $1200 dollars for protesting against the Covid-Hoax, he slew the beast and emerged VICTORIOUS.

He issued a subpoena to the Provincial Health Minister for proof that the so-called Covid-19 Virus exists, and they were forced to admit that they had no evidence whatsoever. The virus has never been isolated, and thus the government had no legal grounds to impose any of the punishing restrictions they have inflicted on society.

Since this shocking confession came to light, the Province has since rescinded all Covid-Restrictions and now officially treats Covid-19 as nothing more than a mild flu! WE WON!

King has shown the template to be followed WORLDWIDE. This is what can happen when you are not re-presented by a BAR (British Accredited Registry) Lawyer who’s first obligation is to the Corrupted Courts and not their client.

 

WATCH ON ➜ ODYSEE

WATCH ON ➜ BITCHUTE

WATCH ON ➜ FLOTE

WATCH ON  MINDS

WATCH ON ➜ RUMBLE

 

*

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 Liberty Beacon

When Will They Lift the Blockade? Iraq and Cuba

August 5th, 2021 by Barbara Nimri Aziz

All Global Research articles 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.

***

“When will they lift the blockade?”

A polite smile did not hide her deep anxiety.

She wasn’t Venezuelan, not Iranian, not Syrian, nor a citizen of other nations struggling under U.S.-imposed sanctions.

I had just reached Baghdad on one of my missions there during the 1990s. How that question haunted me. I grew to anticipate it on each encounter inside Iraq during successive visits to cover 13 grim years of embargo.

Gracious welcomes turned solemn as my hosts raised concerns about the siege. A perfectly reasonable question: Iraqis knew that U.N. Resolution 661, imposed October 1990, was an American- orchestrated war policy. As I’d arrived from the U.S. those greeting me hoped I might have some revelation to share.

“Hard to say” became my recurring, desolate reply.

Relief looked more doubtful after April 1991 when U.N. Resolution 687 linking any respite to satisfactory removal of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ expanded the already exhaustive 661 sanctions regimen. Even as Iraq agreed to intrusive inspections– no nuclear arsenal was ever unearthed– suffering deepened, the death toll rose, deprivations mounted.

Year after year, I could offer little optimism for these essentially abandoned people. (Not to say doomed; not yet.) Neither the Clinton nor Bush administrations, nor the American public, nor the most liberal media hinted at even a slight opening in the sanctions-fortification.

The humanitarian and economic catastrophe that engulfed the nation remained largely concealed. Endless drama surrounding U.N. weapons inspections filled any news-time allocated for Iraq. Except for a steady flow of fearsome stories about Saddam Hussein.

The handful of anti-sanctions activists scattered across the globe managed to publish evidence of the calamitous consequences of that softly silent, deadly war. Despite those reports, outsiders remained woefully unaware, or unsympathetic– as Lawrence Davidson notes regarding Iran today.

So effective were threats against any extraterritorial embargo breach, no nation dared engage with Iraq. Even with Baghdad’s steady compliance to the terms of 661 and 687, the U.S. found additional reasons to continue the siege.

A decade passed. Finally, I revised my response to that wretched, heartbreaking query:

“Look at the embargo on Cuba”.

By 2000 this seemed a more realistic although still circumspect reply.

I’d avoided reference to the besieged Caribbean nation, already enduring four decades of sanctions. (A daring vote by Cuba against the U.N.-backed Gulf War should have directed Iraqi eyes in Cuba’s direction.) Anyway, would Cuba’s experience be relevant? Unlike Cuba, Iraq retained a fanciful attachment to putative oil revenues. It also clung to a farfetched prospect of accessing its foreign bank assets–at least for food and humanitarian essentials.

Unlike Cubans, Iraqis hadn’t driven out a colonizer, hadn’t overturned a dictator, hadn’t an alternative ideology to guide them. Iraq’s leadership, unchanged, presented a face not of victory but endurance.

Iraqis were naïve, or ill-informed, about how malicious and thorough modern-day blockades could be. Officials and citizens alike found comfort in a perhaps misplaced pride in 4,000-plus years of civilization. Iraq boasted its world-class doctors, scientists and artists, its many women professionals—as if they could overturn the assault. (Although year after year, their numbers would dwindle, lured abroad by America and its allies, all cognizant of Iraqi talent.)

Instead of mobilizing citizens to innovate and to study others’ experience (Cuba’s, for example), Iraq’s Baath leaders clung to the delusion that the blockade would be bearable and brief.

Although Iraqi troops had been ingloriously expelled from Kuwait –war crimes by the U.S. alliance in that military offensive are erased from history– the country’s leadership remained intact, ready to control any internal dissent.

What a contrast with Cuba! Unlike Iraq, after its revolutionary  success, Cuba joined ideologically allied parties, organizations and nations similarly engaged in political struggle and socialist revolution. Concrete alliances resulted in solid support. Cuba’s military assistance to Angola and other African nations is legendary. As are its medical missions, with thousands of health professionals dispatched to nations in need (including Covid pandemic aid).

Cuba’s socialist commitment earned Russia’s alliance as an economic partner and erstwhile military protector. Iraq had no super-power ally. It lacked a single overseas partner, no Arab friend, no religious block, no overseas immigrant voices whatsoever. Whereas Cuba’s revolutionary achievement stirred people worldwide. It welcomed the arrival of countless delegations, offering firsthand testimony not of deprivation but of a worthy socialist model. Cuba’s arrangement with Canada, while limited, provided a route for American delegations to the island to witness its progress. Returning visitors joined a committed, effective anti-sanctions lobby. Their testimonials widened support for Cuba’s transformation.

Cuba’s U.N. diplomats made steady headway: by 1992, and annually thereafter, the U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly voted in favor of a resolution condemning America’s embargo.

Cuba’s leadership had nothing remotely akin in Iraq. Fidel Castro’s wholesome, engaging character endeared him to many. The euphoria with which the Cuban president was greeted across the globe and by African Americans is well-known. Especially significant was his historic 1960 meeting with Malcolm Xdocumented by Rosemari Mealy.

One recognizes the prudence and dignity of both Castro brothers in President Díaz-Canel Bermúdez today. His July 17th response to Washington’s exploitation of recent public demonstrations in Cuba honors his predecessors.

Two embargoed nations: their experiences, strategies and circumstances couldn’t be more dissimilar. Iraq’s sanctions, killing untold numbers, ended with a massive military invasion whose  disastrous outcome continues to unfold today, 31 years on.

Cuba’s policy was measured and resourceful. The country enjoyed wide international respect. It won successive U.N. endorsements, until, in 2015, the Obama administration signed a treaty with Cuba (only to be undone by Trump).

Today the nation, maliciously designated in 2017 as sponsoring terror, finds itself subject to extended sanctions under Biden. Whichever party rules Washington batters Cuba with this outrageous war plan. The media that endorse these policies permeate the American mind and shred its moral fiber.

Can Americans not understand others’ suffering, death and calamity without a spectacle of bombs and blood?

*

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, B. Nimri Aziz.

N Aziz whose anthropological research has focused on the peoples of the Himalayas is the author of the newly published “Yogmaya and Durga Devi: Rebel Women of Nepal”, available on Amazon

Barbara is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from B. Nimri Aziz

CDC, FDA Faked “COVID” Testing Protocol by Using Human Cells Mixed with Common Cold Virus Fragments

By Mike Adams, August 04, 2021

In a shocking revelation first reported by Dan Dicks of Press for Truth (Canada), an FDA document admits that the CDC and FDA conspired to fabricate a covid-19 testing protocol using human cells combined with common cold virus fragments because they had no physical samples of the SARS-CoV-2 “covid” virus available.

Party Over in China as Communist Party Takes Back Control

By Tom Clifford, August 04, 2021

China’s second cultural revolution is hitting the brakes. This one is not about Mao’s little red book but TV remote controls, fridges, cars, mobile phones, and yes, most important, property, the trappings of the modern age, admittedly more apparent in the east of the country but aspired to greatly in the less-developed west.

Klaus Schwab’s ‘Great Reset’:”The Fusion of our Physical, Digital, and Biological Identities”

By Tim Porter, August 04, 2021

World Economic Forum’s transhumanist founder promotes ‘regionalization’ as globalism’s post-COVID compromise with nationalism. Regional blocs, regional supply chains would be an “in-between solution….a new watered-down version” of globalization.

Our Tragedy Is the Loss of Love: Are We Still Human?

By S. M. Smyth, August 04, 2021

A narrow perception of what it means to be human has led us, willy nilly—or perhaps with a chilling inevitability—to the literal transformation of people into bizarre hybrid creatures, half human, half machine.

Freedom of Information Requests: Health/ Science Institutions Worldwide “Have No Record” of SARS-COV-2 Isolation/Purification

By Fluoride Free Peel, August 04, 2021

While the Chinese authorities announced on January 7, 2020 that they had isolated and identified “a new type of virus” no details were provided. 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.

Video: Freedom Fighter Court Victory! Ends Masking, Shots, Quarantine in Alberta!

By Patrick King and Stew Peters, August 04, 2021

WE CAN WIN! Patrick King is a proud father of 2, Freedom Fighter and Patriot who took on the powerful government in Alberta, and WON! We can ALL learn from this, and we MUST battle this in every single city, every single county, every single state, every single NATION! The fight for freedom is a worldwide effort, and WE CAN WIN!

World’s Elderly Population Targeted with 3rd COVID-19 Shot for Those Who Survived the First Two

By Brian Shilhavy, August 04, 2021

According to statistics released by the CDC in their Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the vast majority of recorded deaths following one of the experimental COVID-19 injections has been among the elderly.

Sweden: Despite Variants, No Lockdowns, No Daily COVID Deaths

By Michael Fumento, August 04, 2021

Since the Covid pandemic broke out, Sweden has been fought over more than any other part of Europe since Germany in the 30 Years War. In refusing to use an iron fist to control a virus, lockdown advocates claimed it was either committing murder or suicide; choose your favorite metaphor.

58% of Infant Deaths Reported to VAERS Occurred Within 3 Days of Vaccination, Research Shows

By Prof. Brian S. Hooker, August 04, 2021

In a new research paper published in the journal Toxicology Reports, author Neil Z. Miller found that out of a total of 2,605 infant deaths reported to VAERS between 1990 and 2019, 58% occurred within three days of vaccination, and 78% occurred within seven days of vaccination.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Freedom Fighter Court Victory! Ends Masking, Shots, Quarantine in Alberta!
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Pursuing ‘Integrated Deterrence’ Strategy in Asia-Pacific Region, Says Austin

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Wir befinden uns zurzeit in einem gesellschaftlichen Ausnahmezustand, wie ihn die Welt noch nicht erlebt hat.

Im Namen der Gesundheit sind uns Maßnahmen aufgezwungen worden, die uns alle nicht gesünder, sondern viele von uns krank gemacht haben, und zwar nicht nur körperlich, sondern psychisch, emotional und auch wirtschaftlich.

Noch nie sind unter einem medizinischen Vorwand solche wirtschaftlichen Schäden angerichtet worden wie in den zurückliegenden sechzehn Monaten. Betriebe wurden lahmgelegt, Lieferketten zerbrochen, mittelständische Betriebe zu hunderttausenden in Existenznot getrieben und ganze Wirtschaftszweige wie der Tourismus weitgehend zerstört.

Noch schlimmer als bei uns waren die Folgen in den Entwicklungs- und Schwellenländern: Allein 2020 ist der Lebensstandard von mehr als eineinhalb Milliarden Menschen gesenkt und sind mehr als 130 Millionen Menschen zum Hungern verurteilt worden.

Am entgegengesetzten Ende der Gesellschaft dagegen sah es anders aus:

Noch nie haben Regierungen mit Hilfe der Zentralbanken „Rettungsgelder“ in solcher Höhe und solchem Umfang wie 2020 vergeben. Der Löwenanteil dieser Gelder ist auf direktem Weg in die Finanzmärkte geflossen und hat dort eine Rallye befeuert, die zur größten Vermögensumverteilung von unten nach oben geführt hat, die die Welt jemals erlebt hat.

Was steckt dahinter? Wie war es möglich, unter dem Vorwand eines vermeintlichen gesundheitlichen Schutzes der Bevölkerung weltweit einen solch riesigen Wohlstands-Transfer vorzunehmen?

Die Antwort lautet: Wir sind 2020 am Ende eines historischen Prozesses und damit an einem Wendepunkt in der menschlichen Geschichte angekommen, und es ist nicht die Politik, die über den zukünftigen Kurs der Welt entscheidet, sondern eine andere – unendlich viel mächtigere – Kraft, nämlich der DIGITAL-FINANZIELLE KOMPLEX.

Dieser Komplex hat sich in den zurückliegenden 40 Jahren wie ein Krebsgeschwür über die gesamte Welt ausgebreitet und sämtliche Bereiche unseres Lebens durchdrungen. Zu seinen wichtigsten Vertretern zählen die großen IT-Konzerne und die führenden Vermögensberatungen.

Der Börsenwert der fünf größten Digitalkonzerne Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft und Facebook liegt zurzeit bei sagenhaften 8,8 Billionen Dollar, allein die beiden größten Vermögensverwalter der Welt, BlackRock und Vanguard, verwalten zusammen mehr als 16 Billionen Dollar.

Dieser Konzentrationsprozess von Geld und Macht in immer weniger Händen ist einmalig. Noch nie in der gesamten Geschichte der Menschheit haben so wenige Menschen und so wenige Unternehmen so viel Geld besessen wie heute. Noch nie haben sie so viel Macht ausgeübt und noch nie haben sie diese Macht so hemmungslos eingesetzt wie in den vergangenen 16 Monaten.

Trotzdem steht der digital-finanzielle Komplex zurzeit vor einem riesigen Problem: Das System, das ihm zu so viel Geld und so viel Macht verholfen hat, ist im März / April 2020 in sein Endstadium eingetreten und mit den herkömmlichen Methoden nicht mehr zu retten.

Deshalb verfolgen seine wichtigsten Vertreter zurzeit eine Agenda, die mit Gesundheit nichts zu tun hat. Sie besteht darin, das bestehende System in seinem Todeskampf nach allen Regeln der Kunst zu plündern und gleichzeitig im Hintergrund ein neues System vorzubereiten.

Die Plünderung des Systems erleben wir seit Monaten durch die immer neuen Einschränkungen, die vor allem den Mittelstand in die Knie zwingen und ihn in eine immer größere Abhängigkeit von der digitalen Plattformökonomie treiben. Außerdem durch die permanente Einspeisung neuen Geldes, das die Inflation immer stärker anheizt, was sowohl den Staaten als auch den Spekulanten hilft, ihren Schuldenberg abzutragen, die arbeitende Bevölkerung aber gleichzeitig schleichend enteignet.

Von der Vorbereitung des neuen Systems – der Einführung digitaler Zentralbankwährungen – erfährt die Öffentlichkeit dagegen so gut wie nichts. Und das, obwohl die großen Zentralbanken alle unter Hochdruck an diesem Projekt arbeiten. Und diese neue Währung birgt ungeheure Gefahren: Mit ihr wird man das Konsumverhalten der Empfänger gezielt steuern, ihnen das Sparen unmöglich machen und sie zwingen können, das Geld zweckgebunden innerhalb vorgegebener Zeiträume auszugeben. Man wird Wohlverhalten belohnen, Kritiker bestrafen und sogar von allen Finanzströmen abschneiden können.

Digitales Zentralbankgeld wird der Kern eines gesellschaftlichen Zwangsregimes sein, das weitgehend ohne offene Gewalt auskommen wird, weil es jede Opposition bereits im Keim ersticken kann. Digitales Zentralbankgeld ist ein fast perfektes Mittel zur Kontrolle, zur Manipulation und zur Konditionierung der Bevölkerung. Seine Einführung bedeutet nicht mehr und nicht weniger als die am tiefsten in unser Leben eingreifende Währungsreform aller Zeiten. Eine Welt mit digitalem Zentralbankgeld ist nichts anderes als ein digital-finanzielles Gefängnis, in dem für Freiheit und Demokratie kein Platz mehr ist.

Aber sind wir dieser Entwicklung hilflos ausgeliefert? Oder haben wir noch eine Chance, den Alptraum einer Welt der vollständigen Versklavung durch das Geld zu verhindern?

Das hängt nur von einem einzigen Faktor ab: dem Wissensstand der Menschen. Das gegenwärtige undemokratische, ungerechte und sozial zerstörerische System funktioniert nämlich nur deshalb, weil die Mehrheit der Menschen es nicht durchschaut. Würden die Menschen es massenhaft durchschauen, wäre es auf Dauer nicht aufrecht zu erhalten.

Da dieses System aber nur durch immer schärfere Zwangsmaßnahmen am Leben erhalten werden kann, werden in der vor uns liegenden Periode immer mehr Menschen damit in Konflikt geraten. Das wiederum bedeutet, dass sie auf Grund der entstehenden Probleme nach Auswegen suchen werden.

Wir treten also in eine geschichtliche Epoche ein, in der die Aufklärung über die tatsächlichen Strukturen und Machtverhältnisse in unserer Gesellschaft und unserer Wirtschaft bei sehr vielen Menschen auf offene Ohren stoßen wird.

Nutzen wir also diese historische Chance und treiben wir diese Aufklärung trotz aller Zensur, aller Verbote und aller Einschüchterungen voran – und setzen wir es uns zum Ziel, uns, unsere Kinder und unsere Enkel vor der Einkerkerung in einem digital-finanziellen Gefängnis zu bewahren und zukünftigen Generationen ein Leben in Würde und in Freiheit zu ermöglichen.

*

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

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Verbotene Demo in Berlin: Meine nicht gehaltene Rede

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Since the port of Beirut was destroyed on August 4, 2020, French authorities have increased the number of trips, initiatives, pressures and appeals to the international community to assist reconstruction and stabilization efforts in Lebanon. A year after the explosion, French President Emmanuel Macron and Secretary-General of the United Nations António Guterres organized a virtual summit in order to raise at least $350 million in emergency aid for the Lebanese people. The videoconference will have the participation of 40 heads of state, including U.S. President Joe Biden, Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, King Abdullah II of Jordan and Lebanese President Michel Aoun.

Faced with the worst economic crisis in its history, Lebanon is in the most desperate state it has been in since the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990). Aid is necessary to alleviate the most immediate problems people are facing, but it does not in any way solve the overarching issues in Lebanon – deeply ingrained corruption, sectarianism and a collapsing economy.

Paris has already organized several conferences to try and resolve the Lebanese crisis. The first two were on August 9 and December 12, 2020, mobilizing €257 and €280 million respectively. On June 17, the French Defense Minister organized a virtual meeting to gather emergency aid for the Lebanese army. In addition to the humanitarian and military aid, France is also heavily involved in Lebanese politics, demonstrating that the European country is desperately trying to regain a significant foothold in its former colony.

Faced with the inaction of the Lebanese ruling class and the numerous ministerial blockages, Paris did not hesitate to toughen up its tone. On March 29, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian had mentioned “stepping up the pressure” against Lebanon’s elite. Soon after, France followed through on its threats, sanctioning several Lebanese leaders, including former foreign minister and Christian ally of Hezbollah, Gebran Bassil. In this way, French sanctions towards Lebanese leaders matched Washington’s policies.

Unable to create a new government in Beirut, Paris set its sights on the irremovable governor of the Lebanese Central Bank, Riad Salameh. On June 6, the National Financial Prosecutor’s Office opened a preliminary investigation for “criminal association” and “organized money laundering” against Salameh. France had to learn the hard way that a country with deeply ingrained corruption cannot be reformed in a short time.

However, even this was problematic and demonstrated France’s lack of awareness on its Lebanon file. Macron left this file in the hands of former French Ambassador to Lebanon, Emmanuel Bonne, and Director of the Directorate-General for France’s External Security, Bernard Émié. Both are known for being in favor of the Hariri clan. The Hariri’s are one of the most powerful Sunni families in Lebanon, often holding the Prime Ministership and are worth billions of dollars. The Hariri’s have been involved in numerous scandals and have serious accusations of corruption levelled against them.

However, even Saad Hariri, close to the President of the Republic, was sidelined by Paris. Indeed, during his visit to Lebanon on June 6, Le Drian received him at the residence of the French Ambassador to Lebanon. According to diplomatic protocol, a French minister must go to his hosts and not to a place belonging to France.

Today though, it is Lebanese President Michel Aoun that is in the sights of European sanctions at the request of Paris. In the event of a non-formation of a government, Brussels could sanction Aoun. Despite this more aggressive and dissuasive policy, France is failing to gain significant influence in Lebanon.

It is recalled that during Macron’s visit to Lebanon the day after the port of Beirut explosion, he was received with much jubilation to many of the Lebanese that came out to welcome him. From August 6, two days after the disaster in Beirut, the French President was taking photos and hugging the families of victims, and saw himself as the saviour of Lebanon. Riding this wave of French empathy, some Lebanese even become nostalgic for the era of the French Mandate, i.e. colonial rule.

With two trips in less than a month, Macron had taken the Lebanese file very seriously. After the initial benevolence, he tried to impose a French initiative, a sort of political roadmap to resolve the Lebanese crisis and form a new government. Ultimately, Paris failed as Lebanon remains in a political and economic gridlock.

For France, Lebanon is its only gateway to the Middle East after it severed and destroyed ties with Damascus following the Syrian War in 2011. Macron also wanted to use success in Lebanon as part of his re-election campaign, but it is clear that no serious achievements have been made. One year on from the port of Beirut blast and France remains locked out of the Middle East and Lebanon has not made а serious step towards economic and political stability.

*

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

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image: A damaged car and building are seen after a fire at a warehouse with explosives at the Port of Beirut led to massive blasts in Lebanon, 14 August 2020 [Enes Canli/Anadolu Agency]

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

This week, Twitter was keen to share the news about its new arrangement with The Associated Press and Reuters “to expand our efforts to identify and elevate credible information” on its platform.  The company reiterates its commitment that people using its service are able to “easily find reliable information” hoping to “expand the scale and increase the speed of our efforts to provide timely, authoritative text across the wide range of global topics and conversations” taking place on the platform each day.

The global head of user-generated content at Reuters, Hazel Baker, was businesslike in describing a partnership that would “leverage our deep global and local expertise to serve the public conversation with reliable information.”  Tom Januszewski, Vice President of Global Business Development at AP, was “particularly excited about leveraging AP’s scale and speed to add context to online conversations, which can benefit from easy access to the facts.” 

Such promises to “leverage” could well have been matched to any shadowy information department from the Cold War with the express purpose of ensuring what news was consumed when and by whom.  Twitter will seek help from the two newswires “where facts are in dispute or when Twitter’s Curation team doesn’t have the specific expertise or access to a high enough volume of reputable reporting on Twitter.”  Those using the platform “can expect more Trends with contextual descriptions and links to reporting from trusted sources more frequently.”

Bringing aboard these news giants is no guarantee that the text and information provided will be authoritative, credible or reliable.  News wires are not immune to being disseminators of inaccurate information, or information that is slanted in favour of a power or interest.  Often, they hide behind their reputations even as they ventriloquise different interests and planted narratives. 

Take Reuters, which, by its claim, “shall supply unbiased and reliable news services to newspapers, news agencies, broadcasters, and other media subscribers and to businesses, governments, institutions, individuals, and others with whom Reuters has or may have contracts.”  In 1941, the company created its Trust Principles in agreement with The News Paper Proprietors Associated Limited and The Press Association Limited.  These imposed obligations on the organisation and its employees to “act at all times with integrity, independence, and freedom from bias.”

Noble in print, the practise did not always stack up. In 1969, a British government document available in the National Archives called “Funding of Reuters by HMG” (Her Majesty’s Government) also outlined an agreement with Reuters to do the sort of thing that has become popular at Twitter: curate the news. 

The way that curating would take place was what mattered.  “We are now in a position to conclude an agreement providing discreet Government support for Reuters services in the Middle East and Latin America”.  The interests of HMG “should be well served by the new arrangement.”  The negotiations with the news outlet were led by the anti-Soviet propaganda unit known as the Information Research Department.  “The new relationship established with Reuters in the Middle East and Latin America,” John Peck, former head of the IRD notes in the documents, “can lead to valuable goodwill and cooperation with the Agency on a global scale.” Reuters “could and would provide” what the government needed.

The scheme also brought in that other paragon of objective journalism, the BBC, which paid an “enhanced subscription” to Reuters, which was then going through a financially lean time.  That money was duly recouped from the Treasury’s purse.  Knowledge of this arrangement, approved by the BBC’s head of external services Sir Charles Curran, was kept to a select few.

With these revelations, Reuters was keen to regard this practise as not only normal but acceptable – at least historically.  “Many news organisations received some form of state subsidy after World War Two,” was the weak explanation from the wire’s spokesperson David Crundwell.  The arrangement, he claimed, “was not in keeping with our Trust Principles and we would not do this today.”

The BBC, through a spokeswoman, similarly said that, “The BBC charter guarantees editorial independence irrespective of whether funding comes from the UK government, the license fee or commercial sources.” 

Much of this is wishful thinking.  Such working understandings have not ceased in the post-Cold War era.  If anything, the misinformation and disinformation stakes have reached a new frontier, pullulating with contenders.  Max Blumental, editor of The Grayzone, revealed last February that Reuters and the BBC had been sponsored to engage in a covert information warfare campaign against that old adversary Russia.  This involved a collaboration with the Counter Disinformation & Media Development (CDMD) section within the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).  Media organisations worked alongside various intelligence contractors, training Russian journalists under the Reuters umbrella to produce “attitudinal change in the participants”. The aim, fluffily put, was to produce a “positive impact” on their “perception of the UK.”

The development tracker of the UK government also reveals that the CDMD programme involves working with various partners “to enhance the quality of public service and independent media (including the Russian language) so that it is able to support social cohesion, uphold universal values and provide communities across Eastern Europe with access to reliable information.”

Twitter’s response to Blumenthal’s work is a sign of things to come.  Providing its own idea of context to the article, the platform placed a warning on all tweets linked to it.  Far from discrediting the sources used, the message simply went on to warn that the documents used “may have been obtained through hacking.”

As for Twitter, we already know about executive connections between its operations and the military-intelligence establishment.  In 2019, the Middle East Eye found that Gordon MacMillan, a senior executive with editorial responsibility for Middle East matters, was also moonlighting as a reservist for the 77th Brigade, the British Army’s psychological warfare unit established in 2015 to find ways of waging “non-lethal” war.  According to General Nick Carter, the unit’s primary task is to conduct researchinto “information warfare” and give the British military “the capability to compete in the war of narratives at the tactical level”.

The battle against misinformation can very often become a battle against information you do not particularly like or want people to access.  The line on this is not always clear, though hope springs eternal that the marketplace of ideas, to use that increasingly empty expression, can sort the wheat from the chaff.  Twitter’s calculating pivot towards this new information landscape shows a new strategy to anchor itself in an ecosystem already marginalising independent journalism. In doing so, it is courting the high priests who determine what counts as news and what doesn’t.  Soon, a sanitised platform will simply be code for a censored one.

*

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

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]

Featured image is from Shutterstock

Black August and the Legacy of Liberation Struggles

August 5th, 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.

***

Since 1979 when prisoners at the San Quentin Correctional Facility in California declared the month of August as a period of commemoration honoring political detainees along with those who have sacrificed their well-being and lives in the movement for African emancipation, this holiday has grown in recognition and participation. 

For decades the United States government has denied the existence of political prisoners while the entire criminal justice system has grown exponentially.

