A Chaotic US Exit from Afghanistan: American Emperors Have No Clothes

August 17th, 2021 by Prof Rodrigue Tremblay

All Global Research articles 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 Afghanistan war was a botched operation from day one, when George W. Bush invaded that country, in October  2001, “because something had to be done after the 9/11 attack on the United States”.

Then, George W. Bush sealed the issue for the future when he withdrew a large number of U.S. troops from Afghanistan to invade the country of Iraq, in March 2003, with his big lie about “weapons of mass destruction” in that country.

After terrorist Osama Bin Laden was allegedly assassinated in Pakistan, on May 2, 2011, President Barack Obama could have called for the end of the Afghanistan military adventure and declare victory. He did not, because he knew full well that without U.S. military support, the puppet Afghan government would collapse, and he would have to take full responsibility for the disaster.

And in February 2020, then President Donald Trump made an ominous ‘deal’ with the Islamic Taliban, in Doha, Qatar, fixing the date of May 2021 for a complete withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. Even though President Joe Biden extended that date to late summer 2021, he more or less followed Trump’s plan of withdrawal, no matter what.  N.B. The Trump-taliban agreement was to be implemented after the November 2020 election, which Mr. Trump expected to win.

Now, President Joe Biden is likely to be the only one bearing the full political cost of twenty years of a bad American foreign policy by previous administrations.

Granted, the Biden administration should have better anticipated the chaos to follow a precipitous American withdrawal from Afghanistan and better planned in consequence. The images of sheer chaos seen around the world will follow the United States for years to come.

That will make it easier for Donald Trump and Republicans in the U.S. Congress to dump the entire responsibility for the disaster on the sitting president, on his Security advisor Jake Sullivan and on his Secretary of State Anthony Blinken.

Who says that politics is a fair and honest game?

*

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.

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

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

Featured image is from 21st Century 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 object in war,” argued Liddell Hart “is a better state of peace — even if only from your point of view. Hence, it is essential to conduct war with constant regard to the peace you desire.” Sound advice, but as Americans are learning, the true purpose of the mission in Afghanistan had little to do with a better state of peace and much more to do was with finding ways to extend the commitment of American funds, resources, and military power for as long as possible.

In January 1973, when the Paris Peace Agreement ending American involvement in South Vietnam was signed, Saigon and its armed forces still relied heavily on guaranteed U.S. air, artillery and logistical support. The removal of U.S. military power always guaranteed Saigon’s defeat against a determined attack from North Vietnam. The removal of economic and military support from Afghanistan today is having a similar impact, but the outcome in Afghanistan is arguably much worse. Why?

It’s very likely that the loss of over $2 trillion and tens of thousands of U.S., Allied and Afghan lives is no deterrent to repeating the established recipe for strategic failure in some future country. In the words of LTG Richard Clarke, the new commander of Special Operations Command,

“I don’t necessarily see this [Afghanistan] as the end of an era, but, instead, as part of a new one that is full of opportunities for all of us.”

In other words, the Departments of State and Defense (DOD) will enable SOCOM’s future use of sensors, satellites, drones, proxy foreign forces and armies of foreign clients equipped with US supplied training and military gear to invade ungoverned spaces or failed states Africa, South Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and the Caribbean Basin. The words, “all of us” suggest the intelligence agencies, the defense industries, and numerous supporting contracting entities including mercenaries to create “other than U.S. forces” for foreign internal defense and development.

To the aforementioned cast of potential beneficiaries should also be added members of Congress from both parties who regularly receive vast sums of money from privately owned defense contractors. The political campaign cycle in the 2019-2020 saw more than $30 million in donations from defense contractors to GOP and DNC candidates. In 2020, lobbying by top defense industries involved outlays of nearly $100 million. However, these amounts only scratch the surface of the $2 trillion squandered over 20 years in Afghanistan.

Defense outlays for basing in Diego Garcia, Guam, Okinawa, Germany, Japan, Italy, Africa and a host of other locations around the world can also be connected to the projection of American military power to Afghanistan and the greater Middle East. Even these defense outlays pale before the mammoth engine of corruption inside Afghanistan that a series of Inspectors General routinely insisted was as great a threat to stability and progress as the Taliban.

Unfortunately, since the SOCOM intervention and assistance model is never blamed for the strategic failures that it helps to create, it remains funded and able to ramp up for the next lucrative military intervention. Only the country-specific policy is viewed as a strategic failure because in Clarke’s words, “there’s no precise end, there’s not necessarily a winner.”

Clarke, however, failed to note another substantial class of beneficiaries: the armed forces’ active duty Flag Officers, particularly the four stars. At the height of World War II, 12.2 million Americans served in the U.S. Armed Forces. The 12.2 million Americans in uniform were commanded by just seven four stars: In the Army and Army Air Forces, MacArthur, Marshall, Arnold and Eisenhower; in the U.S. Navy and Marines, Leahy, King, and Nimitz. In the last phase of the war several senior officers were promoted to four and five stars, but these promotions were honorific, not operational military ranks.

Today, for an active duty force of 1.12 million Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines, there are 44 active duty four stars. When Marshall was approached by members of the Senate who urged him to promote their flag officer friends in uniform to four stars, Marshall said, “Senator, I don’t have time to argue. I’ve got to win the war.” As General Clarke explains, Americans are not likely to hear Marshall’s words these days.

Face it, military interventions are cash cows for generals. From 2008 to 2018 at least 380 high-ranking DoD officials and military officers enriched themselves as lobbyists, board members, executives, or consultants for defense contractors within two years of taking off their uniforms.

In 2001, when the modest application of American military power rapidly overwhelmed the Taliban and al Qaeda, to paraphrase Arthur Schlesinger’s words, euphoria reigned; Bush and his inner circle thought for a moment that the world was plastic and the future unlimited. Today, this euphoria seems misplaced especially when one considers that the initial mission in Afghanistan was to kill or capture fewer than 500 individuals associated with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. I leave it to others to ask why U.S. Forces remained in Iraq after capturing Saddam Hussein and his inner circle.

On 3 August, 1972, Henry Kissinger told President Nixon, “After a year, Mr. President, Vietnam will be a backwater,” and “no one will give a damn.” Kissinger was essentially correct. Sadly, it’s a safe bet that a similar attitude prevails inside the Biden White House. Americans can only hope that this time the odor of multi-trillion dollar corruption, deceit and military failure in Afghanistan will likely linger far longer in American nostrils and have consequences.

*

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: An Operational Detachment Alpha (ODA) from 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne) waits onboard a C-130 from the Royal Air Force to ascend the altitude of 12,500 feet to conduct a high altitude low opening (HALO) parachute jump with members of the Canadian Special Operations Regiment and Para-Rescue Airmen from the Air forces Special Operations Command Hurlburt Field, Fl., April. 25, 2013. (SOCOM)

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Reading “In the Shadows of the American Century” is a bit of an up and down ride.  The best part of the book for personal interest concerning the author is the Introduction.  The author, Alfred McCoy, discusses his personal situation in relation to his family and the environment in which he was raised and the family friends whose lives ended through tragedy.  For the majority of the rest of the book he discusses the US empire: briefly its rise and highlights, followed by its “Strategies for Survival”, and ending with the “Dynamics of US Decline”. He ends with “Five Scenarios for the End of the American Century” the weakest part of the book, not so much in that no one can accurately predict the future, but in that he suddenly presents arguments almost contradictory to his discussion of empire previously presented.

Understanding

The three chapters on “Understanding the US Empire” covers a broad range of topics.  He examines the strategic ideas behind Halford Mackinder’s “world island” and the idea that whoever controls it, then controls the world.  From that, any reader who keeps up with current events can see that the world island, while surrounded by US military power, is not so slowly slipping away from US imperial grasp.

In “America and the Autocrats” McCoy  discusses some of the various governments the U.S. has created and supported from Iran through Vietnam and on to Egypt and Afghanistan.  He summarizes,

“There was – and is – a fundamental structural flaw in any American entente with such autocrats. Inherent in these unequal alliances is a peculiar dynamic that makes the eventual collapse of American-anointed leaders an almost commonplace occurrence.”

The “Covert Netherworld” is mostly about the CIA and its drug money relationships.  He starts by outlining some of the CIA’s interventions and summarizing, “…this recurring reliance on covert interventions transformed secret services from manipulators at the margins of state power into major players in international politics.”   He proceeds arguing the obvious, “Illicit Commerce serves as the economic foundation for the covert netherworld, allowing…a measure of political autonomy….”  His summary, based largely on his description of the CIA, the Taliban, and the poppy, “the impending [this was written in 2017] defeat of US intervention in Afghanistan”  serves “as an indicator of…Washington’s ability to control the covert elements of global politics but its weakening hold on world power over the long run.”

Survival

McCoy’s first topic for survival of the empire is surveillance.  The rise of the U.S. surveillance state has costs abroad – “The trust of its closest allies” – and at home where citizens “forgo any right to privacy, with other rights likely to follow.”

His section on “Torture and the Eclipse of Empires” – (why plural?) – details mostly the story of the Bush era and its arguments for torture.  Simply put in the context of empirical decline, the U.S. cannot “simultaneously claim both moral leadership of the international community and the sovereign prerogative to torture at will in defiance of international law.”

The discussion on “The Pentagon’s Wonder Weapons” looks at the development of cyberspace and computer intelligence, mostly within the war on terror, a global excuse for costly high tech gadgets.  While indicating that the U.S.’ reliance on high tech gadgetry will lead to operations with “uncertain outcomes” McCoy only mentions China and Russia within the “threat of actual armed conflict.”  He does not mention – and maybe this is hindsight criticism of knowledge available in 2017 – the effectiveness of Russia’s electronic defensive postures nor the capabilities of Chinese cyber war capabilities.

Scenarios

Skipping his revisitation of the ‘world island’ as per Brzezinski and the CIA, McCoy ends with “Five Scenarios for the End of the American Century” where his ideas suffer from a touch of the empire’s exceptionalism blinders and some contradictory arguments if considered from what he presented earlier in the work.

While describing the first scenario, “Evolving World Order”, he argues, “Every modern empire has had some source of universal appeal for its foreign subjects….”  That is quite an amazing statement considering all that has preceded it in his own presentation.  Then he adds “Spain offered Christianity”…..whoa, sure, convert or die Christianity (see the Papal Bull of 1542), and then when you convert you are still less than the white man’s superior abilities.   Britain offered “free markets and fair play”….sure, just ask the millions of dead Indians (east and west) and the trillions in value of all the resources harvested from its many colonies – hardly fair play – oh yeah, the Boer War was also fair play, just so you know.  The Palestine/Israel situation is never discussed, truly a miss on the argument for fair play. Pardon my sarcasm, but these are truly incomprehensible arguments except for someone who supports empires.

Twice he iterates that the U.S. contributes “democracy, human rights, and the rule of law” in full contradiction to all the evidence he himself presents in the main portion of the book.

Other misses include the statement that Russia is “an economically rickety petro-state with a large military” – certainly the latter is true but Russia is economically well safe-guarded as it has eliminated its dependence on the US$ and ironically thanks to sanctions, has developed an agricultural surplus and supported other non-petro capacities.

McCoy foresees “the liberal international order” surviving and thriving while NATO and the Davos and Bilderberg “might form a supranational nexus to supersede any nation or empire.” Now that’s a happy thought – a world controlled by the super wealthy and corporate power. Yet how does that account for the loss of global reserve status for the US$, US financial ruin because of that – or how about the coming climate disasters?   In spite of all that he sees “a residual role, mediating international conflicts and monitoring the global commons beyond these human cesspits.”  These “cesspits” are his imagined urban warfare centers; and the reasons for U.S. decline are very much U.S. meddling in conflicts and monitoring the global commons!

There is a scenario of economic decline, looking at the situation with Chinese computer processing advances, the poverty of the U.S. educational system, inflation, and the acknowledgement that both China and Russia are working towards ending the US$ dominance.  That leaves the U.S. “only with military domination” for a while, but with the US$ worthless, all that high tech gadgetry will not be viable financially.  What will be left is an “economically ricketty petro-[dollar] with a large military” – sound familiar?

Somehow a military scenario is presented without any casualties to either side (versus China) with the full collapse of the U.S. due to electronic and anti-satellite kinetic warfare.  Impossible, as hundreds will die as airplanes fall out of the sky at minimum; at maximum, the U.S. would go nuclear – the Samson option if all else fails – and take the world out with themselves.

Finally, he presents a climate disaster scenario, one that is already in process – as really the other options are also all in process.

More importantly, while they are presented as separate scenarios, they are all highly integrated.  The military, the economy, the climate – all are intertwined and inseparable, and the future of a U.S. decline also includes declines in the world in general.   In short, the U.S. has screwed up big time and has very little room to maneuver in order to help save some portion of humanity – and to be honest, I do not expect them to, do not see their capabilities in order to do so.  It is up to the ‘rest of the world’ to do that.

Last word: after all this McCoy argues the U.S. “has brought…viable international institutions, global economic integration, the rule of law, the advance of human rights, the spread of democracy, a period of relative peace, and a decline of disease and world poverty.”

Oh la la!  Quel désastre!  That last statement could have pages and pages of rebuttal.  Just one example:  the decline in world poverty is mainly due to China’s successful efforts to almost eliminate poverty for 600 million Chinese.   A fuller rebuttal is contained in McCoy’s general arguments “In the Shadows of the American Century,” as well as many other works describing the failures of the U.S. empire.

*

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.

Jim Miles is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Amazon

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on In the Shadows of the American Century – The Rise and Decline of US Global Power.
  • 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.

***

Overall, June was a ‘buy all the US things’ month for foreign investors

  • Long-Term Treasurys +$10.9BN
  • Agencies +22.7BN
  • Corporate Bonds $13.8BN
  • Corporate Stocks +$25.2BN

That is the biggest stock buying binge since March, led by non-official source buying (Foreign Official institutions -5.4BN, Other foreign entities: +30.6BN)…

For the 4th straight month, China dumped US Treasuries in June (the latest TIC data). In fact, over the last two months, China sold over $34 billion in Treasuries – the biggest dump since 2016…

Source: Bloomberg

Belgium also saw significant selling (often considered a proxy for China selling via Everclear), now with the lowest holdings since Sept 2020…

Source: Bloomberg

Japan bought Treasuries in June (after selling in May)…

Source: Bloomberg

And finally, hedge funds appear to have been big buyers of bonds in June as Catman Islands added almost $16bn (up for the 3rd month in a row)…

Source: Bloomberg

As a reminder, the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield decreased about 13 basis points in June to 1.47%.

Finally, we note that the shift from Treasuries to Gold among global reserves remains in tact…

Source: Bloomberg

*

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 China Dumped US Treasuries for 4th Straight Month, Most Since 2016
  • Tags: ,

End the Illegal U.S. Military Presence in Syria

August 17th, 2021 by Daniel Larison

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

While testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a top Biden administration Pentagon official confirmed today that the illegal U.S. military presence in Syria would continue:

The Biden administration is committed to retaining US military presence in northeast Syria.

This is consistent with reporting from last month that said that U.S. forces would be staying there. The continued presence in Syria has the least justification of any mission in the region, and it has absolutely no legal authorization, so of course it is the one that will continue indefinitely. Officially, the approximately 900 troops in Syria are there to advise the Syrian Democratic Forces against the remnants of the Islamic State, but now that ISIS has been defeated they have no reason to be there. They also have no authorization to be there, and their mission has nothing to do with U.S. security. U.S. forces have been operating illegally in Syria for the last seven years ever since the Obama administration expanded the campaign against ISIS there, and every day that they remain in Syrian territory is another day that the U.S. proves that it has no respect for international law.

The mission in Syria is a perfect example of a military deployment that puts U.S. forces in harm’s way without Congressional approval. Multiple administrations have stretched the 2001 authorization beyond recognition so that it now applies to fighting the remnants of a group that was created as a result of an illegal U.S. invasion of a country that had no connection to the 9/11 attacks. No one seriously believes that the 2001 AUMF applies to whatever is happening in Syria today, but that is the legal fig leaf that effectively lets the U.S. intervene wherever it wishes.

U.S. forces in Syria periodically exchange fire with pro-government forces and Russian mercenaries, and on occasion they have clashed with the Russian military as well. The most recent incident involved coming under fire in response to the U.S. bombing of Iraqi militias. The U.S. has been lucky up until now that these exchanges have not resulted in American fatalities, but U.S. forces in Syria are at risk every day they stay there. These troops are undeniably engaged in hostilities, and they are in danger of coming under attack at any time. This is exactly the kind of situation that Congress wanted to prevent by passing the War Powers Act, but strangely the illegal mission in Syria almost never comes up in discussions of reclaiming Congressional authority in matters of war. That needs to change. The U.S. military presence in Syria is illegal and puts Americans at risk for no good reason. Congress needs to force the issue and demand an end to the mission.

*

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 TruePublica


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.

All Global Research articles 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 August 11, in a rare occurrence, the U.K. High Court’s Lord Justice Timothy Holroyde and Justice Dame Judith Farbey overruled the July 5 decision of Justice Jonathan Swift and allowed the Biden administration to add two additional grounds for its appeal against Julian Assange, who is being held on charges filed by the Trump administration under the Espionage Act. Assange was indicted for revealing evidence of U.S. war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo that Chelsea Manning furnished him and WikiLeaks. He faces 175 years in prison if he is extradited from the U.K., tried and convicted in the United States.

Justice Swift had ruled that the United States could base its appeal on three of the five grounds it requested. The August 11 ruling allows the U.S. to argue two additional grounds as well. The expansion of the U.S. appeal is a worrying sign for Assange — and for the future of investigative journalism.

In September 2020, a three-week extradition hearing was held in Assange’s case. On January 4, U.K. District Court Judge Vanessa Baraitser issued her decision denying the Trump administration’s request to extradite Assange to the United States to stand trial. Judge Baraitser ruled that Assange would be a high risk for suicide in light of his mental state and conditions under which he would be held in U.S. prisons. As Donald Trump was leaving office, his administration successfully petitioned the High Court for permission to appeal Judge Baraitser’s ruling.

Joe Biden should have dismissed Trump’s appeal — consistent with the Obama-Biden administration’s refusal to indict Assange out of fear that indicting a journalist would imperil the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press. No journalist or media outlet has been prosecuted under the Espionage Act for publishing truthful information. The First Amendment protects journalists who publish illegally obtained material that is a matter of public concern, including evidence of war crimes. The U.S. government has never prosecuted a journalist or media outlet for publishing classified information, which constitutes an essential tool of journalism.

But Biden is doubling down and continuing Trump’s appeal.

When the United States’s appeal is heard on October 27 and 28, the High Court may reweigh factual findings made by the District Court judge who was uniquely positioned to determine the credibility of the witnesses who testified at the extradition hearing.

U.S. Grounds for Appeal

The five grounds on which the Biden administration is appealing the denial of extradition are as follows:

  • Judge Baraitser committed legal error when she concluded that extradition would be unjust or oppressive due to Assange’s mental or physical condition under section 91 of the 2003 Extradition Act;
  • Judge Baraitser should have notified the United States in order to provide it an opportunity to offer assurances to the court that Assange would not be subjected to conditions that imperiled his health and his life;
  • Judge Baraitser should have excluded, or assigned less weight to, the evidence of defense psychiatric expert Professor Michael Kopelman regarding the severity of Assange’s mental condition;
  • Judge Baraitser committed error in her overall assessment of the evidence of suicide risk; and
  • After the extradition hearing, the United States provided the U.K. with a package of “assurances” regarding the conditions under which Assange would be held if extradited to the U.S. The United States also offered an assurance that if Assange is convicted, it would consent to his transfer to Australia to serve his custodial sentence.

On July 5, the High Court allowed the United States to appeal on all but grounds three and four. After the August 11 ruling, the U.S. is now permitted to appeal on all five grounds.

Psychiatrist Kopelman’s Testimony

Judge Baraitser relied largely, but not exclusively, on the evidence presented by psychiatric expert Michael Kopelman. In her January 4 ruling, Judge Baraitser wrote:

[Kopelman] assessed Mr. Assange during the period May to December 2019 and was best placed to consider at first-hand his symptoms. He has taken great care to provide an informed account of Mr. Assange’s background and psychiatric history. He has given close attention to the prison medical notes and provided a detailed summary annexed to his December report. He is an experienced clinician and he was well aware of the possibility of exaggeration and malingering. I had no reason to doubt his clinical opinion.

Kopelman, an international authority on neuropsychiatry, evaluated Assange in prison and concluded that he was at severe risk of suicide if imprisoned in the U.S. Judge Baraitser cited Kopelman’s statement, “I am as confident as a psychiatrist ever can be that, if extradition to the United States were to become imminent, Mr. Assange will find a way of suiciding.” She noted that other experts corroborated Kopelman’s predictions of suicide.

The United States is arguing on appeal that Judge Baraitser should have excluded Kopelman’s evidence (or given it less weight) because he omitted from his December 2019 report that Assange had a partner, Stella Morris, and they had two young children together. Kopelman knew about them but was concerned about Morris’s anxiety about the privacy of her children. Both Kopelman’s subsequent report in August 2020 and his testimony at the September 2020 extradition hearing referred to Morris and their children. By then, it had become public knowledge.

Judge Baraitser considered Kopelman’s two reports as well as his testimony before rendering her January 4 ruling. She acknowledged the initial concealment but excused it, writing:

I did not accept that Professor Kopelman failed in his duty to the court when he did not disclose Ms. Morris’s relationship with Mr. Assange…. In my judgment, Professor Kopelman’s decision to conceal their relationship was misleading and inappropriate in the context of his obligations to the court, but an understandable human response to Ms. Morris’s predicament…. In short, I found Professor Kopelman’s opinion to be impartial and dispassionate; I was given no reason to doubt his motives or the reliability of his evidence.

It is well-established in English courts that the appellate court will not generally review factual findings — including credibility determinations — made by the trial court.

Lord Justice Holroyde admitted that it is “very unusual for an appellate court to have to consider the position of an expert witness whose written evidence has been found to be misleading, but whose opinion has nonetheless been accepted by the court below.” He added that there is not a “complete bar” to an appellate court finding “that the judge below was wrong in her assessment of the evidence. I have come to the conclusion that it is here at least arguable that the present case is one in which such a power may operate.”

U.S. “Assurances”

The United States is presenting “assurances” that if Assange is extradited to the U.S., tried, convicted and imprisoned, he will not be subject to special administrative measures (SAMs) — which are onerous conditions that would keep him in virtual isolation — or be held at the ADX maximum security prison in Florence, Colorado. And the U.S. would not object to Assange serving any custodial sentence he may receive in Australia.

These so-called assurances are conditional, however. The U.S. reserves the right to impose SAMs or hold Assange at ADX if future behavior warrants it. And the U.S. cannot guarantee that Australia would consent to host Assange’s incarceration.

The U.S. is arguing that Judge Baraitser should have told them during the extradition hearing that she intended to refuse extradition based on Assange’s life and health if imprisoned in the United States. They would then have presented assurances at that time. But their current proffer amounts to new evidence that should have been submitted at the extradition hearing.

In October, the High Court during the appeal hearing will consider the grounds that the United States is raising on appeal and determine whether to sustain or overrule Judge Baraitser’s decision denying extradition. If the High Court affirms the District Court ruling, the United States could ask the U.K. Supreme Court to review the case. If the High Court overrules the District Court decision, Assange could appeal to the Supreme Court and then to the European Court of Human Rights if the Supreme Court ruling goes against him.

If the United States is ultimately allowed to extradite Assange and try him under the Espionage Act, it will send an ominous message to investigative journalists that they publish material critical of the U.S. government at their peril. This would threaten freedom of the press under the First Amendment and deprive the American people of crucial information with which to hold their government accountable.

*

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.

Copyright © Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and a member of the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues

She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

COVID-19 and the Shadowy “Trusted News Initiative”

By Elizabeth Woodworth, August 13, 2021

Exposing this uncanny censorship of eminent voices is especially vital to the fate of children and youth, who are being aggressively targeted for low-benefit, sometimes lethal, inoculations.

India’s Ivermectin Blackout. Censorship of Peer-reviewed Analysis

By Dr. Justus R. Hope, August 16, 2021

There is a blackout on any conversation about how Ivermectin beat COVID-19 in India. When I discussed the dire straits that India found itself in early this year with 414,000 cases per day, and over 4,000 deaths per day, and how that evaporated within five weeks of the addition of Ivermectin, I am often asked, “But why is there no mention of that in the news?”

“Our Species is Being Genetically Modified”: Humanity’s March Toward Extinction? Analysis of the Microbiome and Virome

By David Skripac, August 15, 2021

Vaccine manufacturers have now made it possible for the human genome to be permanently altered—and humanity’s relationship with nature forever changed—by means of an experimental pharmaceutical injection that is being falsely referred to as a “vaccine.”

Colossal Financial Pyramid: BlackRock and The WEF “Great Reset”

By F. William Engdahl, August 15, 2021

The firm, BlackRock Inc., the world’s largest asset manager, invests a staggering $9 trillion in client funds worldwide, a sum more than double the annual GDP of the Federal Republic of Germany.

China vs. the WHO. “The Virus did not Originate in China”. The WHO was an Initiative of the Rockefellers

By Peter Koenig and Press TV, August 15, 2021

China has rejected as politically-motivated the World Health Organization’s calls for a renewed probe into the origins of Covid-19. The organization conducted its first investigation in January in the Chinese city of Wuhan. But, the probe failed to conclude how the virus started.

The Great “Global Warming” Alarm Is Part of the WEF’s “Great Reset”

By Julian Rose, August 16, 2021

Limits to Growth might have appealed to those who oppose neo-liberal capitalist insistence on the necessity for a ‘permanent growth’ economy; but the real intent behind those words is the conditioning of the receiver to take a self imposed pseudo-sacrificial attitude about ‘limitation’.

Does China’s Rise Really Threaten the U.S., Or Just Its Sociopathic Power Elite, Who Want to Keep Ruling the World Even if It Drags Us into WW III?

By Dee Knight, August 16, 2021

The U.S.-led cold war against China has escalated quickly and dramatically. President Biden is trying to harness the G7 and NATO to isolate China, and Congress is fast-tracking bills to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative and punish China for alleged human rights violations.

All of the Evidence Is In: The COVID Vaccine Is a Failure, More Dangerous than the Virus

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, August 16, 2021

In my efforts to provide good information in place of Big Pharma-serving propaganda about Covid and the vaccine, I have reported to you from the official databases the large number of deaths and health issues associated with the vaccine.  For some age groupsthe vaccine is more dangerous than the virus.

Was America Attacked by Afghanistan on September 11, 2001?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 16, 2021

The legal argument used by Washington and NATO to invade Afghanistan was that the September 11 attacks constituted an undeclared “armed attack” “from abroad” by an unnamed foreign power, and that consequently “the laws of war” apply, allowing the nation under attack, to strike back in the name of “self-defense”.

Don’t Let Them Fool You: Afghanistan Has Been a “Tremendous Success”

By Keith Lamb, August 16, 2021

With the Taliban having just captured three more provincial capitals, and now in control of two-thirds of Afghanistan, the liberal oligarchic press is awash with narratives of Afghanistan being both a “failure” and a “mistake”. However, the 20 years’ war has, for them, been an unprecedented success.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Don’t Let Them Fool You: Afghanistan Has Been a “Tremendous Success”

The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan Back with a Bang

August 17th, 2021 by Pepe Escobar

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

.

Wait until the war is over
And we’re both a little older
The unknown soldier
Breakfast where the news is read
Television children fed
Unborn living, living, dead
Bullet strikes the helmet’s head
And it’s all over
For the unknown soldier

The Doors, “The Unknown Soldier”

In the end, the Saigon moment happened faster than any Western intel “expert” expected. This is one for the annals: four frantic days that wrapped up the most astonishing guerrilla blitzkrieg of recent times. Afghan-style: lots of persuasion, lots of tribal deals, zero columns of tanks, minimal loss of blood.

August 12 set the scene, with the nearly simultaneous capture of Ghazni, Kandahar and Herat. On August 13, the Taliban were only 50 kilometers from Kabul. August 14 started with the siege of Maidan Shahr, the gateway to Kabul.

Ismail Khan, the legendary elder Lion of Herat, struck a self-preservation deal and was sent by the Taliban as a top-flight messenger to Kabul: President Ashraf Ghani should step out, or else.

Still on Saturday, the Taliban took Jalalabad – and isolated Kabul from the east, all the way to the Afgan-Pakistan border in Torkham, gateway to the Khyber Pass. By Saturday night, Marshal Dostum was fleeing with a bunch of military to Uzbekistan via the Friendship Bridge in Termez; only a few were allowed in. The Taliban duly took over Dostum’s Tony Montana-style palace.

By early morning on August 15, all that was left for the Kabul administration was the Panjshir valley – high in the mountains, a naturally protected fortress – and scattered Hazaras: there’s nothing there in those beautiful central lands, except Bamiyan.

Exactly 20 years ago, I was in Bazarak getting ready to interview the Lion of the Panjshir, commander Masoud, who was preparing a counter-offensive against … the Taliban. History repeating, with a twist. This time I was sent visual proof that the Taliban – following the classic guerrilla sleeping cell playbook – were already in the Panjshir.

And then mid-morning on Sunday brought the stunning visual re-enactment of the Saigon moment, for all the world to see: a Chinook helicopter hovering over the roof of the American embassy in Kabul.

‘The war is over’

Still on Sunday, Taliban spokesman Mohammad Naeem proclaimed: “The war is over in Afghanistan,” adding that the shape of the new government would soon be announced.

Facts on the ground are way more convoluted. Feverish negotiations have been going on since Sunday afternoon. The Taliban were ready to announce the official proclamation of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in its 2.0 version (1.0 was from 1996 to 2001). The official announcement would be made inside the presidential palace.

Yet what’s left of Team Ghani was refusing to transfer power to a coordinating council that will de facto set up the transition. What the Taliban want is a seamless transition: they are now the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Case closed.

By Monday, a sign of compromise came from Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen. The new government will include non-Taliban officials. He was referring to an upcoming “transition administration,” most probably co-directed by Taliban political leader Mullah Baradar and Ali Ahmad Jalali, a former minister of internal affairs who was also, in the past, an employee of Voice of America.

In the end, there was no Battle for Kabul. Thousands of Taliban were already inside Kabul – once again the classic sleeper-cell playbook. The bulk of their forces remained in the outskirts. An official Taliban proclamation ordered them not to enter the city, which should be captured without a fight, to prevent civilian casualties.

The Taliban did advance from the west, but “advancing,” in context, meant connecting to the sleeper cells in Kabul, which by then were fully active. Tactically, Kabul was encircled in an “anaconda” move, as defined by a Taliban commander: squeezed from north, south and west and, with the capture of Jalalabad, cut off from the east.

At some point last week, high-level intel must have whispered to the Taliban command that the Americans would be coming to “evacuate.” It could have been Pakistan intelligence, even Turkish intelligence, with Erdogan playing his characteristic NATO double game.

The American rescue cavalry not only came late, but was caught in a bind as they could not possibly bomb their own assets inside Kabul. The horrible timing was compounded when the Bagram military base – the NATO Valhalla in Afghanistan for nearly 20 years – was finally captured by the Taliban.

That led the US and NATO to literally beg the Taliban to let them evacuate everything in sight from Kabul – by air, in haste, at the Taliban’s mercy. A geopolitical development that evokes suspension of disbelief.

Ghani versus Baradar

Ghani’s hasty escape is the stuff of “a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing” – without the Shakespearean pathos. The heart of the whole matter was a last-minute meeting on Sunday morning between former President Hamid Karzai and Ghani’s perennial rival Abdullah Abdullah.

They discussed in detail who they were going to send to negotiate with the Taliban – who by then not only were fully prepared for a possible battle for Kabul, but had announced their immovable red line weeks ago – they want the end of the current NATO government.

Ghani finally saw the writing on the wall and disappeared from the presidential palace without even addressing the potential negotiators. With his wife, chief of staff and national security adviser, he escaped to Tashkent, the Uzbek capital. A few hours later, the Taliban entered the presidential palace, the stunning images duly captured.

Commenting on Ghani’s escape, Abdullah Abdullah did not mince his words: “God will hold him accountable.” Ghani, an anthropologist with a doctorate from Columbia, is one of those classic cases of Global South exiles to the West who “forget” everything that matters about their original lands.

Ghani is a Pashtun who acted like an arrogant New Yorker. Or worse, an entitled Pashtun, as he was often demonizing the Taliban, who are overwhelmingly Pashtun, not to mention Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras, including their tribal elders.

It’s as if Ghani and his Westernized team had never learned from a top source such as the late, great Norwegian social anthropologist Fredrik Barth (check out a sample of his Pashtun studies here).

Geopolitically, what matters now is how the Taliban have written a whole new script, showing the lands of Islam, as well as the Global South, how to defeat the self-referential, seemingly invincible US/NATO empire.

The Taliban did it with Islamic faith, infinite patience and force of will fueling roughly 78,000 fighters – 60,000 of them active – many with minimal military training, no backing of any state – unlike Vietnam, which had China and the USSR – no hundreds of billions of dollars from NATO, no trained army, no air force and no state-of-the-art technology.

They relied only on Kalashnikovs, rocket-propelled grenades and Toyota pick-ups – before they captured American hardware these past few days, including drones and helicopters.

Taliban leader Mullah Baradar has been extremely cautious. On Monday he said: “It is too early to say how we will take over governance.” First of all, the Taliban wants “to see foreign forces leave before restructuring begins.”

Abdul Ghani Baradar is a very interesting character. He was born and raised in Kandahar. That’s where the Taliban started in 1994, seizing the city almost without a fight and then, equipped with tanks, heavy weapons and a lot of cash to bribe local commanders, capturing Kabul nearly 25 years ago, on September 27, 1996.

Earlier, Mullah Baradar fought in the 1980s jihad against the USSR, and maybe – not confirmed – side-by-side with Mullah Omar, with whom he co-founded the Taliban.

After the American bombing and occupation post-9/11, Mullah Baradar and a small group of Taliban sent a proposal to then-President Hamid Karzai on a potential deal that would allow the Taliban to recognize the new regime. Karzai, under Washington pressure, rejected it.

Baradar was actually arrested in Pakistan in 2010 – and kept in custody. Believe it or not, American intervention led to his freedom in 2018. He then relocated to Qatar. And that’s where he was appointed head of the Taliban’s political office and oversaw the signing last year of the American withdrawal deal.

Baradar will be the new ruler in Kabul – but it’s important to note he’s under the authority of the Taliban Supreme Leader since 2016, Haibatullah Akhundzada. It’s the Supreme Leader – actually a spiritual guide – who will be lording over the new incarnation of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

Beware of a peasant guerrilla army

The collapse of the Afghan National Army (ANA) was inevitable. They were “educated” the American military way: massive technology, massive airpower, next to zero local ground intel.

The Taliban is all about deals with tribal elders and extended family connections – and a peasant guerrilla approach, parallel to the communists in Vietnam. They were biding their time for years, just building connections – and those sleeper cells.

Afghan troops who had not received a salary for months were paid not to fight them. And the fact they did not attack American troops since February 2020 earned them a lot of extra respect: a matter of honor, essential in the Pashtunwali code.

It’s impossible to understand the Taliban – and most of all, the Pashtun universe – without understanding Pashtunwali. As well as the concepts of honor, hospitality and inevitable revenge for any wrongdoing, the concept of freedom implies no Pashtun is inclined to be ordered by a central state authority – in this case, Kabul. And no way will they ever surrender their guns.

In a nutshell, that’s the “secret” of the lightning-fast blitzkrieg with minimal loss of blood, inbuilt in the overarching geopolitical earthquake. After Vietnam, this is the second Global South protagonist showing the whole world how an empire can be defeated by a peasant guerrilla army.

And all that accomplished with a budget that may not exceed $1.5 billion a year – coming from local taxes, profits from opium exports (no internal distribution allowed) and real estate speculation. In vast swaths of Afghanistan, the Taliban were already, de facto, running local security, local courts and even food distribution.

Taliban 2021 is an entirely different animal compared with Taliban 2001. Not only are they battle-hardened, they had plenty of time to perfect their diplomatic skills, which were recently more than visible in Doha and in high-level visits to Tehran, Moscow and Tianjin.

They know very well that any connection with al-Qaeda remnants, ISIS/Daesh, ISIS-Khorasan and ETIM is counter-productive – as their Shanghai Cooperation Organization interlocutors made very clear.

Internal unity, anyway, will be extremely hard to achieve. The Afghan tribal maze is a jigsaw puzzle, nearly impossible to crack. What the Taliban may realistically achieve is a loose confederation of tribes and ethnic groups under a Taliban emir, coupled with very careful management of social relations.

Initial impressions point to increased maturity. The Taliban are granting amnesty to employees of the NATO occupation and won’t interfere with businesses activities. There will be no revenge campaign. Kabul is back in business. There is allegedly no mass hysteria in the capital: that’s been the exclusive domain of Anglo-American mainstream media. The Russian and Chinese embassies remain open for business.

Zamir Kabulov, the Kremlin special representative for Afghanistan, has confirmed that the situation in Kabul, surprisingly, is “absolutely calm” – even as he reiterated:

“We are not in a rush as far as recognition [of the Taliban] is concerned. We will wait and watch how the regime will behave.”

The New Axis of Evil

Tony Blinken may blabber that “we were in Afghanistan for one overriding purpose – to deal with the folks who attacked us on 9/11.”