Looking back even further, the centuries-long enslavement of African people has never been officially acknowledged by the U.S. capitalist state as a crime against humanity. Not even one president out of those elected since the demise of legalized slavery in 1865 has officially apologized for the pain and suffering enduring by African people between 1619 to the Civil War.

Such an admission of guilt by the state and the leading financial institutions and corporations which were built on the profits accrued through slave labor, would inevitably suggest the need for reparations. The question of reparations remains a major source of denial by the state and the capitalist system.

After the period of enslavement there were the attempts to reconstruct a democratic dispensation. However, the overthrow of Federal Reconstruction between 1877 extending to the conclusion of the century which included the passage of Civil Rights Acts and three amendments to the Constitution (13th, 14th and 15th) that specifically addressed the emancipation and the granting of “citizenship rights” to African Americans, set the stage for the criminalization of an entire people.

Resistance to national oppression has always prompted an expansion of the prison system in the U.S. In the South, facilities such as Angola in Louisiana and Parchman in Mississippi were structured in a manner quite similar to plantations. African Americans have been routinely framed for crimes in which they did not commit in order to send them to penitentiaries where they work for slave wages under dangerous and highly exploitative conditions.

African enslavement and the U.S. state (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

During the era of African enslavement there were prisons which held captured runaways from the plantation system. Plantation owners and enslavers would often place ads in newspapers during the antebellum period seeking information on Africans who had escaped their masters. The detention facilities would charge the slave owners for holding the African people and costs were levied for beatings and other forms of purported discipline.

Black August and the Struggle Against Mass Incarceration

With specific reference to Black August after its founding in 1979, an article in Teen Vogue says of its history that:

“As Dan Berger explained in an essay for Dissent, Black August remains a 31-day period for us to advocate for Black political prisoners, study Black political thinkers, and reflect on the history of Black struggle against white supremacy and state repression. The history of Black August shows us that the current targeting of protesters via carceral, shadowy methods is not new. Black organizers have long sounded the alarm about and resisted government surveillance programs like the FBI’s COINTELPRO, which worked to dismantle leftist movements. Many Black political leaders ended up imprisoned or dead as a result of the notorious covert operation. Black August calls on us to commit, even in the face of authoritarianism, to continued struggle against all forms of oppression and violence that impact Black people today.”

This same article continues by reflecting on a number of historical events which have occurred in the month of August over a period of several centuries:

“A plethora of important moments related to the struggle for Black freedom occurred in August: the beginning of the Haitian Revolution in 1791, the 2014 Ferguson uprising, the landing of enslaved Africans stolen from present-day Angola at the Jamestown settler colony in 1619, the 1963 March on Washington, the 1831 slave insurrection led by Nat Turner, and the 1965 Watts rebellion, to name a few. Joan Little, a Black woman who was charged with first-degree murder after she defended herself against sexual assault by a white prison guard, was acquitted and freed in August 1975. Brilliant Black activists and leaders like Anna Julia Cooper, James Baldwin, Marcus Garvey, Marsha P. Johnson, and Fred Hampton were all born in August. The month marks the passing of prolific Black writers and political thinkers like W.E.B. DuBois and Toni Morrison. Jonathan P. Jackson, the 17-year-old younger brother of George Jackson, was killed in August 1970 as he attempted to free his older brother and two other Black prisoners. This August also marks six years (2020) since the police killing of Michael Brown.”

African American prison intellectual and organizer George Jackson, a co-founder of the Black Guerrilla Family and Field Marshal for the Black Panther Party, was assassinated on August 21, 1971, during a rebellion and attempted escape. Several white inmates and guards were killed in the incident. Jackson was shot to death by guards firing from a prison tower.

Jackson’s assassination sent shockwaves throughout the U.S. both within and without the prison system. Anger over his death sparked other prison rebellions, the most well-known being the uprising at Attica in New York state which erupted just weeks later. The then governor of New York, Nelson Rockefeller, ordered the prison retaken by the state police resulting in the deaths of 43 people including inmates and some guards held hostage for four days.

The writings of Jackson are still being read around the world. In later years, a film entitled “Black August” depicted the life, times and contributions of George L. Jackson.

U.S. Has the Highest Incarceration Rate in the World

Today in 2021, there has been a decline in the number of people held within jails, state and federal prisons in part as a result of the inmate releases due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There were huge outbreaks of coronavirus starting in the spring of 2020 in correctional institutions. The infections impacted the inmates along with the guards, visitors and administrators.

A report published by the Vera Institute of Justice based in New York City says of the present situation in the jails and prisons:

“The number of people incarcerated in state and federal prisons and local jails in the United States dropped from around 2.1 million in 2019 to 1.8 million by mid-2020—a 14 percent decrease. This decline held through the fall. This represents a 21 percent decline from a peak of 2.3 million people in prison and jail in 2008. State and federal prisons held an estimated 1,311,100 people at midyear 2020—down 124,400, or 9 percent, from 2019. Prisons declined by an additional 61,800 people in late 2020, bringing the total prison population to 1,249,300 people, a 13 percent decline from 2019 to late 2020 (the end of September or beginning of October).”

Many hope that this decline is the beginning of a trend towards lower rates of incarceration in the U.S. Nonetheless, the current economic crisis worsened by the pandemic has placed millions in deep financial distress. Large scale evictions are occurring after workers have lost their jobs or are prevented from being employed due to healthcare issues and problems related to the lack of affordable childcare. Schools and daycare centers were closed after the advent of the pandemic in the early months of 2020. These social conditions could easily lead to a renewed wave of criminalization and imprisonment particularly among Black and Brown peoples.

The prison population at its peak in 2008 represented an increase of 500% since the late 1960s, a period of mass resistance and urban rebellion. A government sponsored “war of drugs” beginning under the administration of President Richard M. Nixon was extended by subsequent U.S. leaders. Its impact resulted in higher incarceration rates for African Americans and people of Latin American descent. This disproportionate rate of incarceration among people of color is an aspect of the modern manifestations of national oppression and super-exploitation.

Political prisoners such as Mumia Abu-Jamal and Leonard Peltier have been locked up for decades without cause being accused of crimes and then railroaded through the courts solely based upon their activism. Repeated demands for their releases have not resulted in freedom.

Moreover, the purported labor shortages within the U.S. capitalist system stemming from the pandemic are being addressed by employers through prison labor. A recent article published by the Guardian emphasizes that prisoners on work release are being highly exploited in the industries of construction, waste management, production and food services.

The report in the Guardian written by Michael Sainato notes:

“Employers and industry groups have claimed labor shortages were stifling recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Republican governors blaming unemployment benefits. Some 26 states have canceled federal extended unemployment benefits early, though economists have noted the available jobs recovery data shows there is no economy-wide labor shortage. That hasn’t stopped employers and business groups from using perceived labor shortages as a pretext to seek out cheap labor sources; employers are hiring teenagers to fill open jobs, automating some job roles to avoid raising wages, lobbying Congress to double the cap on work immigration visas and expanding the use of prison labor.”

Therefore, cheap labor exploitation is integral to the continuation of the existing racist capitalist system. The problem of mass incarceration is linked to the struggle for Black liberation and the construction of a socialist economy.

*

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: Jonathan Jackson and his comrades on Aug. 7, 1970 in Marin County, California (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Has the flu and the majority of colds been eradicated from society because of mask wearing and social distancing as the so called experts contend or is it more plausible that every case of the sniffles for the past year and a half have been wrongfully diagnosed as Covid-19(84)? Are the current PCR tests reliable and what does the FDA, WHO and CDC say about its use today and in the near future? In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth covers the latest controversial announcement from the CDC which states that the “CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses”.  Dan also proves that the “fact checkers” can simply not be trusted.

*

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 Press for Truth

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

At today’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) called for an amendment to a bill to prohibit US participation in a vaccine passport.

*

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.

Global Research: Delivering the Facts before They Get Erased

August 5th, 2021 by The Global Research Team

We are at the crossroads of one of the most serious crises in World history.

Freedom of speech and independent media are threatened. Critical analysis and dialogue are essential. 

At Global Research, our goal is to bring you timely and carefully documented articles pertaining to the ongoing crisis which is affecting the future of humanity. 

Can you help us meet our monthly running expenses and ensure that our articles stay free and accessible to a large Worldwide readership. Please see below for more information on how to make a donation or become a member of Global Research.

Online donation

Make a one time or recurring donation and/or become a Member and receive free books.  Any amount large or small will contribute to supporting Global Research

Donation by mail

Kindly send your cheque or money order to the following address:

Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
PO Box 55019
11 Notre-Dame Ouest,
MONTREAL, Qc, H2Y 4A7
CANADA

For donations from the US, the money order should be “International” payable outside the US 


Become a member       

Our membership plans are:

Global Research Annual Membership – $95.00/year

All new members (annual basis) as well as all membership renewal (annual basis) will receive a FREE copy of “Voices from Syria” by Mark Taliano, as well as a FREE copy of “The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century“, edited by Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!


Global Research Monthly Membership – $9.50/month

All new members (monthly basis) will receive a FREE copy of this e-book (in PDF format) from Global Research, “Towards a WWIII Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” by Michel Chossudovsky.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!


Global Research Annual Membership – $48.00/year

(Students / Seniors / Low-Income)

All new members (annual basis) as well as all membership renewals (annual basis) will receive a FREE copy of the e-book (in PDF format) “The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century“, edited by Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall, as well as the e-book of “Towards a WWIII Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” by Michel Chossudovsky.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!


Global Research Monthly Membership – $5.00/month

(Students / Seniors / Low-Income)

All new members (monthly basis) will receive a FREE copy of this e-book (in PDF format) from Global Research, “Towards a WWIII Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” by Michel Chossudovsky.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!


Sustainer Member – $200.00/year

Help support Global Research with an annual membership payment of $200.00. Each Sustainer Member will receive any two books of their choice from our Online Store, as well as a FREE copy of “The Globalization of War” by Michel Chossudovsky.

CLICK TO BECOME A SUSTAINER!

Thank you for supporting independent media!

All Global Research articles 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 following article provides a summary of the authors’ more detailed article entitled

Freedom of Information Requests: Health/ Science Institutions Worldwide “Have No Record” of SARS-COV-2 Isolation/Purification

By Fluoride Free Peel, August 04, 2021

***

This article provides links to correspondence (pdf) with several of the Health/Science institutions.

For references purposes, below is the scan of the researchers “Freedom of Information” letter. The responses can be consulted. See links below as well as in the related article entitled:

Freedom of Information Requests: Health/ Science Institutions Worldwide “Have No Record” of SARS-COV-2 Isolation/Purification

***

 

****

Ninety Health/Science Freedom of Information institutions globally all failed to provide or cite even 1 record of “SARS-COV-2” isolation/purification, by anyone, anywhere, ever.

Below is a list of the institutions.

81. Canada’s Hastings Prince Edward Public Health (Ontario).

82. Slovenia’s Univerzitetni klinični center Ljubljana UKCLJ (University Medical Centre Ljubljana).

83. Ukraine’s Ministry of Health

84. Western Australia Minister & Department of Health

85. South Australia Minister for Health and Wellbeing

86. New South Wales Ministry of Health, Australia

87. Pennine Acute National Health Service Trust, England

88. Salford Royal National Health Service Foundation Trust, England

89. Brazil, Anvisa (Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency)

90. Brazil, Ministry of Health

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 90 Health/Science Institutions Globally All Failed to Cite Even 1 Record of “SARS-COV-2” Purification, by Anyone, Anywhere, Ever
  • 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.

***

 

.

 

Important article yet to be fully corroborated.

See also

Freedom of Information Requests: Health/ Science Institutions Worldwide “Have No Record” of SARS-COV-2 Isolation/Purification

By Fluoride Free Peel, August 04, 2021

***

In a shocking revelation first reported by Dan Dicks of Press for Truth (Canada), an FDA document admits that the CDC and FDA conspired to fabricate a covid-19 testing protocol using human cells combined with common cold virus fragments because they had no physical samples of the SARS-CoV-2 “covid” virus available.

Without physical reference material to use for calibration and confirmation, the test has zero scientific basis in physical reality. And all the PCR analysis based on this protocol is utterly fraudulent, flagging people as “positive” for covid when they merely possess tiny quantities of RNA fragments from other coronavirus strains circulating in their blood.

The FDA document, available from the FDA.gov website, is entitled, “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)
Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel .” The document astonishingly admits: (emphasis ours)

Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells andviral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen.

In other words, they had no covid virus from which to develop and calibrate the test, so they mixed up a cocktail of human cells and RNA fragments from a common cold virus, then called it “covid.” The GenBank sequence referred to in this paragraph is simply a digital library definition that’s labeled “covid” but has no supporting reference materials in physical reality either.

That’s because no doctor or researcher has isolated “covid” from any infected, symptomatic patient. As a result, no laboratory instruments can be calibrated against actual covid, and the tests simply rely on digital libraries pushed out by the CDC and WHO, using “covid” as the label.

The PCR tests are then instructed to look for these genetic sequences obtained from the fabricated digital libraries, meaning the entire scheme is junk science circular logic with no basis in physical reality.

Why are there seemingly no certified reference materials for covid available to laboratories for instrument calibration?

I am the founder and owner of an analytical laboratory that routinely conducts quantitative analysis of food contaminants, producing high-precision analysis results for pesticides, herbicides and heavy metals. In every case where we conduct lab analysis, we calibrate the instruments against known physical samples called “external standards” or “certified reference materials.” (CRM)

Any lab can purchase CRMs for mercury, arsenic, glyphosate and even salmonella. For example, this link at Biosisto lists CRMs for various salmonella strains. Labs can purchase those reference materials and use them to calibrate their instruments, making sure their analysis is traced back to physical, real-world samples of a purified material. These CRMs, in turn, must be NIST-traceable in order to confirm their origin and authenticity. All CRMs are therefore labeled with lot numbers and expiration dates.

While labs can purchase reference materials for microbes, heavy metals, pesticides, etc. — all physical materials — I have searched far and wide and have not been able to locate any certified reference materials for SARS-CoV-2 or even a weakened, non-viable version of it. As far as I can tell, there appear to be no physical specimens of isolated covid viruses available for instrument calibrations and testing protocol quality control.

To be clear, I’m not saying that viruses don’t exist, and it’s quite clear that the Wuhan Institute of Virology colluded with Fauci, Daszak, the NIH, Baric and others to develop a weaponized spike protein. But the spike protein is not a virus by itself. It’s simply a toxic nanoparticle that can be synthesized in quantity and then either dumped on cities or added to vaccines and injected into people via immunization protocols.

I ask the big question about all this in my science lab whistleblower video here, which presents more details about all this that will have your head spinning. In essence, if “covid-19” is a real virus that can be isolated, why are there apparently no physical reference materials to calibrate laboratory instruments for covid detection? And why were no such materials used in the development of the FDA-approved, CDC-endorsed PCR testing protocols?

CDC pulls its own fraudulent covid PCR testing protocol, implying it cannot differentiate between covid and influenza

What adds to the mystery in all this is the fact that the CDC just issued a “laboratory alert,” announcing their intention to withdraw the faulty PCR testing protocol by the end of this year. As part of their announcement, they implied that the current PCR test — the same one the FDA mentioned above, which was developed without any physical covid samples for calibration — cannot tell the difference between influenza and covid.

From the CDC document:

In preparation for this change, CDC recommends clinical laboratories and testing sites that have been using the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR assay select and begin their transition to another FDA-authorized COVID-19 test. CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses.

Why might it be important to differentiate covid from influenza?

Because, as it seems, influenza cases nearly disappeared in 2020 as influenza was re-labeled “covid” due to the faulty testing.

“Percentage influenza positivity decreased by 64% (p = 0.001) and estimated daily number of influenza cases decreased by 76% (p = 0.002) in epidemiologic weeks 5–9 of 2020 compared with the preceding years,” reported the CDC in 2020.

In essence, the medical establishment simply took all the people who would normally be diagnosed with colds and the flu, and shifted them into the “covid” category in order to push a covid mass hysteria narrative that would drive people into vaccines. The vaccines, then, were formulated with spike protein toxic nanoparticles to cause the “delta” panic wave, which is largely occurring among vaccinated individuals.

From here, the plandemic scam proceeds like clockwork: People get sick from the vaccines, so more vaccine boosters are demanded, which perpetuates the illness. Rinse and repeat. It never ends until the perpetrators are arrested and people wise up to the scam.

The CDC has just published a science document that confirms the entire scam. Click here to view the PDF on our servers.

It’s entitled, “Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Infections, Including COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Infections, Associated with Large Public Gatherings — Barnstable County, Massachusetts, July 2021” and it shockingly admits that 74% of infections occurred in fully vaccinated (double dose) people:

During July 2021, 469 cases of COVID-19 associated with multiple summer events and large public gatherings in a town in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, were identified among Massachusetts residents; vaccination coverage among eligible Massachusetts residents was 69%. Approximately three quarters (346; 74%) of cases occurred in fully vaccinated persons (those who had completed a 2-dose course of mRNA vaccine [Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna] or had received a single dose of Janssen [Johnson & Johnson] vac- cine ?14 days before exposure).

See, the vaccine is the pandemic. The vaccine is spreading the spike protein, and the fake PCR tests provide the fuel to keep the mass hysteria going.

I cover more details of all this in today’s bombshell podcast via Brighteon.com:

Also see this video from Dan Dicks, who covers the fake PCR tests as well:

*

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

Featured image is from Natural News

“Geoengineering Governance” on the UN Agenda

August 4th, 2021 by Sara Stefanini

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

This article was originally published in 2019.

No longer the preserve of science fiction, climate-hacking technologies may need international oversight, say backers of draft resolution. EURACTIV’s media partner Climate Home News reports.

Switzerland wants the world to talk about if and how to use untested technology that tampers with nature to slow climate change – and will ask the UN’s environment arm to take the lead.

Geoengineering techniques that reflect away sun rays and suck carbon from the atmosphere have long been talked about as last-resort solutions to stem the worst effects of climate change.

But as greenhouse gas emissions remain stubbornly high and geoengineering research gets underway, there is growing concern these technologies could be deployed without protections against their serious risks – and that the prospect of a technofix will be taken as a licence to keep on polluting.

To kickstart the conversation, Switzerland will introduce a resolution at the UN Environment Assembly in Kenya in mid-March, calling for an assessment of the potential methods and governance frameworks for each one by August 2020. It would be an early step towards an international system for regulating the suite of technologies.

“There is a risk that geoengineering could be applied by someone without any international control, and we are very concerned about that,” Franz Perrez, head of the international affairs division at Switzerland’s Federal Office for the Environment, told Climate Home News. “Some are already testing solar radiation management, scientific research is already going on. We cannot close our eyes anymore and say ‘This is only science fiction’.”

The resolution is backed by Burkina Faso, Micronesia, Georgia, Lichtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Montenegro, Niger, South Korea and Senegal, according to the latest version dated 25 February.

Geoengineering refers to a wide range of techniques for modifying the climate system, from planting trees to fiddling with clouds.

Untested technologies to manage solar radiation – essentially, dim the sun –  pose the biggest concerns. Ideas include releasing aerosol particles from airplanes to reflect sunlight away (mimicking the effects of volcanic eruptions) and spraying seawater drops into clouds to make them more reflective. But they could also change weather patterns, disrupting agriculture and exacerbating geopolitical tensions.

And if this is not accompanied by emissions reductions, more will be needed to sustain the temperature effect – “practically forever”, Douglas MacMartin, a leading geoengineering scientist working at Cornell University and Caltech, told a Chatham House conference in London last week.

Yet with government oversight, it may be preferable to runaway global warming.

“You would not take chemotherapy drugs just for fun, you would not sit in your car and set off your airbags just for fun,” MacMartin said. “There are clearly serious challenges to solar geoengineering, but they only make sense to face in context with the challenges of climate change itself.”

Better-known options, which remove CO2 from the air, include afforestation and combining biomass power plants with technology to catch and store their emissions (known as BECCS). But even simple interventions like tree-planting may call for international rules to ensure that emissions cuts in one place aren’t cancelled out somewhere else.

Attention to geoengineering is growing as the global temperature remains on course to rise by at least 3C compared to pre-industrial levels. The UN’s panel of climate scientists suggested last October it would be difficult to meet the Paris Agreement’s stretch limit of 1.5C without some of these more radical techniques.

“The reality is that [carbon dioxide removal] is no longer a question of whether or not [according to the UN science report]. It’s which one, which technology, how much, when do you start, who pays for it,” said Janos Pasztor, executive director of the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative and the former UN assistant secretary-general on climate change.

“But there has been very little debate [about solar radiation management] in the circles beyond scientists… it’s still looked at as esoteric, science fiction, crazy, difficult, challenging – and all of those things apply,” he told CHN at the Chatham House conference.

For some, however, geoengineering is so dangerous that it should be banned altogether.

It could worsen the climate, be weaponised and exacerbate geopolitical imbalances, said Silvia Ribeiro, Latin America director at ETC Group, an organisation that looks at socioeconomic and ecological issues around new technologies. “Investments in geoengineering are already providing justifications for high greenhouse gas emitters to continue emitting and postpone real reductions.”

The UN has so far taken a cautious, piecemeal approach. Th 190-plus parties to its Convention on Biological Diversity extended a moratorium on all climate-related technologies in 2016, while a 2013 convention on marine pollution prohibited geoengineering of the oceans. The UN’s climate change secretariat regulates global emissions accounting, including from forestry and bioenergy.

ETC Group worries the Swiss resolution implicitly assumes that geoengineering is acceptable and just needs international governance.

Perrez countered that the country wants the UN Environment Programme to assess the state of the science and the research gaps, the risks, benefits and uncertainties, the actors working on research and deployment, and how it could all be governed. Then, he said, countries can start talking about what to allow and how.

But the way emissions are going now, “it’s hard to say that it will not be needed”, Pasztor said, referring to CO2 removal. “The reality is that emissions reductions alone are no longer enough, because we have already put so much carbon into the atmosphere that even if we stop today we’re still going to keep this climate change for hundreds of years.”

*

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 NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center / Flickr

All Global Research articles 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.

***

World Economic Forum’s transhumanist founder promotes ‘regionalization’ as globalism’s post-COVID compromise with nationalism. Regional blocs, regional supply chains would be an “in-between solution….a new watered-down version” of globalization.

Since 1971, influential economist and transhumanist Klaus Schwab has hosted his annual hobnob winter retreat in Davos, Switzerland, for thousands of like-minded globalists and invited guests.

In its early years, Schwab focused his Davos affair on Europe’s place in the world, but in 1987 Schwab expanded his global vision, and the World Economic Forum was launched. Its complete name, “World Economic Forum, the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation,” gives a better understanding of Schwab’s grand corporatist (fascist) sentiments.

Over the years, Schwab’s late-January confab has attracted a veritable who’s who of the world’s leading business executives, politicians, economists, financiers, academics, media moguls and environmentalists, jet-setting to the Davos slopes for discussions on all things global. Even President Donald Trump appeared to present his “America First” rebuttals to globalism in 2018 and 2020.

Pastor and author Rick Warren (right) remarks while seated on a panel next to fellow Council on Foreign Relations member David Harris, president and C.E.O. of the National Jewish Democratic Council, at the 2008 World Economic Forum. Seated next to Harris is former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Religious figures from around the world have also attended, including best-selling author and Council on Foreign Relations member Rick Warren. His book, “The Purpose Driven Life,” has persuaded many evangelical churches to steer away from traditional worship toward modernism, ecumenism and social service.

In the midst of the 2020 COVID-19 scare, Schwab released his book, “COVID-19: The Great Reset.” The book describes his ideas on how globalism can recover its mojo after incurring major setbacks the past few years, most notably by Trumpian and Brexit nationalism, and by the economic shutdowns, travel restrictions, border closings, and global supply chain interruptions during the COVID scare.

Transhumanism

Schwab’s audacious plans for the rest of us are not limited to those mentioned in his Great Reset. Garnering understandably the most sensationalist attention and criticism are his transhumanist views.

In a speech before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in 2019, Schwab paraphrased a statement from the printed introduction of his 2016 book, “The Fourth Industrial Revolution,” an event which, he told the audience, “will lead to a fusion of our physical, digital, and biological identities.”

For those naive to the apocalyptic implications of that statement, Schwab had made it clear in a 2016 televised interview. Asked when the world would see chips implanted in humans, Schwab replied,

“Certainly in the next ten years. At first we will implant them in our clothes, and then we could imagine that we will implant them in our brains or in our skin. And in the end, maybe, there will be a direct communication between our brain and the digital world. What we see is a kind of fusion of the physical, digital and biological world.”

“Smart Dust, arrays of full computers with antennas, each much smaller than a grain of sand, can now organize themselves inside the body….implanted devices will likely also help to communicate thoughts normally expressed verbally through a ‘built-in’ smartphone, and potentially unexpressed thoughts or moods by reading brain waves and other signals,” Schwab wrote in “The Fourth Industrial Revolution.”

Klaus Schwab’s “COVID-19: The Great Reset” pages 83-84

Regionalization

Public reaction to these audacious “in your face” ideas, by comparison, may appear to have buried some of Schwab’s other topics like “regionalization” into the obscure pages of his Great Reset. But regionalization should merit the audacious label in its own right, as its establishment would mark an unprecedented era in modern history, rendering national sovereignty obsolete.

According to Schwab, the COVID scare may well be the pretext to prompt regional blocs around the world, like the European Union, to assume regulation of their own regional supply chains. That would be their near-term compromise between globalism and nationalism. It supposedly would diffuse nationalist patriots within all nations by diverting their pushback against the overreach of global supply chain vulnerabilities and regulatory threats to national sovereignty that were obvious even before COVID.

So Schwab’s “new watered-down version of globalization” would be limited to national populations’ own regional neighborhoods, at least in the near term. Americans would no longer need to be concerned about being dependent upon products made in China, but they would have to settle on having the phrase, “Made in North America” stamped on those products instead of “Made in USA.”

But Schwab’s “pragmatic,” incremental approach toward world government through regionalism is certainly not a new idea among globalists. Some of their most extolled, Henry KissingerZbigniew BrzezinskiLincoln BloomfieldStrobe TalbottRichard N. Gardner, and Guy Verhofstadt, have all euphemistically stated that globalism would eventually come about only through the regionalization process, with its “institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership.”

Globalist quotes: Their regionalizaion process to world government

It appears, then, that globalism’s major setbacks in recent years have not been unforeseen at all, but were factored beforehand into the more pragmatic regionalization approach to globalism. That approach matches the “Hagelian dialectic” method of “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” strategy that has been employed by every human manipulator from contract negotiators to despots throughout world history.

In this case, with the thesis (the still-current reality) being the nation-state, then the imposed antithesis (“way-out,” unsustainable opposite) has been overreached globalism in its current, chaotic state. That allows regionalization to be offered as globalism’s synthesis (solution) to which nationalists, by then beleaguered by globalism’s open-border chaos, theoretically would finally acquiesce. Two steps forward for globalism, one back.

Once regional governments get established and consolidate power, they could then merge into authoritarian globalism with minimal opposition.

“Ten kings”

That incremental approach to globalism also matches even the most famous reference to a future oppressive world government, the Bible’s Revelation account. For those of us who believe the Bible account has credibility, it is important to note that the biblical text does not introduce that future one-world government as such, but as initially governed by “ten kings” (see Rev 13:1 with Rev 17:12-13). It enters the narrative not as a monolithic “one-world” government, or even three consolidated “trilateral” governments as some maintain, but as ten. Globalists currently are having a hard enough time corralling the world’s nations into ten governments, let alone three or one.