Every serious analyst knows that the “overriding” geopolitical purpose of the bombing and occupation of Afghanistan nearly 20 years ago was to establish an essential Empire of Bases foothold in the strategic intersection of Central and South Asia, subsequently coupled with occupying Iraq in Southwest Asia.

Now the “loss” of Afghanistan should be interpreted as a repositioning. It fits the new geopolitical configuration, where the Pentagon’s top mission is not the “war on terror” anymore, but to simultaneously try to isolate Russia and harass China by all means on the expansion of the New Silk Roads.

Occupying smaller nations has ceased to be a priority. The Empire of Chaos can always foment chaos – and supervise assorted bombing raids – from its CENTCOM base in Qatar.

Iran is about to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as a full member – another game-changer. Even before resetting the Islamic Emirate, the Taliban have carefully cultivated good relations with key Eurasia players – Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran and the Central Asian ‘stans. The ‘stans are under full Russian protection. Beijing is already planning hefty rare earth business with the Taliban.

On the Atlanticist front, the spectacle of non-stop self-recrimination will consume the Beltway for ages. Two decades, $2 trillion, a forever war debacle of chaos, death and destruction, a still shattered Afghanistan, an exit literally in the dead of night – for what? The only “winners” have been the Lords of the Weapons Racket.

Yet every American plotline needs a fall guy. NATO has just been cosmically humiliated in the graveyard of empires by a bunch of goat herders – and not by close encounters with Mr Khinzal. What’s left? Propaganda.

So meet the new fall guy: the New Axis of Evil. The axis is Taliban-Pakistan-China. The New Great Game in Eurasia has just been reloaded.

*

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

This article was originally published on Asia Times.

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is by South Front

The Houses of Dead and Crooked Souls

August 17th, 2021 by Edward Curtin

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

“A house constitutes a body of images that give mankind proofs or illusions of stability.”      – Gaston Bachelard, The Poetics of Space

There is a vast and growing gulf between the world’s rich and poor.  An obscene gulf. If we can read houses, they will confirm this.  They offer a visible lesson in social class.

Houses stand before us like books on a shelf waiting to be read, and when the books are missing, as they are for a vast and growing multitude of the homeless exiled wandering ones and those imprisoned, their absence serves to indict the mansion-dwelling wealthy and to a lesser extent those whose homes serve to shield them from the truth of the ill-begotten gains of the wealthy elites who create the world’s suffering through their avarice, lies, and war making.

Many regular people want to say with Edmund in Eugene O’Neill’s play, Long Day’s Journey into Night:

The fog is where I wanted to be. Halfway down the path you can’t see this house. You’d never know it was here. Or any of the other places down the avenue. I couldn’t see but a few feet ahead. I didn’t meet a soul. Everything looked and sounded unreal. Nothing was what it is.That’s what I wanted – to be alone with myself in another world where truth is untrue and life can hide from itself….Who wants to see life as it is, if they can help it?

Yet the rich don’t hide or give a damn. They flaunt their houses.  They know they are crooks and creators of illusions.  Their nihilism is revealed in their conspicuous consumption and their predatory behavior; they want everyone else to see it too.  So they rub it in their faces.  Their wealth is built on the blood and suffering of millions around the world, but this is often hidden knowledge.

For many regular people prefer the fog to the harsh truth.  It shields them from intense anger and the realization that the wealthy elites who run the world and control the media lie to them about everything and consider them beneath contempt.  That would demand a response commensurate with the propaganda – rebellion.  It would impose the moral demand to look squarely at the houses of death with their tiny cells in which the wealthy elites and their henchmen imprison and torture truth tellers like Julian Assange, an innocent man in a living hell; to make connections between wealth and power and the obscene flaunting of the rich elite’s sybaritic lifestyles in houses where every spacious room testifies to their moral depravity.

The recent news of Barack Obama’s vile selfie birthday celebration for his celebrity “friends” at his 29-acre estate and mansion (he has another eight-million-dollar mansion in Washington, D. C.) on Martha’s Vineyard is an egregious recent case in point.  If he thinks this nauseating display is proof of his stability and strength – which obviously he does – then he is a deluded fool.  But those who carry water for the military-intelligence-media complex are amply rewarded and want to tell the world that this is so.  It’s essential for the Show.  It must be conspicuous so the plebians learn their lesson.

Obama’s Vineyard mansion stands as an outward sign of his inner disgrace, his soullessness.

Trump’s golden towers and his never-ending self-promotion or the multiple million-dollar mansions of high-tech, sports, and Hollywood’s superstars send the same message.

Take Bill Gates’ sixty-three-million-dollar mansion, Xanadu, named after William Randolph Hearst’s estate in Citizen Kane, that took seven years to build.

Take the house up the hill from where I live in an erstwhile working-class town that sold for one million plus and now is being expanded to double its size with a massive swimming pool that leaves no grass uncovered. Every week, three black window-tinted SUVs arrive with New Jersey plates to join two white expensive sedans to oversee the progress in this small western Massachusetts town where McMansions rise throughout the hills faster than summer’s weeds.

Take the blue dolomite stone Searles Castle with its 60 acres, 40 rooms, and “dungeon” basement down the hill on Main St. that was recently bought by a NYC artist who also owns seven grand estates around the country that he showcases as examples of his fine artistic taste.  “All these houses have endless things to do — it’s just mind-boggling,” he has said. The artist, Hunt Slonem, calls himself a “glamorizer,” and his “exotica” paintings, inspired by Andy Warhol’s repetition of soup cans and Marilyn Monroe, hang in galleries, museums, cruise ships, and the houses of film celebrities.  Like his showcase houses, his exotica must have endless things to do.

What would Vincent van Gogh say?  Perhaps what he wrote to his brother Theo: that the greatest people in painting and literature “have always worked against the grain” and in sympathy with the poor and oppressed.  That might seem “mind-boggling” to Slonem.

Such ostentatious displays of wealth and power clearly reveal the delusions of the elites, as if there are no spiritual consequences for living so.  Even if they read Tolstoy’s cautionary tale about greed, How Much Land Does A Man Need?, it is doubtful that its truth would register.  Like Tolstoy’s protagonist Pahόm, they never have enough.  But like Pahόm, the Devil has them in his grip, and like him, they will get their just rewards, a small room, a bit of land to imprison them forever.

His servant picked up the spade and dug a grave long enough for Pahóm to lie in, and buried him in it. Six feet from his head to his heels was all he needed.

Where does the money for all these estates, not just Slonem’s, come from? Who wants to ask?

Getting to the roots of wealth involves a little digging.  Slonem’s castle was originally commissioned in the late 1800s by Mark Hopkins for his wife.  Hopkins was one of the founders of the Central Pacific Railroad, which was built by Irish and Chinese immigrants.  Labor history is quite illuminating on the ways immigrants have always been treated, in this case “the dregs of Asia” and the Irish dogs.  Interestingly enough, the great black scholar and radical, W. E. B. Du Bois, a town native, worked at the castle’s construction site as a young man.  No doubt it informed his future work against racism, capitalism, and economic exploitation.

Wealthy urbanites flooded this area after September 11, 2001, and now, in their terror of disease and death, they have bought every house they could find.  Their cash-filled pockets overflow with blood-money and few ask why. To suggest that massive wealth is almost always ill-begotten is anathema.  But innocence wears many masks, and the Show demands washed hands and no questions asked.

It is rare that one becomes super-wealthy in an honest and ethical way.  The ways the rich get money almost without exception lead downward, to paraphrase Thoreau from his essay, “Life Without Principle.”

Since the corona crisis began, investment firms such as the Blackstone Group have been gobbling up vast numbers of houses across the United States as their prices have gone through the roof.  The lockdowns – an appropriate prison term – have set millions of regular people back on their heels as the wealthiest have gotten exponentially wealthier. Poverty and starvation have increased around the world.  This is not an accident.  Despair and depression are widespread.

There is a taboo in life in general and in journalism: Do not ask where people’s money comes from.  Thoreau was so advised long ago:

Do not ask how your bread is buttered; it will make you sick…

But the super-wealthy do not get sick.  They are sick.  For they revel in their depravity and push it in the faces of regular people, many who envy them and wish to become super-rich and powerful themselves.  Of course there are the blue bloods whose method is understatement, but it takes many decades to enter their theater of deception.  In many ways, these people are worse, for their personae have been crafted over decades of play-acting and public relations so their images are laundered to smell fresh and benevolent.  They often wear the mask of philanthropy, while the history of their wealth lies shrouded in an amnestic fog.

Yet soul murder includes suicide, and while the old and new moneyed ones smoothly justify their oppression of the vast majority, many regular people kill the best in themselves by envying the rich.

Years ago, I discovered some documents that showed that one of this country’s most famous philosophers, known for his lofty moral pronouncements, owned a lot of stock in companies that were doing evil things – war making, poisoning and killings huge numbers with chemicals, etc.  But his image was one of Mr. Clean, Mr. Good Guy. I suspect this is typical and that there are many such secrets in the basements and attics of the rich.

But let us also ask where the writers and presenters of the mainstream and alternative media get their money.  Although “to follow the money” is a truism, few do.  If we do, we will learn that money talks and those who take it toe the line, nor do they live in shacks by the side of the road or rent like so many others.  They invest with Black Rock and their ilk and have money managers who can increase their wealth while shielding them from the ways that money is made on the backs of the poor and working people.  And they lie about people like Assange, Daniel Hale, Reality Winner, Craig Murray, et al., all imprisoned for daring to reveal the depredations of the power elites, the violence at the heart of predatory capitalism.

Yes, houses speak.  But few ever speak of where their money comes from.  Those that are on the take – which has multiple meanings – always plead innocent.  Yes, I can hear you say that I am being too harsh; that there are exceptions.  That is obvious.  So let’s skip the exceptions and focus on the general principle. There is a Buddhist principle that right livelihood is a core ethic in earning money.  Jesus had another way of putting it but was of course in agreement, as were so many others whom people hold in highest esteem.

Thoreau wrote: “If you are acquainted with the principle, what do you care for a myriad instances and applications.”

The truth is that for most people, work, if they can find it, is drudgery and hard, a matter of survival. The late great Studs Terkel called it hell and rightly said that most jobs are not big enough for people because they crush the soul, they lack meaning.  And behind all ledgers of great wealth lie crushed souls.  This reality is so obvious and goes by many names, including class warfare, that further commentary would be redundant.

A few years ago, I visited Mark Twain’s house in Hartford, Connecticut.  It is advertised as “a house with a heart and a soul.”  It is not a house but a mansion, and it was an ostentatious display in Twain’s time. Similar or worse than Obama’s mansion on Martha’s Vineyard today.  It has no soul or heart.  It was built with Twain’s wife’s family money.  Her father was an oil and coal tycoon from upstate New York.  Twain reveled in opulent respectability.  He lived the life of a Gilded Age tycoon, an American magnate. It is not a pretty story, but the Twain myth says otherwise.  Not that he catered to popular tastes to please the crowd and his domineering wife and that he lived in luxury, but that he was a radical critic of the establishment.  This is false.  For he withheld for the most part the publication of his withering take on American imperialism until after his death.  He committed soul murder.  But his mansion impressed his neighbors and his humor distracted from his luxurious lifestyle.  His house still stands as a cautionary tale for those who will read it.

Baudelaire once said that in palaces “there is no place for intimacy.”  This is no doubt why in people’s dreams small, simple houses with a light in the window loom large.  Bachelard says, “When we are lost in darkness and see a distant glimmer of light, who does not dream of a thatched cottage or, to go more deeply still into legend, of a hermit’s hut.”  For here man and God meet in solitude; here human intimacy is possible.  “The hut can receive none of the riches ‘of this world.’  It possesses the felicity of intense poverty; indeed, it is one of the glories of poverty; as destitution increases, it gives access to absolute refuge.”

He is not espousing actual poverty, but the oneiric depths of true desire, the dreams of hope, reconciliation, and simple living that run counter to the amassing of wealth to prove one’s power and majesty. A humble house of truth, not a mansion of lies. This, to borrow the title of William Goyen’s novel, is “the house of breath” where the spirit can live and pseudo-stability gives way to faith, for insecurity is the essence of life.

There is such a hermit’s hut where the light shines.  It is the tiny cell in Belmarsh Prison where Julian Assange hangs onto his life by a thread.  His witness for truth sends an inspiring message to all those lost in the world’s woods to look to his fate and not turn away.  To follow to their sources the money that greases the palms of all the so-called journalists and politicians who want him dead or imprisoned for life, who tell their endless lies, not just about him, but about everything.

The house of propaganda is built on unanimity.  When one person says no, the foundation starts to crumble.  The houses of the rich dead and crooked souls, erected to project the stability of their bloody illusions, start to crumble into sand when people dissent one by one.

Soon the fog lifts and there is no hiding any more.  At the end of the path, you can see the vultures circling overhead as their prey go running out of their mansions in terror.

Sing Hallelujah!

*

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, Behind the Curtain.

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

Featured image: The Obamas’ new home. (LANDVEST/REALTOR.COM)


Edward Curtin is the author of Seeking the Truth in a Country of Lies

To order his book click the cover page.

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Houses of Dead and Crooked Souls

All Global Research articles 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 2016.

When people ask me what more can be done to achieve 9/11 truth and justice, I tell them to spend less time calling for a new investigation and more time investigating. Even without subpoena power, independent investigators can make a lot of progress. To help with that effort, here are three steps for an independent investigation and an objective way to evaluate suspects in the 9/11 crimes.

The first step is to ask specific, well-formulated questions. What do we need to know? We need to know things like how explosives got into the WTC, how the North American air defenses failed, how the U.S. chain of command and communication systems failed, how the alleged hijackers got away with so much, and how the planes were hijacked.

Here are examples of specific questions that will help answer these questions.

  1. What more can we learn from the official accounts about transponder and autopilot use on 9/11?
  2. Who was invited to the explosive disposal/terrorism meeting at WTC 7 on the morning 9/11 and what was the agenda?
  3. What do the strip clubs, bars, and other businesses frequented by the alleged hijackers have in common?

The second step is to collect information that might help to answer the questions. Good sources of information include the following.

It also helps to interview people who have detailed knowledge about the events. Most of the people who were present at the time of the attacks and during the official investigations are still alive and some of them will answer questions.

Additionally, useful information can be obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Direct requests to federal, state, or local agencies using resources like these:

The third step to investigation is to collect the information, analyze it, and then communicate it clearly and objectively. Collecting the information is relatively easy. Analysis might include categorizing or framing the information in ways that help to see linkages. Examples include creating a timeline of events or a matrix of people and events, and considering if the new information fits into the existing body of knowledge. Once new information is ready to communicate to others, there are a lot of venues for doing that. A good example is 911Blogger.

Naming Suspects and Evaluating Evidence

As answers are found or proposed, it becomes clear that there are people who can be named as legitimate suspects in the 9/11 crimes. Things can get a bit tricky here and it’s easy to be misled. What makes someone a legitimate suspect? To answer that, it helps to understand three different types of evidence: direct, indirect, and negative. Let’s start with five examples of what I would cite as direct evidence related to 9/11.

Direct evidence

  1. The suspect was in a position on 9/11 to directly facilitate the crimes.
  2. Evidence exists that the suspect did something on 9/11 that directly facilitated the crimes.
  3. Evidence exists to charge the suspect with a crime related to 9/11.
  4. The suspect was in a position prior to 9/11 to facilitate the 9/11 crimes.
  5. Evidence exists to charge the suspect with having done something prior to 9/11 that facilitated the 9/11 crimes.

All of the suspects in my book, Another Nineteen, were named based on direct evidence. An example is Wirt Dexter Walker. As the CEO of Stratesec, he was in position to provide access to those who planted explosives in the WTC, as well as prevent that access from being detected. Walker can also be charged with 9/11 insider trading.

Another example is Ralph Eberhart, who sponsored the military exercises that obstructed the air defenses on 9/11. Eberhart also appears to have lowered the Infocon (communications defense) level just hours before the attacks, and gave orders that directly obstructed the interceptors. He also lied to the U.S. Congress about having received documented notification of the hijackings (a crime).

When one or more of pieces of direct evidence are established for a suspect, it makes sense to evaluate indirect evidence. Here are five types.

Indirect evidence

  1. The suspect had foreknowledge of the 9/11 crimes.
  2. The suspect benefited from the 9/11 crimes.
  3. The suspect failed to cooperate with the official 9/11 investigations, obstructed those investigations, or lied to investigators.
  4. The suspect was an expert in the technologies that were required to make 9/11 happen (e.g. communications systems, remote control technology).
  5. Evidence exists that the suspect was involved in other terrorist acts or previous U.S. deep state events.

An example of a suspect for which both direct and indirect evidence exists is Barry McDaniel, the Chief Operating Officer of Stratesec. Besides having the power to grant access to those who planted explosives in the WTC, McDaniel also had expertise in the distribution of explosives from his days as the U.S. Army’s director of Materiel Readiness. That same previous position makes him a suspect in the Iran-Contra crimes. McDaniel benefited from 9/11 by starting a police-state supply company with Dick Cheney’s old business partner, Bruce Bradley.

Similarly, Ralph Eberhart is a suspect for whom there exists both direct and indirect evidence. As CINCNORAD and CINCSPACE, Eberhart was an expert on the air defense, communications, and possibly related space, systems. He also failed to cooperate with the official investigations, telling his staff to just change their responses to investigators as those responses were shown to be invalid.

Is it enough to use only indirect evidence? For example, is it enough to say that the suspect benefited from the crimes? If so, there are millions, or maybe billions, of suspects. This includes everyone who profited from the 9/11 Wars or the police state policies that have resulted. It might also include anyone who was threatened by the countries that the U.S. has attacked since 9/11: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. That would be a huge number of people so the answer is no, benefiting from 9/11 is not enough to make someone (or an entire country) a legitimate 9/11 suspect.

Is foreknowledge of the attacks enough to name someone as a legitimate suspect? If so, the governments of at least a dozen countries are all suspects. Therefore the answer is no, in the absence of direct evidence foreknowledge is not enough to name a person (or an entire country) as a 9/11 suspect.

For instance, some people are convinced that Israel committed the crimes of 9/11. When asked why they think this, the answer is usually that Israel had foreknowledge as indicated by the “Dancing Israelis” and that Israel benefited because of the countries that were attacked after 9/11. However, as indicated above this reasoning is not convincing and would certainly never stand up in a court of law.

Both foreknowledge and benefiting are examples of indirect evidence. And although indirect evidence can be helpful, direct evidence is needed to charge someone with a crime. Moreover, the direct evidence must focus on what actually happened on 9/11 that should not have happened, and what did not happen that should have happened. And that means we must focus on the specific people who were in position to make those things so.

Once direct evidence exists for a suspect, negative evidence can also be used to build the case. Negative evidence related to the 9/11 crimes includes the fact that some people did not do their jobs, either in defending the country or in investigating the case afterward. For example, Ralph Eberhart, for whom there exists both direct and indirect evidence that he was involved, failed to implement military control over U.S. airspace when he should have.

In the end, it’s possible that only independent investigation will reveal more of the truth about what happened on 9/11. But that power exists within people who spend considerable time today calling for others to investigate or posting strongly worded messages on social media. If we can harness that power and direct it toward the logical and objective answering of pertinent questions, we can make real progress.

*

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.

Kevin Ryan blogs at Dig Within.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Investigating 9/11 and Naming Suspects. Evaluating Evidence
  • 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.

***

“You will own nothing and you will be happy”.

If anyone says to you “the weather extremes are a sure sign of global warming”, it’s because they take this information directly from the media and assume it to be fact.

The media get it from government – or government ‘expert advisors’.

The ‘expert advisors’ get it from a computer modelling exercise (e.g. Imperial College London).

The computer modelling exercise gets it from a large financial incentive offered by the corporate conglomerate and bought-out government, with the explicit instruction to produce a result which fills the needs of their combined political goals. In this case, to magic-up ‘scientific proof’ that global warming is real.

The need to have ‘proof’ that this invention is real is arrived at in spite of the fact that global warming’s main proponents know that the idea was dreamed-up at the Club of Rome in 1972 under a widely publicised treatise with the catchy title ‘Limits to Growth’. It gained a further boost from the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, when the infamous Agenda 21 was launched to impose largely irrational environmental constrictions as a forerunner to the highly discriminating ‘carbon taxes’ in operation today.

Limits to Growth might have appealed to those who oppose neo-liberal capitalist insistence on the necessity for a ‘permanent growth’ economy; but the real intent behind those words is the conditioning of the receiver to take a self imposed pseudo-sacrificial attitude about ‘limitation’.

Ergo, limiting one’s self for the sake of a ‘higher cause’ – saving the natural environment from Global Warming!

This form of conditioning becomes the perfect precept for encouraging naturally concerned citizens to not just embrace cutting back the typical material excesses of their lives, but ultimately the pseudo-saintly renunciation of all material interests. The ghoulish plan behind Klaus Schwab’s quasi religious Sermon from the Mount WEF

“You will own nothing and you will be happy”.

Schwab’s psycho-social engineering ‘deep mind experts’ having planned-out the precise stepping stones necessary for a ‘check-mate’ seamless handing-over of all private wealth to the insatiably materialistic elite masters of deception. A thoroughly odious yet quite brilliant slight of hand.

The great ‘Global Warming’ alarm was raised as a calculated way for leading industrialists, bankers and royalty to ensure their future as the premier influencers and controllers of global affairs.

Blanket controlled media indoctrination, using rampant fear mongering as its key component, is designed to convert public sentiment to the cause. The elite industrialist club know full well that ‘fear’ makes desperate people turn to their perceived leaders to protect them – and tell them what to do.  The historial precedent for this is ubiquitous.

The notion that the climate was dangerously warming had no scientific evidence to back it up. That was cooked-up later under the auspices of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPPC).

It is more than unfortunate that the great majority of green oriented NGO’s also swallowed the bait and, being by then mostly well funded by corporate backed governments, took the money, closed their eyes and minds – and jumped on board – thus embracing the deadly distortion of their original green commitments.

It is now the turn of Klaus Schwab (director of World Economic Forum) to take up the reins handed down to him by earlier representatives of the small but powerful elite that runs planetary affairs via such puppet heads of state as Bush, Cheney, Blair – and other aspiring despots of that time.

Schwab’s job is to ensure that ‘stop global warming’ goals are fully implemented through the channels of The Green New Deal, Great Reset, Fourth Industrial Revolution, Zero Carbon agenda. He must get this fake-green ball firmly rolling down the road especially designed for it by highly paid technocrats, whose particular bent is to create an ‘inventory of everything’ to make possible the control of all aspects of life on Earth.

These techno’s view the management of the world as an exercise in accounting. A sterile reductionist mind-set closely linked to robotics and the notion that advanced mechanisation and calculation is superior to the creativity of the human mind. Hence the WEF’s announcement of the forthcoming ‘Internet of Everything’, the 5G powered Smart City surveillance and control grid which forms the centrepiece of The Great Reset agenda.

An agenda that has been specifically positioned under the title ‘green’- a name stolen from the original ecology movement of the 1970’s and 80’s, whose ethos was – and remains – the promotion of a human scale, light footprint ‘people’s ecology’. An authentic vision that bears no resemblance whatsoever to today’s gigantic corporate led Fourth Industrial Revolution, held up by the WEF masters of deception to be the only solution for ‘greening the planet’.

What it actually is, of course, is a wholesale corporate/cabal grab for the control of the world’s primary resources and money supply. The word ‘green’ could hardly have been more butchered.

So with this fake green ideology now at the forefront of the central control global planning elite’s blueprint for a brave new world, the drive is on to utilise every opportunity possible to enforce conditions that constrict mankind’s behaviour patterns to fit the cunningly concocted demands of ‘preventing global warming’. The great Club of Rome scare story, designed specifically to leave a frightened and confused public completely dependent upon the technocrat ‘experts’ coming up with a ‘life saving solution’ to prevent the planet from frying. 

Now, ‘the life saving solution’ to the fictional ‘problem’ the technocrats came up with, has to fulfil the hard-wired goals of this small but very powerful elite that forms the shadow government of the planet. A despotic cabal whose intention is to master-mind the future according to a darkly inflated sense of self importance and superiority over the rest of humanity.

The first thing needed to smooth the way for the unfettered display of such rampant megalomania is to ensure the least possible public resistance. Least resistance to the rolling-out of ‘the grand plan’, whose implementation requires – to make it credible – a continuous process of environmental disruption and degradation. 

The cause of this disruption can then be pinned on the advance of the ‘catastrophic’ warming’ – to which all solutions must be ‘technological’. Technological in the sense of high tech, robotic, digital and electro magnetic.

Killing at least two birds with one stone is a popular concept within the ranks of New World Order proponents. So it was found that the effects of a general dumbing-down of brain power could be enhanced when combined with individually targetted mind control, hypnosis and torture, all of which had already been well tested via the US MK Ultra programme.

In this program human beings were ruthlessly experimented upon to find at what point they ‘cracked’ and became controllable tools for carrying out the secret operations needed to undermine the orderly functioning of society and to enact psy-ops, false flag events and even – when deemed necessary, murders. 

A variation on these same techniques were used behind closed doors during Covid lockdown, especially in care homes, where genocide has become thematic and old people are considered disposable matter in the cause of ‘stopping Covid’.

Mind control is the central weapon of the elite planners. Its presence is ubiquitous in all aspects of daily life – starting with the TV – a particularly vital component of (State) control of the masses, and extending into all mainstream media operations, cell phone technologies, computer programmes, Wi Fi and advanced military ‘silent’ weaponry. There is a wafer thin line of distinction between the process and function of mind control, propaganda and straight indoctrination.

All the above are now being deployed to get the joys of Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset, Zero Carbon, Green Deal and 5G Smart Cities firmly installed in the brain cells of culpable human beings, who are also to be induced to hand-over all their private assets ‘for the cause’. Do not underestimate the mind bending power it takes to get ordinary folk to embrace the notion “You will own nothing and you will be happy”.

Coming-up this November is the COP International Climate Conference in Cornwall, UK. All the most sophisticated mind controlling wizardry will be employed to make this event appear to be ‘a world saving’ gathering of the good and the great. This is because it is nothing less than ‘fear of global warming’ that holds the entire Great Reset/Green Deal invention together.

Without this scary message of ‘disaster if we don’t act’ underpinning it, the future of the New World Order’s master control agenda would fall apart at the seams. Covid was sprung on the scene to ensure the fear factor would receive a turbo-charged boost, enough to carry it through to the point where the COP could double-up on it – and thus increase the chance of a witless public finally throwing up their arms and shouting “Save us at any cost!”

Atmospheric Aerosol Geoengineering (Chemtrails), Covid, 5G, The High Auroral Atmospheric Research Program (HAARP), WiFi, GMO, the chemical saturation of household products and especially foods – are all examples of contemporary weapons whose deployment is sold to us as ‘important progressive science’, but whose true purpose is to suffocate the life force that drives human and environmental vigour, natural health and spiritual vibrance.

Right down to the manipulation and degradation of  human, animal and plant DNA and the genome of life itself.

At the end of this egregious mono cybernetic intrusion into the divinity of creation is ‘Robotic Man’. The transhumanist singularity omega point. A soulless cyborg ‘inhuman race’ which gets all its instructions through having its neocortex permanently wired to a central super computer.

This is actually the vision of the evolution of humanity that Schwab’s dark controllers have planned-out to be ‘The New Normal’; making the sentient human race largely obsolete by around 2050 – and almost so by 2030/2040. A human race that will by then have been culled down to approximately one quarter of its current number, if all goes according to plan for the psychopathic architects of the Great Reset/New World Order/Green Deal.

It is vital to grasp that the monstrous Covid invention, whose toxic ‘vaccinations’ are a genocide inducing weapon dressed up as ‘protection’, is just one of the cards in the ‘kill and control’ pack. A significant one, but one whose manifestation is symptomatic of the demonic bag of tricks available to the insentient perpetrators of raw evil.

Corona Virus and Global Warming are first cousins. They both owe their creation to exactly the same ‘rabbit from a hat’ conjuring trick. That of applying the art of deception-hypnosis en masse, in order to make people believe that what is unreal is real – what is fake is actual. And they both use the same fascist control mechanisms to achieve their ends.

Now we have put together the disparate parts of this genocide operation called: The Great Reset (forced totalitarian take-over), Green New Deal (fake green fascism), Zero Carbon (no carbon=no life), Fourth Industrial Revolution (completely robotic workplace)  we can recognise that each element is actually integral to the overall plan. Strung together in this way we can finally see the whole diabolical picture.

It is therefore vital to recognise that we can only be effective in our defence of Life on Earth by seeing and acting on this ‘whole picture’. Not being drawn into treating each symptom as a separate and unrelated crises in its own right. Which is precisely what the instigators want us to do, of course.

For a steadily growing number of people, these dark days are actually having the reverse effect than that intended. They are stimulating the manifestation of great shafts of counteractive light! Suddenly, tens of thousands are finding a commonality of purpose and joining together to take-on the masters of deception, through standing strong for truth, justice and freedom.

It portends a remarkable shift of emphasis in all our lives. One of truly dramatic proportions that heralds the tangible unfolding of a new era for humanity. An era in which a dissolving of old barriers of race, class, religion and money – ushers in a profound sense of universal brother and sister hood; a great expansion of the spiritual and a new form of worldwide social and economic cooperation.

Cooperation in which shared humanitarian goals steadily replace the divisive and destructive greed of the profit predicated global market place.

This heart-led flowering of humanity is to be the truly defining factor of the great Global Warming/Covid Scam, as the history books will one day relate. The overwhelming use of fear and deception has provoked the opposite state to come out of hiding and to manifest as what, for its detractors, will be an unendurable counter force –  emanating from none less than the energetic source of Creation Itself.

Such an astounding metamorphosis is now underway, and it has taken an extraordinary, blatant manifestation of darkness to ignite the counteractive fire which is now calling forth a great renaissance of the true powers of man. This is the age of truth, enlightenment and action.

Take your courage in both hands and step forth! Set your sights on nothing less than disarming and dismantling the technocratic top-down total-control system that attempts to enslave you, me and every sentient human being who seeks to remain true to the deepest values of Life.

*

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

Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, writer, international activist, entrepreneur and holistic teacher. Julian is co-founder of HARE The Hardwick Alliance for Real Ecology see https://hardwickalliance.org/His acclaimed book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind – Why Humanity Must Come Through’ is particularly recommended reading for this time: see www.julianrose.info.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: People hold signs during the March for Science in Melbourne, Australia on April 22, 2017. (Photo: Takver/flickr/ccc)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the White House and most mainstream media, what we have now is a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” with 95% to 99% of COVID-related hospitalizations and deaths being attributed to the unvaccinated

To achieve that statistic, the CDC included hospitalization and mortality data from January through June 2021. The vast majority of the United States population was unvaccinated during that timeframe

January 1, 2021, only 0.5% of the U.S. population had received a COVID shot. By mid-April, an estimated 31% had received one or more shots, and as of June 15, 48.7% were fully “vaccinated”

Natural immunity offers robust protection against all variants, whereas vaccine-induced immunity can’t. The reason for this is because when you recover from the natural infection, you have both antibodies and T cells against all parts of the virus, not just the spike protein

According to Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Delta variant is both more transmissible and more dangerous than the original virus and previous variants, but real-world data show it is actually weaker and far less dangerous, even though it does spread more easily

*

Watch the video here.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the White House and most mainstream media, what we have now is a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”1

According to the official narrative, 99% of COVID-19 deaths and 95% of COVID-related hospitalizations are occurring among the unvaccinated. In a July 16, 2021, White House press briefing,2 CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky claimed “over 97% of people who are entering the hospital right now are unvaccinated.”

But as reported by Fox News anchor Laura Ingraham on “The Ingraham Angle,” “that statistic is grossly misleading,”3 and in an August 5, 2021, video statement, Walensky inadvertently revealed how that 95% to 99% statistic was created.

Grossly Misleading Data Manipulation

As it turns out, to achieve those statistics, the CDC included hospitalization and mortality data from January through June 2021. It does not include more recent data or data related to the Delta variant, which is now the most prevalent strain in circulation. The problem is, the vast majority of the United States population was unvaccinated during that timeframe.

January 1, 2021, only 0.5% of the U.S. population had received a COVID shot. By mid-April, an estimated 31% had received one or more shots,4 and as of June 15, 48.7% were fully “vaccinated.”5Keep in mind that you’re not “fully vaccinated” until two weeks after your second dose (in the case of Pfizer or Moderna), which is given six weeks after your first shot. This is according to the CDC.6

So, those receiving an initial dose in June, for example, won’t be “fully vaccinated” until eight weeks later, sometime in July or August.

By using statistics from a time period when the U.S. as a whole was largely unvaccinated, the CDC is now claiming we’re in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” in an effort to demonize those who still have not agreed to receive this experimental gene modification injection.

Selective Pressure Promotes Emergence of New Variants

Here’s what Canadian viral immunologist and vaccine researcher Dr. Byram Bridle told Ingraham about the claim that we’re in a pandemic of the unvaxxed, and that the unvaccinated are hotbeds for dangerous variants:

“Absolutely, it’s untrue to be calling this a pandemic of the unvaccinated. And it’s certainly untrue … that the unvaccinated are somehow driving the emergence of the novel variants. This goes against every scientific principle that we understand.

The reality is, the nature of the vaccines we are using right now, and the way we’re rolling them out, are going to be applying selective pressure to this virus to promote the emergence of new variants. Again, this is based on sound principles.

We have to look no further than … the emergence of antibiotic resistance … The principle is this: If you have a biological entity that is prone to mutation — and the SARS-CoV-2, like all coronaviruses is prone to mutation — and you apply a narrowly focused selective pressure that is nonlethal, and you do this over a long period of time, this is the recipe for driving the emergence of novel variants.

This is exactly what we’re doing. Our vaccines are focused on a single protein of the virus, so the virus only has to alter one protein, and the vaccines don’t come close to providing sterilizing immunity.

People who are vaccinated still get infected, it only seems particularly good at blunting the disease, and what that tells you therefore is that these vaccines in the vast majority of people are applying a nonlethal pressure, narrowly focused on one protein, and the vaccine rollout is occurring over a long period of time. That’s the recipe for driving variants.”

Natural Immunity Offers Far Superior Protection

Bridle also explains why natural immunity offers robust protection against all variants, whereas vaccine-induced immunity can’t. When you acquire the infection naturally, your body develops antibodies against ALL of the viral proteins whereas the COVID shots only trigger antibodies against one, namely the spike protein.

As mentioned above, when you have antibodies against just one of the viral proteins, the virus only needs to mutate that one protein in order to evade your immune system. When you have natural immunity, on the other hand, your antibodies will recognize all parts of the virus, so even if the spike protein is mutated, your body will recognize other parts of the virus and mount an attack against those.

That SARS-CoV-2 works the same way other viruses do was shown in a Nature Reviews Immunology study7 by Alessandro Sette and Shane Crotty, published in October 2020. The study, “Cross-Reactive Memory T Cells and Herd Immunity to SARS-CoV-2” argued that naturally-acquired immunity against SARS-CoV-2 is potent, long-lasting and very broad in scope, as you develop both antibodies and T cells that target multiple components of the virus and not just one.

If we are to depend on vaccine-induced immunity, as public health officials are urging us to do, we’ll end up on a never-ending booster treadmill. Boosters will absolutely be necessary, as the shot offers such narrow protection against a single protein of the virus. Already, data around the world show vaccine-induced protection is waning rapidly in the face of new variants, and Moderna has publicly stated that the need for additional boosters is expected.8

How Dangerous Is the Delta Variant?

According to Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Delta variant is both more transmissible and more dangerous than the original virus and previous variants. July 4, 2021, he told NBC News:9

“It is more effective and efficient in its ability to transmit from person to person. And studies that we’ve seen where they have been the variant that’s dominated in other countries, it’s clear that it appears to be more lethal in the sense of more serious — allow you to get more serious disease leading to hospitalization, and in some cases leading to deaths.”

In a June 29, 2021, interview,10 Fauci called the Delta variant “a game-changer” for unvaccinated people, warning it will devastate the unvaccinated population while vaccinated individuals are protected against it.

Remember, Fauci is not a clinician and has never treated someone infected with SARS-CoV-2. Other health experts and practicing physicians who treat COVID-19 patients disagree with Fauci’s claims, arguing that not only is the Delta variant not more dangerous, it’s certainly not more dangerous for the unvaccinated.

As reported by Ingraham in June 2021 (video above), there’s an evolutionary genetics theory called Muller’s Ratchet, which states that as an outbreak starts to peter out, the virus tends to mutate into a more transmissible form, but at the same time it grows weaker, causing far less serious infection. According to epidemiologist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, this is exactly what we’re seeing. He told Ingraham:

“The good news is on the 18th of June, the United Kingdom presented their 16th report11 on the mutations — and they’re doing a great job, much better than our CDC — and what they demonstrated is that the Delta is more contagious but it’s far less deadly, far less worrisome. In fact, it’s a much weaker virus than both the U.K. [Alpha] and the South African [Beta] variants.”

Spike Mutations Render Vaccinated Vulnerable to Delta

Importantly, the Delta variant contains three different mutations, all in the spike protein. This, McCullough explains, allows this variant to evade the immune responses in those who have received the COVID jabs — but not those who have natural immunity which, again, is much broader. In a June 30, 2021, appearance on Fox News (video above), McCullough stated:12

“It is very clear from the UK Technical Briefing13 that was published June 18th that the vaccine provides no protection against the Delta variant. It’s a very mild variant.