Regional blocs attempted to gain a foothold during the Bush-Obama years, but President Trump’s nationalism almost single-handedly drove into disarray any momentum toward regionalizion. Trump curtailed U.S. funding of United Nations programs and other foreign aid projects having to do with economic/military nation building and multilateral region building.

Trump: I will not surrender U.S. to false song of globalism.

Meanwhile, Brexit jolted the European Union, South Asia’s SAARC bloc hasn’t gotten beyond the India-Pakistan standoff, and Russia’s economy has limited capacity to underwrite the Eurasian Union. The EU-style “unions” envisioned by both South America and Africa are dysfunctional, as various factions and instability, along with some nationalist pushback, prevent any consensus from their respective member nations to buy in totally. Southeast Asia’s ASEAN cannot project strength without dealing with Myanmar’s coup d’état and China’s maritime bullying, while the Arab (Persian) Gulf”s GCC bloc has to contend with Yemen’s civil war and threats from Iran.

But now the COVID scare ironically has breathed new life into the globalist narrative, although it comes, as Schwab describes, “with a regional twist.” With Trump seemingly out of the way and globalist, “Build Back Better” Biden purportedly in charge, Schwab’s Great Reset is now in vogue among corporatist elites and leftists.

If that group can keep Trump nationalism at bay and maintain their media monopoly on their narrative, it’s not hard to project that Schwab’s separate regional supply chains would lead to Kissinger’s “new mercantilism” of competing “regional units.” That new mercantilism likely would trigger Bloomfield’s quintessential “grave crisis,” leading ultimately to Verhofstadt’s federated New World Order of regional blocs.

*

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

All images in this article are from The Liberty Sentinel

All Global Research articles 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.

***

China’s second cultural revolution is hitting the brakes. This one is not about Mao’s little red book but TV remote controls, fridges, cars, mobile phones, and yes, most important, property, the trappings of the modern age, admittedly more apparent in the east of the country but aspired to greatly in the less-developed west.

Four decades of turbo-charged growth have given way to Xi Jinping thought. Enough is enough. Total party supremacy is what matters now.

This ushers in the profits, not of doom, but slow growth. Entrepreneurs will feel the party’s wrath unless they heed it in every respect. Consequently, party cadres, with no business experience, have and will have a greater say in corporate decision making.

Deng Xiaoping launched China’s pro-market reforms in the late 1970s specifically to avoid this scenario. He knew party interference stifled innovation. Deng grasped that the country was destitute because it was isolated from the world. Deng and his successors lifted controls on private investment, trade, foreign business, travel, education and almost every aspect of society.

The booster rockets were ignited.  Growth and wealth followed, albeit in an unbalanced way with the east coast benefitting most. Politics and profit, commerce and communism, could co-exist, or so it seemed.

Xi takes a different line. The booster rockets have been jettisoned. The West’s version of commerce, albeit more honored in the breach, sees the customer as king, has boards that are answerable, offers choices (except for online mega-corporations), would only serve to nurture conditions where one day the party itself would face questioning and criticism. If people felt they had a right to question commercial decisions then they may well feel emboldened to question the party’s policies.

Now state-owned enterprises, inefficient and top heavy, have more bank loans granted, while private companies have seen their market expansion slow.

Even the Covid response plays into this narrative. Not since the cultural revolution, the one of the little red book, have foreigners got such a bad press in China. Americans (accused by Chinese media of denying science and being obsessed with individual rights at the cost of society) are portrayed as too selfish, divided, and ignorant to fight the virus. Prime time TV news delights in images of mask-less Westerners on crowded beaches and streets or at anti-lockdown protests.

Chinese officials are fired if a case is discovered and whole cities can be plunged into lockdown, much stricter than the version in the west.

The government fosters a sense of grievance among the people that they are not getting the praise they think they deserve from the West for tackling Covid. This feeling of being scorned adds fuel to the propaganda fire. US politicians are accused of China-bashing to cover up their own incompetence and (in excess of) 600,000 pandemic deaths.

What is not covered on the TV news or any news is where the virus originated from and how it first became widespread.

But events can sometimes take unexpected turns. One fact rarely commented on in the West and never mentioned in China is how many people are leaving.  In the 1960s, tens of thousands of people, not surprisingly, fled China’s cultural revolution. That was at a time when passports were hard to get. As the country stabilized, that number dropped. The number is rising rapidly once again.

From 2012 and 2020 when the West was recovering from the financial crisis and China was booming, the annual number of asylum-seekers from China rose from 15,362 to 107,864, according the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Since Xi took power at the end of 2012, 613,000 Chinese nationals have applied for asylum in another country. The majority, about 70 percent, sought a new life in America. More freedom, protecting their wealth and a better quality of life are the main, and obvious, reasons for the exodus.

Xi wants the party to work harder to ensure its grip on power. Part of this is to make sure that China can stand on its own if the US launches a fully-fledged economic war against it. But China, within in living memory, has stood on its own. Something is amiss when such a scenario repeating itself is even the vaguest of possibilities.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Party Over in China as Communist Party Takes Back Control
  • 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.

***

Some have said that the only thing that will save humanity is love.  But, as Sinclair Lewis’s character, Elmer Gantry, asks: ‘what is love?’

Our culture seems to have supplanted love with avarice, with greed, with an avid obsessive possessiveness, a.k.a. cupidity. Which might have surprised Cupid, a.k.a Eros, and those who believe ‘love conquers all.’

The present push towards ‘transhumanism,’ sometimes touted as an enhancement of our capabilities, is in fact a disastrous narrowing of our perception, a path to the mental and spiritual slavery of Huxley’s ‘Brave New World.’

A narrow perception of what it means to be human has led us, willy nilly—or perhaps with a chilling inevitability—to the literal transformation of people into bizarre hybrid creatures, half human, half machine. 

Knowledge may or may not be power but, in a cybernetic age, wisdom is conflated with knowledge, knowledge with information, and information with data. In the process we have been turned into cyphers. At least in the minds of our overlords, who wish to turn our human consciousness, our physical, mental, emotional and spiritual being, into bits and bytes—into a series of ones and zeros floating in an ephemeral digital cloud. 

The lust for power, for control, for conquest, has infected human culture for millennia. The addiction to power, the compulsion to control, has tainted the human race as a drop of ink tints a glass of clear water. 

And with this comes a certain attitude to others, an attitude which sees others not as ‘thou’ but as ‘it,’ as Martin Buber says. Others are seen not as people, as fellow sentient beings, but as tools who are valued only as useful to those ‘who matter.’ I.e. the rich and powerful. The ‘players,’ the ‘stakeholders’ in the poker game of life. The rest, when not of use, are merely ‘useless eaters.’

Now it seems these number in the billions, to be experimented on, and finally eliminated, in a giant con game to which the Third Reich seems only a preliminary, a taster, an hors d’oeuvre to the banquet, the feast of flesh.

The desire to turn human beings into machines, logically enough, stems from a mechanical world view.

This sees life as essential lifeless. The cosmos is not intelligent, it has neither feeling nor awareness. People are made from letters strung out on spiral coils of DNA.

And we can be remade from manipulated synthetic material, from nanobots, from self-assembling graphene hydrogels which will upload new programs into us with each and every ‘inoculation.’ Our brains are merely gelatinous computers, our heads hi-tech jelly doughnuts. And, as our consciousness is transformed by the mind parasites, we transition in a diabolical transubstantiation, into cyborgs–totally controlled, yet unaware that the thoughts we are thinking and the feelings we are feeling come not from ourselves, but from an AI algorithm conjured up by scientific sorcery.

The tragedy of the spiritual dwarves pulling the strings on the greatest crime in human history is that they, unable to embrace the love of life, are compelled to kill the life of everyone, bringing the rest of us down with them, like monstrous dogs in a planetary manger. And what sop do we have for them, as Cerberus was pacified at the gates of Hell?

Are they more to be pitied than censured? Can we hate the sin but not the sinner? Can we love-bomb them into becoming human themselves before, in the blind agony of the death throes of the last vestiges of their shrivelled souls, they kill the humanity in all of us?

Perhaps love is not so much an emotion as a kind of perception, an awareness, an appreciation of the miracle of life, of life’s very aliveness. Joy and wonder may be more elusive than ever, but this is our birthright.

We still have the opportunity, as well as the duty, to accept this precious gift.

*

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

These two titles from Global Research Publishers are available in PDF (e-book) format delivered directly to your inbox, as well as in print format. 

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Buy this book in PDF (e-book) format – $9.40

Buy this book in print format

America’s hegemonic project in the post 9/11 era is the “Globalization of War” whereby the U.S.-NATO military machine —coupled with covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime change”— is deployed in all major regions of the world. The threat of pre-emptive nuclear war is also used to black-mail countries into submission.

It is intimately related to a process of global financial restructuring, which has resulted in the collapse of national economies and the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.

The ultimate objective is World conquest under the cloak of “human rights” and “Western democracy”.


The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order 

by Michel Chossudovsky

 Buy this book in PDF (e-book) format – $9.50

Buy this book in print format

In this expanded edition of Chossudovsky’s international best-seller, the author outlines the contours of a New World Order which feeds on human poverty and the destruction of the environment, generates social apartheid, encourages racism and ethnic strife and undermines the rights of women. The result as his detailed examples from all parts of the world show so convincingly, is a globalization of poverty.

This book is a skilful combination of lucid explanation and cogently argued critique of the fundamental directions in which our world is moving financially and economically.

In this enlarged edition – which includes ten new chapters and a new introduction — the author reviews the causes and consequences of famine in Sub-Saharan Africa, the dramatic meltdown of financial markets, the demise of State social programs and the devastation resulting from corporate downsizing and trade liberalisation.


Special Offer on our Global Research PDF Collection – 6 PDF Books for 1 Price

Contains PDF versions of:

*The Globalization of War

*The Dirty War on Syria

*Towards a World War III Scenario

*America’s “War on Terrorism”

*The Globalization of Poverty

*The Global Economic Crisis

List Price: $53.85

Special Price: $39.00

CLICK HERE TO ORDER


Browse the rest of our titles and special offers on our online bookstore:

  • Posted in English, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on The Globalization of War & The Globalization of Poverty: Two Important Titles by Michel Chossudovsky

All Global Research articles 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 COVID — especially the Delta variant — surges among the fully vaccinated, Brian Hooker, Ph.D., said the more the variant deviates from the original sequence used for the vaccine, the less effective the vaccine will be on that variant.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on July 27, issued an update on breakthrough infections, stating they “happen in only a small proportion of people who are fully vaccinated, even with the Delta variant.”

The CDC’s statement, however, stands in contrast to what the director of Israel’s Public Health Services told viewers of the CBS program “Face the Nation” on Sunday — that 50% of new infections reported in Israel are from fully vaccinated people.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical advisor to President Biden, and Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, director of Israel’s Public Health Services, were interviewed during the program.

Israel and the U.S. began administering COVID vaccines in December 2020.

During the interview, Fauci adhered to the CDC’s position — that breakthrough infections are happening only in a small proportion of fully vaccinated people — while Alroy-Preis said Israel is seeing breakthrough infections occurring in 50% of those who test positive for COVID.

Despite mounting evidence COVID vaccine protection is waning over time, Fauci told “Face the Nation”:

“…the predominant message is that if you are vaccinated and you get a breakthrough infection … you’re much, much more protected against getting infected than an unvaccinated [person] who is completely vulnerable.”

A breakthrough case refers to a person who is diagnosed with COVID after being fully vaccinated. A person is considered fully vaccinated 14 days after receiving the second dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID vaccine, or two weeks after receiving the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (J&J) vaccine.

The CDC’s latest breakthrough numbers, as of July 25, show 6,587 fully vaccinated people with COVID breakthrough cases. Of those, 6,239 people were hospitalized and 1,263 people died.

In May, the CDC revised its guidance for reporting breakthrough cases, stating it would count only those cases that result in hospitalization or death. Previously, the agency had included in its breakthrough count anyone who tested positive for COVID.

According to the CDC, the surveillance system for breakthrough cases is passive and relies on voluntary reporting from state health departments, which may not be complete.

In addition, some breakthrough cases will not be identified due to lack of testing. This is particularly true in instances of asymptomatic or mild illness, the CDC said.

NBC News investigated breakthrough cases not reported by CDC

NBC News contacted health agencies in 50 states and the District of Columbia to collect information on breakthrough cases, citing a lack of comprehensive data available from the CDC.

Data collected from 38 states showed more than 125,000 fully vaccinated Americans tested positive for COVID, and 1,400 died.

This conflicts with the CDC’s data published July 26. Research by NBC News indicates the number who have been hospitalized or died passed 7,300 in just 30 states providing data.

The total number of breakthrough cases is likely higher than 125,683, as nine states, including Pennsylvania and Missouri, did not provide information, while 11 states did not provide death and hospitalization totals. Four states gave death and hospitalization numbers, but not total cases.

In addition, vaccinated adults who had breakthrough cases but showed no symptoms could be missing from the data altogether, officials told NBC.

For states like Utah, where full data was published, breakthrough cases accelerated in the past two months. As of June 2, just 27 (8%) of 312 new cases in the state were breakthrough cases. As of July 26, there were 519 new cases and almost 94 cases (20%) were breakthroughs, according to state data.

In Virginia, total breakthrough cases resulting in death from COVID increased from 17 in mid-July to 42 on July 30.

In Oklahoma, breakthrough cases are up by 67%, with incidents of breakthrough greater with J&J’s vaccine than with Moderna.

Delta variant more transmissible, but not more pathogenic than original strain

World Health Organization (WHO) officials said they are still trying to understand why the Delta variant is more transmissible than the original COVID virus strain.

“There are certain mutations in the Delta variant that, for example, allow the virus to adhere to a cell more easily,” said Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, WHO’S technical lead on COVID, at a press briefing July 30. “There are some laboratory studies that suggest that there’s increased replication in some of the modeled human airway systems.”

The CDC warned lawmakers July 29 of new research indicating the Delta strain is more contagious than chickenpox. It also appears to have a longer transmission window than the original COVID strain, and may make older people sicker, even if they’ve been fully vaccinated, CNBC reported.

Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., Children’s Health Defense chief scientific officer and professor of biology at Simpson University, said while the Delta variant is likely more transmissible, it’s also likely less pathogenic. “What we’re seeing is virus evolution 101,” Hooker said.

Hooker explained:

“Viruses like to survive, so killing the host (i.e. the human who is infected) defeats the purpose because killing the host kills the virus, too.

“For this reason, new variants of viruses that circulate widely through the population tend to become more transmissive but less pathogenic. In other words, they will spread more easily from person to person, but they will cause less damage to the host.”

Hooker said the more the variant deviates from the original sequence used for the vaccine, the less effective the vaccine will be on that variant, which could explain why fully vaccinated people are getting infected with the Delta variant. But this isn’t the case for natural immunity, he explained.

Hooker said:

“The vaccine focuses on the spike protein, whereas natural immunity focuses on the entire virus. Natural immunity — with a more diverse array of antibodies and T-cell receptors — will provide better protection overall as it has more targets in which to attack the virus, whereas vaccine-derived immunity only focuses on one portion of the virus, in this case, the spike protein. Once that portion of the virus has mutated sufficiently, the vaccine no longer is effective.”

As The Defender reported Monday, vaccinated people may play a key role in aiding the evolution of COVID variants.

According to research published last week in Scientific Reports, the highest risk for establishing a vaccine-resistant virus strain occurs when a large fraction of the population has already been vaccinated but the transmission is not controlled.

The data was consistent with a study released July 30, by the CDC which showed vaccinated people may transmit the Delta variant — now responsible for 80% of COVID cases in the U.S. — just as easily as the unvaccinated.

The team of scientists who published the data in Scientific Reports said their findings follow what’s known as selective pressure — the force that drives any organism to evolve.

“Generally, the more people infected, the more the chances for vaccine resistance to emerge,” said Fyodor Kondrashov of the Institute of Science and Technology Austria.

“So the more Delta is infectious, the more reason for concern,” Kondrashov said. “By having a situation where you vaccinate everybody, a vaccine-resistant mutant actually gains a selective advantage.”

U.S. senator and Kentucky state senator test positive for COVID despite being fully vaccinated

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Monday he tested positive for COVID despite being fully vaccinated, The Hill reported.

Graham said:

“I started having flu-like symptoms Saturday night and went to the doctor this morning. I feel like I have a sinus infection and at present time I have mild symptoms. I will be quarantining for 10 days.”

Graham’s announcement came amid growing public concern of breakthrough cases.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) warned reporters against sensationalizing the news about Graham, as it would “probably discourage some people at least from getting the vaccine.”

Blunt has been talking to CDC officials about how to make sure reports of fully vaccinated people getting COVID aren’t overshadowed by the fact that it is less likely to result in a severe case.

Kentucky Sen. Alice Forgy Kerr also tested positive for COVID despite being fully vaccinated, she announced on Facebook Monday night.

Forgy Kerr said in the post three other family members who were also fully vaccinated tested positive in the last three weeks as well, The Enquirer reported.

“Please be careful out there,” she wrote. “This Delta variant is a ‘new ballgame’ apparently.”

At least 233 staffers at two major hospitals test positive for COVID, majority vaccinated

At least 233 staffers at two major San Francisco hospitals tested positive for COVID — the majority of whom were fully vaccinated and became infected with the Delta variant.

Between 75% and 80% of the more than 50 staff members infected with COVID at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital were fully vaccinated, Dr. Lukejohn Day, the hospital’s chief medical officer, told The New York Times Saturday.

The University of California, San Francisco Medical Center said in a statement Friday, 153 of its 183 infected staff members had been fully vaccinated. Some of the cases were asymptomatic, but most involved mild to moderate symptoms with two requiring hospitalization, officials said.

Day said the number of staff infections reported in July is almost as many as during the peak of the winter surge. Despite the majority of staffers infected having been vaccinated, Day said without vaccinations the hospitalization rate would be much worse.

Yankee starting pitcher latest player to get COVID

The Yankees’ top starting pitcher tested positive for the virus and will miss his next game, Manager Aaron Boone announced Monday.

“Gerrit will not be pitching tomorrow,” Boone said. “He’s actually tested positive for COVID.”

Twice this season the Yankees have had outbreaks among fully vaccinated members that involved several players or staff, but Monday’s news was limited to Cole.

Boone did not say whether Cole is vaccinated or not. The majority of COVID cases among Yankees players and staff this season have occurred in those who were fully vaccinated, The Times reported.

*

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

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Featured image is from CHD

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

WE CAN WIN! Patrick King is a proud father of 2, Freedom Fighter and Patriot who took on the powerful government in Alberta, and WON!

We can ALL learn from this, and we MUST battle this in every single city, every single county, every single state, every single NATION!

The fight for freedom is a worldwide effort, and WE CAN WIN!

*

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.

***

In a new research paper published in the journal Toxicology Reports, author Neil Z. Miller found that out of a total of 2,605 infant deaths reported to VAERS between 1990 and 2019, 58% occurred within three days of vaccination, and 78% occurred within seven days of vaccination.

In a new research paper published in the journal Toxicology Reports, author Neil Z. Miller reports on the relationship between sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) death and the timing of vaccination, based on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database.

SIDS is defined as the sudden and unexpected death of an infant that remains unexplained after a thorough investigation. Although there are no specific symptoms associated with SIDS, an autopsy often reveals congestion and edema of the lungs and inflammatory changes in the respiratory system, according to the National Center for Health Statistics Vital Statistics of the United States 1988, Volume II, Mortality, Part A, Public Health Service, 1991.

Prior to contemporary vaccination programs, SIDS — sometimes referred to as “crib death” — was so infrequent it was not mentioned in infant mortality statistics.

After the national immunization campaigns were initiated in the U.S. in the 1960s, for the first time in history, most U.S. infants were required to receive several doses of DPT, polio, measles, mumps and rubella vaccines.

Shortly after, in 1969, medical certifiers presented a new medical term — sudden infant death syndrome.

In 1973, the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics added a new cause-of-death category — SIDS — to the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD).

By 1980, SIDS had become the leading cause of postneonatal mortality (deaths of infants from 28 days to one year old) in the U.S.

As Miller points out in his article, the ICD category for vaccine-related death, or cause of death as “prophylactic inoculation and vaccination,” was eliminated when the ICD was revised in 1979 — despite the fact that this information would be useful in trying to understand the relationship between vaccination and death.

But Miller, a medical research journalist and the director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute, provides an alternative route for establishing such a correlation — by observing the temporal relationship between vaccines and reported infant deaths, including SIDS deaths, in the CDC’s VAERS database.

Miller found that out of a total of 2,605 infant deaths reported to VAERS from 1990 through 2019, the majority “clustered” in close temporal proximity to vaccination — 58% occurred within three days of vaccination, and 78% occurred within seven days of vaccination.

Miller found the excess deaths within these ranges were statistically significant (p<0.00001), meaning the chance that this result is random is less than 0.001%.

The same type of clustering was present in the 1,048 reports of infant deaths (out of the total 2,605) reported to VAERS specifically as SIDS.

According to Miller, if there were no correlation between vaccination and infant deaths, one would expect to see an even spacing of deaths within the time range reported prior to vaccination —- not a clustering of deaths as Miller found.

Miller included a comprehensive literature review in his paper refuting the “official” claim that the SIDS epidemic was curtailed by having infants sleep on their backs — as recommended by the “Back to Sleep” campaign, initiated in 1992 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The subsequent rate of SIDS dropped by an annual average of 8.6% between 1992 and 2001. However, the neonatal mortality rate due to “suffocation in bed” increased during that same time at an average annual rate of 11.2%.

Other similar causes of infant death also increased significantly during this period, as reported by Miller. Further, from 1999 through 2015, the U.S. SIDS rate declined 35.8%. while infant deaths due to accidental suffocation increased 183.8 %.

Miller also affirms his main results from the paper (i.e., the temporal clustering of SIDS deaths with vaccination) through the discussion of seven additional peer-reviewed studies and two confidential reports.

On average, these authors found that substantial proportions of infant deaths occurred within one day (mean = 25%), three days (mean = 49%) and seven days (mean = 71%) post-vaccination, matching the results of the present study.

Mechanistically, vaccine injury has been tied to SIDS multiple times. Matturri et al. (2014) examined 13 SIDS deaths occurring within seven days of a hexavalent vaccine.  Analysis of the brainstem and cerebellum of the deceased infants showed brain edema and congestion in all victims.

The authors hypothesized that

“several compounds and immuno-potentiation adjuvants of the hexavalent vaccine might easily go beyond the blood-brain barrier, which in the first year of life is still immature and quite permeable, inducing neuronal molecular alterations in DNA, RNA and proteins of brainstem neurons regulating vital functions, with consequent fatal disorganization of respiratory control in particularly predisposed infants.”

Specifically, these authors implicated aluminum-based adjuvants in the dysregulation of respiratory control.

Scheibner and Karlsson (1991) monitored infant breathing during sleep before and after the DPT vaccination, revealing an increase in episodes where breathing nearly ceased or stopped completely. These episodes, which continued for several weeks post-vaccination, were not seen prior to vaccination.

Despite the official insistence that SIDS deaths are not caused by vaccination, as Miller points out, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation (NVICP) is set up to compensate families of individuals who are injured and/or die from vaccine administration.

Death from vaccination is compensated with $250,000 for “pain and suffering” to family members of the deceased victim. Conditions typically leading to death that are considered “table injuries” to be compensated under the NVICP include anaphylaxis and encephalopathy or encephalitis.

‘Healthy babies just don’t die for no apparent reason’

Kari Bundy, who lost her son after his four-month vaccinations, said she’s always been “flabbergasted” at the denial of the medical community of the link between SIDS and vaccines. “For me, it was too obvious to even attempt to ignore,” Bundy said.

Bundy lost her third-born child, Mason, in 2011.

“A few days after his routine four-month vaccinations, my husband and I discovered his dead body in the middle of the night, laying on his side, his body still warm,” Bundy said

Mason’s autopsy came back “unremarkable,” aside from some thymic petechiae, which is the most common gross finding in SIDS cases at autopsy.

“I was assured time and time again that he had not suffocated,” Bundy said.

When Mason died, Bundy learned if you can’t pay for a funeral, you can’t have one. So a few months after Mason’s death, she founded a nonprofit called Mason’s Cause, to provide grants to cover funeral costs for families who had experienced the loss of a child under the age of 1.

“I never wanted any parent to experience this devastating loss and not be able to bury their child,” Bundy said. She continued running the charity for just under 2 years, during which time she worked with 94 different families who experienced the death of a child under age 1.

Of those 94 infant deaths, 87 died from SIDS, or from causes “unknown.” Of the SIDS cases, 81 — or 93% — died within seven days of routine vaccinations.

“When I realized SIDS seemed to be undeniably related to vaccines, I realized I could no longer dedicate my life to running a charity that would help bury babies,” Bundy said. “That’s when I realized I wanted to save babies by speaking out about the real risks of vaccination.”

Bundy, who works for Children’s Health Defense as translations coordinator, said she’s grateful for research like Miller’s because it shows what she and all SIDS parents already knew — healthy babies don’t just die for no apparent reason.

*

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

Brian S. Hooker, PhD, PE, is an Associate Professor of Biology at Simpson University in Redding California where he specializes in microbiology and biotechnology.

Featured image is from CHD

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 58% of Infant Deaths Reported to VAERS Occurred Within 3 Days of Vaccination, Research Shows
  • 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.

***

According to statistics released by the CDC in their Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the vast majority of recorded deaths following one of the experimental COVID-19 injections has been among the elderly.

According to the CDC, 60% of all reported deaths following COVID-19 injections have been in people age 44 or higher, 50% of all reported deaths have been in people age 65 or older, and 35% of all recorded deaths have been in people age 75 or older.

When you consider that 38% of all recorded deaths following COVID injections the age is “unknown,” then those percentages among the elderly are most certainly even higher.

Source.

For those who refuse to accept the CDC’s explanation that all these deaths recorded following the COVID-19 injections had nothing to do with the shots, then it is clearly obvious that the elderly are being killed in much higher numbers from these shots than the rest of the population.

We have documented many of these stories of mass deaths in senior care homes earlier this year, often in homes where few or no deaths occurred in all of 2020 during the COVID-19 Plandemic. In some cases, these seniors were forcibly injected against their will.

For those who survived the injections, there are now plans in motion to roll out a 3rd COVID-19 “booster” shot to be injected into the seniors who survived the first two shots.

We reported last week that Israel was the first nation to announce a 3rd booster shot by Pfizer beginning with people over the age of 60.

Israel Becomes First Country in the World to Push 3rd COVID Shot for Already Vaccinated

And now The Telegraph out of the UK is reporting that the UK will also roll out “booster shots” for COVID-19, targeting the people over the age of 50.

Booster vaccines are to be offered to 32million Britons starting early next month with up to 2,000 pharmacies set to deliver the programme, The Telegraph can disclose.

Amid fears that the efficacy of the vaccines may begin to decline, ministers are planning to deliver an average of almost 2.5million third doses a week starting in the first week of September.

Pharmacies will be at the forefront of the vaccine programme so that GPs and other NHS staff can focus on the growing backlog of patients waiting for other treatments.

All adults aged 50 and over, as well as the immuno-suppressed, will be offered the booster jabs.

The campaign could start as soon as Sept 6, which would see the rollout completed by early December if it goes to plan. It is hoped the timetable will leave at least a fortnight for the final people vaccinated to benefit from the jab’s effect before Christmas. (Source.)

Germany is planning something similar, beginning September 1st.