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

Children’s Health Defense chief scientific officer Brian Hooker, Ph.D., has echoed McCullough’s sentiments. The Defender quotes Hooker:14

“What we’re seeing is virus evolution 101. 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.

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.”

Real-World Data Show Most of Infected are Fully ‘Vaccinated’

Real-world data from areas with high COVID jab rates show the complete converse of what media, the CDC and White House officials are telling us. In addition to the British Technical Briefing No. 16,15 cited above, we have additional data from Israel, Scotland, Massachusetts and Gibraltar:

  • August 1, 2021, director of Israel’s Public Health Services, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, announced half of all COVID-19 infections were among the fully vaccinated.16 Signs of more serious disease among fully vaccinated are also emerging, she said, particularly in those over the age of 60.

A few days later, August 5, Dr. Kobi Haviv, director of the Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, appeared on Channel 13 News, reporting that 95% of severely ill COVID-19 patients are fully vaccinated, and that they make up 85% to 90% of COVID-related hospitalizations overall.17 As of August 2, 2021, 66.9% of Israelis had received at least one dose of Pfizer’s injection, which is used exclusively in Israel; 62.2% had received two doses.18

  • In Scotland, official data on hospitalizations and deaths show 87% of those who have died from COVID-19 in the third wave that began in early July were vaccinated.19
  • A CDC investigation of an outbreak in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, between July 6 through July 25, 2021, found 74% of those who received a diagnosis of COVID19, and 80% of hospitalizations, were among the fully vaccinated.20,21 Most, but not all, had the Delta variant of the virus.

The CDC also found that fully vaccinated individuals who contract the infection have as high a viral load in their nasal passages as unvaccinated individuals who get infected.22 This means the vaccinated are just as infectious as the unvaccinated.

  • In Gibraltar, which has a 99% COVID jab compliance rate, COVID cases have risen by 2,500% since June 1, 2021.23

While those who benefit from keeping the pandemic going would like you to cower in fear at the thought of the Delta variant, there’s really no evidence that it’s any worse than the original. It’s more transmissible, yes, but far less dangerous, as its primary symptoms are that of a regular cold.

According to Harvard and Stanford professors, the actual number of Americans dying from or with COVID-19 are actually at an all-time low, so alarmism is uncalled for.24

And, as for viral social media posts by doctors and nurses claiming hospitals are overflowing with unvaccinated COVID patients, don’t believe them. Most are bots. We’ve repeatedly seen evidence that fearmongering is being spread not by real people but by fake accounts run by artificial intelligence. This includes blue check accounts. Here’s a sampling of recent bot farm tweets trying to scare everyone:25

bot farm tweets

bot farm tweet

Don’t Fear It, Just Treat It

In closing, remember there are several different treatment protocols for COVID-19 that appear just as effective for variants as for the original virus, including the following:

*

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

Notes

1 The New York Times July 16, 2021

2 WH.gov Press Briefing July 16, 2021

3 Fox News

4 Bloomberg COVID Vaccine Tracker, see US Vaccinations vs Cases graph, top portion

5 Mayo Clinic COVID Vaccine Tracker

6 CDC.gov When You’ve Been Fully Vaccinated Updated July 27, 2021

7 Nature Reviews Immunology October 6, 2020; 20: 709-713

8 The Hill August 5, 2021

9 NBC News July 4, 2021

10 PBS June 29, 2021

11, 13, 15 Public Health England, SARS-CoV-2 Variants Technical Briefing 16, June 18, 2021 (PDF)

12 Covidcalltohumanity.org July 5, 2021

14 The Defender August 3, 2021

16 Bloomberg August 1, 2021 (Archived)

17 American Faith August 8, 2021

18 Our World in Data, Data for Israel

19 The Daily Expose July 29, 2021

20 CDC MMWR July 30, 2021; 70

21 CNBC July 30, 2021

22 NBC News August 7, 2021

23 Big League Politics August 4, 2021

24 FEE.org July 28, 2021

25 Padrak.com Vaccine Propaganda Bot Farms (PDF)

26 Science, Public Health Policy and The Law July 2020; 1: 4-22 (PDF)

27 Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, June 21, 2021

Featured image is from 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.

***

Another name has been chiseled on the tombstone in the graveyard of empires.

The United States of America. 2001-2021.

From the swords of Alexander the Great, the British empire, the Russians before and after Lenin, and the US as the newest members of the Great Game, military powers have seen the Afghan sand swallow their ambitions. “Look upon my works ye mighty….’’

Some commentators have said the abandonment of Afghanistan was the worst crisis facing the West since Suez. They are wrong. This is much worse. The canal crisis was about two empires with setting suns, the British and French, not appreciating or admitting their diminishing post-war role before the US stepped in to restore perspective. Afghanistan is about betrayal, defeat and an increased terror threat. As the 20th anniversary of 9/11 approaches it is sobering to remember that the US went in to Afghanistan to topple the Taliban in 2001 and thereby reduce the terror threat. It left in 2021 and allowed the Taliban to take over. At the very least, it is difficult to explain.

The West in Asia is discredited. North Korea and China can be expected to take advantage.

It would be remiss of military planners in South Korea and Japan not to formulate a new defense strategy, one more firmly based on their own capabilities, in the light of the flight from Kabul.

America’s defeat by the Taliban will also comfort terror groups.

The Chinese saw it coming. Little commented on in the West, the Chinese hosted the Taliban in Tianjin at the end of July as Western military officials kept on talking about a timescale of months before Kabul was endangered. The Chinese realized in July that the Taliban were going to win within a matter of days or weeks. Which is why China’s foreign minister Wang Yi, met Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Taliban’s political chief, in Tianjin, 100km east of Beijing, at the end of July. Just before this meeting the Chinese had hosted the US deputy secretary of state Wendy Sherman, also in Tianjin. When they met the Taliban a few days later it was an indicator that they were taking the Taliban seriously. It was also a snub to the US, putting the Taliban envoy on par with Sherman.

Wang, as the occasion demanded, exchanged niceties with the Taliban. Beijing expected it to “play an important role in the process of peaceful reconciliation and reconstruction in Afghanistan”, according to a readout of the meeting from the foreign ministry.

What this really means; China will help the Taliban in aid and investment through the conduit of Pakistan. In return the Taliban must not interfere in China’s restive region of Xinjiang, where Muslims are in the majority and up to a million are incarcerated by Beijing.

There is money to be made and plenty of deals to be done.

 

The Belt and Road Initiative, China’s plan, in part, to establish trade routes from the East to Europe that cannot be targeted by US sanctions, needs to get into Afghanistan to better access the Central Asian republics. Beijing is constructing a major road through the narrow Wakhan Corridor—the strip of mountainous territory connecting Xinjiang in China to Afghanistan (see map above and image right).

This will provide a key route for its Belt and Road Initiative to Pakistan and Central Asia. These routes are essential for Beijing to pursue its goals of increased trade with the region. Crucially, Afghanistan’s natural resources, especially rare earths, essential for the computer and telecoms industry, can be mined and transported.

Laughable as it sounds now, Kabul had shunned participation in the initiative to avoid getting on the wrong side of Washington.

China’s approach is based both on commerce as well as security. It hopes to rebuild Afghanistan’s infrastructure indirectly. In terms of Afghanistan, China has been described as Pakistan’s ATM. This approach also gives China a hands-off deniability.

Beijing hopes to avoid the harsh lessons of history. Afghanistan is a country where history is marked in tombstones.

*

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

Geopolitical analyst Tom Clifford reporting from Beijing is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In my efforts to provide good information in place of Big Pharma-serving propaganda about Covid and the vaccine, I have reported to you from the official databases the large number of deaths and health issues associated with the vaccine.  For some age groups the vaccine is more dangerous than the virus.

I have also reported to you from official reports that the largest percentage of new cases are associated with those who are fully vaccinated.  The question is: are these actually new cases or are they vaccine-associated illnesses?  

Following the conclusions of a Nobel prize-winner in medicine and other top level experts, I have attributed what the medical establishment calls new cases, breakthroughs, delta variant, to adverse responses to the vaccine itself, thus questioning the existence of the delta variant.  But after listening to Dr. Robert Malone, it appears that there are variants also, and will be more variants. Thus the new breakout of what are reported as Covid cases consists of both adverse reactions to the vaccine and illnesses from the new variants.

Dr. Malone is the inventor of the mRNA technology that was used to develop the mRNA vaccine.  He is a member of the establishment.  He is not a kook, conspiracy theorist, or anti-vaxxer.  He is so solid a member of the establishment that the Department of Defense has relied on him for years.  Where Dr. Malone differs from the establishment is in his unwillingness to keep quiet when he sees that the ruling Covid narrative does not fit the facts.

Dr. Malone explains (at the 50 minute mark) that what the vaccine is doing, in addition to killing and injuring people’s health, which he does not emphasize, is evolving the virus, in a manner of speaking, training it to escape vaccines. In other words, the vaccine itself amplifies variants that cannot be prevented by vaccines.  

You can listen to his explanations in the first 57 minutes of this video address to a professional group of educated people in Silicon Valley.  Even if you are not well educated, Malone speaks with a clarity that will allow you to understand the gist of the explanation. Watch below or click here.

The first 25 minutes are taken up with Malone’s explanation of who he is, his background and experience.  He explains the origin and reason for the official public health policy that experts, no matter how distinguished, are censored when they depart from the official (and ever-changing) CDC, NIH, WHO, FDA narrative. In other words, the official public health bureaucracies have a monopoly on the explanation. He explains that the mainstream media is interlocked with the public health bureaucracies and acts as censoring agent.   He speaks with humor. He describes being “fact checked” and  deplatformed by a high school dropout employed to shutdown “misinformation,” which is everything that diverges from the official narrative of the day. We have reached the point in our absurdity where distinguished scientists are censored by total dumbshits.

Beginning at the 35 minute mark, Malone gets into the heart of the dilemma we face.  He makes it crystal clear that the authorities were wrong and that there is no hope that vaccines are the answer.  He makes it clear that the delta variant is going to run through the population and no amount of vaccination, masks, and lockdowns can do anything about it.  The focus must be switched to treatment.  There are known effective treatments, and more are under development and testing. Malone himself was cured by Ivermectin.

Fortunately, he reports, the delta variant is less serious than Covid-19, but future variants might not be if we continue to use a vaccine that trains new variants to escape immune systems.  A number of distinguished scientists have reached the same conclusion.  See this for example.

For the first time in history, the world’s population has been used for mass clinical testing of an experimental vaccine.  The evidence is piling up.  Official reporting databases show extraordinary numbers of deaths and injuries associated with the Covid vaccine.  The vast majority of new cases are associated with the fully vaccinated.  The fully vaccinated spread the virus as easily as unvaccinated Covid patients according to the CDC and Dr. Fauci himself. The vaccine is associated with spontaneous abortions.  These are all facts now quietly acknowledged by the bungling public health bureaucracies, but still mainly kept from the people.

The public health bureaucracies do not know how to respond to the vaccine failure as they bet the entire ball game on the mRNA vaccine.  All the hopes and claims associated with the vaccine were mistaken.  It is a long limb to climb back, especially when they have no other policy to suggest.

Not knowing what to do, the CDC recommends more jabs with the toxic vaccine. See this. 

All the “fact check” mechanisms put in place to silence those who understand what is happening are still in place and still censoring the experts who have real solutions.

Clearly, the suppression of experts must now stop. The health dilemma that the ignorance and arrogance of public health officials, dumbshit politicians, and dumbshit media have trapped us in can only be resolved by open debate among the world’s experts.  No more controlled explanations, or we may all die if not from the vaccine then from a variant created by the vaccine.

Ivermectin Has Stopped Covid in India and the Media Covers Up the Good News, see report on Epoch Times.

Covid Financed by NIH Has Brought Totalitarianism to the World

Pressure on Unvaccinated Intensifies, see report on Global Research

Those Who Protest against the “Official” Covid-19 Narrative are Categorized as “Psychopaths”, see Michel Chossudovsky on Global Research. 

CDC Is Murder Incorporated

CDC’s Own Statistics Show 1,270  Fetal Deaths Following COVID Shots but CDC Continues to Recommend Pregnant Women Get COVID Injections, see report on Global Research. 

If you take the vaccine, this could be your fate:

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from GMWatch

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

American military helicopters have been filmed evacuating US embassy staff in Kabul, with multiple aircraft shuttling to and from the compound. The footage invoked striking similarities with the 1975 retreat from Vietnam’s Saigon.

At least two CH-47 Chinook tandem rotor heavy transport helicopter has been spotted at the compound, making the footage seem eerily similar to that shot in South Vietnam in April 1975, amid the hasty evacuation of US diplomatic staff as the capital city of Saigon fell. Back then, helicopters of that type were landing on the embassy’s roof to pick up diplomats as North Vietnamese troops were closing in onto the capital.

Both US President Joe Biden and now Antony Blinken have rejected any similarities between the hasty pullouts. On Sunday, Blinken was directly asked whether the Kabul withdrawal would become Biden’s “Saigon moment.” Speaking to ABC, he responded by saying it was “manifestly not Saigon.” 

“Remember, this is not Saigon. We went to Afghanistan 20 years ago with one mission and that mission was to deal with the folks who attacked us on 9/11. And we have succeeded in that mission,” Blinken told CNN.

Others found the Vietnam vibes of the ongoing retreat even more embarrassing, however, given that Biden had explicitly promised that the withdrawal from Afghanistan would not turn into another fall of Saigon.

The US president insisted early in July that the Taliban’s capabilities were “not remotely comparable” to the North Vietnamese forces and no hasty retreat would happen.

There’s going to be no circumstance when you’re going to see people being lifted off the roof of an embassy of the United States from Afghanistan.

The Afghan government seemed to have effectively collapsed on Sunday, when Taliban forces entered the outskirts of Kabul. The militants called for negotiations, claiming they wanted to avoid an unnecessary battle for the city and the loss of civilian lives.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has already fled the country, reportedly for neighboring Tajikistan. While his office is struggling to explain his whereabouts, stating it “cannot say anything about Ashraf Ghani’s movement for security reasons,” Ghani’s departure was confirmed by Abdullah Abdullah, the head of the Afghan National Reconciliation Council.

*

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.

***

In the early 11th century, King Canute—while at the peak of his power—set out to demonstrate to his fawning courtiers the limited power of royal edicts.

After having his throne placed by the sea’s edge, he sat down and commanded the tide to stop rising. When the water began washing over his feet, he declared, “Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings.”

Nearly a thousand years later, facing a different force of nature—Covid-19—an entire global generation of presidents, prime ministers, governors, mayors, public health officials, scientists and citizens is being given the same lesson.

However, where Canute’s lesson sprang from his humility, this lesson springs from the hubris of the present-day ruling class and the credulity of the masses who place far too much faith in their rulers’ power.

The lesson was pointedly driven home on July 19th. That was “Freedom Day” in the United Kingdom, with government ending restrictions on social contact, allowing the reopening of remaining establishments such as nightclubs, and abandoning mask mandates.

Two weeks before Freedom Day, as the Delta variant relentlessly pushed the UK’s case count higher, 122 prominent scientists and doctors submitted a letter to The Lancet calling the planned easing of restrictions “a dangerous and unethical experiment.”

On the eve of Freedom Day, the UK’s daily case count was over 40,000 [invalid estimates]. Imperial College London mathematical biologist Neil Ferguson told the BBC it was “almost inevitable” the end of restrictions would prompt daily cases to soar to 100,000 and perhaps even 200,000.

Mother Nature was about to deliver a harsh comeuppance to Ferguson and others who’d have us believe government restrictions and mask mandates offer a potent defense against Covid contagion: Cases promptly went into a two-week free fall.

Chart showing a steep decline in daily new Covid cases in the UK beginning two days after Freedom Day eased all remaining restrictions

Daily New Cases in the United Kingdom

In addition to fostering well-founded doubt about the benefits of lockdowns and face coverings, the turn of events should also cultivate healthy skepticism about the pronouncements of the public health establishment.

Hopefully, Ferguson’s particular humiliation will immunize officials, journalists and citizens against trusting Imperial College London’s Covid-19 models.

Those models, which played a key role in enabling unprecedented, draconian lockdowns around the world—have been wildly wrong again and again. For example, Imperial College London projected Sweden’s relaxed approach to Covid-19 would leave nearly 100,000 Swedes dead by July 1, 2020. The actual count: 5,700.

The United States has endured its own false alarms about what will happen when government-imposed restrictions are eased. Grim predictions and accusations of gubernatorial indifference to human life accompanied the ending of restrictions and mandates in states like Iowa, Texas and Florida, and proved as wrong as the ones made in the UK last month.

Lacking Canute’s humility and undaunted by contrary evidence, the great majority of officials, scientists and pundits who’ve favored coercive government measures have proven stubbornly incapable of entertaining the possibility that these interventions—which have boosted depression, suicide, alcohol abuse, drug overdoses, domestic violence and undiagnosed cancer—aren’t a net positive for public health after all.

That resistance to contrary evidence extends to a great many everyday citizens whose unwavering support of lockdowns, business restrictions, remote schooling and mask mandates is part of a politicized tribal identity.

Exasperatingly, that tribe embraces “trust science” as a mantra, oblivious to the fact that the scientific method hinges on the reliable replication of results that supports one’s theory—something sorely lacking where lockdowns, masking and other measures are concerned.

Chart of new daily cases in Japan; a Forbes headline from last summer credits high rate of mask usage for Japan's then-low rate; the chart shows that UMD Mask survey shows steady 96%+ mask compliance, yet cases skyrocket in summer 2021

The “trust science” crowd is likewise oblivious to the fact that scientists are far from unanimous in supporting those government-imposed nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), and that highly-credentialed scientists from esteemed institutions are among the most vigorous dissenters.

The most prominent demonstration of such dissent came with the October 2020 “Great Barrington Declaration.” Led by professors from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford, epidemiologists and public health scientists from around the world expressed their “grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies.”

The declaration has now been signed by more than 58,000 medical and public health scientists and medical practitioners. Their numbers and credentials don’t guarantee their views are correct; however, they do bely the presumption of a scientific consensus behind coercive mitigation policies.

Among three original Stanford signatories to the declaration is biophysics professor and Nobel Prize recipient Michael Levitt. He and a group of Stanford and international scholars have been analyzing Covid-19 data since January 2020.

Referring to the steep drop in cases after UK restrictions were eased, Levitt recently asked the Twitter-verse: “Can anyone show clear correlation between NPI or other restrictions & reduced COVID-19 cases anywhere? I keep trying & failing. We really need to know this to deal better with future pandemics.”

Levitt isn’t the only reputable scientist who sees little if any correlation between government-imposed NPIs and Covid-19 trajectories.

“We’ve ascribed far too much human authority over the virus,” said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, in a recent interview with the New York Times. “These surges have little to do with what humans do. Only recently, with vaccines, have we begun to have a real impact.”

“We had record high cases, hospitalizations and deaths in January, followed by a precipitous decline throughout February and into March…this does not reflect anything to do with…human mitigation. This is the natural ebb and flow of the virus we’ve seen time and again around the world,” said Osterholm on his Covid-19 podcast.

In that vein, those who exclusively attribute today’s surging case counts in southern states to lagging vaccination rates and purported local mismanagement should note that:

  • The southern wave’s timing roughly parallels the region’s 2020 summer surge, which should prompt consideration that seasonality—alongside Delta’s greater transmissibility among even the vaccinated—may be the dominant driver
  • While Florida is considered the new epicenter of the pandemic, the state’s vaccination rate matches the national average
  • Oregon, despite an above-average vaccination rate, is experiencing its own sharp spike—but has been spared the kind of contemptuous scorn that journalists and Democratic politicians heap on Republican-led Florida

Every NPI Deserves Scrutiny

Over the course of the pandemic, some anti-Covid-19 measures have fallen out of favor in light of new findings and observations. For example, with the understanding that surface transmission of Covid-19 is extremely unlikely, far fewer people are wiping groceries with Clorox.

Perhaps because they’re bolted into place, the nation’s thicket of plexiglass dividers have shown more staying power, despite research indicating they may not only be futile, but could actually be making matters worse by thwarting ventilation. In March, the CDC withdrew its recommendation for barriers on school desks, but has apparently stopped short of discouraging their broad use elsewhere.

Though it’s now socially acceptable to question the use of disinfectants and plexiglass, questioning masks can get you suspended from social media and tarred as a promoter of disinformation—even when you’re citing peer-reviewed studies.

However, with other widely-embraced mitigation measures fading in light of new data, intellectually honest people should be equally open to the question of whether widespread face-covering—particularly with anything other than an N-95 mask—is worthwhile.

That forbidden discussion is starting to creep into mainstream media. In a recent appearance on CNN, the University of Minnesota’s Osterholm—a former Covid-19 advisor to President Biden—caused a stir by saying, “We know today that many of the face cloth coverings that people wear are not very effective in reducing any of the virus movement in or out.”

That’s because Covid-19 particles are astoundingly small. Hard as it is to imagine, the imperceptible gaps in surgical masks can be 1,000 times the size of a viral particle. Gaps in cloth masks are well larger than that.

Osterholman has offered a highly relatable standard by which to judge if a particular face covering serves as a meaningful barrier against particles that small: “If you were in a room with somebody smoking, would you smell it in your device that you are using?”

That standard not only eliminates cloth masks, but surgical ones too.

Beyond the realities of nanoparticle science and the conclusions of previous studies, the case for masking is undermined by what we’ve observed during the pandemic.

Sweden, for example, never widely embraced masking. While its per capita Covid death count is well higher than neighboring Finland and Norway, it’s the 15th lowest out of the 31 European Union countries and the UK.

If face-covering were such an essential life-saving practice, Sweden wouldn’t be found in the middle of the EU pack. It would be dead last.

That said, using Covid-19 death counts alone to evaluate outcomes is problematic. Different testing protocols can mean an individual would be positive in one country and negative in another. Jurisdictions also differ in what exactly comprises a Covid-19 death—was it a death from Covid or merely with Covid?

More importantly, though, when we solely focus on Covid-19 deaths, we ignore the suicides, fatal overdoses and other unintended deaths that result from the lockdowns themselves.

That’s why it’s best to compare countries using excess all-cause mortality: total deaths beyond what’s expected in a normal year. By that measure, lockdown- and mask-eschewing Sweden had one of the best 2020 excess mortality rates in all of Europe—23rd-lowest out of 30 countries.

(It again trailed Finland and Norway, but a variety of factors undermine the idea they present a full-on apples-to-apples comparison; what’s more, by some measures, Finland and Norway had even less stringent policies during the first several months of the pandemic.)

CDC is “Following the TV Pundits”

Vinay Prasad is an associate professor of medicine at the University of California San Francisco and co-author of Ending Medical Reversal: Improving Outcomes, Saving Lives. “Medical reversal” is what happens when new data shows a commonly-accepted practice is not helpful—or is actually harmful.

Decrying the lack of randomized trials backing many Covid-19 policies, Prasad recently wrote, “When it comes to non-pharmacologic interventions such as mandatory business closures, mask mandates, and countless other interventions, the shocking conclusion of the last 18 months is this: We have learned next to nothing,”

Referring to the CDC’s decision to once again recommend universal indoor masking in areas of higher Covid-19 transmission, Prasad wrote, “The CDC director calls this ‘following the science,’ but it is not. It is following the TV pundits.”

While declaring his openness to the possibility that masking can be an effective public health intervention, Prasad says mandates should be driven by evidence—and that the CDC isn’t offering any.

Prasad, who doesn’t shy away from endorsing coercive government action when he thinks it’s warranted, concludes:

“When the history books are written about the use of non-pharmacologic measures during this pandemic, we will look as pre-historic and barbaric and tribal as our ancestors during the plagues of the middle ages. What the books won’t capture is how, in the moment, our experts were simply so sure of themselves.”

*

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 howstuffworks

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Lockdowns, Masks and the Illusion of Government Control over COVID
  • 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.

***

This is the 11th of the regular round-ups of Covid vaccine safety reports and news compiled by a group of medical doctors who are monitoring developments but prefer to remain anonymous in the current climate (find the 10th one here). By no means is this part of an effort to generate alarm about the vaccines or dissuade anyone from getting inoculated. It should be read in conjunction with the Daily Sceptic‘s other posts on vaccines, which include both encouraging and not so encouraging developments. At the Daily Sceptic we report all the news about the vaccines whether positive or negative and give no one advice about whether they should or should not take them. Unlike with lockdowns, we are neither pro-vaccine nor anti-vaccine; we see our job as reporting the facts, not advocating for or against a particular policy. The vaccine technology is novel and the vaccines have not yet fully completed their trials, which is why they’re in use under temporary and not full market authorisation. This has been done on account of the emergency situation and the trial data was largely encouraging on both efficacy and safety. For a summary of that data, see this preamble to the Government’s page on the Yellow Card reporting system. (Dr Tess Lawrie recently wrote an open letter to Dr June Raine, head of the MHRA, arguing that: “The MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow Card system to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans,” a claim that has been “fact checked” here.) We publish information and opinion to inform public debate and help readers reach their own conclusions about what is best for them, based on the available data.

  • Public Health Scotland is reporting deaths (from all causes) within 28 days of a vaccine. So far, 5,523 deaths have been reported since February.
  • The Times of Israel reports that 14 Israelis who have received both vaccines and a third booster shot have later been infected with Covid.
  • Professor Peter Schirmacher, the Director of the Pathological Institute of the University of Heidelberg, has expressed deep concerns after conducting over 40 autopsies on people who have died within two days of their Covid vaccination. These concerns, particularly regarding damage to the brain and organs, are further echoed by pathologist Dr Ryan Cole in this presentation.
  • The Jerusalem Post reports on a multicentre Israeli study led by Professor Zohar Habot-Wilner from Tel Aviv’s Sourasky Medical Center, which finds Covid vaccines may be linked to specific eye inflammation disorders, specifically anterior uveitis and Multiple Evanescent White Dot Syndrome.
  • A study from the U.S. CDC shows 9,246 adverse events reported among adolescents aged 12 to 17, including 863 serious events, 14 deaths and 397 reports of myocarditis. Vaccine has published a report on six cases of myocarditis post-vaccination.
  • Associate Professor Michael Palmer and Professor Sucharit Bhakdi explain the dangers of the spike protein in SARS-CoV-2 and its implications in the development of vaccines.

Summary of Adverse Events in the U.K.

According to an updated report published on August 6th, the MHRA Yellow Card reporting system has recorded a total of 1,120,009 events based on 337,064 reports. The total number of fatalities reported is 1,547.

  • Pfizer (20.5 million first doses, 13.8 million second doses) now has one Yellow Card in 208 people vaccinated. Deaths: 1 in 42,803 people vaccinated (478).
  • AstraZeneca (24.8 million first doses, 23.6 million second doses) has one Yellow Card in 110 people vaccinated. Deaths: 1 in 24,219 people vaccinated (1,024).
  • Moderna (1.3 million first doses, 0.4 million second doses) has one Yellow Card in 118 people vaccinated. Deaths: 1 in 162,500 people vaccinated (8).

Key events analysis:

  • Acute Cardiac = 13,531
  • Myocardial Infarction & Heart Failure = 705
  • Anaphylaxis = 1,272
  • Blood Disorders = 17,119
  • Headaches = 105,289
  • Migraine = 10,406
  • Eye Disorders = 18,434
  • Blindness = 368
  • Deafness = 532
  • Psychiatric Disorders = 22,911
  • Spontaneous Abortions = 407 + 9 (figures imply 12 related maternal deaths)
  • Vomiting = 14,729
  • Facial Paralysis incl. Bell’s Palsy = 1,513
  • Nervous System Disorders = 226,745
  • Strokes and CNS haemorrhages = 2,421
  • Guillain-Barré Syndrome = 418
  • Dizziness = 32,872
  • Tremor = 10,925
  • Arthralgia, Myalgia & Muscle Spasms = 68,901
  • Pulmonary Embolism & Deep Vein Thrombosis = 3,170
  • Thrombocytopenia = 1,350
  • Nosebleeds = 2,937
  • Seizures = 2,578
  • Paralysis = 1,006
  • Haemorrhage (All types) = 7,221
  • Vertigo/Tinnitis = 8,852
  • Reproductive/Breast = 32,337

Source: Pfizer; Moderna; AstraZeneca; Unspecified. “F” denotes fatal.

*

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 Daily Sceptics

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Before this pandemic, it would have been unimaginable for Congress to consider a bill that would ban tens of millions of Americans from flying.  But now everything has changed.  A new bill has been introduced that would specifically ban all unvaccinated individuals from ever flying again.  When I first heard about this, I thought that it couldn’t possibly be true.  But it is true.  The following comes from the description of H.R. 4980 that has been posted on Congress.gov

To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that any individual traveling on a flight that departs from or arrives to an airport inside the United States or a territory of the United States is fully vaccinated against COVID-19, and for other purposes.

The full text of the bill has not been received by Congress.gov yet, and so we don’t know the specifics of the proposed law.

But what we do know is that it would ban you from any flight “that departs from or arrives to an airport inside the United States” if you have not been “fully vaccinated”.

So if you have only had one injection, you would be banned too.

This comes at a time when many in the liberal media are also calling for unvaccinated people to be banned from flights.  For example, the following excerpt comes from an article entitled “Unvaccinated People Belong on the No-Fly List”

But at this stage of the pandemic, tougher universal restrictions are not the solution to continuing viral spread. While flying, vaccinated people should no longer carry the burden for unvaccinated people. The White House has rejected a nationwide vaccine mandate—a sweeping suggestion that the Biden administration could not easily enact if it wanted to—but a no-fly list for unvaccinated adults is an obvious step that the federal government should take. It will help limit the risk of transmission at destinations where unvaccinated people travel—and, by setting norms that restrict certain privileges to vaccinated people, will also help raise the stagnant vaccination rates that are keeping both the economy and society from fully recovering.

This level of extremism deeply alarms me.

We put terrorists on the “no-fly list”.

Now they want to treat unvaccinated people the same way?

That should chill all of us to the core.

If they are going to get this extreme over COVID, what is going to happen when a much more serious pandemic comes along?

Just this week, we learned that someone has died of the Marburg virus in Africa

A patient with the rare, but highly infectious Marburg virus disease has died in Guinea, according to a World Health Organization (WHO) statement on Monday. It’s the first case of the Ebola-like virus in West Africa.

The Marburg virus is far, far more deadly than COVID.

During past outbreaks, mortality rates for the Marburg virus have ranged between 24 percent and 88 percent

“Case fatality rates have varied from 24% to 88% in past outbreaks depending on virus strain and case management,” the statement said. “In Africa, previous outbreaks and sporadic cases have been reported in Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, South Africa and Uganda.”

So if you catch the Marburg virus, there is a really, really good chance that you are going to die.

There is no vaccine for the Marburg virus and there is no cure.

And according to the CDC, ugly sores on the chest, back and stomach are one of the symptoms of the disease…

After an incubation period of 5-10 days, symptom onset is sudden and marked by fever, chills, headache, and myalgia. Around the fifth day after the onset of symptoms, a maculopapular rash, most prominent on the trunk (chest, back, stomach), may occur. Nausea, vomiting, chest pain, a sore throat, abdominal pain, and diarrhea may then appear. Symptoms become increasingly severe and can include jaundice, inflammation of the pancreas, severe weight loss, delirium, shock, liver failure, massive hemorrhaging, and multi-organ dysfunction.

This is the sort of virus that I am on alert for, and so I will be monitoring future developments very carefully.

Meanwhile, a “deadly bacterial disease” that also causes sores on the skin has popped up right here in the United States.

At this point, confirmed cases of the disease have already been identified in four different states

Four people in the U.S. have mysteriously fallen ill with a rare and sometimes deadly bacterial disease that’s usually seen only in other countries with tropical climates, according to health officials. Yet none of these patients had traveled outside the country.

The four cases, which were identified between March and July, occurred in Georgia, Kansas, Texas and Minnesota, according to a statement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Two of the patients died and two were hospitalized for long periods of time. The first death occurred in Kansas in March, and the second death occurred last month in Georgia.

The disease is known as “Meliodosis”, and normally it is only found in tropical climates

The patients were all diagnosed with melioidosis, a disease caused by the bacterium Burkholderia pseudomallei. The bacteria grows in tropical climates, and it is most commonly seen in Southeast Asia and northern Australia. The only places in the U.S. where this bacterium is naturally found are Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands,  according to the CDC.

None of the confirmed cases had recently traveled internationally, and so scientists don’t know how this deadly bacterial disease got here.

And what really got my attention was the fact that the CDC is warning that it can cause a rash “on the trunk, abdomen and face”

Melioidosis can cause a wide range of symptoms. In the current cases, symptoms ranged from cough and shortness of breath to weakness, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, intermittent fever, and rash on the trunk, abdomen and face, the CDC said in an alert to doctors about the cases.

So just like the Marburg virus, we are talking about a disease with a high mortality rate that causes sores on the skin.

These outbreaks are nothing to panic about yet, but I will be carefully watching the news for any updates.

These are such troubled times, but when the next great pandemic arrives our troubles will suddenly become a whole lot worse.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

Awareness Foundation COVID-19 Roundtable

August 16th, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The Awareness Foundation COVID-19 Roundtable is a sign of wakefulness and hope during times of censorship and suppression

It includes honest opinions and expertise from 14 high-profile doctors, including myself, with a focus on the potential dangers being posed by the experimental mass COVID-19 vaccination campaign

Experts discuss how COVID-19 vaccines may cause a coming tsunami of hospitalization and deaths, along with debilitating chronic disease, early signs of which are already appearing

All agree that there’s enough evidence to halt the global COVID-19 vaccination campaign, either for everyone or — particularly — for those to whom the vaccines pose the greatest risks with little to no benefit, namely children and young people, pregnant women and those who have already recovered from COVID-19

*

Watch the video here.

In this time of extreme censorship and suppression of scientific debate, The Awareness Foundation COVID-19 Roundtable,1 hosted by Katherine Macbean of the Awareness Foundation, is a sign of wakefulness and hope. It includes honest opinions and expertise from 14 high-profile doctors, including myself, with a focus on the potential dangers being posed by the experimental mass COVID-19 vaccination campaign.

Each has faced censorship when speaking out, and though there are some differing viewpoints, all agree that there’s enough evidence to halt the global COVID-19 vaccination campaign, either for everyone or — particularly — for those to whom the vaccines pose the greatest risks with little to no benefit. This includes children and young people, pregnant women and those who have already recovered from COVID-19.

I highly recommend setting aside two hours to watch this roundtable discussion in full — it’s a rarity in the present day to hear such candor and open debate. However, I’ve also compiled some of the highlights below, which include warnings about the dangers these experimental vaccines may pose to society.

A Tsunami of Chronic Disease and Death

Will COVID-19 vaccines cause a coming tsunami of hospitalization and deaths, along with debilitating chronic disease? One expert on the panel, Dr. Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist and full professor of medicine at Texas A&M College of Medicine in Dallas with a master’s degree in public health, said he’s focused more on the short-term adverse effects from the shot. These nonfatal injuries fall into four major categories:

  1. Neurologic
  2. Immunologic
  3. Hematologic
  4. Cardiac

“What I’m seeing is just the late emergence of various neurologic syndromes. And it probably depends on where the seeding occurs of, uh, of, you know, the uptake of the genetic material in the brain or support cells in the brain, but there’s a whole variety of cerebral, cerebellar, even peripheral nervous system abnormalities,” McCullough said, adding:2

“I’ve seen it in my clinic and they seem to be emerging three, four or five, six months later after vaccination … So I’m getting increasingly alarmed here that this is not just a simple one- or two-day problem. And so there’s great concern, particularly in younger kids that over a course of three or six or nine months, they’ll end up with heart failure or cardiac death.

… What I see is, potentially from these signals, not mass death, but just a large number of Americans and people around the world with a new chronic disease of some sort of neurodegenerative disease or cardiac disease. The patients that I’m aware of, these problems seem to be quite disabling.”

Another panel member, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, who has treated thousands of COVID-19 patients using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), azithromycin and zinc sulfate,3 with great success, has a different take. He believes there is a very distinct possibility that everyone who receives the COVID jab may die from complications in the next two to three years:4

“I’m just going to give you the perspective of a clinician who deals with people that are dying … 4 million dead people can testify to the unique clinical syndrome to put them there. Basically, a natural animal virus was changed to infect humans, and then its lethality was augmented to cause blood clots and lung damage.

And in concept here, we’re dealing with a Hitler/Stalin type of mentality with weapons of mass destruction and the way to win this war — and it’s very winnable — is in the following manner. It’s a narrative war. So we need to spread the following two ideas … Don’t give into the fear and choose to destroy yourself, No. 1. No. 2, treat your problem early. If these two ideas could penetrate the fixed calls of humanity, then it’s really the end of this crisis.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie, whose company The Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy has worked with the World Health Organization, agreed that the vaccines are unsafe for children and adults alike:5

“They’re actually not safe for anybody, and it’s clear. The databases are screaming. The databases are early warning systems, and the databases around the world are screaming that we are facing a tsunami of chronic disease.”

Inflammatory Disorders, Cancer Markers on the Rise

Dr. Richard Urso, an ophthalmologist in Houston, Texas, is also concerned:6

“Early on, we were seeing things, mostly thrombotic, but later, as we get into two and three months [after vaccination], we’re seeing a lot of inflammatory issues. I’ve had a host of people with inflammatory ocular disorders, as well as having orbital inflammatory diseases.