Germany plans to start offering Covid-19 booster shots to the elderly and at-risk from September 1, according to a draft document seen by AFP on Sunday, as concerns grow about the spread of the Delta variant.

Health Minister Jens Spahn and Germany’s 16 regional health ministers are expected to finalise the plans, drawn up by ministry officials, in a meeting Monday.

Mobile vaccination teams will be sent into care and nursing homes to offer Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna booster shots to residents, regardless of which vaccine they had originally, says the document.

Doctors will also be able to administer the booster jab to those who qualify, such as the elderly and people with weakened immune systems.

The text justifies the initiative by citing recent studies showing that protection from infection declines with time, putting vulnerable people at risk again.

Although Germany is currently enjoying relatively low infection rates compared with neighbouring countries, case numbers have been creeping up in recent weeks mainly because of the more contagious Delta variant.

There are also concerns about a slowdown in the country’s vaccination rate, with just over 52 percent of the population fully jabbed. (Source.)

No doubt the rest of Europe and the United States will soon follow this plan.

Can we please stop pretending that this is not a eugenics genocide plan to get rid of as many in the elderly population as possible?

It’s been happening already for years with the flu shots, but combined with the propaganda fear of COVID-19 and locking down these seniors and separating them from their family members and health advocates, deaths are now obviously skyrocketing.

Why Aren’t These Experimental Injections Killing or Injuring Everyone who Takes Them?

A legitimate question that is probably asked of everyone who is trying to warn others about how dangerous and deadly these injections are, is why are there so many people who have received one or two shots, and are relatively unaffected by them in terms of side effects?

There are theories that some of the batches from the COVID-19 shots are placebos, but I have not seen any credible evidence to support that yet.

The more likely explanation is that these are new products never before mass produced and mass distributed, and some of them are just “duds” either because they were manufactured improperly, or after manufacturing they were not handled properly.

For this explanation, we most certainly have ample evidence.

Back in March, for example, we reported on some leaked documents that were supplied to European Medicines Agency (EMA) last December for approval of the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 shots.

Reports on those documents that were published in the BMJ stated that the EMA had major concerns that only 55% of the samples even had intact mRNA strands. The EMA gave approval anyway, because “the amounts of a potential protein produced by the truncated mRNA would be too low to constitute a safety risk.” See: Leaked Pfizer Documents Reveal Only 55% of Some COVID Vaccine Samples had RNA Intact Prior to European Approval Exposing Huge Quality Control Issues

This past June we published a video from a CVS pharmacist who quit her job because she refused to inject people with a COVID-19 injection. During that video she stated that one of her co-workers was fired, because he failed to handle doses of COVID-19 injections properly. See: Pharmacist Quits CVS Job Over Refusal to Kill People with COVID-19 Shots and Becomes a Whistleblower (Video)

With the tens of thousands of pharmacies across the U.S., most of which are severely under-staffed right now, we can certainly expect this is happening quite a bit.

The Pfizer doses need to be kept at temperatures below -70 degrees, and when thawed there are very specific ways of handling the doses to keep them “viable.”

There have been numerous reports of manufacturing issues in the plants where these shots are produced, so it is not only plausible, but highly likely, that many people are getting shots from doses that are either inactive or not fully active enough to produce all the side effects causing injuries and deaths, which is already very high.

It is also possible that some batches are either weakened or placebos, but I have just not seen credible evidence to support that yet. If it is true, the one sector where I could see that they would have a motivation to inject placebos, would be in professional sports, where major side effects and reduced athletic performance would be quickly noticed, giving very negative publicity for the shots.

For years it was known that cholesterol-lowering statin drugs created loss of muscle function, long before the FDA issued warnings about this side effect, but it was well known in the field of Sports and players were forbidden from taking these drugs.

The other motivation to inject a major portion of the population with placebos, especially during an initial roll-out, is to reduce the negative publicity the side effects create in the first doses.

Because as we move towards mandatory vaccinations, it is quite well-known that the most vocal voices opposing mandatory vaccinations are those who were previously pro-vaccine and have now been injured by them, or had a close friend or loved one being seriously injured or killed.

The ones who get the first shots and survive, become willing repeat customers for future “booster” shots.

Mark Dice released a video yesterday that he shot in San Diego, where he posed as someone taking a survey and asking strangers passing by on the street to sign a petition to force people who refuse the COVID-19 shots to be arrested and jailed.

You will be amazed (or maybe not) at how many people willingly gave their name and birthdate to sign this fake petition to arrest and jail their fellow citizens who refuse to take the COVID-19 shots.

*

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

Featured image is from HIN

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Since the Covid pandemic broke out, Sweden has been fought over more than any other part of Europe since Germany in the 30 Years War. In refusing to use an iron fist to control a virus, lockdown advocates claimed it was either committing murder or suicide; choose your favorite metaphor. Relatively few such as me, in three separate articles, claimed the Nordic country was sparing both the economy and something called “liberty” with its light-handed approach. My favorite title (editor chose it): “Media Enraged That More Swedes Aren’t Dying.”

Thus last year we saw such headlines as CNN’s “Deaths Soar In Country That Didn’t Lock Down. Officials Identify Big Reason Why.” Around the same time “Sweden Steadfast In Strategy As Virus Toll Continues Rising,” claimed another source. “Sweden’s Coronavirus Strategy Drives Up Infection Rate,” screamed the BBC. Everyone was playing pile-on. “Sweden Has The Highest Daily Coronavirus Death Rate In The World – And It’s Getting Worse.” That’s from Yahoo Sports. Sports?

Modelers desperately tried to scare Sweden into locking down. One predicted an incredible median of 96,000 deaths, with a maximum of 183,000. At Sweden’s Lund University an academic used the parameters in the now-infamous Neil Ferguson/Imperial College modelto warn that it meant 85,000 deaths for Sweden. An Uppsala University team also found the nation paying a terrible price with 40,000 Covid-19 deaths by May 1, 2020 and almost 100,000 by June.

Total Swedish Covid deaths at this writing: 14,651.

It’s not that Sweden did nothing – but very little. “From the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Public Health Agency . . . embarked on a de-facto herd immunity approach, allowing community transmission to occur relatively unchecked,” declared a scathing editorial in the leftwing medical journal The Lancet last December. “No mandatory measures were taken to limit crowds on public transport, in shopping malls, or in other crowded places,” it said. “Coronavirus testing, contact tracing, source identification, and reporting, as recommended by WHO, were limited and remain inadequate.” High schools closed temporarily, but grade schools never.

“In our view,” snarled The Lancet, “there is still not sufficient recognition in the national strategy of the importance of pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmission, aerosol transmission, and use of face masks.”

Time to revisit Sweden as much of the world starts locking down and masking again regardless of vaccination levels, blaming the Delta variant. And those impudent Swedes are pretty much refusing to die of Covid at all.

Not to say that vaccines haven’t contributed to the current low numbers, but … cases peaked during the first week of January while vaccinations didn’t even begin until the end of that month. Currently Sweden ranks 18th in Europe in vaccines per capita, right in the middle. Likewise, there are those who say Sweden finally buckled down and imposed serious restrictions. It didn’t. It imposed more restrictions in the second week of January, perhaps more in response to international opprobrium than anything else. But yes, it was after cases not only had started dropping but actually plummeted by more than half.

What’s happening? According to an as-yet unpublished but online study by two Svenske researchers, it appears the country has reached that Holy Grail of Covid called “herd immunity.” That means a level where those already protected are significantly guarding those without exposure. Mind, they say, it’s not all from Covid-19 per se but possibly in great part to “pre-immunity” from other infections. Four coronaviruses are known to cause colds, but the researchers actually don’t even mention that. It’s just that previous exposure to something seems to be providing natural inoculation. And it shouldn’t be as unique to Sweden as Ingrid Bergman.

Mind, the current figures are just a snapshot. Did the country pay an awful price en route to the apparent herd immunity? Well, certainly the Swedish death rate is higher than its Nordic neighbors Norway, Denmark, and Finland. Those are the comparisons you’ll hear. But it’s well below the rates for larger-population European countries including Belgium, Italy, the U.K., Romania, Spain, France, and Portugal. The U.S., too.

Sweden’s chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, who caught absolute hell, feels vindicated.

“Locking down is saving time,” he said last year. “It’s not solving anything.” In essence the country “front-loaded” its deaths and decreased those deaths later on.

Meanwhile, the Swede haters have also insisted that in exchange for its “butcher’s bill” the country was deriving little or no economic benefit from not shutting down.

“Sweden unlikely to feel economic benefit of no-lockdown approach,” warned the Financial Times in a May 10, 2020 headline. It admitted that so far Sweden has fared better, but select “analysts” cautioned it wouldn’t last.

Wrong. Despite Sweden inevitably feeling undertow from economies that did lock down, “Covid-19 has had a rather limited impact on its economy compared with most other European countries,” according to the Nordetrade.com consulting firm. “Softer preventative restrictions against Covid-19 earlier in the year and a strong recovery in the third quarter contained the GDP contraction,” it said.

Thus the country the media loved to hate is reaping the best of all worlds: Few current cases and deaths, stronger economic growth than the lockdown countries, and its people never experienced the yoke of tyranny.

Not surprisingly, it’s not just Sweden’s pro-freedom position on Covid that sticks in the MSM’s craw. Though routinely labeled “socialist,” it ranks 10th out of 190 economies for ease of doing business, according to the World Bank’s Doing Business report for 2020.

Which for a lot of people is presumably another good reason to hate them.

*

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

Michael Fumento is a lawyer, author, and journalist who has been writing on epidemic hysterias for 35 years. His Website is www.fumento.com.

Featured image is from AIER

All Global Research articles 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 editor-in-chief of Germany’s top newspaper Bild has apologized for the news outlet’s fear-driven coverage of COVID, specifically to children who were told “that they were going to murder their grandma.”

In a speech delivered to camera, Julian Reichelt said sorry for Bild’s coverage which was “like poison” and “made you feel like you were a mortal danger to society.”

Reichelt directed his main sentiment towards children who have been terrorized by fearmongering media coverage which has caused child depression and suicides to soar across the world.

“To the millions of children in this country for whom our society is responsible, I want to express here what neither our government nor our Chancellor dares to tell you. We ask you to forgive us,” he said.

“Forgive us for this policy which, for a year and a half, has made you victims of violence, neglect, isolation, and loneliness.”

“We persuaded our children that they were going to murder their grandma if they dared to be what they are, children. Or if they met their friends. None of this has been scientifically proven.”

“When a state steals the rights of a child, it must prove that by doing so it protects him against concrete and imminent danger. This proof has never been provided. It has been replaced by propaganda presenting the child as a vector of the pandemic.”

Reichelt noted how moderate voices who attempted to offer calmer perspectives on the pandemic “were never invited to the expert table” and urged viewers “don’t believe this lie,” when encountering alarmist proclamations from the government.

The journalist called on authorities to open schools and sports halls instead of polling stations, warning that those who imposed brutal lockdown measures, “will have on their conscience and will leave in the history books, a multitude of innocent souls.”

Bild has a daily circulation of 1.24 million copies and is the best-selling newspaper in Europe, adding even more weight to this story.

As we highlighted yesterday, Germans protesting against plans to impose domestic vaccine passports were brutalized by police during demonstrations that took place in Berlin.

The ugly scenes prompted the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer to put in a request for eyewitnesses ahead of a potential investigation.

Germans were protesting against plans to ban unvaccinated people from a plethora of different venues, including restaurants, cinemas and stadiums.

As we previously highlighted, Germany’s domestic spy agency is monitoring anti-lockdown protesters, claiming they are potentially involved in a plot to subvert 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 licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

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.

***

The Public Inquiry into the murder of the resourceful journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia handed down its findings on July 29.  Firm aim was taken at the Maltese State, which had “to shoulder responsibility for the assassination because it created an atmosphere of impunity, generated from the highest levels in the heart of the administration of the Office of the Prime Minister”.  Such conditions proved expansive “like an octopus” and “spread to other entities like regulatory institutions and the police, leading to the collapse of the rule of law.”  

In such a climate, the State duly failed in recognising “real and immediate risks” including from criminally minded third parties facing Caruana Galizia and also “failed to take measures within the scope of its powers which, with reasonable judgment […] was expected to take to avoid that risk.”

Caruana Galizia was killed on October 17, 2017 by a car bomb.  For years she produced exemplary copy, baffling her peers and causing those flutters of irritation that eventually became headaches for the authorities.  Her efforts involved an incremental unmasking of rotting institutions.  She unearthed the network of offshore companies ranging from the British Virgin Islands to Panama, linking them to funnelled funds from Malta’s government officials in alleged money laundering efforts.  She exposed the cash-for-passports scheme in 2013 which was described by members of the European Parliament as “fomenting corruption, importation of organized crime and money laundering.”  Members of the Maltese government preferred to call this a matter of being “business friendly”.

According to the Board, the murder of Caruana Galizia was “intrinsically, if not exclusively, linked to her investigative work, which included allegations of irregularities and administrative abuses in the commission of major development projects in the country.”

During the course of its work, the inquiry faced a number of institutional impediments and warnings.  On December 15, 2019, Maltese Prime Minister, Robert Abela, lectured the Board that it would have to “shoulder the responsibility of its decisions and the consequences they bring” after the panel ruled to extend the inquiry’s deadline and terms of reference.  Justice Minister Edward Zammit Lewis added to the threatening atmosphere in parliament.  “If the public inquiry is not completed, the rule of the jungle will take over.”

But pressure from the European Union’s various branches was brought to bear.  In 2019, the European Parliament adopted a resolution by 581 votes to 26 that “any risk of compromising the investigations (…) must be excluded by all means”, warning that risk would remain “as long as the Prime Minister remains in office.” 

Parliamentary Resolution 2293, adopted that same year, claimed that the murder and continuing failure of the authorities to bring the alleged perpetrators to trial or identify those who gave the order for the assassination raised “serious questions about the rule of law in Malta.” 

Much of the resolution reads like a grand rebuke of the Maltese political system.  The expansive powers of the Prime Minister and his office was noted, covering “responsibility for various areas of activity that present particular risks of money laundering, including online gaming, investment migration (‘golden passports’) and regulation of financial services, including cryptocurrencies”. 

The Prime Minister’s powers in appointing judges and magistrates, the resolution noted in disapproval, was unfettered; the attorney general, as a PM appointee, potentially compromised the separation of powers given the office’s role in prosecuting criminal offences. Senior officials in the civil service were also executive appointments made “through non-transparent procedures”.

The site of the explosion was at the top of Bidnija Road, limits of Mosta (upper right-hand corner). (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Suspects behind the murder were found in erratic fashion, but it took till February this year to secure the conviction of Vincent Muscat, the hit man behind the operation, on six charges. That same day, the Agius brothers Adrian and Robert, and associate Jamie Vella, were also arrested on suspicion of supplying the murderous weapon.

The conviction of Muscat caused further concern among the MEPs in April, given “the possible involvement of ministers and political appointees in the case.”  While acknowledging the progress in the investigation and “steps taken by the Maltese authorities to protect independent journalism”, there were “persisting and new issues relating to media freedom and the EU values in the country.”

The Board proposes a range of recommendations for implementation, many touching on the protection of journalists and freedom of expression.  They involve specialised protection for the fourth estate, and specially attuned training for the Police Corps “to have a thorough understanding of the role of the journalist as a guardian of democracy and the value of journalism as a valid collaborator with law enforcement to ensure the rule of law.”

Constitutional reforms are also suggested, including greater recognition for freedom of expression, and institutional changes such as the creation of an Ombudsman on journalistic ethics.  Further recommendations touch on the legislative aspect: reforming the Media Defamation Act to prevent vexatious suits by politicians against the press and amendments to the Freedom of Information Act to ensure greater compliance with freedom of information requests.  

The Public Inquiry’s findings are impressive not merely for revealing the appalling conditions that sowed the seeds of tolerance for such monstrous violence.  They also show the probing, relentless effectiveness of a journalist who demonstrated the power of the pen in the face of institutional depravity.  The price of doing so was immeasurably ghastly.

*

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]

Featured image is licensed under Fair use

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Boy or girl? If it was up to the American Medical Association (AMA), not even parents would know.

Once again revealing the organization’s highly politicized motives, the AMA said sex should be removed as a legal designation on birth certificates.

“Designating sex on birth certificates as male or female, and making that information available on the public portion, perpetuates a view that sex designation is permanent and fails to recognize the medical spectrum of gender identity. This type of categorization system also risks stifling an individual’s self-expression and self-identification and contributes to marginalization and minoritization,” said AMA Board Chair-Elect Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, M.D.

A person’s biological sex would still be submitted to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth for medical, public health, and statistical use. Requiring public designation of sex, the AMA said, could lead to discrimination against transgenders when they register for school or sports, adopt, get married, or request personal records.

Robert Jackson, MD, who’s with the American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery, told WebMD Health News he opposed the measure.

“We as physicians need to report things accurately,” Jackson said. “All through medical school, residency, and specialty training we were supposed to delegate all of the physical findings of the patient we’re taking care of. I think when the child is born, they do have physical characteristics either male or female and I think that probably should be on the public record. That’s just my personal opinion.”

The obvious should be stated: Biological sex accounts for medical differences. The AMA has faced plenty of backlash for wanting to eliminate this important biological distinguishment. In some cases, it could mean the difference between life or death. In 2019, a biological female who identified as a male birthed a stillborn baby because ER nurses didn’t think to check if she was pregnant.

By neglecting to specify sex on the hard copy of a birth certificate, medical professionals could improperly treat someone. But instead of recognizing medical truths, the AMA is rallying behind people who flat out deny biology.

The AMA supports health care for transgender children, noting that “it is imperative that transgender minors be given the opportunity to explore their gender identity under the safe and supportive care of a physician.” For an organization that blindly supports genital mutation on minors, it’s no surprise that they want to eliminate sex on a birth certificate.

*

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.

Haley Strack is an intern at The Federalist and a student at Hillsdale College studying politics and journalism. Follow her on Twitter @StrackHaley or reach her at [email protected].

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.

***

Israel’s return to the African Union (AU) as an observer state has sparked a huge backlash in the continent with as many as 14 countries said to be ready to form a block to reject the occupation state’s membership.

Online newspaper Rai Al-Youm reported that Algeria has agreed with South Africa, Tunisia, Eritrea, Senegal, Tanzania, Niger, ‌the Comoro Islands, Gabon, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Liberia, and Seychelles to expel Israel from the AU.

It’s reported that the new block will reject the decision to include Israel in the AU to preserve the principles of the union and support the Palestinian Arab state.

Algerian Foreign Minister Ramtane Lamamra is expected to discuss the issue of Israel’s membership in the African Union in his upcoming trips to Tunisia, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt. He has previously stressed that Algeria will not stand idly by while Israel is allowed to join the block with the consent of its members.

Though Rai Al-Youm did not include Namibia on its list of countries to have agreed with Algeria to block Israel’s admission, the southwest African state’s ministry of international relations released a strongly worded denunciation of the AU’s decision to grant observer status to the occupation state.

“Granting observer status to an occupying power is contrary to the principles and objectives of the Constitutive Act of the African Union,” Penda Naanda, executive director of Namibia’s Ministry of International Relations and Cooperation, said in a statement.

Naanda said it was wrong to grant Israel observer status, particularly at this time, when the state of Israel is increasing its acts of oppression in total violation of international law and disregard for the human rights of the Palestinian people. He stressed that the AU Commission’s decision was against the usual firm and solid commitments made by several African heads of state and government who unequivocally support the Palestinian cause.

“Namibia, therefore, disassociates itself from granting observer status to the state of Israel,” the statement said.

South Africa was one of the first countries to express condemnation of the AU’s decision. It said that it was “appalled” by the decision to grant observer status to the 55-country block.

*

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

On Monday, Israel’s Defense Minister Benny Gantz threatened Iran and said Israel must take action against the Islamic Republic “right now” over last week’s drone attack on an Israeli-operated ship near Oman. Israel, the US, and the UK have blamed Tehran, but Iran denies the accusation, calling the allegations “baseless.”

“Iran’s aggression in the region generally and on the maritime front, in particular, is intensifying,” Gantz during a plenary session of Israel’s Knesset. “This is the exact reason that we must act right now against Iran.”

He said that when Iranian President-elect Ebrahim Raisi comes into office Iran, will be “more dangerous to the world than it has been so far.” Raisi will replace Hassan Rouhani as president this week. “We will act to remove any such threat,” Gantz said.

While it was more toned down, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken also threatened action against Iran.

“We are working with our partners to consider our next steps and consulting with governments inside the region and beyond on an appropriate response, which will be forthcoming,” Blinken said on Sunday.

Neither the US nor Israel have offered any evidence to back up the accusation against Iran.

“If they have any evidence to support their baseless claims they should provide them,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said in response to the US and UK backing up Israel’s narrative. He also said Iran would “decisively respond to any possible adventurism.”

The attack on the Japanese-owned tanker Mercer Street, which is managed by a company owned by Israeli billionaire Eyal Ofer, killed two crew members; a Romanian and a British national. Both Romania and the UK have summoned Iranian ambassadors over the attack.

Attacks on commercial shipping are common in the region, and Israel has been behind several attacks on Iranian ships. In March, The Wall Street Journal reported that Israel had attacked at least a dozen ships that were either Iranian or carrying Iranian fuel since 2019.

Israel has also carried out covert attacks inside Iran over the past year, including the assassination of Iranian scientist Mohsen Fakrizadeh. Israel doesn’t officially take credit for these attacks, but it’s no secret who was behind them, and Israeli intelligence officials have all but admitted it in comments to the press.

*

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

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

Switzerland: 730 Years of an Independent Sovereign Nation – Really?

By Peter Koenig, August 03, 2021

The fact that Switzerland hosts not only annually the WEF Davos Forum, a club of corporate and banking billionaires that has gradually taken over the reins of the world, doesn’t bode well with Swiss neutrality, Swiss modesty and the Swiss heroic image of defender of sovereign human rights and justice – the substance of the legendary oath of the Ruetli in 1291.

Secret Meeting on the Privatization of Nuclear War Held on Hiroshima Day 2003

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 03, 2021

At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable – a nuclear holocaust which could potentially spread in terms of radioactive fallout over a large part of the Middle East.

The War on Free Speech Continues

By Philip Giraldi, August 03, 2021

The Biden Administration’s effort to withdraw nearly all US troops from Afghanistan and Iraq before the end of the year is commendable and it is hoped that a departure from Syria will follow soon thereafter, but one must nevertheless be concerned that the overseas moves are being made to concentrate government resources on the domestic war that has already begun.

The Vaccinated vs. The Unvaccinated: Peaceful Citizens Are Being Set Against One Another

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, August 03, 2021

On the fringes of a demonstration against the introduction of the green passport in Italy, a demonstrator described what we citizens can expect in the near future – if we let it happen: “We will soon see how the vaccinated will attack us. People are being played off against each other.”

Impacts of the Covid-19 Lockdown on World Trade: Global Shipping Crisis Far Worse than Imagined

By F. William Engdahl, August 03, 2021

Over the past decades world ocean trade has expanded almost exponentially as major manufacturing outsourcing from USA and European corporations has blossomed under the advent of economic globalization.

20,595 Dead 1.9 Million Injured (50% Serious) Reported in European Union’s Database of Adverse Drug Reactions for COVID-19 Shots

By Brian Shilhavy, August 03, 2021

The European Union database of suspected drug reaction reports is EudraVigilance, and they are now reporting 20,595 fatalities, and 1,960,607 injuries, following COVID-19 injections.

US EPA Buried Internal Report Linking Glyphosate to Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

By Sustainable Pulse, August 03, 2021

A newly uncovered confidential U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report found “suggestive evidence” linking glyphosate to Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a determination that goes against the agency’s long-held public regulatory stance that glyphosate is not a carcinogen.

The Illegality of Any University Mandating Experimental COVID-19 Vaccine for Students

By Aaron Siri, Elizabeth A. Brehm, and Jessica Wallace, August 03, 2021

Numerous students attending Duke University (“Duke”) have reached out regarding Duke’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. We understand that Duke’s students were advised on April 9, 2021 that “we plan to require all new and returning Duke students to present proof of vaccination to Student Health before they can enroll for the Fall 2021 semester.”

A New State of Segregation: Vaccine Cards Are Just the Beginning

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, August 03, 2021

Imagine it: a national classification system that not only categorizes you according to your health status but also allows the government to sort you in a hundred other ways: by gender, orientation, wealth, medical condition, religious beliefs, political viewpoint, legal status, etc.

“Immovable Object: North Korea’s 70 Years at War with American Power.”

By Carla Stea, August 03, 2021

This new publication is a masterpiece of research and analysis, and a great contribution to rectifying the false narrative perpetrated by western propaganda which demonizes the DPRK.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Secret Meeting on the Privatization of Nuclear War Held on Hiroshima Day 2003

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Daraa has been in the spotlight in Syria, leaving both Greater Idlib and the ISIS terrorists in Deir Ezzor in the background.

The situation is in a state of escalation, following several weeks of siege warfare by the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and a subsequent settlement agreement.

The settlement agreement was concluded on July 25th and came into effect on July 28th. This attempt at peace, however, failed in its entirety. Instead of the situation subsiding and calm returning to Daraa, clashes took place all around.

Early on July 29, the SAA launched a military operation to enter and secure Daraa al-Balad, the southern part of Daraa city.

In the very first hours of the attacks, SAA troops managed to secure the outskirts of Daraa al-Balad.

The decision to storm the area has yet to be taken. Currently, the army is shelling posts occupied by local gunmen.

The SAA operation went on for one day before reports of another negotiation for a ceasefire began.

Former rebels captured around 30 posts, camps and checkpoints of the SAA in the eastern and western countryside of Daraa.

Syrian authorities and the former rebels reportedly agreed on a temporary ceasefire on July 30. However, clashes kept happening in different parts of Daraa, mainly in the south. More than 40 service members of the SAA were captured on July 29 in response to an army operation in Daraa al-Balad. The former rebels released some of the captives on July 31st, amid reports of yet another agreement nearing.

In an attempt to throw a wrench into any potential resolution, Greater Idlib’s ruler – Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) voiced its support for the former rebels and their “cause”.

Led by HTS, the Idlib factions stepped up their artillery and rocket strikes on government-held areas in response to SAA shelling on the al-Zaway Mountian in southern Idlib and in support of Daraa’s former rebels.

It all led to Syrian authorities giving local leaders in Daraa al-Balad time until August 1 to accept a new reconciliation agreement.

Under the agreement, 132 local gunmen will be expelled to opposition-held areas in northern Syria.

Tight security measures would also be implemented in Daraa al-Balad.

Instead of an end to hostilities, the Greater Idlib factions renewed their attacks on August 1st in support of the Daraa rebels, and little was achieved.

August 2nd saw a meeting between officers of the Russian military police, the Syrian Minister of Defense and representatives of the former rebels that took place in the stadium in the center of Daraa.

On the same day, the rebels central committee in Daraa rejected the demands of the SAA to hand over their weapons and allow Syrian troops to enter the military checkpoints in Daraa al-Balad.

Clashes are continuing all around Daraa, and especially in the south of the city, it appears that no form of resolution is anywhere near.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

The Role of Antibodies in the Light of the Theory of Evolution

August 3rd, 2021 by Dr. Hélène Banoun

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Abstract

The phenomenon of facilitation of viral infections by antibodies (ADE antibody dependent enhancement) as well as the resistance of agammaglobulinemia patients to certain viruses are in contradiction with the protective role of antibodies affirmed by classical immunology. This must be compared to the opsonizing antibodies that promote the specific phagocytosis of extra-cellular bacteria. However, questions about the role of antibodies have been raised since the beginning of the history of immunology.