I typically don’t see this rash number of people. For people who don’t know, my clinical practice is probably one of the largest in the United States, if not the largest, and we get a tremendous number, in volume, of patients who come through our office. And I’m seeing late inflammatory disease, and it responds quite well to inflammatory medicines.”

Some have brushed off the notion that the virus could be a bioweapon because it didn’t cause sudden, mass deaths. But this is a misconception. A successful bioweapon can be something that causes long-term, progressive, chronic-type diseases, noted Dr. Richard Fleming, a physicist, nuclear cardiologist and attorney.

In 1994, Fleming introduced the theory of inflammation and vascular disease, which explains why these inflammable thrombotic diseases, and the causes, including viruses like SARS-CoV-2, produce disease states like COVID-19.

“As I laid out in the theory in 1994,” Fleming said, “you’re going to see an inflammable thrombotic response. That’s the primary thing that people are noticing, be that heart disease or retinol disease.” The other factor is a prion component of this virus, “which is also a chronic smoldering disease.” Fleming noted:7

“If you’re going to actually develop something that’s going to have a massive effect on your ‘enemy,’ your goal isn’t to kill the enemy any more than it was the goal of the United States in Vietnam to kill the enemy.

The goal was to maim the enemy so that more of the enemy would be taken off the field. What we’ve seen is something that’s been implemented that is an ideal by a weapon designed to demoralize and to feed people the enemy, and to cause a slow smoldering process.”

Fleming cited data from Pfizer that showed in the 12 to 14 days following the second injection of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, elderly individuals had a 2.6-fold increase in symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease. “This is an inflammable thrombotic process affecting every organ system and prion diseases that not only affect the brain, but also affect the heart and other vital organs of the body.”8

Dr. Ryan Cole, a Mayo Clinic-trained, triple-boarded pathologist, also said that he’s seeing potential cancer-causing changes, including decreases in receptors that keep cancer in check, and other adverse events post-vaccine:9

“I’m seeing countless adverse reactions … it’s really post-vaccine immunodeficiency syndrome … I’m seeing a marked increase in herpetic family viruses, human papilloma viruses in the post-vaccinated. I’m seeing a marked uptick in a laboratory setting from what I see year over year of an increase of usually quiescent diseases.

In addition to that — and correlation is not causation — but in the last six months I have seen — you know, I read a fair amount of women’s health biopsies — about a 10- to 20-fold increase of uterine cancer compared to what I see on an annual basis. Now we know that the CD8 cells are one of our T-cells to keep our cancers in check.

I am seeing early signals … what I’m seeing is an early signal in the laboratory setting that post-vaccinated patients are having diseases that we normally don’t see at rates that are already early considerably alarming.”

Do the Vaccinated Pose a Risk to the Unvaccinated?

Sherri Tenpenny has heard thousands of anecdotal reports that something is being transmitted from the vaccinated to the unvaccinated:10

“We’re injecting a synthetically made messenger RNA and strips of synthetically made double-stranded DNA by different mechanisms, and if that transmission goes to the other person, they don’t get COVID, they don’t get COVID symptoms that we typically recognize as COVID. They get bleeding, they get blood clots, they get headaches, they get heart disease, they get all of these different things.”

Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,11 doesn’t agree that anything is being “passed” from vaccinated people to others, adding that while it may be possible for mRNA to be shed through breast milk to nursing infants, possibly causing gastrointestinal symptoms, anything else is just speculation.

Others suggest it could be more of a hormonal or pheromonal issue than some type of “shedding,” which may help explain why women are also reporting abnormalities with their menstrual cycles following vaccination. Dr. Lee Merritt, an orthopedic and spinal surgeon, brought up a 2015 report by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which looked at “shedding” in mRNA vaccines, which they call gene therapies.12 She explained:13

“They talk about, they’re very concerned about the shedding — and they do call it shedding, whether that’s technically correct … And they tell you in this thing who to protect, they tell you to protect neonates, immunocompromised people and elderly with bad immune systems.

They also say, we don’t know what’s being shed. They say it could be genetic material. It could be activated viruses and it could be a recombinant product. This is what’s in the FDA data.”

Immediately Halt the Vaccine Program

All of the experts agreed that evidence suggests the mass COVID-19 vaccination program should be halted. “There is enough evidence now just from the European Medicines Agency alone, 1.7 million in reported adverse events and 17,000 deaths that the four clinical trials should be stopped,” said Dolores Cahill, a professor at the school of medicine at the University College Dublin.

“They are detailed in the classifications, cardiac related immune, uh neuropathological and fertility associated.

So I think we all have duties as doctors and scientists to say, if something is causing more harm than good, which this clearly is, we should, I think, unify and called for a stop to the clinical trials worldwide, and also that any individual prime ministers and regulators that continue the trial would have to be liable for any adverse events.”

Malone believes that the vaccines have merit for certain populations, namely the elderly, but is advocating for prohibition on vaccination for infants and newborns, through young adults up to ages 30 to 35. “And specifically,” he said, “I’m trying to stop this crazy effort to force universities and schools to have universal vaccination.” In addition, he added:

“We can argue about risk-benefit for elderly, but the risk-benefit ratio for newborns through young adults is explicitly clear. It is upside down. It’s not subtle there. You’re going to kill more. And, and personally, I also feel that we can dig in really hard on the reproductive health in pregnancy, in women, that there just aren’t data to support the use of this product because of the potential female reproductive health consequences.”

Dr. Urso added the other significant population that has far more to risk than gain from vaccination: the COVID-recovered. “The immune status should be more important than the vaccination status,” he said.

“So I think there’s three groups that are easily winnable arguments [to avoid vaccination]: pregnant women, the young and … the COVID recovered … I mean, that’s a, that’s a lousy thing to do to get all these people that are COVID recovered, good immune status and give them a vaccination for something they don’t need.”

How to End Fear and Optimize Your Immune System

The roundtable participants are planning to continue their discussion offline to formally request an end to mass COVID-19 vaccination for the mentioned groups as well as create a statement to end government interference with the practice of medicine. Many physicians have had their hands tied when it comes to prescribing early treatments for COVID-19, like ivermectin. As Fleming noted:

“… The reason why people die with COVID is because they’re not receiving treatment, so I would argue that we need to make certain that people, the physicians, are allowed to treat without government interference and that we put a hold on the dissemination of the vaccines at this point in time, until we can further investigate them safely.”

Dr. Sam White, whose reputation has been under attack since he released a video on social media detailing his concerns about the suppression of the science around therapeutics in the U.K., added:

“We could end the fear overnight by allowing access to therapeutics and changing the mainstream media narrative that there’s no need for masks. There’s no need for lock downs. This is more treatable than flu, as far as I’m concerned, we’re just not allowed to do any treatment. If the public knew that it changes the narrative overnight.”

While we work on changing the narrative, or at least opening up discussions of science outside of the narrative, it’s always a good idea to optimize your immune system.

Toward this end, I recommend optimizing your vitamin D levels to 60 to 80 nanograms per milliliter and improving your metabolic flexibility so your body can seamlessly transition between burning fats and glucose as your primary fuel. One way to do this is to condense your eating window to about six to eight hours a day.

Even without changing your calories, this can make a profound difference, but from a perspective of choosing the right foods, one of the most important strategies that I’ve learned over my four decades of studying this is to avoid processed foods, nearly all of which are loaded with vegetable, or seed, oils.

These oils have a high content of linoleic acid, which contributes to mitochondrial instability and increases susceptibility to oxidative stress. This, in turn, increases immune dysfunction and mitochondrial dysfunction. These are simple strategies I recommend, as they’re useful to improve your overall health and resiliency to fight any infection.

As mentioned, I highly recommend listening to the discussion in full to get all of the details that weren’t included here. At the next meeting, the group plans to discuss how to move forward to challenge the narrative in greater detail, including fighting back against the organizations, such as the Wellcome Trust and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, that are heavily investing in this.

*

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

Notes

1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 The Awareness Foundation COVID-19 Roundtable July 30, 2021

3 matzav.com March 24, 2020

11 Trial Site News May 30, 2021

12 FDA, Design and Analysis of Shedding Studies for Virus or Bacteria-Based Gene Therapy and Oncolytic Products August 2015

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Awareness Foundation COVID-19 Roundtable
  • Tags:

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A massive blitz of Western propaganda is behind the escalating U.S. cold war against China.

President Biden and most of the U.S. Congress say China has become a serious threat that must be countered in every way and in every corner of the globe. The U.S.-led cold war against China has escalated quickly and dramatically. President Biden is trying to harness the G7 and NATO to isolate China, and Congress is fast-tracking bills to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative and punish China for alleged human rights violations.

This escalation is not new. Barack Obama launched the U.S. “pivot to Asia.” Now the seas around China bristle with U.S. aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines; missiles and super-bombers are aimed at China from Japan, Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia and Australia, with tens of thousands of troops.

The U.S. recently forged the “Quad Alliance” with Japan, India and Australia, to further challenge China. But it is not enough. Biden wants all U.S. allies to join sides against China.

There is a problem with this strategy. A NY Times report of June 16 said “Not all countries in NATO or the Group of 7 share Mr. Biden’s zeal to isolate China.” Germany, France, Italy, Greece, and several other European countries have major economic ties with China. French President Emmanuel Macron told Politico “NATO is an organization that concerns the North Atlantic. China has little to do with the North Atlantic.”

The people of Europe do not want war. A survey by the European Council on Foreign Affairs in January found that most Europeans want to remain neutral. Only 22% would want to take the U.S. side in a war on China, and just 23% in a war on Russia. The Alliance of Democracies Foundation (ADF), in Europe, conducted a poll of 50,000 people in 53 countries between February and April 2021, and found that more people around the world (44%) see the United States as a threat to democracy in their countries than China (38%) or Russia (28%).

That makes it hard for the U.S. to justify war in the name of democracy. In a larger poll of 124,000 people ADF conducted in 2020, countries where large majorities saw the United States as a danger to democracy included China, but also Germany, Austria, Denmark, Ireland, France, Greece, Belgium, Sweden and Canada.

ADF also studied the disparity between those who believe in democracy and those who think they live in one. This chart shows 73% of Chinese think their country is democratic, while just 49% in the U.S. believe their country is democratic.

Another report—from Harvard University’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation – finds that more than 90% of the Chinese people like their government, and “rate it as more capable and effective than ever before.”

“Interestingly, more marginalized groups in poorer, inland regions are actually comparatively more likely to report increases in satisfaction.” It says Chinese people’s attitudes “appear to respond to real changes in their material well-being.” Elevating 800 million people out of extreme poverty probably helped.

This contrasts with people’s attitudes in the United States, which are polarized politically, racially and economically. Public trust in government is in crisis. This could be a reason for politicians to whip up a cold-war fever—and an urgent reason to take the danger seriously. There are very real human rights concerns at home, where police killings, homelessness and mass incarceration are at pandemic proportions.

In the U.S. Congress, there has been bipartisan support for the Innovation and Competition Act, which demonizes China’s economic successes across the globe. Charges fly that China favors its companies, both private and state-owned, in China and elsewhere, through subsidies and special financing, while subjecting Western trade partners to forced technology transfer, theft of intellectual property, and more.

The proposed response is for the U.S. government to do much the same. In Europe Biden announced a “build back better” Western version of global infrastructure development, but when and whether it will happen are unclear.

Bernie Sanders wrote in Foreign Affairs in June that “a fast-growing consensus is emerging in Washington that views the U.S.-Chinese relationship as a zero-sum economic and military struggle …”

Sanders also stated that

“the rush to confront China has a very recent precedent: the global ‘war on terror.’ In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the [U.S.] political establishment quickly concluded that antiterrorism had to become the overriding focus of U.S. foreign policy. Almost two decades and $6 trillion later, it’s become clear that national unity was exploited to launch a series of endless wars that proved enormously costly in human, economic, and strategic terms and that gave rise to xenophobia and bigotry in U.S. politics—the brunt of it borne by American Muslim and Arab communities. It is no surprise that today, in a climate of relentless fearmongering about China, the country is experiencing an increase in anti-Asian hate crimes.”

Media Bias and Human Rights Part 1: Hong Kong

The media’s demonization of China has been apparent in biased coverage of the 2019 Hong Kong protests where the norm has been to present the protesters heroically as champions of human rights and democracy and police and pro-Chinese government authorities as adherents of an authoritarian social order.

Missing from this assessment, among other things, is the influence of the United States.

Hong Kong native Julie Tang, now a retired judge of the San Francisco Superior Court, said recently that the 2019 riots began as a political protest against the extradition of a confessed murderer, but were supported by “a shadow power” – the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a CIA offshoot–in an attempt to destabilize China through destruction and violence.

In 2018, the NED gave $155,000 to the anti-Beijing solidarity center in Hong Kong which helped instigate the protests and $200,000 to the National Democratic Institute and Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor.

Rioters killed a 70-year-old man by hitting him with a brick, and doused another with gasoline and burned him. They broke into the parliament building—much like the January 6, 2021, fascist riot in Washington, D.C.

Tang observes that Hong Kong ranks in the top three on the Fraser Human Freedoms Index, while the United States is in 17th place. She quotes Hong Kong journalist Nury Vittachi that “Hong Kong’s civil unrest was the most reported news story of 2019 – yet every salient detail presented was incorrect … The city’s freedoms had not been removed … Police killed no one … Agents from a global superpower were intimately involved, but it wasn’t China.” (The Other Side of the Story: A Secret War in Hong Kong, 2020, ASIN)

A key dimension of the media’s bias was its parroting of the rioters claims about police brutality—when the Hong Kong police had often displayed restraint in the face of violent protests and could be compared favorably to U.S. police (unlike U.S. police, Hong Kong police do not carry side arms).

A good example of the media bias was a December 2019 CNN report on Hong Kong entitled “A Generation Criminalized.”

Amidst a backdrop of photos pointing to the brutal suppression of the riots and tally of the number of protesters arrested and hospitalized and rounds of tear gas expended by the police, authors James Griffiths and Jessie Yeung quoted from a protester, Ivan, who said that “we seriously need to win this to say to whoever has the power that you cannot do this, you cannot do this to protesters or people fighting for their lives or their own freedom and values.”

Showing which side they were on, the authors lamented “an entire generation criminalized, in a fight for their future which could end up costing them just that.”

Left out was the fact that many of the protesters had engaged in criminal activity, along with the hidden hand of the NED.

The Hong Kong riots ultimately failed. Judge Tang says: “Now there is peace in Hong Kong, but there is a proposed U.S. law to devote $300 million to anti-China propaganda.”

Belatedly, though, some honest reporting has come out. A CNN story on July 10, 2021, for example, was headlined “Some Hong Kongers are glorifying a man who knifed a cop, showing the city’s problems are far from over.”

It detailed how Hong Kong protesters established a memorial filled with flowers for a man who knifed a cop on July 1st and then committed suicide. The student union of prestigious Hong Kong University passed a motion to say they “appreciated his sacrifice.” This is the same university where many of the protesters—heralded as great champions of democracy on CNN and other media a year earlier—came from.

Media Bias—Part II: The Myth of Uyghur Genocide

Besides Hong Kong, the media bias about China has been exemplified by the barrage of stories in mainstream outlets broadcasting the plight of the Uyghurs, many of which echoed U.S. government claims that China was committing genocide.

While human rights abuses had taken place, the genocide claims were unfounded. The use of the term concentration camps to describe detention facilities has also been dubious—these facilities function as re-education centers where Uyghurs who were involved in Islamic terrorist activities are provided vocational skills, recreational activities, medical services and a host of other benefits, and allowed to return home regularly.

The U.S. media coverage failed to address the strategic importance of Xinjiang and U.S. support for separatists and Islamic terrorist movements there.

Independent Canadian reporter Daniel Dumbrill reports that the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), which has claimed responsibility for attacks in Xinjiang and elsewhere in China, has been identified as a terrorist organization by the governments of China, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Turkey and the United States.

The U.S. government removed ETIM from its list of terrorist organizations in October 2020 and has since provided funds to it through NED. Following explosive incidents of terrorist violence by ETIM, the Chinese government responded with repression. How much repression, and for how long, are matters of controversy.

When Noam Chomsky was asked in an April 2021 New York Times podcast interview whether the situation of the Uyghurs was worse than the people of Gaza, he said “no. The Uyghurs were not having their power plants destroyed, their sewage plants destroyed” and were “not subjected to regular bombing.”

The exact number of Uyghurs placed in education camps is not known in the West. China has called the camps a large-scale job training program, as part of its national anti-poverty crusade. On a personal visit to Xinjiang, Dumbrill found that a very small minority of Uyghurs were repressed, and a large portion benefited from job training.

Responding to official U.S. charges of forced labor and genocide, Zhun Xu, an associate professor of economics at John Jay College in New York, says “if [China] has engaged in forced assimilation and eventual erasure of a vulnerable ethnic and religious minority group,” there should be a decrease in the Uyghur population and increase in the Han.

But Xinjiang’s Uyghur population increased by 24.9 percent from 2010 to 2018, while the Han population in Xinjiang grew by only 2.2 percent. (Cited by Reese Ehrlich, from Zhun Xu’s upcoming book, Sanctions as War.)

Right-wing religious extremist Adrian Zenz, who states he is “led by God” on a “mission against China,” is the main source for U.S. government and media criticism of Xinjiang conditions. He is also funded by The Jamestown Foundation, an arch-conservative defense policy think tank in Washington, D.C., which was co-founded by William Casey, Reagan’s CIA director. Other important sources are the World Uyghur Congress, the International Uyghur Human Rights and Democracy Foundation, and the Uyghur American Association—all of which receive substantial NED funding.

Other sources include the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) and the D.C.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)—both militaristic think tanks funded by U.S. and Western governments and weapons manufacturers. ASPI and CSIS successfully spearheaded a campaign against “forced labor” in Xinjiang, stimulating moves in Congress to ban U.S. imports from Xinjiang.

Professor Kenneth Hammond of New Mexico State University recently explained the two main aspects of Chinese government policy toward ethnic and religious minorities: first, preservation and respect for their language and culture and, second, inclusion and opportunity through education, health care and job training. Improved health care programs in Xinjiang have contributed to life expectancy increasing there from 31 years in 1949 to 72 currently.

In 1949 there were 54 medical centers in Xinjiang; now there are more than 7,300 health care facilities and more than 1,600 hospitals. Literacy has increased from 10% to more than 90% in the same period. Average income in Xinjiang has increased more than 10%since 2017.

Tens of millions of Chinese people practice the Islamic faith. Of China’s 55 officially recognized minority peoples, ten are Sunni Muslim. There are more Islamic mosques in China than the United States. Uyghurs are the second largest group, after the Hui.

Most Uyghurs practice a moderate form of Islam called Sufism, which promotes an ascetic lifestyle and shuns material wants. Sufism is incompatible with radical Islamic fundamentalism and Wahhabism, extremist beliefs which have been associated with terrorism in recent decades. The overwhelming majority of Uyghurs are not militant or extremist in outlook.

Washington Backs Separatism and Terror to Try to Undermine One Belt, One Road

Over the past generation Washington and the CIA have provided ongoing support to Uyghur separatist organizations, and terrorist groups such as the Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP), led by Abdul Haq al-Turkistani. The TIP, originally calling itself the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, received direct CIA funding and sponsorship.

Abdul Haq has served on al-Qaeda’s executive leadership council. He calls for jihad (holy war) against China to attain the TIP’s separatist goals. Prior to the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing, Abdul Haq ordered the TIP to unleash terrorist attacks against a number of cities in mainland China. Almost all of them were foiled. Following China’s clampdown in Xinjiang starting in 2017, no terrorist acts have taken place in the province.

Reports from first-hand delegations to Xinjiang, from countries and organizations including Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Indonesia, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Thailand, Malaysia, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, and even the World Bank, have testified that neither genocide nor slavery accurately describes the reality of Xinjiang. At two separate convenings of the UN Human Rights Council in 2019 and 2020, letters condemning Chinese conduct in Xinjiang were outvoted, 22-50 and 27-46—essentially the U.S. and its allies vs. non-aligned countries.

Why would the United States back separatism and terror in Xinjiang? CodePink points to “a concerted attempt by the U.S. in recent decades to balkanize China by delegitimizing, or creating disruption, in Hong Kong, Taiwan, the South China Sea, Tibet and Xinjiang. Dismembering China has been a long-term goal of the U.S. government since 1949. Now Xinjiang is the linchpin of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and a rich resource, producing 85% of China’s cotton and 25% of its oil.

Xinjiang’s largest cities, Urumqi and Kashgar, are main hubs on the BRI’s “Silk Road economic belt,” with rail links from Kashgar through Pakistan to the Indian Ocean, and from Urumqi through Central Asia to Teheran, Istanbul, Moscow, and Western Europe.

It is the biggest infrastructure project in human history, linking China across Eurasia and parts of Africa – 65 countries and more than 4 billion.

People. This may be why the U.S. considers the BRI a threat. If it could cut Xinjiang away from China, it might stop Belt and Road.

The Most Dangerous Place on Earth

Meanwhile in the Taiwan Straits, there is a buildup of war danger. During the Trump years the U.S. broke from recognizing the “one China policy” agreed to by Nixon in 1972, sending cabinet-level officials to meet with Taiwanese leaders, and openly engaging in military cooperation. This continues under Biden, backed by U.S. nuclear-armed warships, just like 1958, when a crisis threatened to escalate into nuclear holocaust.

Warning signs were recently issued by The Economist Magazine which called the Taiwan straits the “most dangerous place in earth.”

The Biden administration inflamed the situation in early August by approving sale of 40 155mm M109A6 Medium Self-Propelled Howitzer artillery systems to Taiwan in a deal valued at up to $750 million.

The progressive forces in the U.S. need to stop the impending war with China before it starts.

“What would happen to the world,” Judge Julie Tang asks, “if the United States and China were to go to war? The price of war would be calamitous. We need to aim for peace, not war. China is not our enemy.”

*

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.

Dee Knight is a member of the DSA International Committee’s Anti-War Subcommittee. He is the author of My Whirlwind Lives: Navigating Decades of Storms, soon to be published by Guernica World Editions. Dee can be reached at: [email protected].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Does China’s Rise Really Threaten the U.S., Or Just Its Sociopathic Power Elite, Who Want to Keep Ruling the World Even if It Drags Us into WW III?
  • Tags: , , ,

Globalism, Propaganda and the Dangers of Wireless Radiation

August 16th, 2021 by Dr. Gary G. Kohls

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Another guilty, Big Business-corrupted Government entity (this time the highly corrupted Federal Communications Commission [FCC]) is being ordered before a Federal Court for ignoring the well-established science that has  been warning about the serious dangers of wireless radiation.

Innately anti-democracy, globalist entities like Big Pharma, Big Food, Big Agriculture, Big Tech, Big Banking, Big Government, Big Media, Big Education, etc, etc, – working closely with the World Economic Forum/Klaus Schwab/Bill Gates/United Nations/World Health Organization, are all in this together.

Despite their cunningly manufactured, fine-tuned, outward appearance of every one of these smiley-faced multibillionaire-led globalist superpowers – when they buy off – and then own – their Big Media outlets, even once-trusted “nice guys” like PBS’s Judy Woodruff & Co, Amanpour & Co’s Christiane Amanpour start cheerleading/fronting for – and being simultaneously silenced by the evil Big Businesses/Tax-exempt globalist-elite foundations that they are all sponsored by.

The propaganda that they are obligated to broadcast has been working far-too-well in influencing and blinding the overly-propagandized, media-addicted populace who are lining up to demand to be inoculated with un-tested, dangerous vaccines/prescription drugs/ and toxic food/entertainment and electromagnetic radiation-emiting products – any of which could impair their health, immunity, fertility, longevity, etc.

Pay close attention to the following Environmental Health Trust expose from Lawrence Plumlee and plan some appropriate act of resistance.

I think everybody in this audience would agree that any sociopathic, non-human, corporate, globalist entity that engages in organized criminal behaviours deserves to face a massive boycott campaign – or at least in individual boycott.

*

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 Kohls practiced holistic mental health care in Duluth for the last decade of his family practice career prior to his retirement in 2008, primarily helping patients who had become addicted to cocktails of psychiatric drugs to safely go through the complex withdrawal process.

His column often deals with various unappreciated health issues, including those caused by Big Pharma’s over-drugging, Big Vaccine’s over-vaccinating, Big Medicine’s over-screening, over-diagnosing and over-treating agendas and Big Food’s malnourishing food industry.

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

Dr Kohls’ Duty to Warn columns are archived at: http://duluthreader.com/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=2;

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

With the Taliban having just captured three more provincial capitals, and now in control of two-thirds of Afghanistan, the liberal oligarchic press is awash with narratives of Afghanistan being both a “failure” and a “mistake”. However, the 20 years’ war has, for them, been an unprecedented success.

While this assertion may sound counterintuitive it is nevertheless true. Indeed, Afghanistan has been an exercise in counter-narratives from start to finish. For example, the Taliban were always willing to hand over Bin Laden, providing evidence was given.

Then, of course, the whole 9/11 event, that sparked the war, has multiple inconsistencies. For example, there are thousands of ‘Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’ who claim a controlled demolition occurred on that eventful day.

Anyway, I digress, the war on terror wouldn’t be the first one to have been sparked with a false flag attack, Vietnam and Cuba can attest to this. Today, China is also in the midst of being framed for genocide and slavery. What actually, distinguishes Afghanistan is that it has been an unprecedented success for the Western transatlantic liberal elites.

Yes, there have been deaths, 241,000 to be precise. However, only 2,442 were U.S. military personnel and they were not from the draft-dodging class of Bush Jr. In return for this “collateral damage” there has been an unbroken 20 years of war profits for the liberal transatlantic elites.

Using conservative estimates, the U.S. has spent $2.261 trillion and the UK $30 billion. Weapons sales and the provision of other services to the war front, which has been rapidly privatized, has led to large enterprises making an absolute killing.

Without the 9/11 investment and its 20 years dividend, how could the likes of Halliburton, who former Vice President Dick Cheney was also its Chairman, have profited hand over fist. The same goes for Blackwater which had a revolving door between the Republican Party and the CIA.

Then those who control opium production, and the illicit profits that can be used to fund clandestine groups such as terrorists, have also been winners in Afghanistan’s occupation. After the occupation opium production, which had been eradicated, was once again thriving with Afghanistan providing two-thirds of the global opium cultivation.[1]

Beyond naked profits, Afghanistan has been a boon for liberal ruling class interests. 2.3 million Afghan refugees have fled abroad with 90% being hosted in Pakistan and Iran, which helps to destabilize these countries. On the home front, Afghan refugees have contributed to a global refugee system that is used to fuel the politics of divide and rule.

Amongst Western subaltern, the right, subscribing to the old imperial ideology, personally blame the refugees and immigrants, who flee war and poverty, for “diluting” Western civilization. Perversely, while not identifying with the liberal message of multi-cultural globalization, the right does support liberal invasions in the Global South which wrecks others civilizations.

In contrast, liberals (often termed the liberal left) are set against the right on moral grounds. They see immigration and multicultural societies as an innate good. However, equally perverse is that they see no connection between their “innate good” and liberal hard power i.e. the human rights atrocity of war which is the foundation of global population movements. Indeed, many actively support these neo-imperial wars based on the very human rights liberals claim to hold dear.

Ironically, both the liberal left and the right, for various reasons and to various extents, support liberal wars and thus liberal globalization. Tragically, seeing themselves as diametrically opposed, they remain ignorant of basic contradictions within global capitalism. Absurdly, their melee is resold to us as democracy.

With events in Xinjiang today, which are heavily entwined with Afghanistan, the same pattern continues. The liberal left call for action over trumped-up human rights atrocity propaganda. These calls to defeat China are then buttressed by the right, with their various narratives of zero-sum engagement where China’s rise is seen as their civilizational loss.

For the hegemonic interests of the liberal elite, Afghanistan has provided 20 years of uncertainty on China’s Western border. It is here that the forces of destruction meet head-on with the forces of construction and threaten inland development.

The chaos of Afghanistan has provided a training ground for Uyghur extremists who returned to China to unleash chaos. These jihadi fighters were originally fighting the U.S. but now bizarrely are funded by the U.S. in its efforts to destabilize China.

This stratagem will continue with a new cold war which will provide yet another windfall for weapons manufacturers. Indeed, it is the very manufacturers of weapons who also fund the Xinjiang atrocity propaganda.

Clearly, if we look at the oligarchic liberal press we will always be blinded by propaganda that sells their “success” as a “mistake” within the fog of what is supposed to be our collective democratic process.

Afghanistan lies in ruins with a GDP of just $20.68 billion ($531 per capita), in 2019, while the U.S. spent $52 billion occupying it in the same year. Thus, Afghanistan is an unprecedented success for those who profit, from the racket of war and raise themselves up through the destruction of others.

Most of all, the 20 years of Afghanistan have been a success in brainwashing. To believe that a true democracy can carry out such violence and destruction and still be considered “the best governing system”, which others should strive to follow, is a perversion of the human desire for global peace and progress.

Importantly, the assertion that “the Afghanistan war is over” is also propaganda. Large private contractors will remain, as will covert CIA operations. U.S. airbases will provide a launchpad for long-range bombers and drone strikes.

To have gone 20 years like this and still believe in the sanctity of our oligarchic liberal press, the same class who profit from these hideous “mistakes”, is incredulous.[2] Indeed, they should not be absolved through propagandizing it as a collective democratic “mistake” that we have learned from for, in fact, the madness continues as our liberal elites carry on this strategy against China.

Unfortunately, profits must continue and new ways will be sought to destabilize the Global South as their development would upset the liberal disorder. Development would lead to democratic globalization and so an end to the desperate fleeing towards the very countries that subjugate them. The rise of the Global South challenges liberal hard power and their globalized form entwined with war. This challenge, in turn, will bring an end to the liberal hegemon’s twenty-plus years on the monopoly on truth.

*

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

Notes

[1] There are numerous photos online of allied troops guarding the opium crop as well as personal accounts of irregularities where NATO itself is accused of profiting from the opium trade.

[2] For example, Rupert Murdoch was heavily involved in initializing the think tank Project for a New American Century

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Don’t Let Them Fool You: Afghanistan Has Been a “Tremendous Success”
  • 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.

***

On January 17, 1961, at the end of his second term in office, President Dwight Eisenhower tried to pull back the reins on U.S. military intervention in other countries with his warning about the military industrial complex. But he did not apply that same restraint to covert CIA interventions in other countries — covert interventions that he worked very hard to protect and keep secret from Congress and the public.

In 1956, when Senator Mike Mansfield proposed that the CIA should keep Congress informed of its activities, Eisenhower knew that the CIA would be in big trouble if Congress learned its deepest secrets. So, he decreed that Mansfield’s “bill would be passed over my dead body.” According to journalist and CIA expert Stephen Kinzer, Eisenhower then “pressed Senate leaders to do whatever necessary to ensure that it did not pass.” It didn’t.

During the initial stages of the Cold War, the Western nations—those aligned with the United States — confronted the Eastern bloc —those aligned with the USSR. The mostly non-aligned nations of what came to be known as the Third World were left pretty much alone as long as they kept the Communists sufficiently in check: a tolerance that was known as the “Jakarta Axiom” after its Indonesian paradigm.

In 1953, that policy changed. Washington decided that merely keeping Communism in check was no longer a credential for tolerance. Third World countries had to specifically align with the United States. In The Jakarta Method, Vincent Blevins explains that “the new rule…was that neutral governments were potential enemies, and Washington could decide if and when an independent Third World nation was insufficiently anticommunist.” With that, the age of the CIA coup began. It was Eisenhower who made that decision.

The first country to be tried and condemned under the Eisenhower doctrine was Iran: a decision whose reverberations are still being felt today. But Iran’s first democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddeq, didn’t fall because he was Communist. While British and American officials publicly played up the Communist threat, according to Ervand Abrahamian, a leading expert on the 1953 coup d’etat, privately, they knew better. The American State Department and the British Foreign Office agreed that there was “no element of Russian incitation” and that Iran should “not be seen primarily as part of the immediate short-term ‘cold war’ problem.” The CIA assessed that Mosaddeq’s government “has the capability to take effective repressive action to check … Tudeh [the Communist Party] agitations….The Tudeh will not be able to gain control of the government.”

The problem in Iran was not communism, but neutralism and nationalism. In 1951, Mosaddeq was carried into power on a wave of nationalism that had made up its mind to rescue Iran’s oil from Britain so that the people of Iran, and not the stockholders of the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, could benefit from its profits. Mosaddeq immediately moved to nationalize Iran’s oil, and, in April 1951, the Iranian parliament approved the nationalization bill. Mosaddeq was elected prime minister and signed the bill into law the following month.

That was too much for the British. They clamped a crushing embargo on Iran and sent warships to enforce it. Not enough to pressure the people of Iran to overthrow the popular Mosaddeq — the State Department placed his support at 95-98 percent — the British tried instead. But they failed. And when Mosaddeq responded by shuttering the British embassy in Tehran and expelling its diplomats, Britain’s spies were flushed out with them. England had no one left in Iran to overthrow Mosaddeq.

So, they looked to America. Though President Truman had considered ousting Mosaddeq, according to Abrahamian, it didn’t ultimately happen until the Eisenhower administration.

On July 11, 1953, Eisenhower gave presidential approval for Operation Ajax, the very first CIA coup, and Mosaddeq was removed from power. That coup would start a historical tidal wave that led to the suffering of the people of Iran under the dictatorship of the Shah, the 1979 Iranian revolution, and the American Embassy hostage-taking before crashing on the shores of today and the current standoff over the 2015 JCPOA nuclear agreement.

Not only across the sea, but in America’s backyard, some of today’s troubles trace back to Eisenhower. As Eisenhower delivered the first CIA coup in Iran, so he delivered the first CIA coups in Latin America. And as seen in Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Haiti and other Latin American and Caribbean Basin countries, the effects of that foreign policy orientation are still being felt today.

Like Mosaddeq in Iran, Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala wanted his own people to benefit from their own country’s wealth. He took on United Fruit, which owned about 20 percent of the land in his country and redistributed it. He also regulated major U.S. companies in Guatemala. In 1954, Eisenhower ordered the CIA to overthrow Arbenz, and, in late June that year, it succeeded.

The Latin American or Caribbean country most in the news today is Cuba. Hostile U.S. policy toward Cuba is usually traced back to the Kennedy administration. But in all of the three most important ways, those policies were born during the Eisenhower years.

The U.S. embargo on Cuba went into full lockdown by order of Kennedy in February 1962. But the doors began to close already in September 1960 when Eisenhower banned all exports to Cuba except food and medicine. So, the embargo, the lingering heart of the bad relationship, traces back to Eisenhower.

So does the Bay of Pigs. Though, again, usually attributed to Kennedy, it was in May 1960 that Eisenhower approved a covert action on Castro. By October 1959, Eisenhower had “approved measures,” according to CIA expert John Prados, that led to “a secret war.” It was Eisenhower, and not Kennedy, who authorized the plan for the invasion of Cuba that would mature into The Bay of Pigs. “There can be no doubt the revised CIA plan amounted to an invasion,” according to Prados. “Dwight D. Eisenhower, not John F. Kennedy, holds the responsibility there.” The CIA plan to invade Cuba is dated December 6, 1960. Kennedy would be inaugurated forty-five days later.

Like the embargo and the Bay of Pigs, the original signature on the plan to assassinate Castro is, not Kennedy’s, but Eisenhower’s. In the summer of 1959, William LeoGrande and Peter Kornblum explain in their book, Back Channel to Cuba, “key officials in the Eisenhower administration reached….a clear determination to bring about Castro’s demise.” The decision was cast for regime change in Cuba before Eisenhower left office. By October, secret, but official, U.S. policy was to overthrow Castro by the end of 1960. On November 5, according to LeoGrande and Kornblum, that plan was approved by Eisenhower. On December 11, 1959, according to CIA expert Tim Weiner, Allen Dulles, Eisenhower’s CIA director, gave the go-ahead for Castro’s “elimination.” Dulles changed “elimination” to “removal from Cuba.” Stephen Kinzer reports that on May 13, 1960, after being briefed by Dulles, Eisenhower ordered Castro “sawed off.”

These actions of Eisenhower sowed the seeds for the embargo and regime change policies that still bedevil U.S. relations with Cuba today.

While Eisenhower did pull in the regns on American military intervention in other countries, he also built up and gave free rein to covert CIA operations — there would be 170 of them during his two terms — that intervened in other countries and that resonate 61 years after he delivered his famous farewell address and his warning about the potential excesses of the military industrial complex.

*

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: President Dwight D. Eisenhower (National Archives)

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Law schools should have courses on the expanding immunities of government and corporate officials from criminal prosecution and punishment. Guest lecturers, speaking from their experience, could be Donald J. Trump, George W. Bush (criminal destruction of Iraq), Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Texas Governor Greg Abbott, the Sackler Family of opioid infamy, and the top officials at Boeing, led by its CEO Dennis Muilenburg, for the 346 homicides in their deadly 737 MAX aircraft.

They should all be charged in varying degrees with manslaughter. Note how the definition fits the facts on the ground:

“Reckless homicide is a crime in which the perpetrators were aware that their act (or failure to act when there is a legal duty to act) creates significant risk of death or grievous bodily harm in the victim, but ignores the risk and continues to act (or fail to act), and a human death results.”

Trump violated willfully and repeatedly so many laws, including obstruction of justice, that it would take a large well-staffed special prosecutor’s office to handle his offenses. (Biden’s Attorney General, Merrick Garland, has decided to immunize Trump by doing nothing). (See, Letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, June 17, 2021).

War criminal George W. Bush violated the Constitution by invading Iraq without a Congressional declaration of war, lying about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, killing over one million Iraqis, in addition to causing injuries, sicknesses, and devastation of critical public infrastructure. During this process of torture and mayhem, Bush violated federal statutes, international treaties, and returned to Texas immunized in fact, though not in law. He and former Vice President Dick Cheney could still be prosecuted.

New York lawyer and former homicide prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, Robert C. Gottlieb, called for the prosecution of Trump over willful, disastrous actions and inactions concerning the Covid-19 pandemic, under the presidential duties to act, which led to many tens of thousands of preventable losses of life. Trump began dismissing the dangers of the fast multiplying virus as soon as it entered the U.S. from China.

Gottlieb gives examples of when the average citizen could not be able to escape criminal prosecution, citing the conviction of the owner (and two others) of a New York City residential and commercial building of homicide. Reckless drivers resulting in the deaths of innocents are often convicted of manslaughter and jailed.

Governor Ron DeSantis, confronting overwhelmed hospitals, and 25,000 new Covid-19 cases just in one day, still is brazenly advocating the maskless, crowd-together-if-you-choose-behavior of ‘live free and die.’ Somehow, he got through Harvard Law School uneducated to become a perilous promoter of opposing mask mandates in schools and hospitals, opposing required vaccinations for hospital workers (though he favors vaccinations generally), and is described politely by contagious disease specialists as being “in a state of denial.” Gritting his teeth, DeSantis, a fervent Trump supplicant, says again and again, “People are going to be free to choose to make their own decisions.” What? Free to infect others with a lethal disease? Does he not know of past public health campaigns against tuberculosis, smallpox, and the 1919 influenza epidemic?

Some Florida school districts, mandating masks to protect their children, have disregarded his ideological orders. Had DeSantis lost the last election, many more Floridians would be living today.

The same situation exists under Texas Governor Greg Abbott. The Dallas, Houston, and Austin school districts are defying his homicidal executive order prohibiting mandates for masks by complying with CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) standards. The Dallas County officials sued Abbott, declaring that the governor’s ban violates Texas law.

The headline in Wednesday’s New York Times tells the story: “Texas Hospitals Are Already Overloaded. Doctors Are ‘Frightened by What is Coming.’” The more contagious Delta variant has spread everywhere, to which Abbott replied, “We must rely on personal responsibility, not government mandates.” Has he spoken to the deadlier Delta variant lately about his delusions?

When it comes to the crimes of large corporations and their bosses, immunity or impunity is what they expect. When, once in a while, they’re caught in the act, the company pays the dollar penalties and the company’s rulers and backers get off with no “personal responsibility.”

In one of the biggest corporate marketing/promotional crimes – over 500,000 opioid deaths so far and accelerating, the Sackler’s company, Purdue Pharma, escaped into bankruptcy while the Sacklers escaped any criminal prosecution. As a part of the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy the Sacklers negotiated for personal immunity from further civil suits, and the wrongdoers only had to fork over $4.5 billion, (spread out over years no less!) of their immense fortune. Purdue Pharma pleaded guilty to three felony charges in 2020, but under the settlement with the Justice Department, the Sacklers agreed to pay $225 million but made no admissions of wrongdoing. I once recall a person stealing a donkey in Colorado going to jail for 15 years.

Then there are the criminal Boeing bosses who committed the manslaughter of 346 passengers and crew members in Indonesia and Ethiopia. Boeing’s stealth cockpit software, not provided to the pilots, the airlines, and deceptively conveyed to the FAA, took away control of the two ascending 737 MAX planes from the pilots and drove the aircraft into the sea and ground in 2018 and 2019.

The Trump Justice Department sweetheart-settled a criminal case against Boeing, with the prosecutor subsequently quitting and joining Kirkland & Ellis, the law firm for Boeing. There was no trial or jail for any Boeing bosses, just a modest $2.5 billion exaction, mostly going to the airlines and the government with the rest to the grieving families. The civil tort suits will come under Boeing’s insurance with the rest being mostly deductible against the few federal income taxes Boeing pays.

Next time you hear any prominent person announce that “Nobody is above the law,” you can ask: “Really, with all the corporate and government lawbreaking we read about, tell us just how many of these big-time crooks are in orange suits serving time?”

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate and the author of “The Seventeen Solutions: Bold Ideas for Our American Future” (2012). His new book is, “Wrecking America: How Trump’s Lies and Lawbreaking Betray All” (2020, co-authored with Mark Green).

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Nobody Is Above the Law”—Except the Biggest Corporate and Goverment Criminals

France Has Gone to the Extreme with the “Health” Pass

August 16th, 2021 by Hardscrabble Farmer

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Here in France it has gone to the extreme with the “Health” Pass. Last week on the 21st ALL restaurants, bars, coffee shops, and any leisure activities like sporting events, theaters, cinemas, museums, were closed to anyone without “the pass” and all staff at these places are mandated to get the jab to keep their job.

It is now a 6-month prison sentence if you are caught inside any of these places without the pass (the man who slapped the president in the face got only 3 months prison time). Business owners will get a fine of 45,000 euros and 1 year prison sentence if they do not comply with the use of “the pass” and force all their employees to get the jab. (If you know France, you can commit murder and have less of a sentence.)

So the result? All the low paid employees quit, they can make more on welfare here. (For now) We can still technically “get take out food” but I just tried last night and every restaurant in our town (that is dine in with take out) has closed their doors due to the lack of staff.

As of last week ALL doctors, nurses and health industry workers have been mandated to get the jab or lose their license, practice, job, business etc. (ALL health care here is government paid positions and there are no private health care doctors or hospitals etc.)

Since the health care system is state-run and funded, it has been run into the ground. All the good doctors left France 5 years ago, all the hospitals look like they are 3rd world hospitals since there is no money to repair them, half of the equipment doesn’t work and not every hospital is stocked with supplies needed for daily needs (masks, gels, disposable gowns etc).

For 5 years nurses have been understaffed and doing double the work because the health care system is nearly bankrupt…. add to this the mandatory jab.

So the result? Well they took to the streets by the millions and now all the hospitals just lost another 50% of staff capacity. My doctor just went into early retirement (a.k.a. he quit) and I have yet to find a replacement.

As of Aug 1st ALL large malls, retail stores and grocery store owners and their staff need to be jabbed and the health pass is required to enter for employees and customers. This would be the equivalent to closing ALL Targets, Walmarts, Costcos, Home Depots, and all major grocery stores (basically any building over 20,000 square meters) to those without “the pass”.

Result? Aug 15th truckers will be going on strike nationwide; blocking all access roads in and out of Paris.

Yesterday an entire airport in Northern France closed due to the majority of staff quitting.

As of Sept 15th all public areas and access will be off limits. No farmers markets, no parks, no national parks, lakes, rivers, beaches, recreation areas, campsites etc. and no gathering over 100 people, no churches, no weddings, etc.

As of Oct 1st ALL small vendors such as delis, pizza trucks, sandwich shops, butchers, bakers, vegetable stands etc.

So as of Oct 1st I will only be able to purchase food by internet and pick up (if allowed).

Food shortages, truckers’ strike, hospitals and airports shutting down, unemployment going through the roof. It’s going to be a bumpy ride folks.

Is it me or does all this seem a bit extreme for a “pass” that isn’t exactly working?

America, Canada, England, Australia, New Zealand, you’d better wake up.

*

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

Featured image is from The Burning Platform

The Taliban Take Kabul

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, August 16, 2021

It unfolded as a story of fleeing.  The Afghan president Ashraf Ghani, taking flight to Tajikistan, giving little clue of his intentions to colleagues.  The fleeing of the infamous Abdul Rashid Dostum, a warlord assured to to fight another day.

Pilot Condemns United Airlines for Mandating Experimental Injection

By Mordechai Sones, August 16, 2021

Stew Peters interviewed American Airlines pilot Joshua Yoder, who deplored the position taken by United Airlines as 68,000 of its employees face the choice of submitting to an experimental medical procedure or lose their sources of livelihood.

India’s Ivermectin Blackout. Censorship of Peer-reviewed Analysis

By Dr. Justus R. Hope, August 16, 2021

There is a blackout on any conversation about how Ivermectin beat COVID-19 in India. When I discussed the dire straits that India found itself in early this year with 414,000 cases per day, and over 4,000 deaths per day, and how that evaporated within five weeks of the addition of Ivermectin, I am often asked, “But why is there no mention of that in the news?”

Video: Vax Pass Hits Canada: Tens of Thousands March in Montreal Against Vaccine Passports Ahead of Sept. 1 Rollout

By Julian Conradson, August 16, 2021

The mandatory papers will control individual access in a multitude of settings, such as events, bars, restaurants and gyms in an effort to force people into taking the experimental jab.

Letter from London: Worrying Turn in Assange Case

By Alexander Mercouris, August 16, 2021

The High Court in July granted the U.S. government permission to appeal the Jan. 4 decision of District Judge Vanessa Baraitser to refuse the U.S. government’s request for Assange’s extradition to the United States, where he faces charges under the Espionage Act 1917 and for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion.

Colossal Financial Pyramid: BlackRock and The WEF “Great Reset”

By F. William Engdahl, August 15, 2021

The firm, BlackRock Inc., the world’s largest asset manager, invests a staggering $9 trillion in client funds worldwide, a sum more than double the annual GDP of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Science, Salvation and Heretics: From Monsanto to Pfizer, Same Old Playbook

By Colin Todhunter, August 15, 2021

Why are numerous ‘independent alternative’ media outlets and writers not questioning the COVID-19 vaccine rollout? If anything, they are promoting it without even considering the serious concerns being voiced by top scientists.

Where Best to Ride Out the Climate Apocalypse? The Billionaires’ Bunker Fantasies Go Mainstream

By Jonathan Cook, August 15, 2021

We inherit much of our ideology from parents and teachers. But ideology is not static. It is adaptive. Our assumptions, beliefs and values subtly change over time. And they change as the needs of the powerful change.

“Our Species is Being Genetically Modified”: Humanity’s March Toward Extinction? Analysis of the Microbiome and Virome

By David Skripac, August 15, 2021

Vaccine manufacturers have now made it possible for the human genome to be permanently altered—and humanity’s relationship with nature forever changed—by means of an experimental pharmaceutical injection that is being falsely referred to as a “vaccine.”

A Saigon Moment Looms in Kabul

By Pepe Escobar, August 15, 2021

August 12, 2021. History will register it as the day the Taliban, nearly 20 years after 9/11 and the subsequent toppling of their 1996-2001 reign by American bombing, struck the decisive blow against the central government in Kabul.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: India’s Ivermectin Blackout. Censorship of Peer-reviewed Analysis

The Taliban Take Kabul

August 16th, 2021 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

It unfolded as a story of fleeing.  The Afghan president Ashraf Ghani, taking flight to Tajikistan, giving little clue of his intentions to colleagues.  The fleeing of the infamous Abdul Rashid Dostum, a warlord assured to to fight another day. The fleeing of tens of thousands of residents out of the city of Kabul, long seen as beyond the reach of insurgents.  The fleeing of Coalition embassy personnel, aided by freshly deployed troops from the United States and the UK sent into Afghanistan as a matter of urgency. The Taliban had taken Kabul.

In departing and leaving stranded colleagues to their fate, the bookish Ghani, preferring pen to gun, had time to leave a message on Facebook.  One could never accuse the man of having wells of courage. He reflected on either facing armed Taliban fighters or leaving his beloved country.  In order to avoid immolating Kabul, which “would have been a big human disaster”, he chose a hasty exit. 

Only a few days prior, on August 11, Ghani had flown to Mazar-i-Sharif, in the company of the blood lusty Uzbek Dostum, supposedly to hold the fort against the Taliban with another warlord, the ethnic Tajik Atta Muhammad Noor.  Noor had pledged in June to mobilise the citizenry of Balkh province to fight the Taliban.  “God forbid, the fall of Balkh,” he declared at the time, “means the fall of the north and the fall of the north means the fall of Afghanistan.”

This was not a move greeted with universal joy.  Habib-ur-Rahman of the leadership council of the political and paramilitary group Hizb-e-Islami saw a bit of self-aggrandizing at work, hardly remarkable for a warlord keen to oversee his bit of real estate.  “The mobilisation of the people by politicians under the pretext of supporting security forces – with the use of public uprising forces – fuels the war from one side and from the other it affects Afghanistan’s stance in foreign policy.”

The shoring up mission led by Ghani would do little to conceal the historical differences between Noor and Dostum.  The former had done battle with Dostum’s troops during the latter’s time as a regional commander in the ailing Soviet-backed Afghan government.  Dostum’s defection from the government (one spots the common theme) in 1992 to form the Junbish-e-Milli party presented Noor with a chance to join forces.  But the Tajik left Dostum in 1993 citing irreconcilable ideological differences.  With the initial defeat of the Taliban, Noor triumphed in several military encounters with the frustrated Uzbek, seizing the Balkh province in its entirety. 

The accord reached between the parties on this occasion certainly did not involve agreeing to fight the Taliban.  Both had come to the conclusion that scurrying to Uzbekistan was a sounder proposition.  Noor subsequently justified the measure by claiming enigmatically that, “They had orchestrated the plot to trap Marshal Dostum and myself too, but they didn’t succeed.”  Ghani would soon follow.

Members of Ghani’s imploding government have not taken kindly to the flight of their leader.  “Curse Ghani and his gang,” wrote acting defence minister, Bismillah Khan Mohammadi.  “They tied our hands from behind and sold the country.” 

The head of the High Council for National Reconciliation Abdullah Abdullah also released a video withering in announcing that, “The former president of Afghanistan” had “left the country in this difficult situation.”  God, he suggested, “should hold him accountable.”  Abdullah, along with former President Harmid Karzai and Hizb-e-Islami leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, are currently in negotiations with the Taliban over the formal transfer of power.

The US and UK have deployed personnel in a hurried panic.  Over the weekend, President Joe Biden, in announcing the deployment of 5,000 troops, told the press that they would ensure “we can have an orderly and safe drawdown of US personnel and other allied personnel, and an orderly and safe evacuation of Afghans who helped our troops during our mission and those at special risk from the Taliban advance.”  Another thousand have also been added to the complement.

There was much embarrassment in all of this.  The US and its allies made the fundamental error that training, money and expertise would somehow miraculously guarantee the stability, continuity and reliability of a ramshackle regime.  Biden, in coming up with his own phraseology, had stated that a Taliban victory was “not inevitable”.  In July, we were given a nugget of Bidenese that, while he had little trust for the Taliban, he did “trust the capacity of the Afghan military, who is better trained, better equipped, and more re- – more competent in terms of conducting war.”  

As the Taliban was securing the capital, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken parried evident parallels with the US withdrawal from Vietnam in 1975.  “This is manifestly not Saigon,” he said with little conviction.  

Now, the scene was one of grave, turbaned and bearded men, armed to the teeth, overseeing the desk which Ghani previously occupied in the presidential palace.  They had survived and outwitted an army better armed and supposedly better trained. They had survived airstrikes launched from within the country and from bases in the Persian Gulf and Central Asia, via heavy bombers and lethal drones.  They had survived the forces of the US, NATO and rival militias.

They now find themselves in control of an entity they wish to be recognised as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.  History has come in its full violent circle.  A group of insurgents dismissed as fundamentalist mountain savages who would be vanquished before the modernising incentives of the West have shown up, as previous Afghan fighters have, the futility and sheer folly of meddling in their country’s affairs.

*

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 VOA News

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Corporate Council on Africa (CCA), the leading reputable U.S. business association with a strategic focus on connecting business interests between the United States and Africa, has held the 13th U.S.-Africa Business Summit. The U.S. government and private sector leaders together with African political and corporate business leaders have been working consistently over these years to share insights on critical issues and policies influencing the U.S.-Africa economic partnership.

The three-day Summit held virtually included 5 plenaries and 12 panel sessions highlighting key economic recovery strategies and focused on a range of sectors and issues, including health and vaccine access, trade, digital transformation, infrastructure, financing, small and medium scale enterprises, tourism, women’s leadership and investment opportunities in various African countries.

Here are some highlights:

The high-level dialogue set the scene for reviewing the opportunities for United States and African public and private sector leaders, how to strengthen the economic partnership between the United States and Africa. Prosper Africa, investments in key sectors such as gas, exploration of possible new bilateral trade agreements, extension of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).

The Role of Women’s Leadership in Driving an Inclusive Recovery: The United States will drive a pandemic recovery and put women at the forefront. It has contributed 25 million vaccines for Africa. It implies to make sure incorporating women’s perspective in their efforts. “When women are empowered, they empower their families, they empower their communities and they empower their countries.”

Thokozile Ruzvidzo, Director of the Gender, Poverty and Social Policy Division, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) said that there are six critical things for women to benefit from the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). These include: closing the gender gap as it relates to access to finance, empowering women in the export sector, regional value chains and procurement and ensuring that we include the voice of women in the AFCFTA implementation efforts.

New Pathways to a Strong U.S.-Africa Trade Relationship focused on a range of issues, from implementing the African Continental Free Trade Area agreement (AfCFTA), boosting Africa’s trade with the U.S. including through the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), pursuing agreements that go beyond AGOA, such as the U.S.-Kenya FTA. It will be pursuing public private partnerships that support U.S. and African businesses, including women owned and led SMEs.

U.S. Trade Representative, Katherine Tai, noted as top priorities for the Biden-Harris Administration the defeat of COVID and helping facilitate a robust global economic recovery. She pointed to trade as a key part of that effort and the determination to implement policies that benefit not only those at the top but foster inclusive and sustainable development, support regional integration, and ensure that all citizens benefit from the global economy.

H.E. Wamkele Mene, Secretary General of the AfCFTA Secretariat, highlighted the significant progress that has been made in advancing the AfCFTA — with 40 countries that have now ratified the agreement, Phase 1 covering trade in goods and services concluded, and 86% of the rules of origin completed. He noted that “AfCFTA has unlocked value chains for investors – especially U.S. investors – in key sectors such as pharmaceuticals, automobiles, agro-processing, and financial technology.”

Ethiopian Airlines CEO Tewolde GebreMariam noted that as the largest air cargo carrier in Africa with hubs in countries across the continent and the airline is successfully connecting Africa with the rest of the world – both for cargo and for passengers and tourism. He urged, though, that more be done to facilitate increased investment, trade and tourism in Africa and to support the AfCFTA vision and goals.

That the U.S. trade policy now transforms beyond the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) was at the core of remarks by Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Constance Hamilton. She noted that under the Biden-Harris Administration, they will be ramping up engagement with the AfCFTA Secretariat to support African regional integration, while looking to build stronger relationships with willing African nations through bilateral engagement. She noted the plans to hold a Trade Ministerial conference in 2021, and to engage with a range of stakeholders to explore ways to enhance the U.S.-Africa trade relationship.

Infrastructure Development: Catalyst for Economic Reboot. The Infrastructure session highlighted the growing financing gap in Africa and the importance of renewed public-private partnerships in the development of infrastructure projects.

Minister de Lille of South Africa and Serge Ekue of the West African Development Bank and other panelists suggested that a way to address those flaws is to “implement rigorous master planning that will first help identify bankable projects and then prepare them efficiently while raising local capacity.” Infrastructure is not just about the value of the money. It is about the value of the social impact on our communities. These indicated that countries pursue ways to bridge financing infrastructure in Africa.

Beyond Covid-19: Pathways to Resilient Health Systems in Africa. Building blocks for pathways to resilient health systems in Africa: Lessons from preparation and addressing the pandemic including a one-health multi-sectoral approach in addressing current and future pandemics. WHO and other partners have continued to play a critical role in building the capacity of African countries to cope with an overstretched health system during the pandemic.

It is important to invest in sustainable approaches that bring services close to the patients. These include strong primary healthcare (PHC) as the foundation for strengthening health systems, including the integration of services with a multi-disciplinary team. Looking forward, there are opportunities for impact investing in health in Africa by deploying financial resources that can have financial returns/commercial opportunities while improving health outcomes.

Closing the Trade Finance Gap: A Pathway to Supporting More SMEs, Diaspora, and Women Owned Businesses
This session highlighted the trade finance gap with African, Diaspora, SMEs and Women owned businesses and how organizations can contribute to reduce (or eliminate) the gap.

Participants discussed the impact of the pandemic on their organizations and initiatives contributing to economic activity recovery, as well as improving business operations. Panelists also highlighted the importance of diversifying both suppliers and clients, in addition to looking beyond the immediate market to new partnerships.

The diverse panel emphasized the growing trend of digitalization of SMEs and African business operations. Moving to digital and connected operations will help businesses not only simplify operations but also allow them to reach customers in places they were not able to operate before. This also will positively impact the relationship between Diaspora businesses and businesses on the continent. Panelists concluded that implementing strategies that will enable African SMEs to grow, build capacity, find new U.S. partners, and access cheap and easily available capital will be crucial to close the trade finance gap.

Building a Sustainable Agribusiness Ecosystem

Panelists agreed that diversification was the way to improve the agribusiness sector. Collaboration between U.S. and African companies will help achieve sustainable development through increased access to investment financing and access to global markets for African companies.

Achieving diversification will require producing more value-added products, which will be achieved through investment in industrialization, R&D, and technology. Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) and favorable government policies will be key to funding these efforts. Investing in SMEs will be vital to improving agribusiness value chains since SMEs are deeply integrated at every level from retailers to crop transporters. Helping scale up these SME’s make the value-chains more productive and improve the sector’s output.

Digital Transformation – Pathway for Enabling African Business Environment

Digital Transformation – Pathway for Enabling African Business Environment plenary highlighted the role of the private sector and government to drive all-inclusive African digital transformation.

In his remarks, South African Minister of Trade, Industry, and Competition, Ebrahim Patel highlighted that digital technology is a critical tool and a critical enabler to build economic growth and economic opportunities.

Digital technologies will help create new products and new markets for millions of Africans. Policymakers, corporations, and entrepreneurs have a unique partnership opportunity to develop digital infrastructure, skills, and ecosystems. Minister Patel invited the private sector to share ideas and suggestions to make the AfCFTA e-commerce protocol fit for purpose.

The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed the digitalization of life and work. As a result, technology companies are developing lifesaving products and services. For example, Google and Apple developed exposure notification technology, which helps slow the spread of COVID-19. Google also developed a range of products for remote education.

As African businesses and consumers have shifted towards e-commerce and digital payments, companies like Visa have accelerated the rollout of payment infrastructure. For digital trade and digital economy to work effectively, panelists recommended that the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA) be implemented to establish a continent-wide harmonization of business-friendly rules and regulations.

The Future of Energy in Africa: Transition and Pathway to Cleaner Energy

The session drew high-level participants from the U.S. Government, African countries, and the private sector to discuss the need for public-private sector collaboration on energy transition in Africa and innovative thinking on the critical need to address energy poverty and access to electricity in Africa while advancing the urgent fight against global warming.

Joining U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, from the USG were senior U.S. government officials from the Departments of Energy and State, and the U.S. Development Finance Corporation (DFC). Also participating in the dialogue were Ministers of Energy and senior African officials from Angola, Egypt, Ghana, Mozambique, Nigeria, and Senegal, as well as CEOs and other top executives from a range of U.S. and African oil, gas, and power companies and major investors in the sector.

The Hon. John Kerry stated that tackling climate change is a top priority for the United States and reiterated the U.S. government commitment to encouraging other countries to achieve their respective climate and clean energy goals. It was noted that more African countries need to sign on to the Paris Agreement to tackle climate change as it is important that all countries work together to address global climate change.

Other U. S. government officials acknowledged energy poverty in Africa and noted that improving energy access in Africa is paramount to the U.S. government as it continues to invest in electricity systems in Africa through initiatives like Power Africa. They also noted that even while the United States is pushing for a strong political commitment from African to prioritizing and meeting climate change goals, the U. S. government will continue to support and finance energy projects (including some in gas) in Africa, particularly where renewable energy options may not be viable.

African Ministers and government officials shared the strategies they have adopted in their respective countries to both adopt clean energy technologies in oil and gas, while also investing in renewable energy options. In Senegal, Egypt and Angola, renewable energy is at the forefront of energy transition strategies and initiatives, and it was noted that collaborations with international partners is essential to achieving long term energy and climate change goals in Africa.

CEOs and senior executives of companies with operations in Africa who participated in the session highlighted that they are actively working on energy access in Africa, see gas (particularly abated gas) as a medium term, low cost transition option to address climate change, while some are also investing in and financing renewable energy projects in Africa.

There were calls for fair treatment of Africa, in terms of climate change, as well as for the U. S. government to prioritize development over climate change when it comes to Africa, and to continue financing gas projects in Africa for the next 5-7 years, which some thought could actually help meet climate goals faster as Africans (especially those in rural areas) shift from wood burning to use of gas to cook. Noting the complexity of these energy issues, many agreed that public-private partnerships are crucial to renewable energy transitions, and thought that further dialogues like this one leading up to the COP 26 talks scheduled to take place in Glascow in November 2021 would be crucial in the U.S. and Africans reaching a common understanding about the way forward on the future of energy and climate in Africa.

Looking Forward: Biden-Harris Administration is prioritizing economic relationship with Africa. Dana Banks, White House Senior Director for Africa, announced the White House Administration made a request for $80 million in additional funding to push for the Prosper Africa Build Together Campaign that will drive billions of dollars of investment in Africa, build new markets for American products and create thousands of jobs for African and American workers.

The U.S.-Africa Business Summit 2021 was sponsored by leading global businesses and organizations. U.S. government has Prosper Africa, the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and the Young African Leaders Initiatives among other tools for connecting and working effectively with Africa. The summit outcomes were highly appreciated, as it offers grounds for scaling up U.S.-Africa relations. The 13th summit, was organized and coordinated by Corporate Council on Africa, was broadly viewed as an effort directed at building new pathways to strengthen further the economic partnership between United States and Africa. [….]

*

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.

Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), is now a frequent and passionate contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US-Africa Relations: Corporate Council on Africa Hosted the 13th U.S.-Africa Business Summit
  • 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.

***

Stew Peters interviewed American Airlines pilot Joshua Yoder, who deplored the position taken by United Airlines as 68,000 of its employees face the choice of submitting to an experimental medical procedure or lose their sources of livelihood. Criticizing United Airlines and the Air Line Pilots Association, Yoder applauded the position of American Airlines leadership, highlighting the welcoming work environment and humane treatment of employees.

“This may be the greatest safety-of-flight issue the airlines have ever faced,” Yoder said. “What if myocarditis becomes a larger issue, and pilots start to lose their medicals, let’s say three or four years in; it could completely bring the aviation industry to its knees, if they have pilots who can’t pass their medicals in a couple of years.”

Recognizing early-on that requiring mandatory vaccination for a virus that, according to the CDC, is 99.97% survivable by the the pilot demographic is not rational medical practice, America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) has since December sought to pre-empt catastrophic outcomes of misguided policies with legal and civic action. In a March letter addressed to Southwest Airlines Pilots Association (SWAPA) Union Scheduler Scott Pryler, America’s Frontline Doctors Founder Dr. Simone Gold urged Pryler to consider “both health and legal ramifications if the union backs a direct crew vaccine mandate or other mechanisms that effectively force or coerce crew vaccination.”

“On behalf of hundreds of airline pilots who have contacted America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) requesting independent medical information regarding the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines,” Dr. Gold presented findings that “raise significant concerns in light of reports that airline executives and union representatives are considering agreeing to COVID-19 vaccination mandates for airline employees.” She said “proposed COVID vaccine mandates are troubling for multiple reasons, including the law, safety, and liability.”

AFLDS sent similar letters to the Allied Pilots Association (APA), the British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA ), and the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA).

An AFLDS-initiated petition to stop forced experimental vaccines affirmed that “your health and medical conditions are personal and private and nobody should be permitted to violate that, including an employer, an airline, or a government agency.”

In June, AFLDS held a panel discussion to examine waning freedom of movement:

In response to the discussion, and reflecting similar concerns to those expressed by Yoder, Netizen C130Avi8Trx wrote: “As a pilot, and someone with training in aviation physiology, I have questions/concerns about how the effects of altitude potentially can change or alter or compound any side effects of these vaccines.

“What if you have blood clotting starting – does the lower cabin pressure cause them to more easily dislodge which could cause instant cardiac arrest, or embolism?

“The same with the airlines mask mandates – what about hypoxia? What if there is a rapid decompression at altitude – how would these vaccines affect the crew, pilots, and passengers? Not to mention masked passengers struggling with putting oxygen masks on. Any one who’s gone through rapid decompression training in an altitude chamber can tell you people don’t act right – and passengers that are untrained and scared may not think to remove their face diaper first.

“It seems flight attendants have forgotten their main role is safety in the event of an emergency – not being COVID police. Why has no one addressed this?” (edited for clarity)

To illustrate the “oppressive stance taken by United,” Peters cited an email sent by United Master Executive Council Union for United Airlines pilots (UALMEC) Chairman Todd Insler, in which Insler denies the historic precedent that loss of medical freedom is one of the steps that precedes genocide:

Peters provided emails of airline executives so that citizens may “make their voices heard”: United Airlines CEO [email protected]; Todd Insler: [email protected]; Doug Parker (American Airlines CEO, “doing the right thing”): [email protected]; American Airlines Union: [email protected].

*

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

Featured image is from iStock

All Global Research articles 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.

***

News of India’s defeat of the Delta variant should be common knowledge. It is just about as obvious as the nose on one’s face. It is so clear when one looks at the graphs that no one can deny it.

Yet, for some reason, we are not allowed to talk about it. Thus, for example, Wikipedia cannot mention the peer-reviewed meta-analyses by Dr. Tess Lawrie or Dr. Pierre Kory published in the American Journal of Therapeutics. See this.

Wikipedia is not allowed to publish the recent meta-analysis on Ivermectin authored by Dr. Andrew Hill. Furthermore, it is not allowed to say anything concerning www.ivmmeta.com showing the 61 studies comprising 23,000 patients which reveal up to a 96% reduction in death [prophylaxis] with Ivermectin. See this.

One can see the bias in Wikipedia by going on the “talk” pages for each subject and reading about the fierce attempts of editors to add these facts and the stone wall refusals by the “senior” editors who have an agenda. And that agenda is not loyalty to your health.

The easy way to read the “talk” page on any Wikipedia subject is to click the top left “talk” button. Anyone can then review the editors’ discussions.

There is a blackout on any conversation about how Ivermectin beat COVID-19 in India. When I discussed the dire straits that India found itself in early this year with 414,000 cases per day, and over 4,000 deaths per day, and how that evaporated within five weeks of the addition of Ivermectin, I am often asked, “But why is there no mention of that in the news?”

Yes, exactly. Ask yourself why India’s success against the Delta variant with Ivermectin is such a closely guarded secret by the NIH and CDC. Second, ask yourself why no major media outlets reported this fact, but instead, tried to confuse you with false information by saying the deaths in India are 10 times greater than official reports. See this.

Perhaps NPR is trying so hard because NPR is essentially a government mouthpiece. The US government is “all-in” with vaccines with the enthusiasm of a 17th century Catholic Church “all-in” with a Geocentric Model of the Universe disputing Galileo. Claiming that India’s numbers are inaccurate might distract from the overwhelming success of Ivermectin.

But in the end, the truth matters. It mattered in 1616, and it matters in 2021.

Ivermectin graphs

The graphs and data from the Johns Hopkins University CSSE database do not lie. On the contrary, they provide a compelling trail of truth that no one can dispute, not even the NIH, CDC, FDA, and WHO.

Just as Galileo proved with his telescope that the earth was NOT the center of the Universe in 1616; today, the data from India shows that Ivermectin is effective, much more so than the vaccines. It not only prevents death, but it also prevents COVID infections, and it also is effective against the Delta Variant.

In 1616, you could not make up the telescopic images of Jupiter and its orbiting moons, nor could you falsify the crescent-shaped images of Venus and Mercury. These proved that the earth was NOT the center of the Universe – a truth the Catholic Church could not allow.

Likewise, the massive drop in cases and deaths in India to almost nothing after the addition of Ivermectin proved the drug’s effectiveness. This is a truth that the NIH, CDC, and FDA cannot allow because it would endanger the vaccine policy.

Never mind that Ivermectin would save more lives with much less risk, much less cost, and it would end the pandemic quickly.

Let us look at the burgundy-colored graph of Uttar Pradesh. First, allow me to thank Juan Chamie, a highly-respected Cambridge-based data analyst, who created this graph from the JHU CSSE data. Uttar Pradesh is a state in India that contains 241 million people. The United States’ population is 331 million people. Therefore, Uttar Pradesh can be compared to the United States, with 2/3 of our population size.

This data shows how Ivermectin knocked their COVID-19 cases and deaths – which we know were Delta Variant – down to almost zero within weeks. A population comparable to the US went from about 35,000 cases and 350 deaths per day to nearly ZERO within weeks of adding Ivermectin to their protocol.

By comparison, the United States is the lower graph. On August 5, here in the good ol’ USA, blessed with the glorious vaccines, we have 127,108 new cases per day and 574 new deaths.

Let us look at the August 5 numbers from Uttar Pradesh with 2/3 of our population. Uttar Pradesh, using Ivermectin, had a total of 26 new cases and exactly THREE deaths. The US without Ivermectin has precisely 4889 times as many daily cases and 191 times as many deaths as Uttar Pradesh with Ivermectin.

It is not even close. Countries do orders of magnitude better WITH Ivermectin. It might be comparable to the difference in travel between using an automobile versus a horse and buggy.

Uttar Pradesh on Ivermectin:  Population 240 Million [4.9% fully vaccinated]

  • COVID Daily Cases: 26
  • COVID Daily Deaths: 3

The United States off Ivermectin: Population 331 Million [50.5% fully vaccinated]

  • COVID Daily Cases: 127,108
  • COVID Daily Deaths: 574

Let us look at other Ivermectin using areas of India with numbers from August 5, 2021, compiled by the JHU CSSE:

Delhi on Ivermectin: Population 31 Million [15% fully vaccinated]

  • COVID Daily Cases: 61
  • COVID Daily Deaths: 2

Uttarakhand on Ivermectin: Population 11.4 Million [15% fully vaccinated]

  • COVID Daily Cases: 24
  • COVID Daily Deaths: 0
Now let us look at an area of India that rejected Ivermectin. See this.

Tamil Nadu announced they would reject Ivermectin and instead follow the dubious USA-style guidance of using Remdesivir. Knowing this, you might expect their numbers to be closer to the US, with more cases and more deaths. You would be correct. Tamil Nadu went on to lead India in COVID-19 cases. See this.

Tamil Nadu continues to suffer for its choice to reject Ivermectin. As a result, the Delta variant continues to ravage their citizens while it was virtually wiped out in the Ivermectin-using states. Likewise, in the United States, without Ivermectin, both the vaccinated and unvaccinated continue to spread the Delta variant like wildfire. See this.

Tamil Nadu off Ivermectin: Population 78.8 Million [6.9% fully vaccinated]

  • COVID Daily Cases: 1,997
  • COVID Daily Deaths: 33

Like the JHU CSSE data, Galileo’s telescope did not lie either, and the truth can usually be found in plain sight. Ivermectin works, and it works exceedingly well. Harvard-trained virologist Dr. George Fareed and his associate, Dr. Brian Tyson of California’s Imperial Valley, have saved 99.9% of their patients with a COVID Cocktail that includes Ivermectin. They have released versions of their new book published in the Desert Review that everyone should read. See this.

I could talk about how every one of my patients who used Ivermectin recovered rapidly, about my most recent case who felt 90% better within 48 hours of adding the drug, but I won’t. I could write about how Wikipedia censors more than Pravda, about how you should always read the “talk” section of EVERY Wikipedia article to go behind the scenes and understand what the editors DO NOT want you to read, but I will refrain.

I could write about VAERS and how it is so much easier to navigate by following Open VAERS or how Wikipedia has unfairly portrayed Dr. Peter McCullough, one of the world’s sharpest and most credible doctors. But I will hold back. See this.

I could also discuss our current cancer treatment system’s dangers and how chemotherapy and radiation stimulate cancer stem cells and cancer recurrence. About how this information has been suppressed and how the addition of repurposed drug cocktails can help prevent this, but I digress. See this.

I could recite the history of early outpatient treatment of COVID-19 with repurposed drugs, including Ivermectin, with all the specifics, and EXACTLY WHY this lifesaving information has been censored, but instead, I will leave researching these topics to each of you readers as individuals. See this.

Because you already know what will happen if you simply sit back and swallow what the media are feeding you. You MUST question what the government tells you, and always DO YOUR OWN research.

Following the 1616 Inquisition of Galileo, the Pope banned all books and letters that argued the sun was the center of the Universe instead of the Earth. Similarly, today, the FDA and WHO have banned any use of Ivermectin for COVID outside of a clinical trial.

See this and this.

YouTube and Wikipedia both consider Ivermectin for COVID as heresy.

“YouTube doesn’t allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts local health authorities or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19… Treatment misinformation: claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19.”

Wikipedia defines heresy as: “any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs, in particular the accepted beliefs of a church or religious organization. The term is usually used in reference to violations of important religious teachings, but is also used of views strongly opposed to any generally accepted ideas. A heretic is a proponent of heresy.”

Heresy is disagreeing with the government, or their health authority, even if they are all wrong and even if their policies harm people. Today we no longer call it heresy; it is labeled as misinformation.