More recently, Pierre Sonigo has shed light on the contradictions between the finalist interpretation of the role of lymphocytes and the theory of evolution: how can it be explained that cells are selected to protect the organism they constitute? The role of anti-viral and antiintracellular bacteria antibodies could be to allow phagocytosis by the cells: either directly by the Fc fragment of immunoglobulins, or via the complement for many cell types. This makes it easy to understand the selection of antibodysecreting cells. Natural selection favors the cells that produce the most affine Ig and thus guides the maturation of the proB cell to the plasma cell.

A review of recent publications in theoretical immunology is consistent with this hypothesis. The theory of evolution should be integrated at every level of research and teaching in immunology, as it is for biology as a whole.

Introduction

The phenomenon of antibody facilitation of viral infections has recently been re-discussed in relation to the clinical aspect of Covid-19 (Yushun et al., 2020 and Banoun, 2020) and vaccines against this infection (Roper and Rehm, 2009). Antibody dependent enhancement is the accepted mechanism to explain severe reinfections due to dengue virus—among others—(Taylor et al., 2015) as well as the higher occurrence of severe dengue in vaccinated (compared to unvaccinated, Feinberg and Ahmed, 2017).

This effect of antibodies appears to contradict immunological theory, which states that the “role” of antibodies is to protect organisms against pathogens, including viruses.

However, contradictory observations have long been noted.

Already in 1956, a review was published (Good and Zak, 1956) which referred to “the clinical paradox posed by the apparently satisfactory resistance of patients with agammaglobulinemia to certain viral infections and the failure of their response to the virus antigen…. ”. As noted by Burnet (1968), measles immunity is independent of antibodies, but depends solely on cellular immunity. The same demonstration has recently been made for immunity to VSV (vesicular stomatitis virus, Moseman et al., 2012).

These observations have been reviewed by Sanna and Burton (2000). They are criticized because all patients diagnosed wuth aγglobulinemia would have received IM immunoglobulin as early as the early 1950s, and thus the complete null phenotype has been little studied. The authors suggest that the treatment given to these patients indicates that antibodies may play a role in viral infections. Some viral infections that these patients developed before treatment virtually disappeared after the initiation of treatment. However, it cannot be denied that the aγglobulinemia patients were discovered by the bacterial infections they developed and not by the viral infections.

It appears that humoral immunity plays a role in HSV (Herpes simplex virus, neurologically disseminated enterovirus) infections for viruses with nervous tropism and for persistent viral infections.

Moreover, it is difficult to attribute the discovery of an infection in an antibody deficient patient to a particular virus: the serological diagnosis is inoperative; it was necessary to wait for the culture of the viruses and especially the PCR to affirm a viral infection.

Therefore, this last publication does not call into question the first observations on aγglobulinemia patients: patients are very sensitive to bacterial infections and for the majority of viral infections, their sensitivity is comparable to that of the general population.

Much more recently, the pandemic at Covid-19 has mobilized thousands of researchers and allowed significant advances in immunology and virology. One study compared serologies and cell type immunity in Covid-19 index patients and their contacts: only index patients became seropositive, but both groups showed robust and specific cell type reactivity to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus responsible for Covid-19) (Gallais et al., 2020).

Similarly Sekine et al. (2020) showed that most individuals with asymptomatic or moderate Covid-19 generated highly functional durable memory T-cell responses in the absence of a corresponding humoral response.

The role of antibodies in bacterial infections is well established in the defense against extracellular bacterial infections (as opposed to intracellular infections) (Berche, 1988). The frequency of infections in patients with genetic abnormalities of phagocytes is indicative of the importance of phagocytosis.

Bacteria, once phagocytized, are degraded and then exocytosed, making the antigens accessible to the cells of adaptive immunity. The antibodies then act by promoting phagocytosis, which is the natural process of fighting pathogenic bacteria: they are opsonizing antibodies, another term for facilitators. Could the neutralization and agglutination of bacteria observed in vitro not occur in vivo?

Complement (a group of serum proteins) plays an important role in phagocytosis. These proteins act on the one hand by binding to specific antibodies, but complement is also activated by the alternating pathway induced directly by surface bacterial antigens: lipopolysaccarides, capsule polyosides, lipotechoic acids, and this in the absence of antibodies.

However, as with viral infections, the first line of defense is innate immunity: during a primary infection it takes 7 to 10 days to mount a specific humoral reaction, and it is non-specific phagocytosis that operates first. A good example is pneumococcal pneumonia. Pneumococcus is a commensal upper airway bacterium that becomes pathogenic when it acquires a phagocytosis-resistant capsule. In young adults the evolution is typical: after incubation of 1 to 3 days, a sudden onset, high fever, cough, the evolution is favorable in 8-10 days with a sudden improvement. This improvement corresponds to the appearance of specific antibodies. The inflammatory (polynuclear) reaction aided by the opsonizing specific antibodies will destroy the pneumococci and lead to healing.

How can this opsonizing role of antibacterial antibodies be related to the phenomenon of the facilitation of viral infections by the antibodies?

Pierre Sonigo, one of the discoverers of the AIDS virus in the 1980s, reflected on the theory of immunology and the problems it poses in relation to the theory of evolution (Kupiec and Sonigo, 2003).

Before giving a brief summary of his theses, a historical overview of this science can account for the theoretical gaps that accompanied its birth.

Read the full peer-reviewed article here.

All Global Research articles 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.

***

National Interest editor Jacob Heilbrunn interviews Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the United States of America H. E. Anatoly Antonov.

Jacob Heilbrunn: President Vladimir Putin has recently published a new essay on Ukraine stating that Ukrainians and Russians are the same people. He also indicated that there are red lines that neither Ukraine nor NATO would be allowed to cross. Some say Putin is laying the groundwork for tougher action on Ukraine. Have you communicated anything like that to the Biden administration?

H. E. Anatoly Antonov: The article of the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin had a huge resonance in Washington. For many here, it was a new look into relations between Russians and Ukrainians, an opportunity to learn the roots of the people. Unfortunately, there are ill-wishers who deny the good, especially when it comes to Russia. They try to pervert the picture—to present the article as if it were an ultimatum against the independent nation. We have to acknowledge that there are many representatives of the administration who share this view. They ignore the main thesis of the Russian leader that a true, real and strong sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership and good relations with Russia.

We have to fight lies and fake news virtually on a daily basis. Before the article was published, we had faced a smear campaign from politicians and experts with regard to the talks between President Putin and President Biden in Geneva. As you know, the heads of our countries constructively discussed the intra-Ukrainian conflict. They agreed that the Minsk agreements serve as the sole framework for political settlement of the conflict in Donbass. Instead of working on ways to implement the Minsk arrangements, certain State Department officials blame Russia for all the troubles in Ukraine and label my country an “aggressor.”

We have repeatedly warned the administration that such counterproductive statements have nothing to do with reality. Solutions can be found only through diplomatic means without propaganda. Right now the United States can influence the government of Ukraine by encouraging it to engage in a substantive dialogue with representatives of Donetsk and Lugansk, withdraw heavy weapons from the line of contact, and undertake concrete and tangible measures with regards to the autonomous status of Ukraine’s southeast.

Heilbrunn: The United States and Russia have agreed to start a new dialogue on cyber issues. What is the progress in this area and do you see any grounds for optimism after years of sharp disagreements?

Antonov: The agreement to launch a dialogue on cybersecurity is one of the key outcomes of the Russia-U.S. summit in Geneva. Experts from both countries have already started to communicate. Russian and U.S. Security Councils provide overall coordination.

For now, there have been several rounds of consultations, and it is definitely an important and promising sign. American colleagues, however, prefer to focus discussions mainly on ransomware activities, while cybersecurity is much broader. I hope that this dialogue will acquire a comprehensive character in the near future. As an option, we can debate on cyber threats to arms control systems, etc.

It is obvious that our countries equally suffer from cybercriminals. The cases of recent attacks against the healthcare system of the Voronezh region in Russia and the Kaseya company here in the U.S. just confirm that.

We have consistently sought to establish professional cooperation on cybersecurity issues in Washington. In particular, since 2015, we have taken six attempts to launch such interaction. Moreover, on September 25, 2020, the president of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, proposed a comprehensive program of measures to restore Russia-U.S. cooperation in the field of International Information Security (IIS). Unfortunately, there has been no official reaction from the United States so far.

By the way, requests of the Russian competent authorities regarding cyber-attacks also remain without reaction from the U.S. side. There were forty-five of them in 2020, and thirty-five in the first six months of 2021. For our part, we fully satisfied ten requests from the United States last year and two appeals in the first half of the current year. This indicates that we have a lot to work on.

We would like to reiterate that Russia is ready for honest and mutually beneficial cooperation, without politicization and hidden agendas. We take a responsible approach to cybersecurity issues. In this context, we are proud to announce that our country has become the first state to develop and submit to the UN a draft Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communication Technologies for Criminal Purposes. The official presentation of the document took place on July 27 in Vienna.

One more thing to mention. Almost every day we deal with media materials about hacker attacks, which are allegedly carried out from the Russian territory. Evidence is never provided. Such issues should be raised not by reporters, but professionals. American colleagues if they ask for it can count on rapid and high-level assistance from the Russian side. Our National Computer Incident Response and Coordination Center is ready to cooperate closely.

Heilbrunn: How do you assess the perspectives of the Russia-U.S. strategic dialogue?

Antonov: A myriad of problems has accumulated in arms control and strategic stability over the past ten years. Irrespective of the political conjuncture, complex bilateral negotiations are needed to resolve them.

The issue of overcoming the crisis in this area was one of the key topics at the kick-off Russian-U.S. meeting on July 28 in Geneva. Representatives of the two countries exchanged their perceptions of the direction it is necessary to move in to reduce strategic risks. Despite the considerable differences in approaches to many matters, both sides demonstrated their willingness to engage in a regular and constructive dialogue and seek common ground. It is definitely a positive sign. Nevertheless, we are at the very beginning of a long road. The difficult work before us is to restore trust in this sphere.

I would like to emphasize that the Russian side is open to discussing any arms control issues. There are no taboo topics for our country. We are ready to consider the concerns of the United States with regard to Russia’s newest strategic systems.

However, such conversation should not be a one-way street. It is necessary for U.S. counterparts to heed our claims too, and take into account Russia’s national security interests. Dialogue cannot be fruitful without an equitable exchange of views.

Heilbrunn: You have returned to Washington after the Geneva summit a month ago and your U.S. counterpart John Sullivan has returned to Moscow. Do you have anything positive to report, particularly on the contentious issue of the work of the embassies in the two capitals? Are there any new developments on the status of the U.S. and Russian consulates which were closed in recent years?

Antonov: Unfortunately, the situation does not change for the better. Russian diplomatic missions in the United States are still forced to work under unprecedented restrictions that not only remain in effect, but are stepped up. Regardless of the Biden administration’s declarations concerning the important role of diplomacy and willingness to develop stable and predictable relations with our country, the Russian diplomatic presence experiences continuous strikes.

U.S. colleagues get persistent and creative in this business. The expulsions of diplomats are implemented under far-fetched pretexts now and then. Last December the State Department unilaterally established a three-year limit on the assignment period for Russian personnel in the United States that, as far as we know, is not applied to any other country. Moreover, we received a list of twenty-four diplomats who are expected to leave the country before September 3, 2021. Almost all of them will leave without replacements because Washington has abruptly tightened visa issuing procedures.

It has gotten to the point where the U.S. authorities cancel valid visas of spouses and children of our staff with no reasons provided. The widespread delays in renewing expired visas are also aimed at squeezing Russian diplomatic workers out of the country. As a result, about sixty of my colleagues (130 together with family members) cannot return to their motherland even under urgent humanitarian circumstances.

We have shown restraint for a long time but after another wave of aggressive sanctions by the United States in April we were obliged to take additional steps to equate conditions of work for U.S. missions in Russia, including a prohibition to hire local personnel. It is certain that nobody benefits from such a situation. There is a need for solutions based on the principle of parity. We are convinced that the easiest and fastest way to do it is to completely repeal all the measures and countermeasures which are constraining the activity of diplomats.

Washington does not show a readiness to take such a decision while trying to secure unilateral advantages for the American side. The same is true about the prospects of resuming the work of the Consulates General of Russia in San Francisco and Seattle which were closed by coercion. Even temporary access of maintenance teams to the confiscated premises of the Russian diplomatic property is still denied, which leads to a further deterioration of conditions there.

We hope that common sense will prevail and we will be able to normalize the life of Russian and American diplomats in the United States and Russia on the principle of reciprocity. Our presidents agreed in Geneva to continue consultations between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia and the State Department with a view to resolve this problem.

Heilbrunn: One issue that has aroused concern in recent years is the matter of high-level access for Russian and American diplomats in Washington and Moscow? Do you believe you have adequate access now? Has it improved? Are there any serious disappointments?

Antonov: After returning to Washington in the aftermath of the Geneva summit, I had an opportunity to meet with some senior officials in the administration. However, these meetings were mostly isolated incidents. According to diplomatic practice, dozens of requests have been sent in order to conduct “courtesy visits” of the Russian Ambassador to the newly appointed leaders of key American authorities. The vast majority of them have been either denied or ignored.

Sometimes we fail to organize high-ranking conversations, even when we need to convey certain signals on behalf of Moscow.

The situation with contacts on Capitol Hill is still depressing. All my meeting requests addressed to the heads of parties, factions of both chambers of Congress, as well as committees on foreign affairs, have seemingly gone into the void. They just remain unanswered. At the same time, the State Department shrugs its shoulders and claims that it cannot provide any assistance because of “separation of powers.”

Heilbrunn: In 2017 there was a summit between former president Donald Trump and President Putin in Helsinki. While the meeting itself was highly controversial, there were also high expectations that relations between Washington and Moscow might improve. The meeting between Biden and Putin in Geneva proved to be less controversial. Do you see a new momentum or more business as usual?

Antonov: It is too early to make any judgments in this regard. At this point, we can positively assess the agreement between the two presidents to restore professional and systemic dialogue on key topics of mutual interest. These include the issues already mentioned—strategic stability, cybersecurity and functioning of diplomatic missions.

You are right that, as we have seen earlier, the positive impetus of our leaders has drowned in the corridors of the U.S. bureaucracy and has been doomed for fruitlessness. Let us hope that Russia-U.S. relations will no longer be a token coin in the U.S. domestic political rivalry. Their improvement serves crucial security interests of Russia, the United States and the whole world. It will take time and efforts from both sides. And we are ready for such work.

*

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 CC BY 4.0

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Russia -U.S. Strategic Dialogue and the Putin-Biden Relationship: Diplomacy, Strategic Stability and Cybersecurity
  • 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.

***

Introduction

“Humanitarian” lies serve to brainwash the population into supporting imperialist wars. Fed by far-right propaganda, and funded by the CIA, the mainstream “news” outlets describe the Soviet labour camps – also known as the “the Gulags” – as Stalin’s means to repress pro-democracy dissidents and to enslave the Soviet masses. However, the same CIA that, through Operation Mockingbird, gave the US military almost-total control over the mainstream press in order to foster anti-Soviet disinformation (Tracy 2018), has recently released declassified documents that invalidate the slanders surrounding the Gulags.

The CIA which conducted various anti-Soviet operations for almost five decades, and whose staff strived to obtain accurate intelligence about the USSR, cannot be said to have any bias in favor of the USSR. Therefore, the following declassified CIA files that surprisingly “confess” in favor of the Soviet Union are particularly valuable.

While acknowledging the harsh conditions that existed in the Gulags – as with any prison system in the world – the goal of this article is to shed light on the following facts:

(1) the harshness of the prisons has been exaggerated by the Western press, with numerous lies being made up,

(2) the statistics in regards to the Gulag population have been exaggerated,

(3) there was a genuine effort at improving the prison conditions when given the chance, and

(4) the prison standards were much higher than those of many capitalist countries.

The Conditions of the Prisons

A 1957 CIA document titled “Forced Labor Camps in the USSR: Transfer of Prisoners between Camps” reveals the following information about the Soviet Gulag in pages two to six:

1. Until 1952, the prisoners were given a guaranteed amount food, plus extra food for over-fulfillment of quotas

2. From 1952 onward, the Gulag system operated upon “economic accountability” such that the more the prisoners worked, the more they were paid.

3. For over-fulfilling the norms by 105%, one day of sentence was counted as two, thus reducing the time spent in the Gulag by one day.

4. Furthermore, because of the socialist reconstruction post-war, the Soviet government had more funds and so they increased prisoners’ food supplies.

5. Until 1954, the prisoners worked 10 hours per day, whereas the free workers worked 8 hours per day. From 1954 onward, both prisoners and free workers worked 8 hours per day.

6. A CIA study of a sample camp showed that 95% of the prisoners were the mainstream criminals.

7. In 1953, amnesty was given to 70% of the “ordinary criminals” of a sample camp studied by the CIA. Within the next 3 months, most of them were re-arrested for committing new crimes.

The following are excerpts of the CIA document, underlined and put together for the reader:

untitled image

These facts negate the narrative that Gulag prisoners were unpaid. The labour was indeed forced; however, material rewards were provided. The prisoners were paid from 1952 onward, and rewarded by food prior to 1952.

According to Western mainstream media reports, the Soviet “regime” sought to deliberately starve the Gulag populations. However, as a matter of fact, there indeed were Soviet efforts to increase the food supply of prisoners, after World War II.

The fact that the working day was only two hours more than that of the free workers until 1954, and equal to that of the free worker from 1954 onward is a clear demonstration of the egalitarian tendencies of the Soviet State.

All the while, the noteworthy fact is that criminals, not “pro-democracy revolutionaries” were sent to the Gulags. Like all justice systems, there certainly were errors and some innocent people were sent to the prisons; the point though is that this fact has been exaggerated by the Western press.

Let’s compare the Soviet system to that of the United States. The 13th amendment permits prison slavery, with many prisoners victimized by racial profiling. Even the Clinton Dynasty had slaves in the Arkansas Province (News 2017).

The Numbers

According to page four of another CIA (1989) document titled “The Soviet Labour System: An Update,” the number of Gulag prisoners “grew to about 2 million” during Stalin’s time.

untitled image

These figures match Soviet statistics as well, from declassified Soviet archives. The following is a 1954 declassified Soviet archival document (Pykhalov), an excerpt of which is translated into English:

untitled image

“During the period from 1921 to the present time for counterrevolutionary crimes were convicted 3,777,380 people, including to capital punishment – 642,980 people to the camps and prisons for a period of 25 years old and under – 2,369,220 into exile and expulsion – 765,190 people.

“Of the total number of convicts, approximately convicted: 2,900,000 people – College of OGPU, NKVD and triples Special meeting and 877,000 people – courts by military tribunals, and Spetskollegiev Military Collegium.

“It should be noted… that established by Decree … on November 3, 1934 Special Meeting of the NKVD which lasted until September 1, 1953 – 442,531 people were convicted, including to capital punishment – 10,101 people to prison – 360,921 people to exile and expulsion (within the country) – 57,539 people and other punishments (offset time in detention, deportation abroad, compulsory treatment) – 3,970 people…

Attorney General R. Rudenko

Interior Minister S. Kruglov

Justice Minister K. Gorshenin”

The Soviet archives remained declassified for decades, only to be released near or after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In addition, after Stalin died, the Stalin-Era head of the NKVD (Soviet interior ministry) Lavrenty Beria had already been executed by Khrushchev, a staunch anti-Stalinist (History in an hour 2010). These facts make it very unlikely that Soviet intelligence would have a pro-Stalin bias.

American historian Michael Parenti (1997, pp. 79-80) further analyzes the data provided from the Soviet archives:

“In 1993, for the first time, several historians gained access to previously secret Soviet police archives and were able to establish well-documented estimates of prison and labor camp populations. They found that the total population of the entire gulag as of January 1939, near the end of the Great Purges, was 2,022,976. At about that time, there began a purge of the purgers, including many intelligence and secret police (NKVD) officials and members of the judiciary and other investigative committees, who were suddenly held responsible for the excesses of the terror despite their protestations of fidelity to the regime.

“Soviet labor camps were not death camps like those the Nazis built across Europe. There was no systematic extermination of inmates, no gas chambers or crematoria to dispose of millions of bodies…. [T]he great majority of gulag inmates survived and eventually returned to society when granted amnesty or when their terms were finished. In any given year, 20 to 40 percent of the inmates were released, according to archive records. Oblivious to these facts, the Moscow correspondent of the New York Times (7/31/96) continues to describe the gulag as ‘the largest system of death camps in modern history’.

“Almost a million gulag prisoners were released during World War II to serve in the military. The archives reveal that more than half of all gulag deaths for the 1934-53 period occurred during the war years (1941-45), mostly from malnutrition, when severe privation was the common lot of the entire Soviet population. (Some 22 million Soviet citizens perished in the war.) In 1944, for instance, the labor-camp death rate was 92 per 1000. By 1953, with the postwar recovery, camp deaths had declined to 3 per 1000.

“Should all gulag inmates be considered innocent victims of Red repression? Contrary to what we have been led to believe, those arrested for political crimes (‘counterrevolutionary offenses’) numbered from 12 to 33 percent of the prison population, varying from year to year. The vast majority of inmates were charged with nonpolitical offenses: murder, assault, theft, banditry, smuggling, swindling, and other violations punishable in any society.”

Thus, according to the CIA, approximately two million people were sent to the Gulag in the 1930s, whereas according to declassified Soviet archives, 2,369,220 up until 1954. When compared to the population of the USSR at the time, as well as the statistics of a country like the United States, the Gulag percent of the population in the USSR throughout its history was lower than that of the United States today or since the 1990s. In fact, based on Sousa’s (1998) research, there was a larger percentage of prisoners (relative to the whole population) in the US, than there ever was in the USSR:

“In a rather small news item appearing in the newspapers of August 1997, the FLT-AP news agency reported that in the US there had never previously been so many people in the prison system as the 5.5 million held in 1996. This represents an increase of 200,000 people since 1995 and means that the number of criminals in the US equals 2.8% of the adult population. These data are available to all those who are part of the North American department of justice…. The number of convicts in the US today is 3 million higher than the maximum number ever held in the Soviet Union! In the Soviet Union, there was a maximum of 2.4% of the adult population in prison for their crimes – in the US the figure is 2.8% and rising! According to a press release put out by the US department of justice on 18 January 1998, the number of convicts in the US in 1997 rose by 96,100.”

Conclusion

Seeing the USSR as a major ideological challenge, the Western ruling class demonized Stalin and the Soviet Union. Yet after decades of propaganda, declassified archives from both the US and USSR together debunk these anti-Soviet slanders. Worthy of our attention is the fact that the CIA – a fiercely anti-Soviet source – has published declassified documents debunking the very anti-Soviet myths it promoted and continues to promote in the mainstream media. Together with declassified Soviet archives, the CIA files have demonstrated that the mainstream press has lied about the Gulags.

*

Saed Teymuri is a student at the University of British Columbia, currently studying economics.

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

13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Abolition of Slavery. (n.d.). Retrieved August 28, 2018, from https://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/13th-amendment

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). (1989). THE SOVIET FORCED LABOR SYSTEM: AN UPDATE (GI-M 87-20081). Retrieved February 12, 2018, fromhttps://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000500615.pdf

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). (2010, February 22). 1. FORCED LABOR CAMPS IN THE USSR 2. TRANSFER OF PRISONERS BETWEEN CAMPS 3. DECREES ON RELEASE FROM FORCED LABOR 4. ATTITUDE OF SOVIET PRISON OFFICIALS TOWARD SUSPECTS 1945 TO THE END OF 1955. Retrieved January 5, 2018, from https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80T00246A032000400001-1.pdf

Hillary and Bill used ‘slave labour’. (2017, June 08). Retrieved June 10, 2017, from https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/hillary-and-bill-clinton-used-black-prisoners-for-forced-slave-labour-in-the-arkansas-governors-mansion/news-story/9af23848a5d44770b538c931c62460fe

Игорь, П. (n.d.). Книга: За что сажали при Сталине. Невинны ли «жертвы репрессий»? Retrieved August 28, 2018, from https://www.e-reading.club/bookreader.php/1008874/Pyhalov_-_Za_chto_sazhali_pri_Staline._Nevinny_li_zhertvy_repressiy.html

Parenti, M. (1997). Blackshirts and reds: Rational fascism and the overthrow of communism. San Francisco, Calif: City Lights Books.

Sousa, M. (1998, June 15). Lies concerning the history of the Soviet Union. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from http://www.mariosousa.se/LiesconcerningthehistoryoftheSovietUnion.html

The Death of Lavrenty Beria. (2015, December 23). Retrieved August 31, 2018, from http://www.historyinanhour.com/2010/12/23/lavrenty-beria-summary

Tracy, J. F. (2018, January 30). The CIA and the Media: 50 Facts the World Needs to Know. Retrieved August 28, 2018, fromhttps://www.globalresearch.ca/the-cia-and-the-media-50-facts-the-world-needs-to-know/547195

Featured image: The fence at the old Gulag camp in Perm-36, founded in 1943 (CC BY-SA 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.

***

Am Rande einer Demonstration gegen die Einführung des Grünen Passes in Italien beschrieb eine Demonstrantin, was uns Bürger in naher Zukunft erwarten wird – wenn wir es geschehen lassen:

„Wir werden bald sehen, wie die Geimpften uns angreifen werden. Die Menschen werden gegeneinander ausgespielt. Letztes Jahr waren es diejenigen, die einen Arbeitsplatz hatten, und diejenigen, die ihn verloren hatten. In diesem Jahr wird die Gesellschaft zwischen denen, die geimpft sind, und denen, die nicht geimpft sind, gespalten.“ (1)

Friedliche Bürger werden auf diese Weise gegeneinander in Stellung gebracht und sollen so die Eugenik-Agenda der herrschenden „Elite“ voranbringen. Dabei werden diejenigen, die diesen teuflischen Plan zu verantworten haben, ihre Hände in Unschuld waschen und für den zu erwartenden Hexensabbat – wie in jedem Krieg – den angeblich angeborenen Aggressionstrieb des Menschen verantwortlich machen. Doch dieser ist ein Mythos, der für Tyrannen aller Couleur schon immer als willkommene Legitimation für einen Bruder- oder Völkermord dient. In Wahrheit ist der Mensch ist von Natur aus gut und nicht böse.

„Der Mythos vom Aggressionstrieb“ 

Die Lehre vom ererbten Aggressionstrieb oder -instinkt gehört zu den umstrittensten Formeln, mit deren Hilfe Psychoanalytiker und Tierverhaltensforscher Probleme der politischen und sozialen Situation, ja der Geschichte des menschlichen Zusammenlebens schlechthin zu erklären suchen. Doch die Selbstverständlichkeit, mit der im Anschluss an Konrad Lorenz (1903-1983) von einem angeborenen Aggressionstrieb gesprochen wird, ist keinesfalls berechtigt. Das zeigen Vertreter verschiedener Wissenschaften im Sammelband „Der Mythos vom Aggressionstrieb“ auf (2). Lorenz war ein österreichischer Vertreter der „Tierpsychologie“. Nach den Erkenntnissen der Humanwissenschaften Anthropologie, Soziologie und Psychologie ist der Mensch von Natur aus gut und nicht böse.