Galileo was found guilty of heresy and sentenced on June 22, 1633, to formal imprisonment, although this was commuted to house arrest, under which he remained for the rest of his life.

On August 7, 2021 Medpage Today published a new quiz, “Can COVID Misinformation Cost You Your Medical License?”

*

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

Featured image is from Zero Hedge

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

He had the right to remain in office as the country’s internationally recognized leader, but clinging to power on this unconvincing so-called “democratic pretext” was really nothing more than a ruse for disguising his personal self-interest and unnecessarily prolonged the war at everyone’s expense.

The Afghan peace process ultimately failed because of President Ashraf Ghani and that’s why the Taliban had to resort to military means to end the civil war. The Taliban demanded that he resign as the first step towards a transitional government, which he only just did because he literally had no other choice. The former Afghan leader was re-elected under contentious circumstances that some observers believe involved a large degree of fraud, and he didn’t enjoy much support outside of the country’s urban areas. The rural majority of the population considered him to be a foreign puppet, which was also the Taliban’s stance as well.

Ghani’s rule was characterized by his unsuccessful attempts at centralizing the country’s historically decentralized tribal society in order to solidify his role as its undisputed leader. These efforts were bound to fail and only worsened Afghanistan’s multi-sided divisions, which he also attempted to exploit for self-interested political reasons but with a similar lack of success. These failures counterproductively increased the Taliban’s appeal among many by comparison while demoralizing members of the Afghan National Army (ANA) who recently surrendered or fled en masse during the group’s nationwide offensive over the past two weeks.

Those Afghans who militarily resisted the Taliban, whether as part of the ANA or one of the country’s many militias, fought not out of loyalty to Ghani or even their US-backed state per se but mostly due to fear of that group. The Taliban’s prior rule over most of Afghanistan was extremely unpleasant for many urban dwellers as well as some minorities and women, to put it mildly. They were afraid of what would happen to them and their foreign-supported way of life if the Taliban returned to power. That’s why the group strictly kept its word to respect the legitimate interests of those three categories of its compatriots as it swept through the country.

Even so, Ghani refused to resign until the very last minute. He almost seemed to have wanted the Taliban to attack Kabul in the most violent way possible in order to worsen the country’s humanitarian crisis as a last-ditch attempt at getting one of his government’s partners to decisively intervene in his support. Instead of falling into that trap, the Taliban wisely leveraged its extensive network of influence and proven compassion towards its opponents over the past two weeks to convince most of the remaining forces against its rising rule to peacefully surrender without a fight in order spare the capital and its millions of residents from undue hardships.

What everything ultimately came down to was that Ghani was the greatest obstacle to peace in Afghanistan all along. His ego got in the way of the national interest. Everyone’s suffering was worsened precisely because he refused to resign in accordance with the Taliban’s demands that reflected the will of a growing number of his own people as well. Of course, he had the right to remain in office as the country’s internationally recognized leader, but clinging to power on this unconvincing so-called “democratic pretext” was really nothing more than a ruse for disguising his personal self-interest and unnecessarily prolonged the war at everyone’s expense.

*

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.

All Global Research articles 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 popular online dictionary, Merriam-Webster.com, has had the same definition for “vaccine” for several years.

Here is the definition until early to mid-January, 2021:

By January 26, 2021 it was changed to include a section on “genetic material” and mRNA:

Apparently that was not quite good enough to silence the critics who were claiming that the COVID-19 shots did not meet the definition of a “vaccine,” so it was changed again by June 1, 2021 to include examples of mRNA “vaccines” such as Moderna and Pfizer, “viral vector” vaccines such as J&J and AstraZeneca, and a completely new definition to cover some “vaccines” the military is working on: a preparation or immunotherapy that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against noninfectious substances, agents, or diseases.

I wonder what this “definition” of “vaccines” will be expanded to include next?

Noah Webster Jr. was the original founder of America’s most famous dictionary, and in 1831, George and Charles Merriam founded the company as G & C Merriam Co.

In 1964, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. acquired Merriam-Webster, Inc.

In 1996, Britannica was purchased by Jacob E. Safra, a Jewish Swiss-bank financier.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Evolving Definition of “Vaccine” in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary for 2021
  • 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.

***

Thousands of outraged citizens gathered in the streets of Montreal on Saturday to protest the coming implementation of a vaccine passport system that is set to rollout on September first. The mandatory papers will control individual access in a multitude of settings, such as events, bars, restaurants and gyms in an effort to force people into taking the experimental jab. 

Protesters held signs that said “NO Vaccine Passports” as they chanted for their freedom. Even a few Trump flags made an appearance in the massive crowd.

The State-sponsored fake news hacks at Montreal Gazette claimed this was a crowd of “hundreds,” but the view from videos on the ground say it all.

Protesters were demanding that the government immediately hold an emergency public debate to reverse the totalitarian mandate because it is discriminatory and infringes on their civil rights.

Unsurprisingly, officials did not grant their requests, citing the emergency powers that have enabled them to commit these gross violations of liberty since the start of the pandemic.

They fear an open discussion because it would potentially fuel ‘dangerous conspiracy theories.’

According to them, noticing that the majority of new cases are among the vaccinated is akin to believing in lizard people.

Premier Francois Legault has rejected the idea of a debate, saying it would expose Quebecers to inaccurate, dangerous conspiracy theories about vaccines.

Instead of listening to citizens, the liberal-dominated government is expected to put even more restrictions in place as new Covid variants continue to spread across Canada. Canadian Prime Minister, Justin ‘blackface’ Trudeau, just announced that all federal employees, as well as any travelers on planes, trains, or ships, must be fully vaccinated by the Fall. 

Canadians are planning to protest until the government makes changes and allows a public forum and they know these tyrants won’t give up their newfound authority without a fight.

Canada is just the latest country to experience a massive uprising. Americans should wake up and follow suit. 

*

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 Gateway Pundit

Letter from London: Worrying Turn in Assange Case

August 16th, 2021 by Alexander Mercouris

All Global Research articles 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 my previous letter I discussed how Julian Assange’s case had taken a strange and worrying twist. The results of Wednesday’s High Court hearing is even more troubling for the WikiLeaks publisher. 

The High Court in July granted the U.S. government permission to appeal the Jan. 4 decision of District Judge Vanessa Baraitser to refuse the U.S. government’s request for Assange’s extradition to the United States, where he faces charges under the Espionage Act 1917 and for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion.

The grant of permission was however limited to essentially a single ground: whether Baraitser erred by failing to provide the U.S. government with an opportunity to provide her with ‘assurances’ about the conditions of detention in which Assange would be held if he were extradited and convicted in the United States.

Permission to appeal on another ground, whether Baraitser was right to base her assessment of Assange’s health, and of the risk that he might commit suicide if he were to be kept in rigorous conditions of confinement in the United States, on the evidence of Professor Michael Kopelman, was however refused.

The U.S. government would not accept this decision, and in a most unusual step, obtained a hearing in the High Court on Wednesday in order to appeal that part of the High Court’s decision which had refused permission to challenge the part of the appeal which concerned the issues of Assange’s health and the evidence of Professor Kopelman.

As previously reported by Joe Lauria, at this hearing the High Court reversed its earlier decision to refuse the U.S. government permission to appeal the matter of Assange’s health.

This means the U.S. government has now obtained permission to appeal on all the grounds it has sought. The full appeal will be heard by the High Court on Oct. 27 and 28.

In my previous letter I said that both grounds of appeal looked threadbare.

There had been nothing to prevent the U.S. government from giving its ‘assurances’ (that it would not put Assange in special confinement and would let him serve his sentence in Australia) to Baraitser at the substantive hearing last September.

Its attempt to do so now, months after Baraitser’s decision had been made, was an attempt to use the appeal process in order to introduce the ‘assurances’ as new evidence in the case, so as to change a decision which had already been made. This makes the ‘assurances’ new evidence, which is normally inadmissible on appeal.

As for Baraitser’s decision to base her assessment of Assange’s health and of his potential risk of suicide on the evidence of Professor Kopelman, that was an assessment for her to make as the trial judge in the case, and there is no reason why the High Court on appeal should seek to interfere in it. Mr. Justice Swift, the High Court Judge who refused the U.S. government permission to appeal on this ground in July, was of precisely this view.

Holroyde’s Reasons for Extending Permission to Appeal

It is this decision of Swift which the High Court at Wednesday’s hearing has reversed. In doing so, the High Court admitted it is highly unusual for an appeal court to question a trial judge’s assessment of the evidence. However in this case supposedly it is ‘arguable’ that it should do so.

Lord Justice Holroyde, a Court of Appeal Judge senior to Mr. Justice Swift, explained the decision in this way:

“I bear very much in mind that the District Judge saw and heard from all the expert witnesses and made her assessment of Professor Kopelman with that advantage, which an appellate court cannot share. I accept that, in general, this court rightly takes a cautious approach when considering the findings of fact. They may consider challenges to findings of fact, including assessments made by the judge below. It is however, very unusual for an appellate court to have to consider the position of an expert witness whose written evidence have been found to be misleading, but whose opinion has nonetheless been accepted by the court below. The general approach does not operate as a complete bar for this court to find that the judge below was wrong in her assessment of the evidence. I have come to the conclusion that it is here at least arguable that the present case is one in which such a power may operate.”

Holroyde then went on to say that in his opinion Baraitser might have given a “more critical consideration” of Professor Kopelman’s evidence.

“For those reasons, I respectfully disagree with Mr Justice Swift. I would grant the appeal on ground three. It will be for the court in the appeal hearing to determine the admissibility of the initial evidence on which the appellant seeks to revive.”

No Mention of Assange Relationship

This issue has arisen because of an omission of a fact in Professor Kopelman’s first witness statement. In that statement Kopelman omitted to mention the fact that Assange was in a relationship with Stella Moris, with whom he has had two children.

Kopelman omitted this fact from his witness statement because of Moris’s understandable anxiety for privacy for her children. Kopelman, sympathetic to Moris’s anxiety but conscious of his duty to the Court, consulted Assange’s lawyers. They apparently agreed with him that the fact of Moris’s relationship with Assange, and the fact that they had had two children together, could be kept out of the witness statement without this diminishing its evidential value, and without this detracting from Kopelman’s duty to the Court.

It was quickly realised that this was a mistake, and in a second witness statement, which is Kopelman’s full expert report to the Court, he disclosed Assange’s relationship with Moris, and the fact that they had had two children together. This second witness statement was provided to the Court last year, before the start of the substantive hearing in the autumn, and was seen by Baraitser before the hearing began.

Baraitser accordingly made her decision to refuse extradition in the full knowledge that Kopelman’s first witness statement was incomplete, and that at the time when it was made Kopelman was concealing the existence of Assange’s relationship with Moris, and of the fact that the two had had children together. She was also aware of the reasons why this was done. In her judgment Baraitser both acknowledged the fact of the concealment, and excused it:

In my judgment, professor Kopelmans decision to conceal [Assange and Moriss] relationship was misleading and inappropriate in the context of his obligations to the court, but an understandable human response to Ms. Moriss predicament…..In short, I found Professor Kopelmans opinion to be impartial and dispassionate; I was given no reason to doubt his motives or the reliability of his evidence.”

Holroyde and the High Court now say that this approach of Baraitser’s was ‘arguably’ wrong, and that Baraitser should have taken a ‘more critical consideration’ of Kopelman’s evidence than she did.

Open Route for U.S. to Give ‘Assurances’

At the October hearing, the question of the state of Assange’s health, and of the degree to which he really is a suicide risk, will be reconsidered. At that hearing the U.S. government can give its ‘assurances’ to the Court, which it did not previously give to Baraitser. Assuming the Court accepts the ‘assurances’, an order for Assange’s extradition to the U.S. may be made. If an appeal of that order to the Supreme Court is refused, Assange can be handed over to the United States, and the British authorities can wash their hands of the matter.

This is not a foregone conclusion. The High Court at the hearing in October is not bound to follow the opinions expressed by Holroyde at the hearing on Wednesday. His forthright comments show that he will not be part of the appeal panel which will hear the appeal in October.

However, though Holroyde was careful to say that the final decision is for the appeal panel in October to make, his words strongly imply that he thinks Baraitser should have handled Kopelman’s evidence differently.

The fact that Kopelman sought advice from Assange’s lawyers, who are technically officers of the Court, to my mind show that he did not intend to mislead the Court. As Baraitser put it, his actions, and those of the lawyers, were “an understandable human response to Ms. Moriss predicament”. No harm was intended or done. Though a mistake was made, it was corrected shortly after, and at the time of the hearing Baraitser was in possession of all the facts.

Baraitser, as the trial judge, was therefore in a position to assess the evidence, which Holroyde admits it was her right to do. Having assessed the evidence, and in full knowledge of all the facts, including those of the so-called “concealment.” she chose to give weight to the evidence of Kopelman, which she found to be “impartial and dispassionate”. There is no reason why an appeal court would want to interfere with such an approach, and as Holroyde admits, and as Swift found, ‘normally’ it would not do so.

In fact, Holroyde admitted that the High Court on appeal cannot itself revisit the evidence.  An appeal court is not a trial court.  Its only purpose is to decide whether or not Baraitser was wrong.  If it does decide on appeal that Baraitser was wrong – and it hasn’t done so yet, though Holroyde clearly thinks it should – it has two options:

(1) Send the issue back to the Westminster Magistrates’ Court, who would then decide the health issue all over again at a fresh hearing this time disregarding or placing little weight on Kopelman’s evidence; or

(2) Decide the issue of Assange’s health itself, at the same hearing as the hearing of the appeal, and directly after the appeal has been heard and decided, accepting Baraitser’s other findings of fact, but excluding or placing little weight on the evidence of professor Kopelman.

The proper course is (1) but I would not be at all surprised (if the appeal goes badly for Assange) that the High Court chooses (2).

Privacy of the Family an ECHR Protected Human Right

Ecuadorian embassy in London where Julian Assange took asylum. (Wikipedia)

There is moreover an absurd dimension to this whole affair. Assange, at the time when he began his relationship with Moris, was the target of round-the-clock surveillance by the U.S. and British authorities, who were spying on him in the Ecuadorian embassy, even to the point where they were observing his interactions with his lawyers.

It beggars belief that the U.S. and British authorities were unaware of Assange’s relationship with Moris, or of the fact that he had had two children by her.

At the time Kopelman drafted his first witness statement the extent to which Assange had been under placed under surveillance was known to Assange’s lawyers, and to Assange and Moris themselves. They would have known, or at the very least guessed, that the U.S. and British authorities were aware of Assange’s relationship with Moris, and of the fact that he had had two children by her. This is borne out by the testimony in a Spanish court last year that U.S. intelligence officers ordered the confiscation of one of the children’s nappies to prove Assange’s paternity by testing the DNA.

That makes it impossible that the omission of a reference to the relationship between Assange and Moris in Kopelman’s first witness statement was intended to conceal this relationship from the U.S. and British authorities, and from the Court, and that there was any intention to mislead the Court. Had such an attempt to conceal the relationship and the existence of the children from the Court been made, it would have failed, with catastrophic consequences for Assange’s case.

Obviously the concealment was intended, not to mislead the Court, but to conceal the existence of the relationship from Britain’s notoriously salacious tabloid press, who are able to access Court documents, such as Kopelman’s witness statement, which are documents of public record.

In other words it was intended to protect the family’s privacy, just as Kopelman, the lawyers, and Moris, say that it was.

Julian Assange in Ecuadorian embassy in London shot on UC Global surveillance tape.

The way it was done was certainly a mistake, but one made, as Baraitser says, for understandable human reasons, and clearly intended as a temporary measure to protect the privacy of the family until the moment came for full disclosure to the Court. This took place at a bail hearing in April 2020, months before the substantive hearing before Baraitser in the autumn of that year, and months before the U.S. filed its second superseding indictment, which was the indictment actually before the Court when the case was tried.

As Baraitser rightly says, the fact that these steps to protect the privacy of the family were taken, (privacy being a human right pursuant to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is part of British law) does not mean that Kopelman is not an “impartial and dispassionate” witness, even if some of the steps which were taken were wrong. It is wrong to say otherwise.

A Dark Turn and a Clouded Prospect

In my previous letter I wrote of the relentless way in which the U.S. government has pursued Julian Assange. Moreover its refusal to take no for an answer, and its readiness to resort to unusual procedural devices in order to get its way, looks from the latest decision to be starting to bear fruit. I doubt any other party would be able to bend events to its will in such a way.

Regardless, the case has taken a dark turn, and the prospects in October are clouded.

*

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.

Alexander Mercouris is a legal analyst, political commentator and editor of The Duran.

Featured image: The High Court at the Royal Courts of Justice. (David Castor/Wikimedia Commons)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Having written posts on this blog for several years now, I have become ever more sensitive to how we, as news consumers, are subject to ideology – the invisible, shifting sands of our belief system.

Those beliefs are not inbuilt, of course. How could they be? We are not born with pre-loaded software like a computer – even if our mental “hardware” may shape what kind of information we are capable of processing and how we process it.

And whatever we may imagine, our belief system is not really self-generated, dictated by life-experiences. It isn’t only real-world events that determine our values and views. Events and experiences are interpreted and given meaning by those beliefs and values. Which is why it is quite possible – common, in fact – for us to hold contradictory beliefs at the same time: like worrying about the threat posed to our children’s future from climate change, while supporting political systems committed to building more roads and runways.

Psychologists have a term for this phenomenon: cognitive dissonance.

Rather, our ideological landscape is socially constructed and largely imposed on us from outside. Ideology frames experiences for us, adding a hidden layer of interpretation that encourages us to make sense of the world in useful ways. The most liberating question one can ask, therefore, is: to whom is any particular ideology useful?

Framing the world 

We inherit much of our ideology from parents and teachers. But ideology is not static. It is adaptive. Our assumptions, beliefs and values subtly change over time. And they change as the needs of the powerful change.

The most powerful among us are powerful precisely because they create the dominant ideology – the thread of narrative that ties together what we imagine to be our personal understanding of why the world is as it is. That is why elites, whether the state or corporations, prioritise capturing the main channels of communication. They make sure to own and control the mass media.

When powerful external actors are framing the world for us – whether it be through broadcasting, newspapers or social media – they get to decide what matters, what should be prioritised, what is right.

That picture is particularly evident in the United States, where six corporations control almost everything the American public hears, sees and thinks – and, via Hollywood, much of what the rest of us think too. Even in the UK, where a trusted public broadcaster, the BBC, dominates much media output, the situation is little different. As the British state itself has been increasingly captured by a corporate elite, the BBC is run on its behalf. Just look at who has been appointed the BBC’s current chairman.

Limiting factors

The role of the corporate media is to subtly alter ideology – the way we see and think about the world – based on the most pressing needs of corporations as they pursue a consistent strategy of increasing profits and accumulating greater wealth. 

The biggest limiting factor on what the media can make us, the public, believe and how quickly we can be made to think new thoughts is not physical reality. It is the risk that too sudden a shift in ideology will create too much cognitive dissonance, to the point where we can no longer sustain our belief system.

The breakdown of an ideological system can manifest at the private level in a range of emotional and mental health states, including anxiety and depression, as well as chronic illness. But that is of little concern to corporate elites. Such “conditions” can be medicated – and to great profit, when we can easily be encouraged to buy drugs for our disease (dis-ease) or to go on shopping sprees to make us “feel” happier.

The real problem is when the breakdown in the dominant belief system is shared widely – becomes collective – and threatens the elites’ continuing grip on power. That path leads to political upheaval and revolution, when facts suddenly appear to be no longer solid but dubious, or even nonsensical, ideological claims.

For hundreds of years, kings ruled Europe’s populations based on a supposed “divine right”. But that claim was no more preposterous than the current belief that our elites run so-called western civilisation based on an “economic right” – that through the survival of the economically fittest, they have risen to the top to guide our societies to a better, more efficient world in which we all ultimately prosper.

Apocalypse insurance 

The insanity of our current economic reality is well illustrated by a new, self-serving ideological movement among the super-rich. Their emotional investment in their right to remain immensely wealthy is naturally much stronger than the investment of the rest of us in their staying rich. Which is one reason billionaires are capable of coping with much greater levels of cognitive dissonance when justifying the continuation of the current economic order.

The greatest ideological challenge facing the super-rich is imminent climate collapse: how to rationalise an economic system designed to satisfy their hunger for profit, and the continuation of their privilege, when it is so obviously causing that collapse.

Some have fled into ridiculous schoolboy fantasies – the billionaires’ equivalent of derangement. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are pouring money – while offsetting it against tax – into the escapism of space colonies, premised on the same technological exploitation and monetisation of nature that have been rapidly making our own planet uninhabitable.

Others are looking in more practical, if equally futile, directions. Reid Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn, has estimated that half of his fellow billionaires in Silicon Valley have bought what he calls “apocalypse insurance”, investing in safe-haven islands and luxury underground bunkers. Fancifully, they imagine that this will be their life-belt when the planet’s climate system breaks down beyond repair.

Mankind’s ‘misstep’ 

But even these approaches seem reasonable compared to another ideology the super-rich are coalescing around that has been labelled “longtermism”, an off-shoot of the “effective altruism” movement. As ever with language used by the powerful, reality is being inverted. The intention is to deceive – themselves as well as us. There is nothing long term or altruistic about this new cult. It is simply a rebranding of Gordon Gekko’s mantra “Greed is good”, even when that greed has been outed as suicidal.

Faced with a disastrous near-future for which they are supremely responsible, the super-rich wish to telescope our attention into the distant future – thousands and millions of years hence. By focusing on aeons ahead, they can distract from the immediate present. After all, they won’t be around to be blamed for what happens – if anything human is happening – 10 or 20 millennia hence. 

One of their gurus is Nick Bostrom, an Oxford University philosopher, who has contributed an academic gloss to this new religion masquerading as rationalism. He argues that, seen from tens of thousands of years in the future, the looming climate catastrophe won’t seem such a big deal – it will look as important as the crimes of the Roman empire or Genghis Khan appear to us today.

The imminent suffering of millions or even billions of human beings from rising seawaters, wildfires, droughts and food shortages pales when compared to the survival of the few who will reseed the planet and wider universe with conscious life. With the expansion of technologies already under development (by the billionaires), there will be many, many trillions of future biological humans colonising the universe or digital equivalents living in a post-human world.

In Bostrom’s words: “The breakdown of global civilization is, from the perspective of humanity as a whole, a potentially recoverable setback”. Or as he puts it more bluntly, what is coming is “a giant massacre for man, a small misstep for mankind”.

Digital Supermen 

For the billionaire class, this is soothing music to their ears. Altruism is not putting their enormous wealth to the service of fellow human beings or finding a path to a genuinely sustainable future. It is ensuring that a human elite survive the apocalypse: those with the deepest bunkers and the most remote, and elevated, islands. As long as they hoard their wealth to survive the storm, they will be able to continue into a new age in which human “potential” can be fully realised in the long term.

The rationalisation of longtermism amounts to this: If the steerage class is going to drown as the boat sinks, at least they can die happy in the knowledge that the first-class passengers – the greatest innovators and entrepreneurs, the billionaires – are in the lifeboats and ready to build afresh a better future for coming generations.

To think otherwise – to believe that the billionaires are part of the problem and that they must be required to become part of the solution – is small-minded and selfish. It stands in the way of progress. It risks preventing humanity’s survival by dragging everyone down, denying our species the chance of a glorious, technologically enhanced future we can only dream of now.

Bostrom argues too that, when measured against the moral imperative for humanity to unlock its full potential – for its development into a superior breed of Nietzschean digital Supermen – curbs on our current freedoms are justified. That could entail the development of more sophisticated global surveillance systems, greater authoritarianism and, if necessary, preemptive violence. It is hard to see what could not be justified on these grounds to ensure humanity’s “most deserving” survive the apocalypse.

Bostrom even hijacks a key concept of the environmental movement – that the planet’s resources are finite – to make the case for maintaining our current gross inequalities and reifying greed. If there are limited resources, they should not be “frittered away” on “feelgood projects” and philanthropy to save those about to reap the whirlwind of the very economic system – capitalism – that created the billionaire class. That would be to betray the survivors – the super-rich and a few lucky others – who will need those resources to create a new civilisation built on the ruins of the current one.

Billionaire’s burden 

If this all sounds like a reinvention of old-fashioned colonialism with a new twist – the white man’s burden becomes the billionaire’s burden – that is because it springs from exactly the same ideological source.

Stated so bluntly, it may sound patently ridiculous – and dangerous – to those of us who are not super rich. But these ideas are already subtly permeating the wider culture through media narratives.

The long term success of the super rich in gaslighting us can be measured in the fact that billionaires are seen as fulfilling a legitimate, philanthropic role in our societies – so much so that they grow ever richer – rather than parasites leeching the planet of its resources. (Listen out for those so brainwashed that they eagerly rush to the defence of the billionaire class, not only accusing critics of envy but warning us off comparing anyone to parasites.)

During the first 16 months of mass suffering spurred by the pandemic, the world’s 2,690 billionaires increased their fortunes by $5.5 trillion – hoarding more global wealth than they managed in the previous 15 years. And a large part of the reason for their accelerating enrichment is that western politicians and corporate lobbyists – now barely distinguishable – have made sure that the corporate class pays ever less tax. That this in itself has not provoked an uprising is down to our soma-fication by the corporate media.

But the indulgence of the super rich runs deeper, and is only made starker, by the report this week of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It warns that the effects of the manmade “climate crisis” on temperature rises and more extreme weather events are now “irreversible”, and that urgent action is needed to stop runaway overheating of the planet.

The billionaires own the media. So one can hardly be surprised that the IPCC’s warning that we are standing on the edge of a precipice writing our species’ suicide note rated second billing in many papers, while others frantically grasped for silver linings or attention-grabbing but mind-numbing “Code Red” headlines worthy of a Thomas Harris thriller.

And, of course, even the IPCC avoided pointing the finger directly at the corporations and their obfuscating media for our dismal plight. It was a generalised, faceless “humanity” that was guilty: “Humanity, through its actions, or lack of action, has unequivocally overheated the planet.” That might come as a surprise to the Kalahari bushmen, or Aboriginal elders in Australia or many Bedouin tribes across the Middle East. Are they really as guilty as Bezos or Musk?

‘Astronaut’ consumers 

The IPCC’s latest report received a more sympathetic assessment than the similar findings it produced in 2013, when much of the media felt the need to “balance” that report with counter-claims from climate “sceptics”. But that doubtless reflects the fact that the super rich are now far better positioned to profit from popular concerns about “climate change”. The billionaires have been investing in what they have persuaded us are green, planet-saving technologies. They have diversified their portfolios to monetise our fears. We are being persuaded that we can consume (more ethically) our way out of this “crisis”.

The signs that the IPCC’s deeper message is not getting through the media obfuscation are clear.

No one abhors Richard Branson and his rich “astronaut” customers for frittering away many millions on a few seconds in space when the oceans are choked with plastics, the insects are disappearing and burning forests are not storing but pouring carbon into the atmosphere.

Instead, the BBC reports uncritically Branson’s fairy-dust, ecological justification for the massive waste of resources – and addition of even more carbon to the atmosphere – jetting the wealthy into space:

Why shouldn’t they go to space? Space is extraordinary; the Universe is magnificent. I want people to be able to look back at our beautiful Earth and come home and work very hard to try to do magic to it to look after it.

Similarly, Bezos’ endless chatter about colonising space is treated seriously rather than greeted with the only rational response: revulsion. Both because Bezos is diverting attention away from a real-world crisis with a preposterous fantasy that, if he and his fellow billionaires get their way, no one will be around to benefit from; and because his ideas of space colonisation are either evidence of his desire to off-shore the rest of us into cylinders floating in space to become the human equivalent of battery chickens or, if his ambition is more limited, so that he and his retinue can flee the very planet he has played a key role in destroying.

Lightbulbs and cycling

But there are other ways the discourse around climate breakdown is being gradually manipulated to assist the super rich. 

Over decades, the media’s interest in addressing climate breakdown has hewn closely to the corporate elite’s interest in it. First, the science – evident more than half a century ago, even to the fossil fuel companies – was ignored because it would be bad for business. Then, through the 2000s, environmental concern became a niche interest among more liberal media, which promoted cycling to work and energy-efficient lightbulbs to save the polar bears – actions that were the individual consumer’s responsibility. At the same time, the benefits of climate change were played up: warmer summers in temperate countries like the UK would mean new opportunities for growing wines and the staycation economy.

The corporate elites bought themselves time as their media arms ostentatiously disagreed over the seriousness of climate change and offered, at best, coverage that framed it as some distant crisis our grandchildren would have to deal with. By the time a stream of extreme weather events arrived in the here and now, and could no longer be dismissed as aberrations, the billionaires were ready. They had reinvented themselves as guardians of the future, having diversified into supposedly green technologies – technologies designed to continue and expand our planet-destroying consumerism rather than curb it.

Even some of the preferred responses of western states to the pandemic – socially distanced living, increasingly as digital beings online, combined with surveillance capitalism and increased powers for the police – disturbingly foreshadow the “longtermist” fantasies of the super rich. It is not simply conspiracy thinking to be wary of where ideological adaption may take us, especially when corporations control our means of communication and have the power to impose consensus by silencing anyone, even experts, who challenge the dominant ideology that serves the interests of the super rich.

https://twitter.com/Jonathan_K_Cook/status/1374463909457895425 

The public discourse echoes the thinking of the billionaires in other ways. We have rushed headlong past the stage of a proper reckoning with the causes of the unfolding climate catastrophe to the global equivalent of the children’s game of musical chairs. If the super rich are pondering where to build their bunkers, and which islands to buy or planets to colonise, to escape the coming collapse, we are being conditioned to think in similarly deranged, if cut-price, terms. New studies are assessing the countries best placed to ride out climate catastrophe. The winners apparently will be New Zealand, Iceland, the UK, Ireland and Tasmania. 

Four years ago the supposedly liberal Independent newspaper offered, with a straight face, an eco-porn travelogue article suggesting “25 places you should visit before they vanish from the face of the Earth”. Now, just a few years later, we are playing the reverse game: where can we hunker down most safely as the world vanishes? This is cognitive dissonance in over-drive.

Even when climate change is addressed in the so-called “liberal” corporate media, the language used corrupts our ability to think. We are told we must go on a “war footing” to deal with the crisis. Positive comparisons are made with the emergency response to the pandemic, as though the resource-depleting and polluting production of endless, disposable masks and plastic tubes for lateral flow-testing, and a new obsession with hygiene, offer some kind of model for a green revolution. And even the Green New Deal is promoted in terms of Roosevelt’s consumption-driven New Deal of the 1930s.

The reality is that we can save our species – assuming it can be saved at all at this late stage – only by radically transforming our societies: by ending inequality, by criminalising greed, by dispossessing billionaires, by nationalising corporations, by making economies and political systems far more localised, by introducing real democratic accountability, by abolishing the corporate media, by funding critical thinking in our education system, and much else.

These are the minimal and urgent preconditions for our species to adapt to a future in which we do not experience runaway global heating. And yet they are voiced nowhere in our political or media discourses. And for that we have the billionaires, and their bunker and space colony fantasies, to thank.

*

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

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Where Best to Ride Out the Climate Apocalypse? The Billionaires’ Bunker Fantasies Go Mainstream
  • 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.

***

Why are numerous ‘independent alternative’ media outlets and writers not questioning the COVID-19 vaccine rollout? If anything, they are promoting it without even considering the serious concerns being voiced by top scientists.

When there are experts like cardiologist and epidemiologist Professor Peter McCullough, Dr Robert Malone (credited with inventing mRNA vaccine technology), former vice president of Pfizer Pharmaceuticals Dr Michael Yeadon, vaccine researcher and immunologist Dr Byram Bridle, world-renowned microbiologist Dr Sucharit Bhakti and hundreds of other respected scientists, immunologists and virologists expressing serious concerns or even calling for a halt to the rollout, surely their views must be given space.

However, from the outset, these self-proclaimed ‘anti-establishment’ platforms and journalists threw their hand in with the official COVID-19 narrative. They are now supporting the vaccine rollouts and by implication the entities pushing the vaccines – governments, mainstream media, the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations, Big Pharma and Silicon Valley and its bedfellow, the US military.

In effect, the full weight of the establishment has been brought to bear on pushing the COVID narrative and the vaccines. The very establishment that these ‘independent’ media outlets have previously challenged over the devastating ‘humanitarian’ conflicts in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria.

To show such contempt for human life (civilian ‘collateral damage’) via geopolitical and resource-grabbing wars sold under the thin veneer of ‘the war on terror’ or ‘humanitarian intervention’ but then feel a need to save humanity from the ‘deadly’ virus must make some of those supporters of the official line on COVID just a little suspicious of the motives.

As critical care physician Dr Pascal Sacré recently wrote:

“If people want trustworthy rulers, honest politicians, they should always judge rulers, financial elites and politicians by their actions rather than by their words.”

By not giving space to top scientists in the field of vaccine technology, immunology or virology who express deep concerns, these outlets are in fact engaging in censorship as much as the mainstream media, Facebook, Twitter, Google and YouTube.

Science involves open debate and transparency, not censorship.

Same old playbook

There are strong similarities between the issue of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in agriculture and the COVID ‘pandemic’ in terms of the framing of debates in both fields: a type of ‘the science is decided’ mentality and a smearing of critics in an attempt to demonise and close down debate.

Some years ago, Robert T Fraley, Monsanto’s former vice president and chief technology officer, asked on Twitter: “Why do people doubt science?”

Accompanying his question was a link to an article that implied people who are suspicious of vaccines, GMOs, climate change or fluoridated water are confused, adhere to conspiracy theories, are motivated by ideology or are simply misinformed.

But science is not the giver of ‘absolute truth’. That in itself should allow us to develop a healthy scepticism towards it. Scientific knowledge is built on shaky stilts that rest on shifting foundations. Science historian Thomas Kuhn wrote about the revolutionary paradigm shifts in scientific thought, whereby established theoretical perspectives can reinforce prevailing paradigms and serve as a barrier to the advancement of knowledge, until the weight of evidence and pressure from proponents of a new theoretical outlook is overwhelming. The old faith then gives way and the new ‘truth’ changes.

The manufacture of scientific knowledge involves a process driven by various sociological, methodological and epistemological conflicts and compromises, both inside the laboratory and beyond.

Why do people doubt science? Not because they are ill-informed or have read Kuhn or some sociology journal, but because they can see how science is used, corrupted and manipulated by powerful corporations and governments to serve their own ends.

Take US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, for instance. He once called for “sound science” to underpin food trade that involves GMOs. Despite what Vilsack would have us believe – that there are no concerns about GMOs – many studies show that they present risks to human health and are having serious environmental, social and economic consequences.

Sound science and the GMO agritech sector are too often perfect strangers. The industry carries out inadequate, short-term studies and conceals the data produced by its research under the guise of ‘commercial confidentiality’, while independent research highlights the dangers of its products. It has in the past also engaged in fakery in India, bribery in Indonesia and smears and intimidation against those who challenge its interests as well as the distortion and the censorship of scientific findings that undermine its agenda.

In the US, policy makers released GM food onto the commercial market without proper long-term tests, citing the belief that it is ‘substantially equivalent’ to ordinary food. But foreign genes are being inserted into organisms that studies show make them substantially non-equivalent. Substantial equivalence is a trade strategy on behalf of the GMO sector that neatly serves to bypass science by removing its GMOs from the type of scrutiny usually applied to potentially toxic or harmful substances.

Ultimately, it is not science itself that people have doubts about but science that is pressed into the service of immensely powerful private corporations and regulatory bodies that are effectively co-opted and adopt a ‘don’t look, don’t find approach’ to studies and products.

There is a tendency to label anyone who opposes GMO as anti-science, not least because they are arguing against a supposed ‘scientific consensus’ in favour of GMOs. But this ‘consensus’ is nothing but a fiction of the collective imagination of the pro-GMO lobby.

The first rule of risk-taking is to not cross the street blindfolded, which is what the GMO and COVID-19 vaccine lobbies would like us all to do, even though there are serious risks associated with these technologies. Furthermore, based on the work of US lawyer Steven Druker, we can see that the processes involved in getting GMO crop technology onto the commercial market were fraudulent and there has not been a single independent long-term epidemiological study on GMOs. With clinical trials still ongoing, similar concerns dog the ‘emergency use authorisation’ experimental COVID-19 vaccines.

The ‘technological salvation’ argument being put forward in favour of the vaccines is also present with GMOs: the technology is needed to ‘feed the hungry’ or ‘save dying children’. When an argument cannot be won using rational debate and science, we usually see the emotional blackmail fallback position and ad hominins against critics.

Whether it is GMO crop technology or COVID vaccines, we are seeing a huge unscientific experiment using people as human guinea pigs to rake in massive profits. In the case of the vaccines, there is also a wider agenda involving a ‘great reset’ of the economy and labour’s relationship to an increasingly authoritarian state whose role is to produce the conditions that will subordinate ordinary people to the ‘new normal’ required by private capital: mass surveillance, worklessness and the eradication of civil and political rights in favour of technocratic rule. In fact, genetically engineered food and crops are an integral part of this reset.

Part of the vaccine rollout involves accusing critics and the unvaccinated of being irresponsible and dangerous fearmongers. There is a huge government-media campaign to marginalise and demonise those who question the vaccines or refuse to take them due to valid concerns.

Instead of indulging in smear campaigns and censorship, what society should be facilitating is open debate and taking very seriously what critics are saying. When people engage in the former and run from the latter, it indicates that their arguments will not and do not withstand scrutiny.