Der Mensch hat eine Tötungshemmung, eine ursprüngliche Aversion zu töten. Damit er den Mitmenschen aber trotzdem angreift, muss diese Hemmung durch entsprechende Erklärungen ausgeschaltet werden. Der deutsche Philosoph Arno Plack nennt sie in dem oben erwähnten Sammelband aus den 70er-Jahren:

„Dass ein vitales Gewissen sich sträubt, Mordbefehle auszuführen, damit hatten und haben allemal militante Führer zu rechnen. Und sie trugen dem Rechnung durch eine über die Jahrhunderte hinweg gleichgebliebene Erklärung, dass es sich bei dem jeweils befehdeten Volk oder der verfolgten Gruppe eigentlich gar nicht um richtige Menschen handle, sondern um ‚höhere Tiere‘ (so Papst Paul III. über die Indianer) oder um ‚Bestien‘, ‚Heiden‘, ‚Hexen‘, ‚Untermenschen‘, ‚Ungeziefer‘ gar, das man vertilgen müsse. So greift Manipulation des Bewußtseins von seiten mordlüsterner Machthaber ein, um die Menschen, die noch anders empfinden, auf Vordermann zu bringen.“ (3)

Diese Auffassung Placks wird durch neuere Fachliteratur bestätigt. Für den renommierten amerikanischen Sozialpsychologen und Gewaltforscher Philip Zimbardo ist es die Macht der Umstände, die den Menschen zum Gewalttäter und Mörder machen. In seinem Buch „Der Luzifer-Effekt“ schreibt er:

 „Nicht die Veranlagung bringt gute Menschen dazu, Böses zu tun, sondern die Situation, in der sie sich befinden oder in die man sie versetzt.“ (4)

Voraussetzung für die Taten sei, dass die Opfer zu einer Bedrohung erklärt und gleichzeitig entmenschlicht würden. In Ruanda verkündete die Hutu-Regierung, Tutsis seien nichts weiter als „Katerlaken“ und hätten deshalb den Tod verdient. Deutsche Nazis stellten Juden als gefährliches „Ungeziefer“ dar.

Heute wird die große Gruppe der nicht geimpfte Mitbürger von den Adlaten der herrschenden „Elite“ zur lebensbedrohlichen Gefahr für die Gesundheit der Bevölkerungsgruppe der bereits Geimpften erklärt, die dringend bekämpft oder gar aus der menschlichen Gemeinschaft ausgeschlossen werden solle. Selbstständig Denkende werden seit langem als verwirrte „Querdenker“, als unverbesserliche „Verschwörungstheoretiker“ und damit als Bedrohung für die Regierenden diskriminiert – und zum Abschuss durch die Massenmedien freigegeben. Wohin wird das führen, wenn sich immer mehr autoritätshörige, regierungstreue Mitbürger dieser menschenfeindlichen und gefährlichen Sichtweise anschließen – und die Opfer dieser staatlichen Diskriminierungskampagne sich das nicht gefallen lassen werden? Die weltweiten Demonstrationen und der offensichtliche Einsatz unverhältnismäßiger Gewalt von beauftragten Polizeikräften lässt nichts Gutes erahnen.

Holocaust-Überlebende Vera Sharav: „Die Geschichte wiederholt sich“ 

Die Vorgeschichten vergangener Bürger-, Regional- und Weltkriege bieten genug Anschauungsmaterial, um hellhörig und doch noch einsichtig zu werden. Hierzu zählt auch die seit Jahren andauernde Verunglimpfung des russischen Präsidenten und russischer Bürger als eine Methode der Psychologischen Kriegsführung.

In einem Artikel des österreichischen „Wochenblick“ vom 3. Juli wird die Holocaust-Überlebende, Frau Vera Sharav, mit den Worten zitiert: „Die Geschichte wiederholt sich“ (5). Es ist wert, längere Passagen aus diesem Artikel wörtlich zu zitieren:

„Vera Sharav überlebte als Kind den Holocaust. Sie schildert: ‚Als ich nach New York kam, fragte ich mich: Wo waren alle?  Wo waren alle, als ich in der Hölle war?‘ Gerechtigkeit und das Nicht-Wegschauen wenn Unrecht geschieht, ist Sharav deswegen ein großes Anliegen. Sucharit Bhakdi wurde unlängst vorgeworfen, er sei Antisemit, weil er Israel als die ‚Hölle auf Erden’ bezeichnete. Doch die Holocaust-Überlebende Vera Sharav stimmt ihm zu: ‚Ich wünschte, es wäre nicht so.‘ Die Geschichte wiederhole sich. Sie fordern Nürnberger Prozesse für die Verursacher des Covid-‚Menschheitsverbrechens‘.

Sharav erklärt: Die Nazi-Verbrechen geschahen ohne Widerspruch zum Internationalen Recht. Doch es entstanden die Nürnberger Prozesse, die für Gerechtigkeit sorgten und das Konzept der Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit einführten. Damit so etwas wie in Nazi-Deutschland nicht mehr passieren kann. Der Nürnberger-Kodex wurde im Zuge der Ärzteprozesse (1946) nach dem 2. Weltkrieg eingeführt und sollte den ethischen Umgang der Medien mit Menschen sicherstellen. Doch trotzdem wiederhole sich die Geschichte nun. (…)

Es sei schrecklich für Sharav, nun den Niedergang der Demokratie mitzuerleben. Die verfassungsmäßig sichergestellten Freiheitsrechte wurden außer Kraft gesetzt, wie in Nazideutschland, analysiert die Holocaust-Überlebende. Das sei ein großer Vertrauensbetrug, den die Regierungen gegenüber ihrer Bevölkerung begingen. Sharav kritisiert die israelische Regierung stark. Sie ist schockiert darüber, wie Nichtgeimpfte dämonisiert werden. ‚Unter den Nazis wurden die Juden als Verbreiter von Krankheit stigmatisiert und in Lager gesperrt.‘ Jetzt würde wieder eine Zweiklassengesellschaft geschaffen. Die Gesellschaft werde in Privilegierte und Unterprivilegierte gespalten.“ (6)

*

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 Diplom-Psychologe und Erziehungswissenschaftler.

Fussnoten

  1. https://de.rt.com/kurzclips/121646-tausende-gegen-gruenen-pass-rom/
  2. Plack, Arno (Hrsg.). (1973). Der Mythos vom Aggressionstrieb. München
  3. a. O., S. 33
  4. Zimbardo, Philip (2008). Der Luzifer-Effekt. Heidelberg
  5. https://www.wochenblick.at/holocaust-ueberlebende-springt-bhakdi-bei-die-geschichte-wiederholt-sich/
  6. a. O. 

Featured image is from Mises Wire

All Global Research articles 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 legend has it that Switzerland was celebrating on 1 August 2021 her 730th Anniversary. That’s the legend about the creation of an independent, neutral and sovereign nation. It’s a legend that has taken hold in every Swiss citizen’s heart and mind. It’s a legend that has made Switzerland around the world what it still is in reputation and – sometimes – even in appearance: a neutral, ethical country in the heart of Europe.

When we look closer, this legend was largely born from the pen of a German author who had never set foot in Switzerland. When Friedrich Schiller wrote the play “Willhelm Tell” in 1804, the basis for the heroic, unique and neutral Switzerland, he had never visited Switzerland. However, the legend has become reality, even though it was born 513 years after the alleged event took place.

This little detail is unimportant. What counts is the background to the story, namely that the territory that gradually became Switzerland, was originally inhabited by the Helvetians, or Helvetic Celts. As was much of Europe, they were largely dominated by the Habsburg Dynasty until the early 19th Century.

However, the Helvetians rebelled on or around the late 13th Century, when according to the Friedrich Schiller legend, called “Wilhelm Tell” – name of one of the legend’s principal liberating hero’s – the Governors of the three original cantons, Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden, got together on a mountain called Rütli, facing the Lake of Lucerne.

With an oath, a promise to God, the three governors united their lands in an act to defend themselves sovereignly against any aggressor, meant were in particular the rulers of the Habsburg Empire. According to the legend this happened on 1 August 1291 – 730 years ago. Thus, was the Confederatio Helvetica (Swiss Confederation) born.

This is what the Oath said, roughly translated:

We want to be a single People of brethren,
Never to part in danger nor distress.
We want to be free, as our fathers were,
And rather die than live in slavery.
We want to trust in the one highest God
And never be afraid of human power.”

From that date forward the alliance of cantons against the Habsburg dynasty grew, though only in 1848, when a new Constitution was adopted, was the present federal republic formed. Today the Swiss Confederation, or the modern Switzerland, consists of 26 fairly autonomous cantons.

Having been oppressed for centuries as Helvetians, the new Switzerland pledged to become a neutral Confederation. This noble principle of neutrality was also enshrined in the Swiss Constitution. Thus, the Friedrich Schiller legend on which much of the origins of the 730 years of Swiss history is based, as well as the believe and pride for the heroic liberation from oppression, is still part of the Swiss characteristic.

By and large, the Friedrich Schiller “Wilhelm Tell” legend – and the noble believe of rebellion for freedom and of a sovereign but federal nation, benefitted many countries with ideas of their own constitutional and geopolitical structure.

Only few, though, have achieved a true federalism, where regions, provinces or districts remained largely autonomous in budget as well as decision- and law-making. Much of the staunch Swiss federalism may be outdated in modern times, as it seems ludicrous that a small nation of only 8.4 million people has 26 different education schemes, and 27 different tax systems, the 27th being the National Federal Tax. Education is in the process of being harmonized; taxes not yet. This is small fry, as compared to geopolitics, practiced then and what it has become today.

Although, de facto Switzerland has always taken the side of the West, her constitutional neutrality has and still benefits Switzerland greatly. A truly neutral country would have been free from taking positions for or against Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela – and the list could go on.

A truly neutral country would have been free from taking positions for or against the colonial powers of the past centuries. However, while never a colonial power, Switzerland has often participated, even with soldiers, in colonial wars in favor of European colonialists – and has royally benefitted from colonialism.

According to SwissInfo (14 August 2020),

“Throughout their modern history the Swiss usually took the side of the colonizers rather than the colonized. It is true that Switzerland as a nation-state did not engage in imperialism, and conquered no colonial territories. Attempts to found great economic empires like the East India Company failed.

But it was part and parcel of colonialism to believe that the peoples in colonized lands were inferior to white Europeans. And in 19th-century Switzerland this was definitely part of the prevailing framework of assumptions about the world.

Generations of Swiss grew up with tales of “half-witted negroes”, travelers’ accounts of naïve, child-like savages, and advertising where the colonized were at best a decorative backdrop for colonial products. This thinking affects the country even today.”

SwissInfo continues revealing Swiss soldiers fighting in the colonies,

“The problem of Switzerland’s historical involvement in colonialism goes beyond controversies about derogatory names or statues. At times the Swiss were actually fighting as soldiers in the colonies. 

In 1800, when black slaves in present-day Haiti on the island of Hispaniola, rose in revolt against their French colonial masters, Napoleon sent 600 Swiss troops to fight them. France was able to draw on these mercenaries thanks to an agreement with the Helvetic Republic. This was by no means an exception; even after the modern federal republic was founded in 1848, Swiss defied the law to fight for colonial powers as mercenaries. They could look forward to considerable earnings as long as they didn’t die of tropical diseases.”

And on slavery,

“However, the big money from the colonies did not go to the mercenaries, who mostly came from impoverished families and saw it as a great adventure to enlist in Dutch or French service. Instead, trade was the moneymaker, be it in goods or human beings from the colonies.

One of the worst kinds of Swiss involvement with colonialism was that of the slave trade. Swiss individuals and companies made money out of slavery as investors and traders, organizing slave-hunting expeditions, buying and selling people as slaves, and, as slave owners, running great plantations which, they often proudly called “colonies”.

As a result, quite a few famous Swiss names have started to look bad in recent years. The family of Alfred Escher, a major figure in the development of modern Switzerland, came under a cloud when it became known that it had a plantation run with slave labor. In Sacramento, California, demonstrators pulled down a statue of General John Sutter. The Swiss native son, who hailed from the Basel area, at one time ranked as a hero of the Wild West until historians revealed that he had dealt in child slavery.”

Enough. That’s the past. But, fast forward, is the present so much different?

Take the covid plandemic the entire world, all 193 UN member countries, have been subjugated to this higher order of – let’s call it – a satanic cult. Its aims are multiple. The key and all overarching goal consists of a massive population reduction, a mass-genocide – eugenics at its worst. Another objective is digitization of everything including the human brain, transforming humans into “transhumans”.

Klaus Schwab, founder and CEO for life of the World Economic Forum – WEF, in a 2016 interview with Swiss-French Radio/TV – SRG, divulges the plan to make from surviving humans “transhumans” – see this 2-min. video interview.

Transhumans will react and obey to 5G / 6G -powered electromagnetic-directed Artificial Intelligence (AI); and finally, the last but not least of the three key objectives is transferring the assets of which the lower- and middle-class owners and industries were destroyed by the covid plandemic – to an “upper-class”, insanely rich small elite. This is already happening – and, of course, hardly reported in the mainstream media. While poverty has increased exponentially in the Global South, the dozen richest individuals have added hundreds of billions to their fortunes.

The fact that Switzerland hosts not only annually the WEF Davos Forum, a club of corporate and banking billionaires that has gradually taken over the reins of the world, doesn’t bode well with Swiss neutrality, Swiss modesty and the Swiss heroic image of defender of sovereign human rights and justice – the substance of the legendary oath of the Ruetli in 1291. The WEF itself is registered as an NGO in a small, lush suburb of Geneva.

Today this NGO is more powerful than the United Nations. It dictates the rules of the game to the UN. Of course, in many subtle ways, for example, by carefully choosing the people who run the UN and its sub-organization like WHO and others – and by letting money flow and talk, where need be. Money is never an issue for the rulers of the universe. And if money fails, there are other, less subtle ways.

Switzerland remains proud host of the WEF, despite worldwide protests against the WEF and the WEF’s machinations and plans for a One World Order (OWO). The WEF’s ideology is closer to the Swiss heart – if there is such a thing as a Swiss heart – than pledged Swiss neutrality, as anchored in the Constitution.

Aside from the WEF – which is a clear sign in which direction neutral Switzerland is leaning – Switzerland is also host to the corporate pharma-directed World Health Organization (WHO), as well as GAVI – the Bill Gates created Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, or short, the Vaccine Alliance. GAVI is physically housed just next door to WHO.

As we know, WHO is calling the controversial and most often contradictory shots on the measures to be imposed by governments with regard to the covid plandemic – and we also know who calls the shots on WHO.

We also know that the WHO recommended mRNA-experimental genetic therapy injections, not vaccines, are causing more deaths than covid does. Here is an insider assessment of WHO and it’s harmful measures imposed on the world. Dr. Astrid Stueckelberger speaks from the United Nations Plaza in Geneva.

Neutral Switzerland is aligned with pharma-corrupted WHO and GAVI, following the UN-agency’s deadly guidance and dictate. – Why?

On yet another score that goes in the direction of global control and population reduction through long-term misery and famine – weaponized man-made weather – what we are experiencing for the last few months almost everywhere on Mother Earth’s “hot spots”, Switzerland appears to be a lead initiator of applied HAARP technologies, as this 5 min video and pertaining text of 4 March 2019 show. See this.

HAARP stands for High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program. It was initiated as an ionospheric research program jointly funded by the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Navy, the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a semi-secret Pentagon thinktank.

The pretext and official reason, as usual, for weather manipulation is to stem against climate change and fight for greenhouse gas reduction. When the agenda is a different one, as we live through this northern summer, with never-seen-before floods and droughts, with Siberian heat in the plus 40-degrees C, torrential floods in Saudi Arabia, and around the Three Gorges Dam in China; and with the western US and Canada, all the way up to Alaska extremely hot and burning.

Why would neutral Switzerland be a key instigator of geoengineered weather that destroys vital infrastructure, harvests – and lives?

As if this was not enough, Switzerland subsidizes her mainstream media by – listen to this! – the equivalent of about US$ 1.9 billion per year. That is about US$ 226 million per capita of the 8.4 million Swiss population.

This must be worldwide the highest media subsidy. It assures that the lies and fears the government wants to instill in the population stick, that the media do not transgress and deviate from their role.

Unfortunately, there is little left of legendary heroic, neutral, sovereign human rights defending Confederatio Helvetica of 730 years ago, of the Gruetli Oath – a noble Oath to God to respect life and to fight for equality and liberty.

*

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

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)

Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Switzerland: 730 Years of an Independent Sovereign Nation – Really?
  • Tags:

The Delta Variant is Creating Havoc Among the Vaccinated

August 3rd, 2021 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

All Global Research articles 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.

***

.

Ironically, the incidence of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant which is “detected” by the totally invalid RT-PCR test (routinely tabulated by the health authorities) is significantly higher for vaccinated individuals. Why?

This should be obvious. It is a simple issue of categorization.

A vaccinated individual who goes home and then a week or two later feels sick will seek medical attention at a health clinic or at the hospital where he/she was vaccinated. This individual will invariably be subjected to a medical diagnosis as well as to a routine RT-PCR test.

It’s statistics 101. It pertains to “probabilities”.

The probability of a vaccinated individual suffering from adverse effects (seeking medical attention) being subject to the PCR-test (in a clinic or a hospital) is much higher than that pertaining to a healthy unvaccinated individual.

Moreover, there is rising trend in vaccine deaths and injuries which the health authorities are anxious to obfuscate.

There is a lot of nonsense published on this matter.

Ask yourself. What is the cause of  this trend among the vaccinated? The SARS-2 Delta Variant or the Killer Vaccine?

The vaccinated person subjected to the flawed RT-PCR test is categorized as “positive” or is diagnosed as a “probable” Covid-19 positive. And the numbers of covid positive cases assigned to the “vaccinated” go fly high.

In turn, in the US, the “certifiers” are instructed to indicate Covid-19 as “the underlying cause of death” “more often than not”. And no autopsy is allowed.

The deaths and injuries resulting from the mRNA vaccine are now being assigned to the “deadly” SARS-2 Delta Variant.
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Delta Variant is Creating Havoc Among the Vaccinated

All Global Research articles 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 weeks after being brutally assassinated, Haitian President Jovenel Moïse was buried on July 23 in Cap-Haïtien. Seriously injured during the attack, his wife Martine had her arm in a sling and questioned at the funeral: “What crime have you committed to deserve such punishment?” Among the U.S. diplomats at the funeral was Daniel Foote, new American envoy for Haiti, and Linda Thomas-Greenfield, U.S. ambassador to the UN. Returning to the U.S., the latter said: “The people of Haiti deserve peace, security, and a better future.”

Several countries are cited in the case investigating the July 7 assassination of the Haitian President, including the U.S., Colombia and even the partially recognized Taiwan. In fact, some have hypothesised that the murder of Moïse could have been in response to Haiti’s desire for rapprochement with China, which of course would have greatly displeased American authorities since Haiti is in the heart of the Caribbean.

Haiti’s shift in foreign policy would have also irritated Washington because it is Taiwan’s main ally and arms supplier. One of the few countries to still maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan, which China considers its territory and a rebel province, Haiti was the only state in the Western Hemisphere without a vaccination program until the month of Moïse’s assassination. With COVID-19 ripping through Haiti, Moïse saw neighboring Dominican Republic, which had recently recognized China and severed its diplomatic relations with Taiwan, receive assistance from Beijing. The Dominican Republic has also attracted significant Chinese investments.

During a hearing before the House of Representatives committee on June 17, Linda Thomas-Greenfield confirmed Washington’s frustration at China’s growing influence in the Caribbean. The ambassador to the United Nations criticized Beijing’s vaccine diplomacy as it put “tremendous pressure” on Haiti to no longer recognize Taiwan.

Pressing demands by Beijing, which maintains a “One China” policy, convinced some Latin American countries to sever their relations with Taiwan, such as Panama in 2017, and El Salvador and the Dominican Republic in 2018. In the past twenty years alone, China has become the first, second, or third commercial and technological partner of almost all of Latin America despite the region supposedly being the “U.S.’ backyard.” Chinese influence, which is continually challenging U.S. dominance in Latin America, was beginning to penetrate Haiti, a country with a GDP of only $697 per person in 2021 and the 15th poorest country in the world.

It is recalled that some of the suspects were hiding in the Taiwanese Embassy in the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince. In a press release, the Taiwanese Embassy confirmed that they held suspects but indicated it authorized Haitian police to arrest them.

More than twenty people who actively participated in the operation (including 18 Colombians and three Haitians, two of them also having American nationality) have already been arrested by the local police. Colombian mercenaries claim to have been recruited to capture Moïse. Their mission was to hand him over to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

The Pentagon confirmed that some of the mercenaries had benefited from training sessions offered by the U.S. military during their time serving in the Colombian Army. Former Colombian soldiers are often recruited by mercenary companies for their experience in fighting guerrillas and drug traffickers, and are deployed in Yemen and Afghanistan, and also monitor pipelines in the Middle East.

However, local complicity must also be explored, especially since there was a very obvious absence of resistance from the presidential guard against the assassination. However, it is worth noting that Moïse was not simply assassinated, but was tortured: His legs were broken, his eyes wrested, and he experienced other forms of horrific abuse.

Revelations from the investigation, whose neutrality raises questions, have not answered some of the most pressing questions, such as to what extent was Taiwan’s role in the assassination, and was the assassination in response to Haiti’s growing ties with China?

*

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

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

For more than four years, Western media outlets have exhaustively claimed that President Vladimir Putin of Russia waged a sweeping influence campaign to install Donald Trump in the White House and undermine U.S. democracy.

According to The Guardian, the long elusive smoking-gun evidence has been found. On July 15, the British newspaper published an article by one of the leading media promoters of the Trump-Russia narrative, Luke Harding, and two colleagues. Harding and company report that they have obtained secret “Kremlin papers” – bearing Putin’s signature – that authorized the malicious Russian plot. The documents call for using “all possible force” to support Russia’s preferred candidate, and thus trigger “the destabilization of the U.S.’s sociopolitical system.”

Yet remarkably, this supposed earth-shattering scoop has been greeted with resounding silence from The Guardian’s U.S. media counterparts. Two weeks later, the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS have ignored it. The lone exception was Washington Post columnist Philip Bump who, rather than parrot Harding’s story, laid out multiple reasons why it is “hard not to be skeptical” of it.

For Harding, the media shutout stands in sharp contrast to the warm embrace of his 2017 book “Collusion,” which rode the once-towering Trump-Russia conspiracy wave to become a No. 1 New York Times bestseller. Times columnist Michelle Goldberg called it “essential” and wished that “everyone who is skeptical that Russia has leverage over Trump would read it.”

The release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report in April 2019 undermined Harding’s collusion narrative, and discredited his primary source, ex-British spy Christopher Steele. It also included nothing to support Harding’s evidence-free November 2018 report in the Guardian, which claimed that one-time Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and Julian Assange held three secret meetings in Ecuador’s London embassy – one of the most surveilled locations on the planet.

The cold reception to Harding’s latest “bombshell” suggests that he may have worn out his welcome with fellow collusion chasers across the pond. But if this story is a bridge too far, what does that say about the others that preceded it?

Content-wise, Harding’s article is not much different than the sloppy coverage that, for example, won a 2018 Pulitzer Prize for the New York Times and Washington Post. Just like Harding, these prominent outlets also used anonymous sources, evidence-free claims and hedged language to advance the narrative that Trump’s presidency was all one dastardly Russian operation.

What appears to have changed is not a newfound embrace of journalism standards, but instead a shifting of narrative priorities. With Joe Biden now in office, the Russiagate fixation no longer suits a political and media establishment that relied on it as a means to undermine his predecessor.

In response to emailed queries from RealClearInvestigations, a Guardian spokesperson said, “We stand by our story and our reporting.”

‘Apparently’ a Bombshell

According to Harding and his co-authors, Julian Borger and Dan Sabbagh, leaked Kremlin papers show that Putin convened a meeting in January 2016 where he “personally authorised a secret spy agency operation to support” Trump in that year’s U.S. presidential election. Trump’s Russian backers viewed him as “mentally unstable” and accordingly saw his candidacy as a vehicle for creating “social turmoil” in their U.S. adversary. The papers even provide “apparent confirmation that the Kremlin possesses kompromat, or potentially compromising material, on the future president.”

Although it published the story, the Guardian hedged its bets regarding the authenticity of the article’s explosive claims with an abundance of qualified language long characteristic of Russiagate coverage, starting with the headline: “Kremlin papers appear to show Putin’s plot to put Trump in White House” (emphasis added).

Along with the qualifiers, Harding and company deploy the passive voice to try to disingenuously lend their “Kremlin papers” the appearance of credibility. They “are assessed to be leaked Kremlin documents,” Harding and company write – although details such as which person or persons actually “assessed” the material, how they did it, and why we should trust them, are left unstated. The documents contain “a decree appearing to bear Putin’s signature” – in the same way that forged autographs can often appear to bear Michael Jordan’s signature too (although, in fairness, at least fake memorabilia can be seen; The Guardian conspicuously fails to show us this “apparent” Putin “signature”). The papers “seem to represent a serious and highly unusual leak from within the Kremlin” — just as The Guardian seems to represent Luke Harding as a serious journalist.

Suggesting an explosive conclusion while tacitly acknowledging the absence of verified evidence to support it was also a hallmark of the Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee reports on Russiagate, which used long-winded innuendo and words like “appear,” “likely” and “suggest” to insinuate damning conclusions without having to substantiate them.

Fittingly, even Harding’s own attempt to promote the documents’ authenticity has to be qualified: “The Guardian has shown the documents to independent experts who say they appear to be genuine.” Other observers have cast doubt on multiple strands of the story.

Harding can’t even muster a stamp of approval from his usual sources in the U.K. spy services and their cutouts:  “Western intelligence agencies are understood to have been aware of the documents for some months and to have carefully examined them.” How exactly it’s “understood” that Western spies are “aware of the documents” and “carefully examined them,” Harding does not say. Nor, conspicuously, does he say what they concluded from their purportedly “careful” “examinations.”

A Convenient ‘Route Map’ for Russiagate Propaganda

Harding’s story follows the Russiagate playbook in another important sense: comporting with the propaganda aims of the anonymous intelligence officials and political operatives behind it.

With the “collusion” conspiracy theory now shattered, Harding’s story amounts to a renewed effort to preserve the credibility of the leftovers. If the qualified language for every outlandish assertion isn’t enough of a tell, Harding and his co-authors even make their propaganda aim explicit: “The papers appear to set out a route map for what actually happened in 2016,” they write.

How convenient. After years of writing a largely evidence-free, explosive narrative – in his case, a Russian campaign to destroy Western democracy via their Oval Office asset, conspirator, or dupe – Harding says he has come into possession of a set of “documents” that just happen to confirm the dastardly plot in writing, right down to the signature of the alleged Kremlin mastermind.

In yet another convenient development, Harding reports that the papers “appear” to confirm the long-speculated, Steele-originating claim “that the Kremlin possesses kompromat” on Trump. The damning “details,” his article reports with impressive specificity, are apparently included in “appendix five, at paragraph five.” There’s just one snag: The Guardian can’t show it to us. “It is unclear what the appendix contains,” Harding writes.

According to Harding’s “experts,” the “overall tone and thrust” of the documents “is said to be consistent with Kremlin security thinking.” Their thinking echoes the former national security officials who declared right before the November 2020 election that Hunter Biden’s laptop “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” Just as with that attempt to censor the Biden story, the overall tone and thrust of Harding’s article and the “leaks” it’s supposedly based on is entirely consistent with those who have used fearmongering around Russia and a credulous Western media to advance a political agenda.