Vaccine billionaires

In finishing, let us return to the world of Robert T Fraley and Monsanto and the type of ‘science’ he pushes. Bayer, which took over Monsanto in 2018, has just lost another appeals court decision in the US regarding its glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup, often used with GMO ‘roundup ready’ seeds and thus a key component of the GMO agenda. It faces tens of thousands of claims alleging that this herbicide causes cancer.

In a recent decision by a court of appeal in California, it was stated:

“Monsanto’s conduct evidenced reckless disregard of the health and safety of the multitude of unsuspecting consumers it kept in the dark. This was not an isolated incident; Monsanto’s conduct involved repeated actions over a period of many years motivated by the desire for sales and profit.”

There is a clear lesson here with regard to the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. Unlike Monsanto, however, Pfizer and the other vaccine manufacturers have received indemnities against the costs of compensation for adverse effects that might come from their COVID vaccines.

A shrewd business move considering Pfizer’s corporate rap sheet which does nothing to inspire trust in that company. Its track record includes product safety, pricing, advertising and marketing, environment, human rights, labour, worker safety and tax and subsidy crimes and scandals.

It is also claimed by the UK-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism that Pfizer bullied governments to put up federal bank reserves, embassy buildings or military bases as a guarantee against the cost of future legal cases stemming from the adverse effects of its COVID-19 vaccine. This would mean that governments rather than the company would shoulder any legal costs.

Vaccine manufacturers might well face bankruptcy sooner rather than later given the rising numbers of deaths and serious adverse effects being reported. But shielded from liability, the new vaccine billionaires, among them Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel and Ugur Sahin, the CEO of BioNTech, which has produced a vaccine with Pfizer, will be able to hold onto their loot.

Although nothing will bring back those who succumbed to the deadly effects of glyphosate, at least Monsanto (via Bayer) is now in the dock and has already been forced to shell out hundreds of millions of dollars to its victims or their families.

Through these legal cases involving glyphosate, it has been made clear just how powerful corporations can and do corrupt science for their own ends.

Robert F Kennedy Jr, one of the attorney’s fighting Bayer-Monsanto in the US courts, has explained that for four decades Monsanto manoeuvred to conceal Roundup’s carcinogenicity.

He also says that Monsanto faces cascading scientific evidence linking glyphosate to a constellation of other injuries that have become prevalent since its introduction, including obesity, depression, Alzheimer’s, ADHD, autism, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, kidney disease, inflammatory bowel disease, brain, breast and prostate cancer, miscarriage, birth defects and declining sperm counts.

This is what smearing and ignoring critics, malfeasance in public office, the capturing of regulatory agencies and scientific fraud leads to.

It is interesting that governments and public officials sat on their hands and facilitated the rollout of glyphosate and other toxic agrochemicals and watched what is now a major public health crisis spiral out of control. They prioritised the needs of the agrochemical sector ahead of public health and side-lined science that challenged the adverse effects of its products.

But governments are now suddenly expressing great concern for everyone’s well-being by locking them down, waging a fear campaign and cajoling and bribing people to take risky vaccines with dubious efficacy and which are arguably not needed. So, whose needs are they prioritising this time around?

Although we are still in the relative early days of the COVID-19 vaccine rollouts, disturbing evidence is mounting of the actual harm resulting from these poorly tested vaccines and the potential risks (infertility, cognitive, cancer, cardiovascular, etc) that lie in store. Dr J Patrick Whelan, a paediatric rheumatologist, warned the US Food and Drug Administration in late 2020 that mRNA vaccines could cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways not assessed in safety trials.

This is deeply concerning.

But not for some. Not least the nine new vaccine billionaires worth a combined $19.3 billion courtesy of COVID-19 vaccines that were largely funded with billions of dollars from the public purse.

*

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.

Colin Todhunter is an independent writer and analyst specialising in development, food and agriculture based in Europe/India. 

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

All Global Research articles 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 15 July, residents of Faroush Beit Dajan in the northern Jordan Valley woke up to a horrifying reality: the Israeli army had raided the village and demolished a seven-year-old water cistern that supplied water to their farms.

The demolition was part of an Israeli army campaign over the summer to destroy water sources that Palestinians had established in the Jordan valley, including water cisterns, ponds, wells for collecting water, and irrigation networks.

As a result of the destruction, some 85 Palestinian families have been struggling to find water to feed their summer crops, which extend over 480 dunams (48 hectares) of land.

Many residents believe that the army, by targeting their water supply, had a larger objective, which was to pressure them into leaving the area.

“The [Israeli] occupation specifically targets the infrastructure of Palestinian agriculture, which 99 percent of the village residents depend on for their livelihoods,” Azem Hajj Mohammad, head of the village local council, told Middle East Eye (MEE).

“That is why it constantly demolishes water tanks, irrigation networks, water lines, and seizes springs and water sources, with the aim of displacing Palestinians and replacing them with Israelis.”

Such a policy is defined by rights groups as creating a “coercive environment” that could lead to forcible transfer, a war crime under international law.

‘Unlawful demolition’

According to Hajj Mohammad, the army demolished the cistern while a case was still being heard in the courts and before a final decision had been issued.

Seven years ago, during the construction of the water cistern, the Israeli occupation army presented the villagers with a stop-work order, but the families went to the Israeli high court, which issued a precautionary decision not to demolish, he said.

The cistern had a capacity of 500 cubic metres, which would supply their 48 hectares of crops.

Over time, residents began to rely increasingly on the water cistern after the village lost its main water source, the Fara’a irrigation project, which had collected water from the Ain Shibli and Ain Miska springs as well as other small springs in the area.

“We lost this source of water due to the repeated Israeli violations, including withdrawing huge amounts of water from the area and drilling deep wells, leading to a decline in the quantity of water we could depend on,” said Hajj Mohammad.

Differential treatment for settlers

In the area of Ain al-Hilweh, in the northern Jordan Valley, locals say they have learned to live with the violations perpetrated by the settlers.

Farmer Fathi Alayan Daraghmeh told MEE that since March he has been unable to take his livestock to drink at the spring, which lies 1km from his home.

Instead, he began purchasing water daily, both for his family’s domestic use and for his cattle.

“I face the settlers on my own on a daily basis, and I try to retrieve the water from them. I face death threats, but I never pay any mind to them,” Fathi said.

“Either I go on with my life, preserving my dignity and my family, or I die while working to regain our dignity and our right to live on our lands.”

In late July, and after Palestinian protests against their repeated attempts to disrupt water supplies, Israeli settlers forcefully took over the main water spring there and turned it into a swimming pool.

Fathi accuses the Palestinian Authority (PA) of not doing enough for the occupied Jordan Valley, especially Ain al-Hilweh, which he said had led to the settlers’ takeover of the main water supply.

“We sent many appeals to the PA and asked them to strengthen the Palestinian presence in the region by sending delegations and directing Palestinian trips to the spring, but there was no response to our calls,” he said.

Fathi owns a farm rearing about 500 cows, and he has been directly dependent on the spring for his livestock since his family settled in the area more than 50 years ago.

“[Israeli authorities] confined us in our livestock grazing areas and are now preventing our livestock from grazing there. In contrast, they make it easier for settlers to set up farms in the area and also build the necessary infrastructure for them,” he told MEE.

He is now forced to spend 200-Israeli-new-shekel ($62) to purchase a water tank every four days for his family, while his livestock needs $6,215 worth of water per month, which is an exorbitant amount for him as a farmer.

“We transport water secretly, and then face checks by the Israeli police, who impose fines on us for doing so. They also confiscate our water tanks and the tractors that are used to transport the water.

“They are trying to restrict us by all means.”

Samer Sawafta, a farmer from the village of Bardala, says he built a 500-cubic-metre pond to gather water during the winter months to water his three-hectare plot of vegetable crops.

“The water pond was the only option that would enable us to continue cultivating our farm,” Sawafta told MEE. “We suffer greatly from being denied access to water. Today we are going through a disaster, and our lives can no longer be tolerated, due to non-stop Israeli aggressions.

“We, as Palestinian farmers, cannot withstand these Israeli attacks any longer. We need someone to stand with us and compensate us for what we lose on a daily basis,” he added.

According to Fathi, the situation in the Jordan Valley is worsening due to the Israeli occupation’s policies, all related to settlement expansion and strengthening the army’s presence in the strategic area.

Palestinian farmers no longer know whether they can withstand these measures, which are taking away their most basic rights, he said.

“In reality, we are in the process of completely losing the Jordan Valley. We must confront this cancer, which is spreading in a wide and deep manner, but we cannot do it alone as farmers; we need a force that will stand with us and defend our lands with us,” Fathi told MEE.

Oslo Accords restrictions

Moayad Bisharat, director of programmes and projects at the Union of Agricultural Work Committees, told MEE that Israeli occupation authorities have demolished 15 Palestinian water pools since the start of the summer, in addition to destroying 2-3km of water lines.

“This year we are witnessing a large escalation in the Israeli targeting of the water sector, in contrast to previous years, when attacks were concentrated on Palestinian communities,” said Bisharat.

He said that the main water problem in the Jordan Valley for the Palestinians was that the Israeli authorities were preventing residents from digging deeper wells, causing the existing shallow wells to have high salinity.

According to the Oslo Accords, Palestinians are prevented from digging wells, or even rehabilitating and repairing them, or deepening them, while Israeli authorities have control over 87% of the water resources, managed by the Israeli company Mekorot.

The Oslo Accords not only deprive Palestinians of exploiting their own groundwater, but also surface water, Bisharat said.

While water runs through dozens of valleys in the winter, the Israeli occupation prevents Palestinians from collecting and benefiting from it.

He added that many springs have dried up after settlers dug deep wells around them. The primary example is the al-Auja spring, which once produced about 3-6 million cubic meters annually, and was used by farmers to irrigate about 600 hectares in the area of Al-Auja.

Settlers built three wells around the spring in the 1990s, which led to it drying up and the desertification of large parts of the area.

To gain full control over water resources in the Jordan Valley, the Israeli occupation is now resorting to persecuting farmers when they break the rules and transport water to their communities and farms, according to Bisharat.

This, he said, indicates a continuous intent to displace Palestinians from the Jordan Valley.

*

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 PressTV

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Palestinians Fight for Right to Water, Survival in Jordan Valley
  • Tags: ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The United States lost the Afghanistan War a long time ago, as is quickly becoming apparent as the Taliban take city after city.

After 2002, it was never clear what the US war aim was. You can’t win a war if you don’t have a clear objective. The war is lost before it begins.

The initial US military action against the Taliban government of Mulla Omar in fall, 2001, was based on the refusal of Kabul to hand over Usama Bin Laden and other al-Qaeda terrorists who carried out the September 11 attacks. There is no reason to believe that the Taliban leadership was aware of what al-Qaeda was planning. The Taliban are Pushtuns, al-Qaeda was Arab expatriates. Pushtuns were known to get sick and tired of the Arabs lording it over them and occasionally to stick a shiv between their ribs on the march.

Al-Qaeda was not, however, just a “guest” of the Taliban. It was their 55th Brigade. The al-Qaeda fighters were the best in the country and were the only ones who could take on the Northern Alliance remnants in the country’s northeast with any success. Mulla Omar would never have turned them over to the US. For one thing, he needed them at the home front. But not only the Taliban but many in al-Qaeda felt deeply betrayed by Bin Laden’s use of their hospitality to stage a brazen attack on a superpower, bringing the full weight of the international community down on them.

The US gave the Northern Alliance (fundamentalist Sunni Tajiks, Shiite Hazaras and secular Uzbeks) air support, and enabled them to roll up the Taliban in city after city by taking out the few military vehicles the Taliban had. All the forces were poorly equipped. The Northern Alliance forces took Mazar-i Sharif on horseback, with US special operations guys in tow, painting lasers on Taliban targets for the airstrikes. Some of the spec ops guys didn’t know how to post when riding and boy were they sore the next day.

The Northern Alliance were fighting for their lives, and they defeated the Taliban in the field. The Taliban are genocidal toward Shiite Hazaras, some 22 percent of the population, clustered in the center of the country. The Persian-speaking Tajiks, their Islam inflected with Sufism or Muslim mysticism, deeply feared the Taliban and their Saudi-influenced ideology. Many Uzbeks, influenced by the industrialization in the north and the proximity to the former Soviet Union, were urbane and relatively secular-minded, and hated the hyper-fundamentalism of the Pushtun Taliban.

By spring of 2002, the Taliban were roundly defeated. Opinion polls showed that their favorability rating was good only among 5 percent of the population.

George W. Bush, who spearheaded the invasion, was never very interested in Afghanistan, though maybe he saw that old Gary Cooper film “The Lives of a Bengal Lancer” on TV, because he once spoke of the “romance” of the fighting in Afghanistan. As long as I live, I’ll never get over W.

He gave a brave speech about nation-building and spending all this money in Afghanistan. The vast majority of the money the US spent on that country in the subsequent 20 years was to pay for the bombs they dropped on it. The money spent on building the place up was tiny in comparison. And much of it was lost to corruption.

By spring of 2002, congressmen visiting Centcom head Tommy Franks were bluntly told that Afghanistan was no longer the mission, and the Bush crime gang had clearly decided to set up Iraq as a fall guy for 9/11 and break the country’s legs.

The US in 2002-2003 had a good outcome in Afghanistan. We should just have left then. I can’t imagine why we didn’t. I think then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wanted to surround Russia so it couldn’t reemerge as a peer power. It had nothing to do with Afghanistan.

The US lost Afghanistan in part by trying to occupy it militarily. In 2005 US troops used flamethrowers to burn poppy crops of Afghan farmers, who had nothing else to live on. One in 7 as a result had to sell a daughter. I doubt they have forgiven the US.

If you occupy a country, you have to suppress insurgents. Insurgents come from towns and villages and have friends and relatives there. When insurgents hit a US outpost, the US troops had to go into the nearby village and shake it down, looking for the guerrillas. They’d go into Afghan homes at night, with the women folk rustled from their sleep and standing there bare-faced and in their bed clothes before 18-year-old strangers from Alabama and South Carolina. After a thing like that, the men of the family would have had at least to try to kill some Americans. Search and destroy missions gradually turned people against the US, just as had happened in Vietnam.

One US officer who had served in Afghanistan got upset with me for saying this, insisting that the troops always brought along a local in these home invasions. I suspect some of these “locals” were Hazara Shiites or Tajiks, standing there in Pushtun homes with the Americans. That if anything would have made it worse. Only 2 percent of the Afghanistan National Army stood up by the US was from the southern Pushtun provinces.

The Afghanistan National Army had trouble keeping recruits. There was extremely high turnover as soldiers deserted after a few months. Many of those who remained had poor morale and allegedly smoked a lot of pot. The US was sometimes not very serious about training them. It farmed out rifle practice to a private firm that could not improve their accuracy when firing US rifles. It turns out that you have to use the sight, and the firm wasn’t teaching the troops that.

The central government stood up by the US was corrupt on a galactic scale. Freighter airplanes full of US dollars in hard cash regularly took off for Dubai from Kabul International Airport. The new Afghan elite fleeced the people and bought fancy islands around Dubai with the money, even embezzling from the Da Kabul Bank. In 2008 the island resorts became worthless and Da Kabul Bank collapsed, leaving people in long lines before its branches seeking to recover their life savings. They did not.

The new elite in Kabul was weighted toward Tajiks, many of whom had close ties to India and Indian intelligence (which had supported them in the lean years of Taliban rule). This development was absolutely unacceptable to the black cells of nationalist or Muslim fundamentalist officers in the Pakistani Army and the Inter-Services Intelligence, who took revenge by backing a Taliban resurgence. Pakistan and India have fought 3 wars and a smaller border skirmish, and Pakistan is a much smaller country with fewer allies. Islamabad feels it cannot afford to have a government in Kabul that tilts to New Delhi, lest Pakistan be surrounded.

US officials sent out to Afghanistan knew that it was a Washington Ponzi scheme. Billions were disappearing into the pockets of contractors and warlords. Only the arms manufacturers were happy. The US was massively bombing the country every year, the only reason that it was still able to be there. US officials confessed as much to government watchdogs, and the Washington Post managed to get those interviews and publish them in 2019. Nobody believed in the mission. There was no mission. There was a morass of corruption and incompetence. Many of the regional warlords under the new government were not easier on women or minorities than the Taliban had been, and were fundamentalists of a different stripe.

Joe Biden knew all this. He is the consummate insider. He was the one who decided to blow the whistle on the Ponzi scheme. Of course, when such a scheme is revealed, a lot of institutions collapse and a lot of people get hurt. But actually the institutions were already in collapse, they just didn’t know it, and the people had already lost all their investments, they just hadn’t yet come to that realization.

The Northern Alliance in fall of 2001 defeated the Taliban with US air support, because they had esprit de corps and were fighting for what they believed in. The Afghanistan National Army seems to be unwilling to fight in the same way, presumably because they don’t ultimately want to risk their lives for their government. It is a sad, tragic development, and many urban people and women and minorities will suffer. But once a Ponzi schemer has already stolen all the money, it is not possible to keep up the pretense of normality forever.

*

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 U.S. Army Soldier from the A Company, 1-503rd Battalion, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, conducts a patrol with a platoon of Afghan national army soldiers to check on conditions in the village of Yawez, Wardak province, Afghanistan, Feb. 17, 2010. Partnership between the U.S. Army and the Afghan national army is proving to be a valuable tool in bringing security to the area. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Russell GilchrestReleased)

A Saigon Moment Looms in Kabul

August 15th, 2021 by Pepe Escobar

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

August 12, 2021. History will register it as the day the Taliban, nearly 20 years after 9/11 and the subsequent toppling of their 1996-2001 reign by American bombing, struck the decisive blow against the central government in Kabul.

In a coordinated blitzkrieg, the Taliban all but captured three crucial hubs: Ghazni and Kandahar in the center, and Herat in the west. They had already captured most of the north. As it stands, the Taliban control 14 (italics mine) provincial capitals and counting.

First thing in the morning, they took Ghazni, which is situated around 140 kilometers from Kabul. The repaved highway is in good condition. Not only are the Taliban moving closer and closer to Kabul: for all practical purposes they now control the nation’s top artery, Highway 1 from Kabul to Kandahar via Ghazni.

That in itself is a strategic game-changer. It will allow the Taliban to encircle and besiege Kabul simultaneously from north and south, in a pincer movement.

Kandahar fell by nightfall after the Taliban managed to breach the security belt around the city, attacking from several directions.

In Ghazni, provincial governor Daoud Laghmani cut a deal, fled and then was arrested. In Kandahar, provincial governor Rohullah Khanzada – who belongs to the powerful Popolzai tribe – left with only a few bodyguards.

He opted to engage in an elaborate deal, convincing the Taliban to allow the remaining military to retreat to Kandahar airport and be evacuated by helicopter. All their equipment, heavy weapons and ammunition should be transferred to the Taliban.

Afghan Special Forces represented the cream of the crop in Kandahar. Yet they were only protecting a few select locations. Now their next mission may be to protect Kabul. The final deal between the governor and the Taliban should be struck soon. Kandahar has indeed fallen.

In Herat, the Taliban attacked from the east while notorious former warlord Ismail Khan, leading his militia, put up a tremendous fight from the west. The Taliban progressively conquered the police HQ, “liberated” prison inmates and laid siege to the governor’s office.

Game over: Herat has also fallen with the Taliban now controlling the whole of Western Afghanistan, all the way to the borders with Iran.

Tet Offensive, remixed

Military analysts will have a ball deconstructing this Taliban equivalent to the 1968 Tet Offensive in Vietnam. Satellite intel may have been instrumental: it’s as if the whole battlefield progress had been coordinated from above.

Yet there are some quite prosaic reasons for the success of the onslaught apart from strategic acumen: corruption in the Afghan National Army (ANA); total disconnect between Kabul and battlefield commanders; lack of American air support; the deep political divide in Kabul itself.

In parallel, the Taliban had been secretly reaching out for months, through tribal connections and family ties, offering a deal: don’t fight us and you will be spared.

Add to it a deep sense of betrayal by the West felt by those connected with the Kabul government, mixed with fear of Taliban revenge against collaborationists.

A very sad subplot, from now on, concerns civilian helplessness – felt by those who consider themselves trapped in cities that are now controlled by the Taliban. Those that made it before the onslaught are the new Afghan IDPs, such as the ones who set up a refugee camp in the Sara-e-Shamali park in Kabul.

Rumors were swirling in Kabul that Washington had suggested to President Ashraf Ghani to resign, clearing the way for a ceasefire and the establishment of a transitional government.

On the record, what’s established is that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin promised Ghani to “remain invested” in Afghan security.

Reports indicate the Pentagon plans to redeploy 3,000 troops and Marines to Afghanistan and another 4,000 to the region to evacuate the US Embassy and US citizens in Kabul.

The alleged offer to Ghani actually originated in Doha – and came from Ghani’s people, as I confirmed with diplomatic sources.

The Kabul delegation, led by Abdullah Abdullah, the chairman of something called the High Council for National Reconciliation, via Qatar mediation, offered the Taliban a power-sharing deal as long as they stop the onslaught. There’s been no mention of Ghani resigning, which is the Taliban’s number one condition for any negotiation.

The extended troika in Doha is working overtime. The US lines up immovable object Zalmay Khalilzad, widely mocked in the 2000s as “Bush’s Afghan.” The Pakistanis have special envoy Muhammad Sadiq and ambassador to Kabul Mansoor Khan.

The Russians have the Kremlin’s envoy to Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov. And the Chinese have a new Afghan envoy, Xiao Yong.

Russia-China-Pakistan are negotiating with a Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) frame of mind: all three are permanent members. They emphasize a transition government, power-sharing, and recognition of the Taliban as a legitimate political force.

Diplomats are already hinting that if the Taliban topple Ghani in Kabul, by whatever means, they will be recognized by Beijing as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan – something that will set up yet another incendiary geopolitical front in the confrontation against Washington.

As it stands, Beijing is just encouraging the Taliban to strike a peace agreement with Kabul.

The Pashtunistan riddle

Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan has minced no words as he stepped into the fray. He confirmed the Taliban leadership told him there’s no negotiation with Ghani in power – even as he tried to persuade them to reach for a peace deal.

Khan accused Washington of regarding Pakistan as “useful” only when it comes to pressing Islamabad to use its influence over the Taliban to broker a deal – without considering the “mess” the Americans left behind.

Khan once again said he “made it very clear” there will be no US military bases in Pakistan.

This is a very good analysis of how hard it is for Khan and Islamabad to explain Pakistan’s complex involvement with Afghanistan to the West and also the Global South.

The key issues are quite clear:

1. Pakistan wants a power-sharing deal and is doing what it can in Doha, along the extended troika, to reach it.

2. A Taliban takeover will lead to a new influx of refugees and may encourage jihadis of the al-Qaeda, TTP and ISIS-Khorasan kind to destabilize Pakistan.

3. It was the US that legitimized the Taliban by striking an agreement with them during the Donald Trump administration.

4. And because of the messy withdrawal, the Americans reduced their leverage – and Pakistan’s – over the Taliban.

The problem is Islamabad simply does not manage to get these messages across.

And then there are some bewildering decisions. Take the AfPak border between Chaman (in Pakistan’s Balochistan) and Spin Boldak (in Afghanistan).

The Pakistanis closed their side of the border. Every day tens of thousands of people, overwhelmingly Pashtun and Baloch, from both sides cross back and forth alongside a mega-convoy of trucks transporting merchandise from the port of Karachi to landlocked Afghanistan. To shut down such a vital commercial border is an unsustainable proposition.

All of the above leads to arguably the ultimate problem: what to do about Pashtunistan?

The absolute heart of the matter when it comes to Pakistan’s involvement in Afghanistan and Afghan interference in the Pakistani tribal areas is the completely artificial, British Empire-designed Durand Line. 

Islamabad’s definitive nightmare is another partition. Pashtuns are the largest tribe in the world and they live on both sides of the (artificial) border. Islamabad simply cannot admit a nationalist entity ruling Afghanistan because that will eventually foment a Pashtun insurrection in Pakistan.

And that explains why Islamabad prefers the Taliban compared to an Afghan nationalist government. Ideologically, conservative Pakistan is not that dissimilar from the Taliban positioning. And in foreign policy terms, the Taliban in power perfectly fit the unmovable “strategic depth” doctrine that opposes Pakistan to India.

In contrast, Afghanistan’s position is clear-cut. The Durand Line divides Pashtuns on both sides of an artificial border. So any nationalist government in Kabul will never abandon its desire for a larger, united Pashtunistan.

As the Taliban are de facto a collection of warlord militias, Islamabad has learned by experience how to deal with them. Virtually every warlord – and militia – in Afghanistan is Islamic.

Even the current Kabul arrangement is based on Islamic law and seeks advice from an Ulema council. Very few in the West know that Sharia law is the predominant trend in the current Afghan constitution.

Closing the circle, ultimately all members of the Kabul government, the military, as well as a great deal of civil society come from the same conservative tribal framework that gave birth to the Taliban.

Apart from the military onslaught, the Taliban seem to be winning the domestic PR battle because of a simple equation: they portray Ghani as a NATO and US puppet, the lackey of foreign invaders.

And to make that distinction in the graveyard of empires has always been a winning proposition.

*

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

This article was originally published on Asia Times.

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles 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.

***

.

Background

China has rejected as politically-motivated the World Health Organization’s calls for a renewed probe into the origins of Covid-19. The organization conducted its first investigation in January in the Chinese city of Wuhan. But, the probe failed to conclude how the virus started.

*

PressTV: How do you see this claim by China?

Peter Koenig: China is absolutely right. WHO had their day in court, so to speak, in January this year. A WHO delegation visited China and came to their conclusions, pretty much to what China said from the beginning, that the virus did not originate in China.

But the West is not happy.

In order to continue demonizing China, the West would like WHO’s authority to say the contrary.

Mind you – and this may be important for many listeners and viewers – you should know who are the key financiers of WHO, other than the member countries…

First, the creation of the WHO as a UN agency was a multi-purpose Rockefeller initiative. This short video may provide some valuable background.

Video: History and the Rockefellers  (click lower right corner to enlarge screen)

.

Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company, broken up into many pieces to avoid US anti-monopoly laws transformed basically into ExxonMobile. The Rockefellers wanted to transform the health industry, at that time still largely based on traditional herbal and natural medicine, into a petrochemical pharma-market. And they were successful, as we know today.

“Outside” sources, so-called extrabudgetary funding, is about 3 to 4 times higher than the regular WHO budget, which consists principally from member countries’ contribution.

Among the “outside” funders, are the most prominent ones, The Gates Foundation, GAVI, Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (has about 28 members, most of them pharma-companies), also created by Bill Gates, which is, by the way, housed just next door to WHO in Geneva, and other pharmaceuticals and supporters of Big-pharma. Of course, they are not donating directly to WHO, that would be too obvious, but in indirect format, such as through trust-funds and similar modes, so it is less recognizable.

It is also clear, as has been since the beginning, that the corona virus was laboratory made, there are several patents available – you won’t find them anymore on internet – as the fake “fact checkers” had them all removed.

Given this background, it is obvious that the west needs (1) somebody else to blame for covid, and (2) to accuse especially China. China is a menace for the west, an imagined menace, but imagined all the same, because the west led by the US — is in an economic decline, and with it, the supremacy of the western world, so far maintained by the US-dollar. It is a fiat currency dominance, militarily supported, by NATO. And it is in rapid decline.

While China’s currency, the Yuan, is based on the country’s economic strength. Nothing fiat here. And that is what keeps the west trembling, as counties’ treasurers around the globe are abandoning the dollar as reserve asset and are switching to the yuan and other currencies.

PTV: What are western government motivations in this?

PK: The motivation is to keep further demonizing China.

But it will not work, because more people are waking up to reality.

Covid is but one “instrument” to demonize China. A strong one, or at least that’s what wester politicians, dictators think.

On another front, for example, China is surrounded by between 1200 and 1400, military bases, direct US or from other countries that allow US military to be stationed there. But to no avail. China is not only prepared, but much of the rest of the western world signal their support to US dominance not because they believe in it, but because of fear from retaliation.

More people than ever start realizing that this covid plandemic has nothing to do with health, as by Fauci’s own words – when he isn’t on the bought mainstream media, but has to defend peer-reviewed science. That’s when he says that covid is about equivalent to a common flu.

What we are seeing in the west is an increasing trend towards dictatorial, or even tyrannical methods to control people, with various forms of lockdowns, or semi-lockdowns.

They are inventing for that purpose ever more covid “variants” … currently it’s the Delta variant – and already waiting in the wings is probably the Epsilon variant – and so on….

It is amazing that it takes so long for the people to open their eyes and realize that there is another agenda behind this highly criminal fraud, an agenda that, as I mentioned before, has nothing to do with health, but that uses an invisible enemy, a virus, as an instrument to hold the entire world hostage and in awe.

All of the 193 UN member countries follow the same dictate – a dictate of FEAR, that comes way from above, from a money dominated obscure cult that has the purpose of massively reducing world population, shoveling money and other resources from the bottom and the center to the top, and controlling what’s left of the surviving population, largely by AI and robotization.

*

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

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He is also a non-resident Sr. Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Featured image is from Massoud Nayeri

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on China vs. the WHO. “The Virus did not Originate in China”. The WHO was an Initiative of the Rockefellers
  • Tags: , ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit court ruled the Federal Communications Commission failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its current guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) won its historic case today against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a case challenging the agency’s decision not to review its 1996 health and safety guidelines regarding wireless-based technologies including 5G.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit published its decision Aug.13. The court ruled that the FCC failed to consider the non-cancer evidence regarding adverse health effects of wireless technology when it decided that its1996 radiofrequency emission guidelines protect the public’s health.

The court’s judgment states:

“The case be remanded to the commission to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation…”

CHD Chairman and attorney on the case Robert F Kennedy, Jr. said:

“The court’s decision exposes the FCC and FDA as captive agencies that have abandoned their duty to protect public health in favor of a single-minded crusade to increase telecom industry profits.”

CHD’s case was consolidated with another similar case that was filed by the Environmental Health Trust. The organizations filed joint briefs in the case.

CHD’s lead attorney for the case, Scott McCollough, a telecommunication and administrative law attorney who represented the petitioners in the hearing, said:

“This is an historic win. The FCC will have to re-open the proceeding and for the first time meaningfully and responsibly confront the vast amount of scientific and medical evidenceshowing that current guidelines do not adequately protect health and the environment.

The court’s decision continued to say:

 “…the FCC completely failed to acknowledge, let alone respond to, comments concerning the impact of RF radiation on the environment…The record contains substantive evidence of potential environmental harms.”

The petitioners in the case filed 11,000 pages of evidence of harm from 5G and wireless technology which the FCC ignored, including evidence of already existing widespread sickness.

Attorney Dafna Tachover, CHD’s director of 5G and Wireless Harms Project, who initiated and led the case for CHD, said:

“The FCC will finally have to recognize the immense suffering by the millions of people who have already been harmed by the FCC’s and FDA’s unprecedented failure to protect public health. Finally the truth is out. I am hopeful that following this decision, the FCC will do the right thing and halt any further deployment of 5G.”

The court ruling was a two-to-one panel decision. Judge Robert Wilkins wrote the majority opinion. Judge Patricia Millett joined him and Judge Karen Henderson, who presided over the panel, issued a dissent.

CHD President Mary Holland said:

“The U.S. Court of Appeals decision in CHD’s case against the FCC reaffirms my faith in the judiciary. In these chaotic days, courts can still hold out the hope for sober-minded decisions according to the rule of law. I eagerly await FCC action in compliance with the court’s ruling.”

This historic case was filed by CHD on Feb. 2, 2020. The case challenged the agency’s decision not to review its 25-year-old radio-frequency emissions (RF) guidelines which regulate the radiation emitted by wireless technology devices (such as cell phones and iPads) and infrastructure (cell towers, Wi-Fi and smart-meters), and to promulgate biologically and evidence-based guidelines that adequately protect public health.

In 1996, the FCC adopted guidelines which only protect consumers from adverse effects occurring at levels of radiation that cause thermal effects (temperature change in tissue), while ignoring substantial evidence of profound harms from pulsed and modulated RF radiation at non-thermal levels. The FCC hasn’t reviewed its guidelines or the evidence since, despite clear scientific evidence of harm and growing rates of RF-related sickness.

In 2012, the Government Accountability Office of Congress published a report recommending the FCC reassess its guidelines. As a result, in 2013 the FCC published an inquiry to decide whether the guidelines should be reviewed. It opened docket 13-84 for the public to file comments.

Thousands of comments and scientific evidence by scientists, medical organizations and doctors, as well as hundreds of comments by people who have become sick from this radiation were filed in support of new rules. Nevertheless, on Dec. 4, 2019, the FCC closed the docket and published its decision, affirming the adequacy of its guidelines without proper assessment of the comments or the evidence.

The lawsuit, called a Petition for Review, contends that the agency’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, not evidence-based, an abuse of discretion and in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

CHD’s lawsuit was joined by nine individual petitioners. Petitioners include Professor David Carpenter MD, a world-renowned scientist and public health expert who is co-editor of the BioInitiative Report, the most comprehensive review of the science on RF effects; physicians who see the sickness caused by wireless radiation in their clinics; and a mother whose son died of a cell phone-related brain tumor.

CHD’s lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. However it was transferred to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit where it was joined with a similar lawsuit filed by the Environmental Health Trust and Consumers for Safe Cell Phones. The main brief and the reply brief were filed jointly by all petitioners.

*

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

Featured image is from CHD

First published by Global Research on August 14, 2020

***

One of the direct impacts of the spread of the coronavirus COVID-19 is challenging human rights. The pandemic not only created and still creating health issues, economic challenges, political crises and social conflicts around the world, it also affects individual rights and freedoms. Human rights are facing violations such as arbitrary detention, discrimination, censorship, and xenophobia. The fundamental rights that may be involved in this pandemic are, among others, the right to privacy, the right to free movement, the right to health, the right to employment, the right to non-discrimination, freedom of assembly and expression, the right to information and the right to health care.

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which is a multilateral treaty adopted by most countries, and the United Nations General Assembly (1966)[1] is emphasizing that everyone has the right to the highest standard of physical and mental health. Based on this treaty, the Sates are required to take the necessary measures to prevent, treat and control any epidemic, pandemic and other diseases. Therefore, the right to health is closely linked to other human rights, which set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948[2].

Freedom of expression

According to article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which implies the right not to be worried about their opinions. Freedom of opinion and expression is considered as a fundamental human right, such as freedom of information and freedom of the press, which lays the foundation for all other rights. Some states declare a state of emergency in response to the COVID-19. This exceptional measures created an environment to limit the freedom of expression.

In the context of COVID-19, a large number of journalists and media actors around the world are restrained from performing their functions, especially when it concerns statistics about the death-causing from the pandemic.

International human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, requires that restrictions on human rights for reasons of public health or national emergency be following the law, necessary and proportionate.

Rights to privacy and personal life

The protection of privacy also affirmed by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 12 states that an individual has the right to respect for his private life. This right includes the professional and medical confidentiality, the protection of privacy and the protection of the confidentiality of patient information. The government response to the COVID-19 pandemic may require restricting measures that control people’s life affects directly the fundamental freedoms and human rights, specifically the right to data protection. In this regard, it is essential to remember that data protection cannot, in any case, constitute an obstacle to saving human lives. However, some countries use these data to restrain individual freedom.

It is crucial to know how to create a balance in collecting and processing personal data for global public health purposes without risking a disproportionate impact on the rights to privacy and personal life.

Xenophobia and racism

Racism against Asians, especially against Chinese people, is increasing from the beginning of Covid-19. Replacing the world “Chinese virus” instead “coronavirus” is a growing manifest of racism from different backgrounds. They have been the target of racist threats and intimidation in both public and online places, as well as acts of physical violence. According to the principle of fundamental human rights, nobody should feel threatened or rejected because of their race, skin color or origin.

In this situation, xenophobia and racism are not only a violation of human rights. They also considered a threat to national security.  For these reasons, much remains to be done to ensure that COVID-19 does not worsen racial inequalities at national and international levels.

Border restriction and control

During the current Covid-19 pandemic, some governments are taking exceptional measures to control their borders to limit the spread of the virus. It is crucial to make a balance between state security and human rights to fully respect the rule of law. Even in a real emergency, the rule of law must be dominated. In the context of severe threats to public health and the event of public emergencies threatening national security, restrictions on individual rights may be justified if they have a legal basis and are strictly necessary. This exceptional situation must be based on scientific evidence, limited for the duration of time, respectful of human dignity, subject to examination and finally should be proportional.

Suppression of information

Free access to information is considered as a human right. The right to information is essential for the health care of people around the world, and it must be accessible during the COVID-19 crisis. Restrictions on access to health information constitute human rights violations.

Based on the gravity of the current global health crisis, the application of emergency powers of the States is authorized by international law in response to significant threats. However, any measure taken for limiting and suppressing information must be proportionate, non-discriminatory and crucial.

Refugees and detainees life conditions  

The States’ efforts to combat coronavirus may not be sufficient to protect the health of refugees and detainees in a different corner of the globe. There are serious concerns about the health conditions of these people, such as providing medical services. These vulnerable populations may be suffering from illnesses, mental and physical injuries, in addition to the serious medical complications related to COVID-19.