In reality, the notion that Russia waged a sweeping interference campaign to install Trump is unsupported by all of the available evidence. The social media memes that supposedly brainwashed millions of Americans into rejecting Hillary Clinton were juvenile in nature, minor in reach, and mostly devoid of any mention of the election. The allegation that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee and then gave the stolen emails to WikiLeaks remains full of glaring holes.

Meanwhile, as Democratic leaders and media allies denounced him as a Kremlin puppet, Trump in fact presided over a far more hawkish posture toward Russia than his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, whom Biden served as vice president. “The dirty little secret about the Trump administration,” CNN host Fareed Zakaria admitted in the last weeks of Trump’s presidency, “was that while Donald Trump clearly had a kind of soft spot for Putin, the Trump administration was pretty tough on the Russians. They armed Ukraine. They armed the Poles. They extended NATO operations and exercises in ways that even the Obama administration had not done. They maintained the sanctions.” If Putin’s plan was to install a puppet in the White House, it clearly backfired.

The Other Hardings

Given the predominance of the Russiagate narrative for four years, it might seem surprising that Harding’s story did not trigger the same kind of frenzied “bombshell”-based news cycle of years past. If taken at face value – as were countless Russiagate-serving stories before it – then Harding’s “scoop” that Putin ordered a pro-Trump influence campaign in January 2016 would instantaneously justify so much of the breathless innuendo that has flooded U.S. media since.

As Bump of the Washington Post noted, a major reason to doubt the story is the fact that it is authored by Harding, whose last Guardian “bombshell” is just as dubious. In November 2018, he wrote an article claiming that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort held three secret meetings with WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange at London’s Ecuadorian embassy. Both WikiLeaks and Manafort vehemently denied the story, and no evidence has emerged to substantiate it. The story was so patently ridiculous that one anonymous CIA officer resorted to a pseudonym to speculate in Politico that the Russian government “planted” the Manafort-Assange claim in an effort to discredit Harding’s reporting.

The fact that U.S. media outlets have widely shunned Harding’s story does not mean that they are prepared for a long overdue Russiagate reckoning. Quite the contrary. Months before giving Harding the cold shoulder, a similarly evidence-free bombshell assertion was given a warm embrace. In April, the Treasury Department declared that former Paul Manafort aide Konstanin Kilimnik is a Russian spy who shared Trump polling data with Russian intelligence. Despite the absence of any evidence – and ample countervailing facts — political and media voices immediately portrayed the Treasury press release as a significant vindication.

Aaron Maté’s 2017 interview with Luke Harding. 

“That one sentence,” Bump wrote of the Treasury statement, “appears to finally complete the long-speculated line from Trump’s campaign to Russian intelligence.”

In the New York Times, reporters Mark Mazzetti and Michael S. Schmidt described the Treasury’s evidence-free claims as “the strongest evidence to date that Russian spies had penetrated the inner workings of the Trump campaign.” Mazzetti and Schmidt were so confident in the “Treasury document” that they even declared that it, coupled with the Senate Intelligence report of last year, now “confirm[s]” the Times’s own highly contested report from February 2017 that “there had been numerous interactions between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the year before the election.” FBI Director James Comey publicly denied the story, calling it “not true,” and the Mueller report provided no evidence to support it. (In attempting to portray the Treasury press release as vindication, Mazzetti and Schmidt also mischaracterized their original claim, which was that Trump campaign aides “had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials” (emphasis added).

Re-inserting the Russiagate ‘Media Virus’

The rush to promote unsupported allegations and ignore countervailing facts shows that U.S. officials and their media allies have obsessively accused Russia of what they have in fact carried out themselves: a massive, divisive disinformation campaign aimed squarely at the Western public. Accordingly, every piece of content that advances the Russiagate narrative is an iteration of the “propaganda” and “disinformation” that it purports to document or challenge. Harding’s article is certainly no exception. He writes:

There are paragraphs on how Russia might insert “media viruses” into American public life, which could become self-sustaining and self-replicating. These would alter mass consciousness, especially in certain groups, it says.

There is no “media virus” inserted into American public life that has done more to alter the consciousness of certain groups than Russiagate, which has enlisted millions of malleable liberals into a fantasy that the Kremlin is brainwashing their country with social media ads and that Donald Trump was a Manchurian president.

Accordingly, if Harding’s story is evidence of anything, it is of the absurdity of a Russiagate narrative that was once treated as gospel when establishment media deemed it politically and financially expedient. The fact that it has now been shunned by the same outlets that would have previously treated it as a “bombshell” suggests that it may have finally outlived its utility.

*

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.

George W. Bush Should Shut Up and Go Away

August 3rd, 2021 by Andrew Mitrovica

All Global Research articles 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.

***

By now, George W Bush should have completed volumes one and two of his prison letters.

But, as we know, the world is not a just place. So, like all the other American presidents who have avoided the dock despite the crimes they have committed at home and abroad, the former US president remains a free, and, indeed, carefree, man.

I suspect that Bush is happy, too, biding his time during his “golden years” painting what can charitably be described as globby, deformed “portraits” and tending to the tangled bush on his Texas estate.

It is inconceivable to me, though, that a once immensely powerful man who is almost singularly responsible for two calamitous wars-of-choice which have caused such immeasurable harm and suffering to so many innocents, in so many places, could ever experience a genuine moment of stillness, let alone happiness.

I wonder, as well, if Bush ever pauses from his painting and gardening to consider the appalling measure of his guilt or shudders at the unfolding and halting scope of the profound, disfiguring consequences of his many and manifest crimes against decency and humanity.

That may well be a largely rhetorical question since one of the principal qualifications of becoming president is the necessity to kill, maim, and traumatise other human beings in the murderous pursuit of the ever malleable US “national interest”.

So, Bush likely finds considerable solace in the slimy evasion that being president is often a thankless, dirty job that requires, on occasion, the occupant to order “hits” – big and small – against America’s “enemies” just like a mafia don, but with a much larger, more well-equipped army, of course.

I have pondered these questions lately about this banal, unrepentant killer and torture-approving thug with a presidential library because, rather than finally doing the world a smidgen of service by permanently shutting up in lieu of being charged, Bush continues to believe, incredibly, that his musings on war and diplomacy have serious merit and should be heeded.

Earlier this month, Bush was interviewed at his palatial summer home in Kennebunkport, Maine, by a German broadcaster with apparently nothing better to do with its time and resources.

The agreeable tête-à-tête was billed as a “rare” departure of form for Bush, who reportedly avoids sit-down interviews with journalists.

Gee, I wonder why?

Apart from briefly prying Bush away from his juvenile tinkering with paint on a canvas and taming his unruly hedges, an interview conducted by an intrepid reporter might cause the stammering, reclusive ex-president a little discomfort and serve as a mild, belated comeuppance of sorts.

Bush could, for once, have been challenged to account finally for the litany of lies he concocted and told to start wars that he and his posse of criminal “advisers” in slick suits and designer outfits convinced themselves would be cheap, easy and quick.

Two decades later, the cruel, lethal folly of Bush’s cocky, catastrophic delusions and fabrications is plain: millions dead and scarred in body, mind and spirit, countless other lives ruined or left adrift in refugee camps where disease, want and hopelessness are rampant, countries engulfed by endless uncertainty, violence and sectarianism and a patient, resurgent Taliban poised to reimpose its malignant dominion over Afghanistan.

Bush could also have been pressed about his role in engineering an international abduction racket – known as “renditions” – that permitted America’s state-sanctioned hoodlums to kidnap mostly Muslim men and dump them into secret dungeons in Iraq and beyond where they were bound, interrogated, humiliated, electrocuted, attacked by dogs, sexually assaulted, water-boarded and, ultimately, murdered.

None of that appears to have happened. Instead, Bush was given unfettered licence to object to the withdrawal of the remaining US and NATO troops from Afghanistan.

“The consequences are going to be unbelievably bad,” Bush said, without, I imagine, even a hint of irony.

That this callous cretin would suggest anywhere, at any time, for any reason, that the “consequences” of another president’s actions “are going to be unbelievably bad” for Afghanistan is blatant proof of Bush’s genetically programmed stupidity and obscene, near nauseating hubris.

Then, Bush proceeded to demonstrate that he is damaged in ways that only a psychologist could possibly decipher and is incapable of introspection or remorse for the horror he has wrought on so many people, in so many places because of his orders as commander-in-chief.

First, he told his German guests that the Afghan withdrawal was a mistake.

Given his atrocious geopolitical record, Bush should be banned from ever uttering, under any circumstances and in any context, the word: “mistake”.

Still, to define how Bush and equally culpable company went about methodically defacing Iraq and Afghanistan as “mistakes” would, itself, be a mistake.

The injuries and atrocities Iraqis and Afghans have endured in the long, bitter aftermath of Bush’s decision to invade cannot be diminished or dismissed simply as errors.

They were and remain the inhumane corollaries of the sinister, calculated choices made by an inept president who was convinced that it was his and America’s destiny to “liberate” two distant lands for the same evangelical reasons.

Second, remarkably, Bush took implicit credit – amid all the death and destruction the American-led invasion has visited on Afghans – for brutally refashioning Afghan society as a recuperative antidote to the Taliban’s brutality.

“It’s unbelievable how that society changed from the brutality of the Taliban,” Bush said.

No, what is unbelievable, is Bush’s lunatic idea that the US military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan had any redeeming or salutary impact on the fates of both nations.

Finally, and so cynically, Bush attempted to rewrite his incriminating history by implying that he unleashed American forces and drones on Afghanistan not to rout the Taliban or punish it for harbouring al-Qaeda, but to emancipate women and girls.

“All of a sudden – sadly – I’m afraid Afghan women and girls are going to suffer unspeakable harm,” Bush said from the comfort of his picture-postcard oasis.

The name George W Bush is synonymous with the suffering and unspeakable harm girls, boys, women and men in Iraq and Afghanistan have braved for decades.

With the eager help of grovelling, amnesiac television hosts, Bush has mounted a muted, yet determined campaign to rehabilitate his foul reputation. In its place, a new, gracious, if slightly awkward and endearing caricature of Bush has emerged.

It is a sick mirage.

Bush is an unindicted mass murderer. He ought to be sharing a bunk bed with Ratko Mladic at The Hague. Failing that, he should keep monastically quiet and go away.

As penance, it is the least this intolerable piece of crud could do.

*

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

Andrew Mitrovica is an Al Jazeera columnist based in Toronto.

The Future Trajectory of Iran. JCPOA: A Bridge Too Far?

August 3rd, 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.

***

On Tuesday, Ebrahim Raisi will be formally confirmed as Iran’s next president by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Two days later, he will be sworn in as president in the country’s parliament. Yet another orderly transfer of power is under way in Iran.

This transition is of momentous importance for the future trajectory of Iran, regional politics and international security. That is because a rare confluence of circumstances has appeared over the Iran nuclear issue and a new mainstream is taking shape in Tehran. 

Contrary to expectations, the negotiations since April in Vienna over the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) are in a state of suspended animation. Things could go either way. 

On the one hand, Raisi is widely regarded as an arch conservative (‘hardliner’) which means that the United States is getting a much tougher interlocutor in Tehran, although Iran’s compass remains well set under the watchful eyes of the Supreme Leader. 

On the other hand, the Biden presidency is coming under pressure with the early signs that the much-vaunted strong economic recovery from the deep recession in 2020 may be hitting a snag. The massive stimulus and the buoyant Wall Street haven’t fired up the economic acceleration but will inevitably drive up the inflationary pressure. The resurgence of the Delta variant of coronavirus from America’s south to north also bring in uncertainties. 

Simply put, President Biden cannot afford to be seen as a ‘weak’ negotiator at Vienna. Conversely, Tehran would sense that Biden may not even have the political capital to get Congressional approval for a new nuclear deal, which means that history may repeat. 

In fact, the US officials are already arguing that no American president can guarantee that an agreement with a foreign country will not be undone by a future president or Congress. 

Given the tortuous history of the US-Iran relations and the trust deficit, Tehran once again faces the dilemma of negotiating a deal with an uncertain shelf life whose expiry date may lapse even before the incumbent American president retires. 

Meanwhile, the US negotiators drove a hard bargain in Vienna. They underestimated Iran’s grit to secure its core interests. They assumed that given Iran’s economic difficulties, it would bend over backward to get the sanctions lifted. And they began dictating terms and conditions. 

Thus, from available details, Biden’s team insists that the US’ return to the JCPOA depends on potential future talks on regional issues; that the US cannot agree to the lifting of arms embargo as provided under the JCPOA; the present administration will not lift the sanctions imposed by Trump; the US is not obliged to compensate Iran for the huge damage caused to its economy by pulling out of the JCPOA unilaterally; Iran must agree to newer restrictions on its nuclear agreements far beyond those stipulated by JCPOA. 

The US remains ambivalent on Iran’s demand that any lifting of sanctions should be open to verification. And it believes that Iran will give up its longstanding position that the nuclear deal should not be made conditional on its missile programme or regional policies. read more 

Broadly, Biden team hopes to realise the key objectives that the Trump administration pursued — and failed to achieve — through its ‘maximum pressure’ strategy, namely, an updated version of the 2015 agreement that would, amongst other things, almost permanently prohibit Tehran from exercising its prerogative to conduct a peaceful nuclear programme as a non-nuclear weapon state under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is entitled to, such as Japan. (In Brazil, another non-nuclear-weapons state, the military actually leases uranium enrichment technology to the civilian nuclear programme and the navy drives technological advances in the nuclear field, even developing a nuclear-powered submarine.) 

Evidently, serious differences remain between Iran and the US over the revitalisation of the JCPOA. The latest remarks by the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken — “The ball remains in Iran’s court and we will see if they’re prepared to make the decisions necessary to come back into compliance” — blithely sidestepped this reality. So indeed, his veiled threat that “this (Vienna) process cannot go on indefinitely.” 

Khamenei, who has the last word on Iran’s state matters, declared last Wednesday that Tehran would not accept Washington’s “stubborn” demands in nuclear talks and again flatly rejected the insertion of any other issues to the deal. Khamenei’s remarks spell out the parameters within which Raisi will approach the negotiations in Vienna as and when they resume. read more 

In the coming weeks, Raisi will need to assemble his cabinet and thereupon get the Majlis’ approval for his nominees, especially the new foreign minister. That means, serious negotiations cannot resume in Vienna, if at all, before the fall. 

This is where Biden’s team probably goofed up by making such excessive demands on Iran that were way beyond the previous government’s mandate to discuss — predicated apparently on the naïveté that for President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif this was a legacy issue more than anything else. (Khamenei implicitly censured Rouhani and Zarif for their manifest eagerness to strike a deal with the Biden Administration.) 

Meanwhile, pressure is going to build on the Biden Administration, since Iran’s nuclear research and production are speeding up and the ‘breakout time’ for making a bomb may be shrinking dramatically. 

The New York Times noted, “Far more worrying, (US) officials said, is the scientific knowledge that Iran is steadily gaining by building more advanced centrifuges and experimenting with enriching uranium to 60 percent, just shy of what is needed for a weapon.”

The point is, the IAEA inspectors are increasingly clueless since June when the agreement with Tehran to keep cameras and sensors running lapsed, as regards what is happening in the underground Natanz plant where the advanced centrifuges are spinning,. 

Above all, it is all but certain that Raisi’s team will be much tougher at the negotiating table and may even make new demands. Thus, there is the ‘X’ factor: Does the restoration of the JCPOA matter anymore? read more 

Having weathered the brunt of Trump’s ‘maximum pressure’, Tehran is in a better situation today. The international situation works in its favour too. Iran has gained strategic depth in the deepening partnership with Russia and China. It is neither possible now to ‘isolate’ Iran nor prudent to exercise the military option against it. 

Make no mistake, Raisi, who has welcomed the negotiations at Vienna, will insist on stricter verification and US implementation of its part of a revived agreement. That seems an irreducible minimum demand. 

Can Biden deliver on that? The Biden administration is showing signs of weakening. On the contrary, Raisi’s ascendance underscores great cohesion at the leadership level, something which has been lacking through successive presidencies since the 1990s. 

In such unequal situations, optics matter unduly in statecraft. For sure, the unresolved Iran question still lurks below the surface as the Biden presidency’s most dangerous foreign-policy challenge. 

*

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 CC BY 4.0

The War on Free Speech Continues

August 3rd, 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.

***

The Biden Administration’s effort to withdraw nearly all US troops from Afghanistan and Iraq before the end of the year is commendable and it is hoped that a departure from Syria will follow soon thereafter, but one must nevertheless be concerned that the overseas moves are being made to concentrate government resources on the domestic war that has already begun. I am, of course, referring to the ongoing efforts being made to extirpate “extremists” among American citizens who have been further identified as largely consisting of “white supremacists.”

As part of the new war, ideas or even demonstrable facts that are considered to be undesirable are being targeted by the government working together with internet resources, most particularly the social media, to attack critics. It is being argued that the alleged provision of “misinformation” is doing actual harm to the country and the American people. Recently, much of the focus has been on the COVID virus, in support of the government’s intention to have all Americans vaccinated and, increasingly, again compelled to be masked when inside buildings that are accessible to the public. These efforts are being supported by media including Facebook, which features pop-ups directing the reader to a “safe” site whenever a piece appears that challenges the government orthodoxy on the spread of the virus.

One might reasonably argue that there is a national public health crisis that is part of a global problem which requires coordinated government intervention, but the actual statistics that reveal the existing low levels of infection and death in most states would not support that contention. And one might also observe that the growing problem involving the regulation of speech and even ideas by government working in cooperation with large corporations is potentially more serious than COVID or any other virus.

If the United States government and its corporate partners were in an honest way trying to protect the American people one might at least be sympathetic regarding the efforts being made, but both government and businesses have proven to be serial liars and purveyors of egregious untruths to serve their own agendas. Recently, the White House spokesman Jen Psaki suggested that those spreading false information about COVID vaccinations might well be banned from spreading such lies on social media. The implication was that the government could compile lists of such “extremists” and use its regulatory authority to compel companies on the internet to censor individuals and groups in compliance with orders coming from the White House. The justification would be that government in this case gets a pass on limiting free speech and association due to a national health crisis.

Psaki has undoubtedly discovered a certain benevolence in big government which few Americans have noted before. Foreigners, however, being on the receiving end of wars resulting from the stream of lies emanating from Washington might well have a different viewpoint. President Bill Clinton relied on a false narrative to go to war in the Balkans and then used unprovoked attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan to draw attention away from an affair he was having with an intern. George W. Bush and his pack of neocon scoundrels, most of whom are still holding prestigious positions, used what was known to be fake information to justify destroying Afghanistan and Iraq. Barack Obama lied to overthrow the governments in Libya and Ukraine while also attempting to do the same in Syria.

All lies, all the time, and now we Americans are supposed to believe that the Biden Administration is seeking to benefit us? Online one wag quipped that “The party that believes that men can get pregnant now wants to control ‘misinformation’ on the internet?” Never forget that policies that compel all Americans to behave in certain ways, no matter how innocent in appearance, can also be used and expanded upon to mandate something more sinister.

And what about the social media companies? Facebook has long had a censorship group headed by a former Israeli government official. CEO Mark Zuckerberg has admitted to Congress that Facebook suppresses nearly all so-called “hate speech”automatically using computer algorithms that rely on word associations to determine what is allowed on the site. Pieces that are considered borderline are allowed only limited exposure, having their distribution among contacts automatically restricted and disabling sharing. Google search uses similar algorithms to make sure that sites and individuals that it does not approve of do not appear among search results. It also uses software to actually “re-direct” users away from sites that it does not approve.

And now PayPal, owned by online auction service eBay and an essential tool for small public interest groups’ support, has now announced that it will henceforth be working with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to “fight hate” by cutting off financing of extremist groups. But its definition of “hate,” criticized as highly subjective and inclined to condemn groups disliked by ADL for political reasons, has prompted legitimate concerns about where this all is going. ADL has often been criticized for finding hate virtually everywhere, particularly among conservative white groups. RT cites a recent example of such fervor “in response to an article published in Canada’s National Post, which was denounced by the ADL because its author mentioned that one of the 32 US lawmakers supporting a tax reform belonged to a Jewish fraternity.” In short, any discussion of Israel or of the behavior of Jewish individuals and groups in anything but a positive context will be considered “hate” by ADL and PayPal.

Indeed, PayPal and ADL issued a self-serving statement last week which said “PayPal and ADL will focus on further uncovering and disrupting the financial pipelines that support extremist and hate movements,” adding that they would also go after “actors and networks spreading and profiting from all forms of hate and bigotry against any community.”

The joint venture will also include the “launch[ing] of a research effort” to determine how “extremist and hate movements throughout the US are attempting to leverage financial platforms to fund criminal activity.” The negative information collected will be shared with police, financial services, and the government, presumably to create an environment where such groups will be marginalized and shut out of the public space completely, to include possibly having their supporters arrested, charged and convicted.

The growing collusion between big government and large public-accessible online information and opinion services is not a good thing. It permits those well-funded and politically connected organizations to work together to limit what the public is allowed to know. Its zeal to eliminate “misinformation” is misplaced, replacing dissident voices that have limited access to a wider audience with massive agenda driven public-private organizations that will essentially determine what is acceptable and what is not. If allowed to continue, it will be the death of free speech in this country as everything that disagrees with the approved narrative will be labeled “hateful” or “extremist,” eventually to include criminal penalties for those who disagree. It is not too much to suggest that we are witnessing the first steps in the creation of a totalitarian de factoone-party state. Perhaps that is the intention.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

All Global Research articles 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.

First published on July 22, 2021

***

 

Over the past decades world ocean trade has expanded almost exponentially as major manufacturing outsourcing from USA and European corporations has blossomed under the advent of economic globalization. The result has been that Asia, most especially China, has become the essential manufacturing source for everything from iPhones to antibiotics and everything in-between. The creation of the World Trade Organization to impose new rules on the trade has been a key driver. It has also made global supply chains for delivering goods more fragile than ever in history. The rise in cost of ocean container shipping indicates the growing crisis. Compounding the growing crisis are enormous labor shortages owing to global COVID measures.

Origins of the Crisis

According to German-based Statista Research Department, some 80 percent of all goods globally are carried by sea including oil, coal, grains. Of that total, in terms of value, global maritime container trade accounts for some 60 percent of all seaborne trade, valued at around 14 trillion US dollars in 2019. This ocean shipping has become the arteries of the world economy for better or worse.

This is a direct consequence of the 1990’s creation of the WTO with new rules favoring out-sourcing of manufacture to countries where production was far cheaper, that is as long as ocean transport was cheap. After China became a WTO member in 2001, they became the greatest beneficiary of the new rules and within a decade China was called the “workshop of the world.” Entire industries such as electronics, pharmaceuticals, textiles, chemicals as well as plastics were transferred to China with then the world’s lowest wages, for factory assembly. It worked because the cost of shipping to Western markets was comparatively low.

As the economic output of China grew, China became a world shipping giant, shipping their goods cheaply to places such as Long Beach or Los Angeles, California in the US or Rotterdam in Europe. The Walmart retail giant was destination for a huge share of the China goods with as much as 80% of its products of China origin. This is not small beer as they say in Texas. Walmart is the world’s largest company by revenue, with annual sales of $549 billion. Today as a result of this globalization China has 8 of the world’s 17 largest ports in terms of shipping volumes to handle its exports.

The China shipping expansion combined with that from Japan and South Korea to make up the major ocean container shipping traffic worldwide. That vital economic flow is now under unprecedented stress, which could soon have catastrophic global economic consequences for the world goods supply chains.

When what was termed by WHO as a novel coronavirus, first appearing in Wuhan, was declared by the WHO as a global pandemic in March 2020, the impact on world trade was immediate and huge as countries locked down their economies, something unprecedented in peacetime. Orders for products from China and other Asian producers were frozen by Western buyers. Container ships were cancelled everywhere in 2020. Then as US and EU governments released trillions of dollars in unprecedented stimulus, demand for containers from Asia to the West in relative terms exploded, compared with supply, as people began using stimulus, especially in the US to buy online, most of which was “made in China.”

That has had a serious disruptive impact on what was once a minor cost—ocean container shipping. Modern container ports, especially those in China, are state-of-the-art, computer automated operations loading thousands of containers daily via automated cranes. At destination ports such as Long Beach or Hamburg the containers are then off-loaded to trucks or train and brought to their destination cities before being returned to the port for return shipping. It is this intricate supply chain that is now in crisis.

In 2019 before the pandemic crisis, the cost of shipping a 40-foot-long container from China to Europe by sea cost between USD 800-2,500. For the bulk of products such as textiles, pharmaceuticals or smart phones, ocean containers were clearly the best low-cost option for Asia-Europe trade despite rail possibilities. For Asia-North America trade it was almost the only option, as air was a costly alternative. Today with a corona-linked 50% reduction in air travel, container ships are virtually the only long-distance option.

Now port-to-port spot rates, for example from Shanghai, China’s largest container port, to Los Angeles, have exploded from around $1,500 per 40-foot container just before the WHO Pandemic in early 2020, to $4,000 in September 2020, and to $9,631 in the week ended July 8, 2021, according to Drewry Supply Chain Advisors. This is an increase of over 600% from early 2020, pre-pandemic. And this is just one source of the global inflation we now see erupting.

This is not the worst. According to Drewry, “We have heard reports of $15,000 from China to the West Coast and are aware that carriers are charging additional premiums on top to prioritize the loading of a late booking ahead of normal FAK [Freight All Kinds] rate cargoes.” From $1,500 to $15,000 in two years is a rise of tenfold. And rates from Shanghai to Rotterdam have also skyrocketed from below $2,000 in early 2020, to over $12,000 in July, or 600%.

To cite one product that experienced panic buying at the start of the Pandemic, China is the world leader in exports of toilet paper with 11% of global supply. A 600% rise in ocean freight cost makes it inevitable that the price of something as ordinary as toilet paper is slated to rise significantly or become in short supply in key places globally. When such pressures are coming all across the product line, ocean container rates become a significant driver of general inflation.

Bottleneck of Containers

In early 2020 as nations around the world went into unprecedented panic lockdowns over coronavirus fears, global shipping froze. Factories everywhere were closed. Later in 2020 the flows slowly resumed as China opened up. As it became clear in later 2020 that the various huge government economic stimulus money would spark a recovery in demand for Asian goods, especially demand via e-commerce platforms like Amazon, a dramatic shortage in available containers developed. In the USA alone a combined $9 trillion in total fiscal and monetary stimulus has been released since early 2020. That is world historic.

World trade flows can be compared with the human body’s blood circulation system. When bottlenecks develop with port congestion, or say Suez Canal blockage, it is similar to blood clots to the human circulation system. The March 2021 blockage in the Suez Canal of the giant container ship, Ever Given, from Taiwan’s Evergreen Co. stopped ship traffic for almost a week in one of the world’s major waterways between China and Europe, causing bottlenecks to container deliveries not yet completely resolved. Then in China new testings for corona in the large container port of Yantian – part of the world’s 4th largest container port Shenzhen– caused added major disruptions of shipping, further aggravating rate rises. Those disruptions are likely to continue.

When lockdowns had spread globally by April 2020, suddenly millions of containers were stranded in various ports unable to return to China. Empty boxes were left in places where they were not needed, and repositioning was not planned. Massive workforce disruptions from the pandemic lockdowns across the US in 2020 and into 2021 affected not only ports, but container cargo depots all across the country as well as inland transport lines. There was no way to get the containers back to China when China began to restart industry. Moreover, as carriers introduced “blank sailings,” or skipped port calls, the mismatch between supply and demand for empty containers was exacerbated, as empty boxes were left behind and failed to be repositioned to China ports. Global “transport clots” appeared.

Danish consultancy Sea-Intelligence estimates that as much as 60% of the container imbalance in Asia today is due to North America, most due to lack of investment in California and other West Coast ports which have the worst port congestion problems.

One Japanese consultancy estimated that terminal productivity in North America lags Asian counterparts by up to 50% in part due to less working hours and union opposition to further automation that would take union jobs. A statement that the US regulator, the Federal Maritime Commission, is “looking into” the issue of equipment availability as part of a wide ranging investigation into the supply chain chaos that has hit the nation’s ports, retailers and exporters over the past eight months, is hardly reassuring. The bottleneck problems in US container ports have been chronic and serious since at least 2015. The job of the maritime commission is to monitor just such bottlenecks before they become problematic. They don’t, obviously.

As demand for products from China recovered in late 2020, this all had an impact on container rates. Compounding the container shortages were the lockdowns globally which froze huge volumes of world trade. Construction of needed new containers is also being sharply restricted owing to shortages of steel and lumber as well as manpower, owing to the pandemic measures.

The overwhelming world dependence on shipped goods from China in recent years has become a glaring Achilles Heel in the world economy amid the lockdowns. Such global interdependency was not a factor in the 1930s global depression, contrary to the economic myth about the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act as a prime cause. Then it was the international debt structures centered on New York banks.

Sea Manpower Crisis

Aggravating the crisis in container availability and port logjams in key world ports, there is a growing crisis of seafaring manpower. Most non-officer seaman labor for container shipping is recruited from Asia. According to the International Chamber of Shipping, The Philippines is the biggest supplier of Ratings (skilled seafarers), followed by China, Indonesia, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The global corona lockdowns and most recently the alarm over the so-called Indian or “Delta” corona variant, despite lack of data on its lethality, have created a growing catastrophe in the situation of ship labor. Before the corona pandemic declaration in 2020, ship labor supply was already very tight. This manpower problem is impacting ship cargo rates as well.

In July an estimated 9% or 100,000 seamen on container and other ships were stranded on ships past their legally contracted time, as countries from China to the US prohibit them to come ashore owing to corona contagion restrictions. That means crew changes are not taking place and the sea-stranded crews are under growing psychological and physical stress, even leading to suicides. Then, an additional estimated 100,000 or more seamen or Ratings are stranded ashore in various countries due to pandemic lockdowns, unable to work. The maximum allowed contract length is 11 months, as stipulated by a UN seafaring convention. Normally there is a rotation of some 50,000 seafarers monthly on and off ship. Now it is a fraction of that. According to the International Transport Federation union, as many as 25% fewer seafarers are joining vessels than pre-pandemic. The union General Secretary stated, “We have warned that global brands need to be ready for the moment some of these tired and fatigued people finally snap.”

Onshore as the pandemic lockdowns in especially California kept thousands of workers from the major US-Asia ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach, it was not possible to clear the very large backlog of containers before more started arriving, a bit like the plague of the Sorcerer’s apprentice. North America currently faces a 60% imbalance; which means that for every 100 containers that arrive only 40 are exported. Sixty out of every 100 containers continue to accumulate.

Drewry estimates that these negative factors will also lead to a decade-high shortfall of officers to crew in the world merchant fleet in the next several years. All this underlines how extremely fragile and brittle the delivery system of the globalized world supply chains are today. The global COVID lockdowns are having far more serious long-term impacts than most are aware. The world economy is a dynamic, highly complex interconnected web that is not able to turn off and on like a flick of a light switch.

*

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.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. 

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

Featured image is from NEO


seeds_2.jpg

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

All Global Research articles 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 20,595 fatalities, and 1,960,607 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 due to COVID-19 shots would be much higher than what we are reporting here.

The EudraVigilance database reports that through July 31, 2021 there are 20,595 deaths and 1,960,607 injuries reported following injections of four experimental COVID-19 shots:

From the total of injuries recorded, half of them (968,870) 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. This subscriber has volunteered to do this, and 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 July 31, 2021.

Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccineTozinameran (code BNT162b2,Comirnaty) from BioNTechPfizer: 9,868 deathand 767,225 injuries to 31/07/2021

  • 21,004   Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 126 deaths
  • 19,717   Cardiac disorders incl. 1,489 deaths
  • 177        Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 14 deaths
  • 9,913     Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 8 deaths
  • 471        Endocrine disorders incl. 3 deaths
  • 11,693   Eye disorders incl. 21 deaths
  • 69,612   Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 431 deaths
  • 205,214 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 2,832 deaths
  • 779        Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 46 deaths
  • 8,405     Immune system disorders incl. 53 deaths
  • 24,114   Infections and infestations incl. 941 deaths
  • 9,314     Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 146 deaths
  • 19,170   Investigations incl. 323 deaths
  • 5,675     Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 178 deaths
  • 104,915 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 122 deaths
  • 528        Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 43 deaths
  • 137,631 Nervous system disorders incl. 1,081 deaths
  • 719        Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 24 deaths
  • 140        Product issues incl. 1 death
  • 13,659   Psychiatric disorders incl. 130 deaths
  • 2,481     Renal and urinary disorders incl. 157 deaths
  • 8,028     Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 33,642   Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 1,168 deaths
  • 36,970   Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 87 deaths
  • 1,289     Social circumstances incl. 13 deaths
  • 564        Surgical and medical procedures incl. 25 deaths
  • 21,401   Vascular disorders incl. 404 deaths

Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine mRNA-1273(CX-024414) from Moderna: 5,460 deathand 212,474 injuries to 31/07/2021

  • 3,901     Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 49 deaths
  • 6,139     Cardiac disorders incl. 599 deaths
  • 86           Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 3 deaths
  • 2,699     Ear and labyrinth disorders
  • 165        Endocrine disorders incl. 1 death
  • 3,330     Eye disorders incl. 13 deaths
  • 18,562   Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 200 deaths
  • 57,313   General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 2,188 deaths
  • 345        Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 20 deaths
  • 1,803     Immune system disorders incl. 9 deaths
  • 6,151     Infections and infestations incl. 332 deaths
  • 4,652     Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 102 deaths
  • 4,289     Investigations incl. 103 deaths
  • 2,105     Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 125 deaths
  • 26,743   Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 107 deaths
  • 252        Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 27 deaths
  • 38,118   Nervous system disorders incl. 552 deaths
  • 432        Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 5 deaths
  • 46           Product issues
  • 4,224     Psychiatric disorders incl. 90 deaths
  • 1,306     Renal and urinary disorders incl. 85 deaths
  • 1,526     Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 9,377     Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 521 deaths
  • 11,300   Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 45 deaths
  • 925        Social circumstances incl. 20 deaths
  • 700        Surgical and medical procedures incl. 55 deaths
  • 5,985     Vascular disorders incl. 207 deaths

Total reactions for the experimental vaccine AZD1222/VAXZEVRIA (CHADOX1 NCOV-19) from Oxford/ AstraZeneca4,534 deathand 923,749 injuries to 31/07/2021

  • 10,912   Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 184 deaths
  • 15,131   Cardiac disorders incl. 523 deaths
  • 132        Congenital familial and genetic disorders incl. 3 deaths
  • 10,643   Ear and labyrinth disorders
  • 415        Endocrine disorders incl. 3 deaths
  • 16,108   Eye disorders incl. 18 deaths
  • 91,912   Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 229 deaths
  • 244,487 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 1,128 deaths
  • 729        Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 41 deaths
  • 3,663     Immune system disorders incl. 18 deaths
  • 22,077   Infections and infestations incl. 284 deaths
  • 10,114   Injury poisoning and procedural complications incl. 119 deaths
  • 20,068   Investigations incl. 105 deaths
  • 11,087   Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 62 deaths
  • 140,986 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 63 deaths
  • 446        Neoplasms benign malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 13 deaths
  • 194,032 Nervous system disorders incl. 727 deaths
  • 363        Pregnancy puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 8 deaths
  • 135        Product issues incl. 1 death
  • 17,296   Psychiatric disorders incl. 39 deaths
  • 3,324     Renal and urinary disorders incl. 40 deaths
  • 11,369   Reproductive system and breast disorders
  • 31,980   Respiratory thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 534 deaths
  • 42,437   Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 30 deaths
  • 1,093     Social circumstances incl. 7 deaths
  • 971        Surgical and medical procedures incl. 19 deaths
  • 21,839   Vascular disorders incl. 336 deaths

Total reactions for the experimental COVID-19 vaccine JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S) from Johnson & Johnson733 deaths and 57,159 injuries to 31/07/2021

  • 531        Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 23 deaths
  • 867        Cardiac disorders incl. 92 deaths
  • 21           Congenital, familial and genetic disorders
  • 346        Ear and labyrinth disorders
  • 24           Endocrine disorders incl. 1 death
  • 705        Eye disorders incl. 3 deaths
  • 5,449     Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 27 deaths
  • 15,097   General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 177 deaths
  • 78           Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 7 deaths
  • 231        Immune system disorders incl. 5 deaths
  • 915        Infections and infestations incl. 21 deaths
  • 529        Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 11 deaths
  • 2,936     Investigations incl. 51 deaths
  • 305        Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 12 deaths
  • 9,614     Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 18 deaths
  • 24           Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 2 deaths
  • 12,240   Nervous system disorders incl. 90 deaths
  • 17           Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 1 death
  • 17           Product issues
  • 659        Psychiatric disorders incl. 8 deaths
  • 207        Renal and urinary disorders incl. 9 deaths
  • 354        Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 1,878     Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 57 deaths
  • 1,602     Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 143        Social circumstances incl. 3 deaths
  • 468        Surgical and medical procedures incl. 30 deaths
  • 1,902     Vascular disorders incl. 81 deaths

*These totals are estimates based on reports submitted to EudraVigilance. Totals may be much higher based on percentage of adverse reactions that are reported. Some of these reports may also be reported to the individual country’s adverse reaction databases, such as the U.S. VAERS database and the UK Yellow Card system. The fatalities are grouped by symptoms, and some fatalities may have resulted from multiple symptoms.

*

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

All images in this article are from HIN

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A newly uncovered confidential U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report found “suggestive evidence” linking glyphosate to Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a determination that goes against the agency’s long-held public regulatory stance that glyphosate is not a carcinogen.

Why would the agency charged with protecting public health and the environment go against its own science and allow a probable carcinogen like glyphosate to remain in use? According to Intercept journalist Sharon Lerner, agrichemical industry giants like Monsanto (acquired by Bayer AG in 2018) have successfully “hoodwinked, bullied, and persuaded” the EPA to base chemical regulations on inaccurate science that favors industry at the expense of public health.

Lerner reports that industry influence over the science that EPA relies on to set the safe exposure levels to chemicals like glyphosate is one of many tools Monsanto and other agribusinesses use to “increase and maintain the use of products even when they damage health and the environment.”

Lerner’s article includes a 2016 internal EPA report that vindicates what plaintiffs’ attorneys suing Monsanto on behalf of Roundup cancer victims have been saying for years about Monsanto’s scientific manipulation and the EPA being a captured agency.

In March of 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a review on glyphosate, listing it as a probable human carcinogen. The IARC report led to thousands of people throughout the U.S. filing lawsuits against Monsanto alleging exposure to Roundup caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

As part of the litigation, a number of U.S. law firms were able to obtain internal company reports, emails, text messages, and other memoranda, that include communications with or about EPA officials. The documents, now known throughout the world as the Monsanto Papers, allowed the public to see firsthand how EPA staff bragged about killing an Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) review of glyphosate; that the agency has based its regulatory decisions for Roundup almost exclusively on Monsanto’s own science; and that the agency mysteriously changed glyphosate’s cancer classification in 1991 from having “suggestive evidence” of carcinogenic potential to having “no evidence” of carcinogenic potential, a designation that persists even to this day.

Attorneys for Monsanto have argued since the start of the litigation that EPA has repeatedly approved the use of glyphosate, each time concluding that it is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. But the internal EPA report cited in Lerner’s reporting provides stark evidence that the agency has been covering up science showing the cancer-causing potential of glyphosate.

What Does the EPA Internal Report on Glyphosate Say?

In the summer of 2016, the EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) analyzed seven epidemiological studies on the association between glyphosate and Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The internal “confidential” report concluded that four of the highest-quality studies “all reported elevated risks of NHL associated with exposure to glyphosate even after controlling for other pesticide exposures.” The report further concluded that the reviewed studies “provide suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential between glyphosate exposure and increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”

The internal report never saw the light of day. Instead, Lerner notes:

“[EPA] released reports in 2016 and 2017 that clearly drew on the earlier document — several sections have identical wording — but reached the opposite conclusion: that glyphosate is ‘not a probable carcinogen.’”

In 2019, just days before a California jury was to decide a case involving a husband and wife who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after spraying Roundup around their properties for years, an EPA preliminary report on glyphosate again declared that glyphosate is not a probable carcinogen. The timing of the preliminary report was something that plaintiffs’ attorneys took notice of: why did the preliminary report come out just days before the end of the trial?

In his closing statement in the case of Pilliod et al. v. Monsanto Co., Monsanto attorney Tarek Ismail, made light of the plaintiffs’ allegation that EPA is an agency captured by industry:

“Today you heard Mr. Wisner (co-lead counsel for the Pilliods) ask you to disregard completely the findings of the EPA. He told you that they engaged in — what did he call it? Regulatory capture? 40 years of EPA review by the career scientists at the agency, he wants you to throw aside.”

Ismail had good reason to play down the regulatory capture allegation to the jury. In her report, Lerner interviewed more than a dozen former EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) employees who described the agency as “unable to stand up to the intense pressures from powerful agrochemical companies, which spend tens of millions of dollars on lobbying each year and employ many former EPA scientists once they leave the agency.”

The jury must have, at the very least, questioned whether the EPA was a captured agency. After only a few short days, the jury returned a $2.055 billion verdict in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Pilliod, one of three verdicts against Monsanto between 2018 and 2019. The jury verdicts worth a combined $2.424 billion paved the way for a $10.9 billion settlement with several leading law firms in the Roundup litigation.

Despite its own scientists finding a link between glyphosate and cancer in studies of human populations in the internal 2016 report (and the IARC report a year earlier), the EPA re-registered glyphosate in 2020 for another 15 years. Per Lerner, the EPA allows glyphosate use because there is “insufficient evidence to conclude that glyphosate plays a role in any human diseases” and that “there are no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label.”

But consumer advocates like Genna Reed, senior analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, believe the 2016 internal report shows a pattern of EPA favoring industry over safety. “They only used the pieces of the meta-analysis that fit the conclusion they wanted to support,” Reed told Lerner of the EPA report. Reed added that the agency’s suppression of the internal report’s conclusion shows that there “is clearly a need for more firewalls to prevent political interference with the science.”

2016 Internal Report Could Impact Glyphosate Prop 65 Appeal

The internal EPA report could have an impact in the case of National Association of Wheat Growers, et al. v. Becerra, which will decide whether a Proposition 65 warning can be added to glyphosate products.

California’s Proposition 65 (Prop 65), also known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, prohibits businesses from exposing people to chemicals on the state’s Prop 65 List without providing “clear and reasonable” warnings. Chemicals are added to the Prop 65 List based on the state’s evaluation of current scientific information and in situations where, EPA and IARC determine a substance is a human carcinogen. While IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic” to humans, EPA concluded that there is no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer.

In 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California decided that the state could not require Prop 65 cancer warnings for glyphosate. Per the Court, such warnings would violate the First Amendment because the EPA found that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that glyphosate causes cancer.

Last year, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed an appeal to challenge the decision. Now, with the new internal report contradicting EPA’s public findings—which the Court used as the basis to not require a Prop 65 warning for glyphosate—the appeal can pull the rug out from under the assertion that there is no evidence glyphosate is a carcinogen.

Industry Influence Has Weakened Pesticide Regulation

Lerner says that industry influence over EPA has “weakened and, in some cases, shut down the meaningful regulation of pesticides in the U.S. and left the country’s residents exposed to levels of dangerous chemicals not tolerated in many other nations.”

Charles Benbrook, an agricultural economist who served as an expert witness during the Monsanto Roundup litigation, agrees with Lerner:

“The regulatory affairs departments of these companies actually compete against each other and sometimes brag that they were able to keep one of their high-risk pesticides on the market longer than some other company that threw in the towel prematurely.”

If anything, Lerner’s article and the issues she raises reinforce the power that litigation has to raise public awareness and spark real and lasting change. “We always felt that the evidence supporting everything we were saying from day one—that Monsanto manipulated science, that they captured agencies, that they bullied scientists that dared to question Roundup’s safety—would only continue to grow,” said Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman attorney, R. Brent Wisner, who served as co-lead trial counsel in two of the three Roundup trials. “It’s bittersweet that it’s taken all these years for these truths to come out, but any progress made in the name of protecting people’s health—however incremental—is something we will always fight for.”

*

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 Global Justice Now/Flickr/CC BY

All Global Research articles 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 Taliban’s gains have reached critical mass and they are now attempting to capture key cities in Afghanistan.

Airports in the second and fourth largest cities in the country, Kandahar and Herat, were struck by rockets in the last days of July and on August 1st.

Flights at airports in both cities had to be suspended, and the airport in Kandahar suffered a partially damaged runway.

Most recently, on August 1st, at least three rockets were launched towards the Ahmad Shah Baba International Airport in Kandahar.

Two of the projectiles hit the runway.

Officials in Kandahar claimed that there was a serious risk of the Taliban taking control over the city, adding that the group wanted to turn Kandahar into their temporary capital.

It is of symbolic importance since the Taliban movement was first created in Kandahar province.

In Herat, the Taliban claimed that its fighters had breached the main defense line of the northwestern Afghan city of Herat.

The Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid shared a video showing fighters on the outskirts of the city.

He then claimed that the Taliban were inside the city itself breaching its defenses.

The Afghan government sent large reinforcements of security forces to Herat in order to repel the Taliban’s attack.

The clashes have been on-going since July 28th.

The government forces are preparing to launch a large-scale operation to push Taliban fighters away from Herat city.

At least 20 people were killed, including 16 security force members, and 90 people were wounded in the past four days of fighting in Herat.

Meanwhile, the city most vulnerable to Taliban capture is reportedly Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand province.

It is famous as a fighting point where many US and British soldiers have lost their lives in the past.

Pro-Taliban social media accounts have uploaded videos of Taliban fighters in the heart of the city.

Afghan special forces are being sent in to help push them back.

It is unknown whether that will work out, as the Taliban’s advance seems to be quite effective.

On July 31st, Taliban fighters were only a few hundred meters from the governor’s office in Lashkar Gah, but were subsequently pushed back.

Afghan and US air strikes have reportedly targeted Taliban positions and government forces say they have killed dozens of militants.

The fighting is evidently ramping up, as the Taliban now seek to capture the most significant cities in the country and prepare to put even more districts and provinces under their control.

Currently, the Taliban control at least 150 of the 407 districts in Afghanistan.

The Kabul government holds all 34 provincial centers, but that could quickly change.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Afghanistan. The Taliban Push into Kandahar, Herat and Lashar Gah
  • 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.

***

May 3, 2021 (SENT VIA EMAIL AND FEDEX)

To: President Vincent E. Price
Duke University 207 Allen Building
Box 90001 Durham, NC 27708-0001

c/o Cici Stevens, Staff Assistant [email protected]

Re: Duke University’s COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate (1662 words)

Dear President Price:

Numerous students attending Duke University (“Duke”) have reached out regarding Duke’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. We understand that Duke’s students were advised on April 9, 2021 that

“we plan to require all new and returning Duke students to present proof of vaccination to Student Health before they can enroll for the Fall 2021 semester.”

As I am sure you are aware, the COVID-19 vaccines are presently authorized under emergency use authorization (“EUA”).

It is a violation of federal law to mandate receipt of a product that is only available pursuant to an EUA. Duke cannot lawfully require students to receive a COVID-19 vaccine that is being distributed under an EUA.

Emergency Use Authorization of COVID-19 Vaccines

In December 2020, the FDA granted EUA for two COVID-19 vaccines, one sold by Moderna and the other by Pfizer. Both are based on an RNA technology never before used in a licensed vaccine. In February 2021, the FDA granted EUA for a third COVID-19 vaccine sold by Janssen.

This is a novel viral vector vaccine platform. The clinical trials that the FDA will rely upon to decide whether to license these vaccines are underway, but they are far from complete.

The EUA applications for these experimental vaccines were based on data which supports that these products may reduce certain symptoms of COVID-19 for some individuals, but the FDA’s EUA authorizations made clear that there is no evidence the COVID-19 vaccines can prevent recipients from becoming infected with and transmitting the virus.1

As the FDA explains, at the time of the EUA approval, the data was “not available to make a determination about how long the vaccine will provide protection, nor is there evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 [i.e., the virus that causes COVID-19] from person to person.”2 In fact, the FDA Briefing Documents for the COVID-19 vaccines supporting the grant of an EUA list the following as still unknown:

  • “[e]ffectiveness in certain populations at high-risk of severe COVID-19,”
  • “[e]ffectiveness in individuals previously infected with SARS-CoV-2,”
  • “effectiveness against asymptomatic infection,”
  • “effectiveness against long-term effect of COVID-19 disease,”
  • “effectiveness against mortality,” and
  • “effectiveness against transmission of SARS-CoV-2.”3

The FDA Briefing Documents also make clear much is unknown about the safety of these products, including,

  • “[a]dverse reactions that are very uncommon,”
  • adverse reactions “that require longer follow-up to be detected,” and
  • whether the vaccines will cause “[v]accine-enhanced disease.”4

As a result, the authorization letters for both COVID-19 vaccines expressly provide that the vaccines are each “an investigational vaccine not licensed for any indication” and require that “[a]ll promotional material relating to the COVID-19 Vaccine clearly and conspicuously … state that this product has not been approved or licensed by the FDA, but has been authorized for emergency use by FDA.”5

Reflecting that these vaccines have not yet been demonstrated to be safe and effective, use of one of them was recently paused by the CDC and FDA due to serious reactions that have proven fatal in some cases.6

This exemplifies why the authorization letters for the COVID-19 vaccines, in accordance with federal law, expressly provide that these vaccines cannot be required and must remain optional.

Federal Law Prohibits Mandating Products Granted EUA

The same section that authorizes the FDA to grant an EUA [Section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “Act”), codified at 21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3], requires that the public have “the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.” 21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3(e).

It even provides that the Secretary of HHS is to “ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed” of “the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.” (Id.)

The FDA and CDC’s guidance and regulations reflect the statutory prohibition from mandating that an individual receive a product that has only been granted EUA.

For example, the FDA guidance entitled Emergency Use Authorization of Medical Products and Related Authorities provides that: For an unapproved product [such as the COVID-19 vaccines], the statute [21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3] requires that FDA ensure that recipients are informed … [t]hat they have the option to accept or refuse the EUA product…7

Similarly, when responding to an inquiry regarding whether the COVID-19 vaccines can be required, the Executive Secretary of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (“ACIP”), Dr. Amada Cohn, publicly stated that “under an EUA, vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory.“

Therefore, early in the vaccination phase individuals will have to be consented and cannot be mandated to be vaccinated.”8

Dr. Cohn then reaffirmed to the FDA’s Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee that no organization, public or private, can mandate the COVID-19 vaccines:

Organizations, such as hospitals, with licensed products do have capability of asking their workers to get the vaccine. But in the setting of an EUA, patients and individuals will have the right to refuse the vaccine.9

The EUAs for the COVID-19 Vaccines Repeats this Prohibition

The EUA letters for Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen provide that each COVID-19 Vaccine is authorized for emergency use with the following product specific information required to be made available to the vaccination providers and recipients, respectively (referred to as ‘authorized labeling’):

  • Fact Sheet for Health Care Providers Administering Vaccine … [and]
  • Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers.10 These fact sheets each provide that the receipt of the vaccine must be optional.

The Fact Sheets for Healthcare Providers for the three COVID-19 vaccines state that: “The recipient or their caregiver has the option to accept or refuse [the] COVID-19 Vaccine.”11

Similarly, the Fact Sheets for Recipients and Caregivers for each COVID-19 vaccine state on the first page: “It is your choice to receive the [] COVID-19 Vaccine.”12

The Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers for each of the COVID-19 vaccines also set forth in sequence the information required to be provided to recipients of the vaccine pursuant to section 564 of the Act, including “the option to accept or refuse administration of the product” and “the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product.” 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii).

All of the COVID-19 vaccine fact sheets provide the required information in sequence, including telling potential recipients: “It is your choice to receive or not receive the [] COVID-19 Vaccine,” and that if “you decide to not receive it, it will not change your standard of medical care.”13

Duke’s Vaccine Mandate Violates the Act, the EUA, Public Policy and the Nuremberg Code

By implementing its vaccine mandate, Duke is deliberately taking away each student’s statutorily guaranteed right to decide whether to accept or refuse administration of the COVID-19 vaccines.

The university is doing so openly, without any regard for the personal and autonomous right of each student to choose whether they want to receive an unapproved and unlicensed medical product.

Duke is effectively forcing each student to choose between facing expulsion from Duke or receiving an experimental medical treatment to which they do not consent.

The right to informed medical consent is considered a fundamental, overriding principle of medical ethics and international law, first laid down by United States government jurists in the Nuremberg Code.

See e.g., The Nuremberg Code (1947), 313 BMJ 1448 (1996) (“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person…[is] able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of…coercion.”);14 see also UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6(1).15

Public policy further demands that uncoerced consent is required.

Congress made this plain in the Act by assuring that individuals can make their own medical decisions when it comes to EUA products, even during times of emergency.

The only exception Congress granted for allowing an EUA to be mandated is a Presidential order requiring members of the armed forces to receive the product.16

The clear policy choice made at the highest levels of government to protect the individual’s right to choose is further supported by the fact that whether COVID-19 vaccines are actually safe and effective is not yet known and will not be known until, at the earliest, the Phase III clinical trials are completed.

The FDA-approved study protocols for the COVID-19 vaccines’ timelines for collecting safety and efficacy data from trial participants is approximately two years.

(Moderna’s calls for 759 days of data collection, Pfizer’s 742 days, and Janssen’s 24 months.) When these companies submitted applications for an EUA, they had only accumulated data from study participants for a median of 6 to 8 weeks, i.e., less than 10% of the full study period.

Additional Considerations

As explained above, these vaccines have not been proven to prevent infection or transmission. Therefore, requiring that students receive these vaccines to prevent infection is unscientific.

It is also nonsensical to not require faculty and staff, some of whom may have a risk of severe COVID-19, while requiring healthy, young students to receive this experimental product.

To the extent the university’s policy permits faculty, staff, and other individuals on campus to choose or refuse vaccination, but does not allow that same choice for students, this may raise equal protection issues.

Additionally, Duke is failing to take into consideration that a significant portion of its student population is likely to have had SARS-CoV-2 and fully recovered. Putting aside the immunity conferred by having been previously infected, there have been concerns raised by medical professionals that vaccinating those recently infected can lead to serious injury or death by causing antigen specific tissue inflammation in any tissues harboring viral antigens.17

The university should consider whether it might be liable for any damages, poor health outcomes, and loss of life due to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies forced upon its students.

While manufacturers and vaccine administrators are protected by the PREP Act, Duke is not.

For all of the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that Duke give serious consideration to the issues raised herein and withdraw its COVID-19 vaccine mandate forthwith since requiring an unlicensed and unapproved product violates federal law, international laws, civil and individual rights, and public policy.

Very truly yours,

Aaron Siri, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq.
Jessica Wallace, Esq.

*

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