Refugees and detainees should have access to medical, social and health care on an equal basis with the general population. States have the responsibility to take all appropriate measures to prevent the risk of neglect and degrading treatment of these people. They should develop guidelines for proper hygiene and distance in this regard. In this perspective, access to health care should be equal and according to their medical criteria to ensure that the vulnerable people are not victims of medical discrimination.

Access to justice for domestic violence

Another actual impact of COVID-19 on human rights is increasing domestic violence in many countries. The limitation of police intervention, limited access to justice, the closure of the courts, the closure of services for victims and shelters and reduced access to reproductive health services are the main issues in gender-based violence against women and domestic violence in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This situation requires increasing advocacy and access to justice. In this context, the vulnerable populations such as immigrants, specifically undocumented immigrants, need in priority to have access to the justice and shelter during this crisis. For this reason, the justice system should find a solution to serve women at risk and ensure their accessibility to justice and legal protections.

To conclude, the world is experiencing an unprecedented crisis after World War II.

The Covid-19 pandemic is not only considered as a health crisis, but it is also a humanitarian, socio-economic, political and development crisis that threatens entire humanity.

The response to this crisis requires global efforts to take appropriate measures for reducing harmful effects on the security, health care, food, water and sanitation of all human life around the world. The actions taken in this situation should guarantee health care to everyone and protect human dignity. They also should be based on the pathway that will restore economic, development and peace in a sustainable approach. International human rights law guarantees every single individual the right to health and health care access. It obliges States to take measures to protect public health and to provide medical care to their citizens.

International human rights law is generally based on the inalienable, universal, interdependent and indivisible rights. It imposes obligations on the States, especially in times of crisis. Human rights are applying to everyone without any discrimination. Besides, the States should adopt a policy to ensure that all levels of government, including executive authority, apply the strategic, legal, regulatory, emergency and public health measures that they are adopting to manage the COVID-19 pandemic on a human rights-based approach.

International organizations, specifically the United Nations and the Security Council, have a crucial role to play for reinforcing the rules of international law or universal values such as the rule of law and respect to human rights.  The conflict between the protection of human rights and the defense of national security could be balanced by the application of the rule of law.

The universal principles of the charter of the UN[3], such as non-recourse to violence, the peaceful settlement of international disputes, the establishment of peace by law, the fight against poverty, the respect for human rights and the right of peoples to self-determination are more significant in the context of COVID 19.

*

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

Dr. Abbas Poorhashemi is the President of the Canadian Institute for International Law Expertise (CIFILE). He is an International law expert. His teaching and research interests are in the areas of Public International Law, International Criminal Law and International Environmental Law. He has published many books and articles in each of these areas. He is also the Editor-in-Chief of the CIFILE Journal of International Law (CJIL), Canada.

Notes

[1] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, New York, 16 December 1966, https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-3&chapter=4&clang=_en

[2] Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

[3] Charter of the United Nations, https://www.un.org/en/charter-united-nations/

Featured image is from Tortilla con Sal

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

.

.

While, the British mainstream media does not acknowledge that the mMRNA vaccine is a “killer  vaccine” resulting in countless deaths and injuries, they nonetheless question the legitimacy of the fake expert scientists including Neil Ferguson et al who are involved in fiddling the data and the concepts. See excerpts of the Daily Mail report below.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 14, 2021

****

Fury over Public Health England’s claim that vaccines have prevented 23.4million Covid cases as top experts say estimate is ‘away with the fairies’ and mathematically impossible

  • EXCLUSIVE: Professor David Livermore says modelling needs serious ‘review’
  • Government-run agency boasted vaccine rollout has prevented 23million cases 
  • Sources admit predicting how many cases there’d be without jabs is ‘impossible’ 

Public Health England was today accused of being ‘away with the fairies’ for claiming that Covid vaccines have prevented 23.4million infections.

The Government-run agency, which will be axed within a matter of weeks, yesterday released ‘remarkable’ updated estimates about how well the jabs have worked.

As well as drastically curbing the spread of the coronavirus, the PHE data suggested vaccines have saved more than 84,000 lives and prevented almost 67,000 hospital admissions.

But experts today questioned the maths behind the estimate.” (Mail Online, August 13, 2021)

link to complete article

Join Global Research’s campaign: #Yes, It’s A Killer Vaccine”

Consult the data on Vaccine casualties published on Globalresearch.ca

Read Global Research’s daily coverage of the Covid-19 Crisis which is “Destroying People’s Lives” Worldwide.

Selected Articles: #Yes, It’s a “Killer Vaccine”. They Are Killing Our Children

The “Killer Vaccine” Worldwide. 7.9 Billion People

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UK Mainstream Media: “Fury over Public Health England’s estimate is ‘away with the fairies’ and mathematically impossible”

All Global Research articles 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 May 18, 2021

..

According to Dr. Peter McCullough, early treatment could have prevented up to 85% of COVID-19 deaths. Early at-home treatment also minimizes the spread, as the amount of time you’re infectious can be reduced from two weeks to about four days

Despite being inexpensive and readily available, early treatments have all been censored and suppressed in order to secure a global mass vaccination campaign

More than 80 colleges and any number of employers are now implementing mandatory COVID vaccination. The only way for them to understand what the implications of that decision might be is to review the VAERS data. They’re not going to get any clues elsewhere, thanks to the universal suppression of information

An estimated 124 million Americans are now fully vaccinated against COVID-19. As of April 30, 2021, 3,837 died shortly after their COVID shots. That’s more than have died from all available vaccines combined from mid-1997 until the end of 2013 — a period of 15.5 years

In 1976, the U.S. government vaccinated 45 million people against pandemic swine flu. The entire program was canceled after reports of just 53 deaths

*

According to Dr. Peter McCullough, known for being one of the top five most-published medical researchers in the United States, COVID-19 vaccines are killing “huge numbers” of people and the government is simply ignoring it.

In a video interview with investigative journalist and founder of Liberty Sentinel, Alex Newman, McCullough says the U.S. government, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and health agencies around the world have all committed to vaccinating the global population while sitting on data showing the COVID-19 “vaccines” are turning out to be the most lethal vaccines ever created.

Safe Treatments Suppressed in Favor of Dangerous ‘Vaccines’

McCullough, who also has a master’s degree in public health, has provided testimony in three different Senate hearings, sharing the treatments he used to help patients recover from COVID-19 and avoid hospitalization. He summarizes his protocol in the interview.

These strategies are also detailed in “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Infection,” published in the January 2021 issue of the American Journal of Medicine.1 He was also a consulting editor of “A Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment.”2

During a recent Texas state Senate Health and Human Services Committee hearing, McCullough noted that, according to available data, early treatment could have prevented up to 85% of COVID-19 deaths.3 Early at-home treatment also minimizes the spread, as the amount of time you’re infectious can be reduced from two weeks to about four days.

Yet, despite being inexpensive and readily available, early treatments have all been censored and suppressed, apparently in order to secure this global mass vaccination campaign. In fact, as McCullough notes, there’s been no clarified guidance on COVID treatment at all, not even hospital protocols.

The entire focus of our health agencies has been on masking, lockdowns and waiting for a gene therapy “vaccine.” The results have been devastating. Five months into the mass vaccination campaign, more than 10,000 in the U.S. and European Union have already died after getting the shots. Any other vaccine would have been pulled from the market by now.

Shocking Stats Show Just How Dangerous COVID ‘Vaccines’ Are

For example, in 1976, the U.S. government vaccinated 45 million people against pandemic swine flu. The entire program was canceled after reports of just 53 deaths, according to Fox News.4 Note: The number of deaths reported after the 1976 inoculation program varies from three to 53, depending on the source.5,6,7

Now, health authorities are shrugging off more than 3,800 deaths8 after COVID-19 vaccination as either coincidental or inconsequential. Think about that. Five months into the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, we’re looking at a death toll that is 7,000% greater than during the swine flu vaccination campaign, which was canceled after the vaccine was deemed too risky.

The COVID-19 “vaccine” is also on a level of magnitude more dangerous than the seasonal flu vaccine. As reported by McCullough, on average, there are 20 to 30 deaths reported following the seasonal flu vaccine, which is given to about 195 million Americans each year.9

Compare that to these novel COVID-19 gene therapies. So far, an estimated 124 million Americans are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and the death count is already at 3,837, as of April 30, 2021.10

Worse, it appears the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) is backlogged by about three months,11 so this is likely to be a serious undercount. Even if VAERS was fully caught up, it would be an undercount, as only 1%12,13 to 10%14 of adverse events after vaccination are ever reported. So, in reality, we might be looking at anywhere from 38,370 to 383,700 COVID vaccine-related deaths.

A third comparison can be made against vaccines as a whole. As reported by Tucker Carlson,15May 6, 2021, the COVID-19 shots have already resulted in more deaths than all available vaccines combined from mid-1997 until the end of 2013 — a period of 15.5 years.

No Other Vaccine Has Harmed This Many

In a recent report, the Israeli People Committee (IPC), a civilian body of health experts, similarly concluded that “there has never been a vaccine that has harmed as many people.” The Committee received 288 reports of death following COVID-19 vaccination, 90% of which occurred within 10 days. According to this report (translated from Hebrew):16

“According to Central Bureau of Statistics data during January-February 2021, at the peak of the Israeli mass vaccination campaign, there was a 22% increase in overall mortality in Israel compared with the previous year.

In fact, January-February 2021 have been the deadliest months in the last decade, with the highest overall mortality rates compared to corresponding months in the last 10 years.

Amongst the 20-29 age group the increase in overall mortality has been most dramatic. In this age group, we detect an increase of 32% in overall mortality in comparison with previous year.

Statistical analysis of information from the Central Bureau of Statistics, combined with information from the Ministry of Health, leads to the conclusion that the mortality rate amongst the vaccinated is estimated at about 1: 5000 (1: 13000 at ages 20-49, 1: 6000 at ages 50-69, 1: 1600 at ages 70+).

According to this estimate, it is possible to estimate the number of deaths in Israel in proximity of the vaccine, as of today, at about 1000-1100 people.”

CDC Denies Lethal Risks

The contrast in the government’s response to COVID-19 vaccine deaths compared to the 1976 swine flu pandemic vaccination campaign is “alarming,” McCullough says.

February 19, 2021, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a statement saying there were “no safety problems” with Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA injections.17 Of the 113 deaths reported at that time, none was deemed to be related to the vaccines.

Then, in May 2021, after reviewing 1,600 deaths reported to VAERS with an unnamed group of U.S. Food and Drug Administration doctors, the CDC declared that none of the deaths was related to the vaccine — this despite 24% of deaths have occurred within 48 hours of injection, and 16% within 24 hours. The problem is that it would take several months to investigate that many deaths, so the likelihood that this was a thorough investigation is slim to none.

“It is impossible for unnamed regulatory doctors without any experience with COVID-19 to opine that none of the deaths were related to the vaccine,” McCullough tells Newman.

“So, I think this was effectively a scrubbing, like we’ve seen elsewhere … We’re sitting on, right now, the biggest number of vaccine deaths [and] there’s been tens of thousands of hospitalizations, all attributable to the vaccine, and [we’re still] going strong.”

The reason you’re not hearing any negative news about these “vaccines” is because major media networks and stakeholders in COVID-19 vaccines have formed a “trusted news credibility coalition” that seeks to prevent any negative information about COVID vaccines to get into the popular media “because they’re concerned about vaccine hesitancy,” McCullough says.

Suppression of Concerning VAERS Data Underway

As of April 30, 2021, 3,837 people have died, and 16,014 people have reported serious injuries and disabilities following COVID-19 injections.18 Among these deaths were two 15-year-olds and one 16-year-old. There were also 235 reports or miscarriage or premature birth as of April 30, 2021.19

You can check the latest statistics yourself using openvaers.com.20 So-called fact checkers are of course working overtime to quell rumors about the trends showing in the VAERS data.

A recent fact-check article21 by The Post and Courier quotes unnamed, obscure experts stating that dying from the COVID-19 vaccine “isn’t an outcome people should worry about,” and that “despite misinformation shared on social media that sources a federal vaccines safety database” — meaning the VAERS database — “there is no proof of any patients having died as a result of taking a COVID-19 vaccine in the United States.”

PolitiFact also recently blew off VAERS as a “breeding ground for misinformation.”22 It warned social media posts reporting VAERS data are not to be trusted, as VAERS “reports are not verified” and “are not enough to determine whether a vaccine causes a particular adverse event.”

While both of those statements are true, PolitiFact fails to address the glaring problem that both the CDC and the FDA, which run VAERS jointly, are ignoring clearly emerging trends of harm. The Defender contacted the CDC March 8, 2021, with a list of questions about the vaccine injury reports, and as of May 11 — 64 days later — had received no reply.23

“[VAERS] is the only place where America, policy makers and others, are going to get a fair shake in understanding safety,” McCullough says. He points out that more than 80 colleges and any number of employers are now implementing mandatory COVID vaccination, and the only way for them to understand what the implications of that decision might be is to review the VAERS data. They’re not going to get any clues elsewhere, thanks to the universal suppression of information.

Overall, it appears the entire mission of VAERS and other such databases is being tossed aside. The system’s primary goal is to “detect new, unusual or rare vaccine adverse events” as a way to monitor the safety of vaccines.

As noted by McCullough, after five reported deaths where a medical product is suspected of being involved, the FDA will issue a black box warning — a notice to consumers warning them that the drug might cause death. At around 50 suspicious deaths, the product is pulled off the market.

The system is clearly failing if every single report of serious injury or death, including all the ones occurring within hours and in people with no underlying health problems, are simply written off as coincidence. It’s simply not believable.

EU Reports More Than 7,700 Deaths

Signs of lethal risks are also evident in data from the European Union, where the EudraVigilance system had received 7,766 reports of death after COVID vaccination as of April 17, 2021.24

Of these, Pfizer’s mRNA injection accounted for the largest number of deaths at 4,293, followed by Moderna with 2,094 deaths, AstraZeneca with 1,360 deaths and Johnson & Johnson with 19 deaths. As noted by McCullough:

“In my professional opinion, the safest vaccine on the market was the J&J vaccine, and that was pulled for very rare blood-clotting events. We had 7 million people vaccinated but the estimates are for the other two vaccines available [Pfizer and Moderna], the blood-clotting rates are probably 30 times that of J&J, and these others are going strong.”


UPDATE. Data for July 2021

According to the latest “official” figures for the EU, Britain and the US (combined), there are 31,389 Covid-19 vaccine related deaths and almost 5 million injuries. 

EU/EEA/Switzerland to 17 July 2021 – 18,928 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 1.8 million injuries, per EudraVigilance Database.

UK to 7 July 2021 -1,470 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 1 million injuries, per MHRA Yellow Card Scheme.

USA to 9 July 2021 – 10,991 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 2 million injuries, per VAERS database.

TOTAL for EU/UK/USA – 31,389 Covid-19 injection related deaths and almost 5 million injuries reported so far in July 2021.

These are official statistics based on a formal process of registration of deaths and “adverse effects”. The actual number of deaths and injuries triggered by the mRNA vaccine are much higher. Less than ten percent of the victims or families of the deceased will go through the tedious process of reporting vaccine related deaths and injuries to the national health authorities.

GR Editor, August 2021


Active Vaccine Surveillance Is Months Away

The FDA has also admitted that its analysis of vaccine safety data will be delayed for weeks, if not months. Right as the pandemic hit, they were in the process of transitioning from its Post-Licensure Rapid Immunization Safety Monitoring (PRISM) network, which was used to track side effects from the pandemic H1N1 vaccine, into a new system called the Biologics Effectiveness and Safety System (BEST).

In the meantime, they’re relying on a patchwork of passive reporting systems, including VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink and a phone-based self-reporting system called v-safe.

Since all of these are based on voluntary self-reporting, they can miss potentially lethal and unanticipated reactions. By the end of March 2021, only 6.4% of all vaccinated individuals had enrolled in v-safe, for example,25 which means a vast majority aren’t being surveilled for side effects.

While BEST will be an active surveillance system capable of examining data from 100 million people and actually compare rates of adverse events between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals to detect trends, we are months away from this kind of analysis.

In the meantime, people continue to die, and for no good reason, considering the lethality of COVID-19 is on par with seasonal influenza for most age groups.26,27,28,29,30

Signs of Malfeasance Abound

At this point, the list of evidences of malfeasance is exceedingly long. For a rundown of several key issues, see the peer-reviewed paper “COVID-19: Restoring Public Trust During a Global Health Crisis — An Evidence-Based Position Paper to Ensure Ethical Conduct.”31

In it, the author substantiates McCullough’s allegations of rampant, wanton misconduct among public health officials, the active suppression of safe and effective treatments, and pandemic measures being implemented based on incorrect assumptions and outright lies.

As noted by McCullough in the featured interview, advertisements for COVID-19 vaccines were launched in violation of law before FDA licensing was complete. The initial studies had not even been completed. To this day, none of the COVID-19 “vaccines” has been licensed.

They only have emergency use authorization (EUA), and there’s no possible way for anyone to assure their safety. All of these facts are why they’re completely optional, and legally cannot yet be made mandatory, even though many schools and businesses are attempting to do that.

McCullough also stresses that in the COVID-19 vaccine trials, both the vaccinated groups and control groups had a less than 1% infection rate, which is about as low as it gets, in terms of risk. What this means is the overall public health impact of COVID-19 vaccination is also bound to be less than 1% — in other words, meaningless.

He also points out that around the world, we’re now seeing about 60% of active COVID-19 cases being in fully vaccinated individuals. In McCullough’s own practice, the COVID-19 patients he saw in the two weeks before this interview, about 60% were fully vaccinated, and there’s no difference in disease presentation between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

Death Tally May Spike During Fall and Winter

While the death toll from COVID-19 vaccines is already at a historical level, I fear it may shoot far higher as we move through fall and winter. The reason for this is because one of the greatest wild cards of these vaccines is antibody‐dependent enhancement (ADE) or paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE).

I’ve detailed this issue in several articles, including “How COVID-19 Vaccine Can Destroy Your Immune System” and “Will Vaccinated People Be More Vulnerable to Variants?” In summary, ADE means that rather than enhance your immunity against the infection, the vaccine actually enhances the virus’ ability to enter and infect your cells, resulting in more severe disease than had you not been vaccinated.32,33

Fall and winter are the seasons in which most coronavirus infections occur, be it SARS-CoV-2 or other coronaviruses responsible for the common cold. If ADE does turn out to be a common problem with these injections, then vaccinated individuals may in fact turn out to be at significantly higher risk of severe COVID-19 and a potentially lethal immune reaction due to pathogenic priming.

Another potential risk is that of Th2 immunopathology, a form of cell-based enhancement in which a faulty T cell response triggers allergic inflammation. This condition may in some cases overlap with ADE, and can, like ADE, be life-threatening.34

In my view, there are still so many potential avenues of harm and so many uncertainties, I would encourage everyone to do your homework, keep reading and learning, weigh the potential pros and cons, ignore all pressure tactics and take your time when deciding whether to get any of these COVID-19 gene therapies.

If you or someone you love has already received a COVID-19 vaccine and are experiencing side effects, be sure to report it, preferably to all three of these locations:35

  1. If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS
  2. Report the injury on VaxxTracker.com, which is a nongovernmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like)
  3. Report the injury on the Children’s Health Defense website

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) recently posted more than 50 video presentations from the pay-for-view Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination held online October 16 to 18, 2020, and made them available to everyone for free.

The conference’s theme was “Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century” and it featured physicians, scientists and other health professionals, human rights activists, faith community leaders, constitutional and civil rights attorneys, authors and parents of vaccine injured children talking about vaccine science, policy, law and ethics and infectious diseases, including coronavirus and COVID-19 vaccines.

In December 2020, a U.K. company published false and misleading information about NVIC and its conference, which prompted NVIC to open up the whole conference for free viewing. The conference has everything you need to educate yourself and protect your personal freedoms and liberties with respect to your health.

Don’t miss out on this incredible opportunity. I was a speaker at this empowering conference and urge you to watch these video presentations before they’re censored and taken away by the technocratic elite.

*

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

Notes

1 American Journal of Medicine January 2021; 134(1): 16-22

2 A Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment (PDF)

3 Lifesitenews.com April 8, 2021

4, 15 Fox News May 6, 2021

5 Los Angeles Times April 27, 2009

6 CDC January 2006

7 Time August 25, 2020

8, 10, 18, 19 The Defender May 7, 2021

9 Leo Hohmann April 30, 2021

11 Twitter Alex Berenson April 30, 2021

12 AHRQ December 7, 2007

13 The Vaccine Reaction January 9, 2020

14 BMJ 2005;330:433

16 Aletho News April 21, 2021

17 NBC News February 19, 2021

20 Openvaers.com

21 The Post and Courier April 12, 2021

22 Politifact May 3, 2021

23 The Defender May 11, 2021

24 The Defender April 29, 2021

25 Yahoo News May 2, 2021

26 The Mercury News May 20, 2020 (Archived)

27 Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352

28 Breitbart May 7, 2020

29 Scott Atlas US Senate Testimony May 6, 2020 (PDF)

30 John Ioannidis US Senate Testimony May 6, 2020 (PDF)

31 COVID-19: Restoring Public Trust During a Global Health Crisis — An Evidence-Based Position Paper to Ensure Ethical Conduct (PDF)

32, 34 PNAS April 14, 2020 117 (15) 8218-8221

33 Viral Immunology 2003;16(1):69-86

35 The Defender January 25, 2021

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

No Jab for Me – And Here Are 35 Reasons Why

August 14th, 2021 by Dr. Gary G. Kohls

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Fist published by Global Research on  May 5, 2020

“Fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. The CDC’s entire vaccination propaganda campaign rests on their claim that side effects from vaccinations are exceedingly rare, but according to the blatantly pro-over-vaccination,

Big Pharma-funded CDC, in 2016 alone, VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) received 59,117 vaccine adverse event reports. Among those reports were 432 vaccine-related deaths, 1,091 permanent vaccine-related disabilities, 4,132 vaccine-related hospitalizations, and10,274 vaccine-related emergency room visits. What if these numbers actually represent less than 1% of the total as this report asserts? You multiply those numbers by 100.” – William Christenson

***

“The FDA receives 45% of its annual budget from the pharmaceutical industry.

“The World Health Organization (WHO) gets roughly half its budget from private sources, including Pharma and its allied foundations.

“And the CDC, frankly, is a vaccine company; it owns 56 vaccine patents and buys and distributes $4.6 billion in vaccines annually through the Vaccines for Children program, which is over 40% of its total budget.

“The HHS (US Health and Human Services) partners with vaccine makers to develop, approve, recommend, and pass mandates for new products and then shares profits from vaccine sales.

“HHS employees can personally collect up to $150,000 annually in royalties for products they work on.

“For example, key HHS officials collect money on every sale of Merck’s controversial HPV vaccine Gardasil, which also yields tens of millions annually for the agency in patent royalties.” — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr

***

Statements in these sites (this and this) are substantiated with facts that will stand in a court of law. Informed Consent requires a flow of information. Click on the hyperlinked sections to direct you to primary sources such as CDC, WHO, FDA documents.

***

Did you know?

1. The FDA did not approve Moderna or Pfizer mRNA gene therapeutics they dubbed “vaccines”. It simply authorized them. Fauci confirms. “In the US, the FDA in its ambiguous statement  provided a so-called Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, namely “to permit the emergency use of the unapproved product, … for active immunization…” (see here)

see below:

19 doctors warned the world of the dangers. AstraZeneca is being dropped by 24 countries.

Johnson & Johnson, a Viral Vector(1) ” injection” that was given Emergency Use Authorization on Feb. 27, 2021, was halted by several states due to the formation of blood clots. The CDC had confirmed. But distribution resumed after a 10 day pause.

The CDC also confirms(2) the Pfizer & Moderna jabs are the deadliest of all “vaccines”, also in a bar chart. 5 prominent doctors discuss how the Covid jab is a bioweapon.

2. The clinical trials will be completed in 2023, there are 12 vaccine companies ramping up their marketing, and you are the guinea pig.

3. The FDA & CDC have not revealed to the public over 20 adverse effects, including Death, related to Covid19 injections, which were discussed in an October 2020 meeting. 3,544 deaths from Covid19 injections are reported by the National Vaccine Information Center as at 4/23/2021, and one-third of the deaths occurred within 48 hours.

For clarification purposes in this article, Covid19, given that the virus has not been isolated, is regarded as an influenza variant, given the symptoms exhibited by patients. And, yes, people can die of influenza or the common cold. In fact, lungs of influenza patients can be more damaged than those of Covid patients.

Some will argue that SARS-CoV-2 was developed in a Gain-of-Function lab. That is moot. The primary consideration is whether an experimental injection is warranted for a disease with a 99.9% survival rate.

I am for tried, true and tested (safe) vaccines. I am NOT for experimental gene therapeutics backed by disastrous animal studies, used on humans for the first time in history.

 4. The mRNA jab delivers a synthetic, inorganic molecule (medical device) that programs your cells to synthesize pathogens in the form of the spike protein that your immune system will constantly have to fight off for the rest of your life, according to experts such as Molecular Biologist & Immunologist, Professor Dolores Cahill. She explains. Fauci confirms. Dr. Lee Merritt reconfirms.

Others call it Information Therapy that hacks the software of life, according to Moderna’s [Mode RNA] chief scientist. You essentially become a GMO. Dr. Sherri Tenpenny mapped eight mechanisms that can result in death by a Covid jab.

5. The mRNA jab does not prevent you from contracting Covid19 or from transmitting it. Dr. Steve Hotze elaborates. Fauci confirms. The CDC graph underscores that reality, proving these injections are ineffective and injection passports are totally useless.

87 million Americans have been subjected to injections as at 4/20/21, of which 7,157 have contracted Covid after beingvaccinated, resulting in 88 deaths. Also, an imperfect “vaccination” can enhance the transmission of highly virulent pathogens, according to this NCGI article. A study on mice concludes that the spike protein from a “vaccination” can cause lung damage.

Did you also know?

6. The CDC inflated the death rate for Covid19 – that was not isolated – by instructing medical practitioners in its March 24, 2020 directive to ascribe the cause of death as Covid19 for all deaths, irrespective if patients were tested positive for Covid19 or if they had other comorbidities, so as to ramp up the fear, and doctors have publicly stated they are being pressured to mark Covid19 on death certificates. Here is a list:

This missstep by the CDC contravenes Federal Regulations, according to IPAK. Each Federal agency is required to submit a formal change proposal to the Federal Register before enacting their proposed changes. A 60-day public comment and peer-review process ensues before the changes can be made.

The fact is that 60,000 Americans have been dying weekly, consistently, before and after the covid scare – more data – while deaths by influenza and other diseases have plummeted.

 7. The CDC later admitted that 94% of deaths had underlying conditions. That means that of the 527,000 deaths attributed to the influenza variant masked as SARS-CoV-2 only 6% were actually caused directly by Covid19, or 31,620. That brings the true case fatality rate to 0.12% out of the 27 million cases.

 8. The survival rate for Covid19 is, therefore, roughly 99.9%. When using the state population as the denominator, the death rate is even lower, ranging from 36 to 247 deaths per 100,000. As at March 19, 2021, even with the doctored numbers and faulty tests, the CDC arrived at the following survival rates:

  • Ages 0-17 99.998%
  • Ages 18-49 99.95%
  • Ages 50-64 99.4%
  • Ages 65+ 91%

9. The CDC lumped pneumonia, influenza, and Covid19 into a new epidemic it called PIC in order to inflate Covid19 deaths.

The CDC stats for week of July 3, 2020 confirm that pneumonia and influenza combine with Covid to inflate the death rate. The Feb. 5, 2021 report does the same. The obfuscation is underscored in the search results page, where only “(P&I)” is mentioned, but PIC graphs appear upon clicking the links. Deaths by influenza have dropped from 61,000 in 2018 to 22,000 in 2020, while medical malpractice is the third leading cause of deaths in the US.

10. Hospitals are paid $13,000 for every Covid19 admission, and $39,000 for every patient that is put on a ventilator, on average. More proof doctors and nurses have orders to place on ventilators patients who tested negative, effectively killing them.

Are you aware that…

11. The PCR tests do not detect SARS-CoV-2 particles, but particles from any number of viruses you might have contracted in the past, and that a lawsuit for crimes against humanity is being launched by a German attorney for this fraud. Even Fauci admits PCR tests don’t work. The WHO backs him up.

In this CDC document, testing guidelines state that false negatives and positives are possible – page 39. The PCR test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens – page 40.

But most importantly, on page 42, SARS-CoV-2 was never isolated in the first instance: “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“.

Neither the CDC can provide samples of SARS-CoV-2, nor can Stanford and Cornell labs, and in a CNN interview Fauci said he was not getting tested and there is no need to test asymptomatic people. He reiterates that asymptomatic people have never been the driving force of a pandemic. Again, the WHO backs him up.

12. There are class action lawsuits in the works, naming Anthony Fauci as defendant, amongst others. Here’s a partial list:

And we’re just getting warmed up. If Israeli citizens have brought their government to the International Criminal Court for Crimes Against Humanity, alleging they are being coerced into taking an inadequately tested, experimental COVID injection by Pfizer, in contravention of the Nuremberg Code, then the citizens of any state (West Virginia comes to mind where young people are bribed with $100 to take the jab) have that same right and obligation.

13. Therapeutics and prophylactics for coronaviruses, like Hydroxychloroquine, have been approved in the WHO, CDC and NIH websites.

But, suddenly in 2020 they were banned. Why? Because, according to FDA rules only when there are no alternative therapeutics, can untested vaccines be cleared for Emergency Use Authorization. In 2020, the Canadian company, Apotex, was giving HCQ away. Even after the American Journal of Medicine approved the use of HCQ for Outpatients, HCQ is nowhere to be found in the US. Now, doctors are pleading that Ivermectin be used as a safe therapeutic.

Doctors in India and the UK speak out. Costa Rica uses HCQ extensively, while Novartis donates it to Mexico. In India doctors are prescribing Ziverdo kits.

14. Front Line Doctors who try to explain the benefits of proven therapeutics are being silenced, and some have had their license suspended. A concise summary by Dr. Simone Gold, who is also an attorney and founder of America’s Front Line Doctors, is a must watch.

As well, the British Medical Journal has broken rank and is citing corruption and suppression of science. The World Doctors Alliance joins the resistance. In Australia, the Covid Medical Network represents senior medical professionals doing battle.

15. Fauci and the CDC have flip-flopped on masks, contaminated surfaces, asymptomatic spread, testing, and have only recently acknowledged that herd immunity is achieved when antibodies are spread by those who beat the disease (the 99.9%), but still recommend social distancing, only now from 6 feet to 3 feet, resulting in this lockdown map.

Speaking of herd immunity, the WHO changed its June 7, 2020 definition from:

“Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection” to:

“Herd immunity, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it” in Nov. 13, 2020.

But, it again reversed its position in Dec. 2020, with this inane statement:

“Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as ‘antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease, but – crucially – vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing on the pathogen, breaking any chains of transmission”(4).

And they keep moving the goal posts. Pfizer trials warned men to stay away from pregnant women… but now the CDC is pushing pregnant women to take an experimental biological agent without a second thought.

The CDC has played dumb about the high 37 to 40 cycle thresholds used for COVID PCR testing yielding 85-90% false positives. But, now, it readily accepts the lower threshold of 28 cycles for post-vaccine testing.

… and that

16. Injuries and deaths by mRNA jabs keep rising. VAERS reports 12,619 serious injuries as at 4/23/21. In the first quarter of 2021 there has been a 6000% increase in deaths by injections from the same period a year ago. Graphically, the jab looks more like a stiff upper cut, to quote attorney Rocco Galati. And that’s if, according to a Harvard Study, only 1% of vaccine related deaths are being reported.

17. The CDC at one time recommended DDT for in home use, and used the same fear tactics to sell vaccines for H1N1.

18. Documents prove that the media was to be the key player in creating the hype leading up to the promotion of vaccines, that a VACCINATE WITH CONFIDENCE paper by the CDC exists, along with its British equivalent, and that lifting lockdowns – on condition of vaccination – is used as a carrot to get people to accept the jab.

19. Politicians are caught on camera talking about the theater of wearing masks, and the NCBI, a division of the NIH, published a paper on the complete ineffectiveness of masks. Even the CDC warns of the dangers of masks, as do these studies on Mask Induced Exhaustion Syndrome MIES.

 20. The CDC owns the patent for the coronavirus that is transmitted to humans; also, a patent for a System & Method to test for Covid19 filed in 2015, corroborated here, and Covid19 test kits were being shipped around the world in 2018.

… or that

21. The Covid19 INJECTION was developed in just a few hours.

22. Vaccine companies cannot be sued for injuries.

23. Bill Gates, who invested $10 Billion into vaccines, boasts of how he injects kids with genetically modified organisms.

24. Bill Gates is on record pushing for vaccine passports. Parenthetically, various domain names for “vaccinepassport” were filed in 2016 by an entity in Milan, Italy, and that there are people who cannot take vaccines because of medical contraindications. A vaccine passport would discriminate against these people as they attempt to go about their lives, in violation of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12101)..

25. Bill Gates is on record pushing for vaccines to lower the world population by 10% to 15%, and a call has been made for his arrest and trial at the International Criminal Court

Finally, did you know?

26. Covid variant injections are to be marketed without safety trials, Fauci confirmed it, and that antibodies/antigens to SARS-CoV-2 are found in saliva, making the use of masks counterproductive in achieving herd immunity.

27. The CDC, that props itself up with statements like:

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the agency Americans trust with their lives. As a global leader in public health, CDC is the nation’s premier health promotion, prevention, and preparedness agency. Whether we are protecting the American people from public health threats, researching emerging diseases, or mobilizing public health programs with our domestic and international partners, we rely on our employees to make a real difference in the health and well-being of people here and around the world.”

buys and resells injections at a markup, about $4.6 Billion worth every year, and owns over 20 vaccine patents – according to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and is listed on Dun & Bradstreet. Fauci personally owns 1000 patents.

28. The consent forms in hospitals disguise vaccines as “biogenics”, and blood brokers have paid up to $1,000 for blood samples of recovered Covid19 people.

29. It’s against the Nuremberg code to force vaccinations on a person, and informed consent overrides public policy. Federal law prohibits employers and others from using vaccines under EUA as a condition of employment. A Nevada attorney is ready to do the battle. Each state has its own unique provisions for refusing a vaccine on medical, religious or philosophical grounds.

30. Donald Trump glories in the fact that he pushed Warp Speed and urges his supporters to take the jab, while Biden gloatsthat he ordered 100 million doses. Same dung – different odor

… or that

31. Time, again and again the WHO has discouraged the wearing of masks by healthy individuals, let alone children.

32. Several “simulations” of a pandemic were held in:

  • May 2018 Clade X by Johns Hopkins University
  • September 2019. The WHO’s Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (in another supposed simulation) included as one of its progress indicators the release of two lethal pathogens by September 2020. See pg 39
  • 2018. Bill Gates’ INSTITUTE FOR DISEASE MODELING released a video modeling a pandemic starting at Wuhan, China
  • October 2019. Bill Gates, sponsored a Global Pandemic Exercise Event 201, video. Fauci, of course, sits in the Leadership Council of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has contributed over $3.5 million to Fauci’s NIH,

33. The Pfizer, Moderna and J&J jabs were developed using fetal cell lines, that is, cells grown in labs originally obtained from aborted fetuses decades ago. The argument used by pro-vaxers is that these are not the original cells, but descendants or duplicates of the originals. The medical term varies depending on the aborted fetus’ number and organ . You have a right to decline any vaccine that was developed with or contains fetal cell lines, based on your religious or philosophical beliefs.

34. Lockdowns have had no effect on the death rate. Here’s another report. And here we can see how Covid won’t breach Michigan’s southern border.

35. On March 2020, the British Government discussed tactics it would use to ensure citizens complied with the loss of their rights and freedoms and these have included –

  • Using media to increase the sense of personal threat
  • Using media to increase the sense of responsibility to others
  • Using and promoting social approval for desired behaviors
  • Using social disapproval for those who do not comply

Here is the document, and the woman the NHS hired to fiddle with the death numbers. Not to be outdone, Trudeau boasts how much he pays the media to sell his propaganda that presciently reported in April, 2021 a 4th wave, while the German Minister of Interior pressured epidemologists to create the fear that would necessitate lockdowns.

So your employer backs you into a corner. Get the jab or quit. What do you do?

Here’s what I would do:

1. Demand that the ‘jab or quit’ proposition be put in writing.

2. Explain that irrespective of whether it’s a government or a corporation, any entity that makes experimental vaccinations a condition of employment – or of doing business – engages in the practice of forced vaccinations, which is in violation of the Nuremberg code, especially experimental vaccinations that are still undergoing clinical trials scheduled to end in 2023.

3. I would pull out my card ask the questions in it, leave the card with instructions to relay answers to me in writing

4. I would inform the employer that lawyers are filing crimes against humanity lawsuits, and that I would be consulting an attorney

This is just what I would do. I’m not giving anyone legal advice.

Find attorneys in your state:

*

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

Dr Kohls practiced holistic mental health care in Duluth for the last decade of his family practice career prior to his retirement in 2008, primarily helping patients who had become addicted to cocktails of psychiatric drugs to safely go through the complex withdrawal process. His column often deals with various unappreciated health issues, including those caused by Big Pharma’s over-drugging, Big Vaccine’s over-vaccinating, Big Medicine’s over-screening, over-diagnosing and over-treating agendas and Big Food’s malnourishing food industry. Those four sociopathic entities can combine to even more adversely affect the physical, mental, spiritual and economic health of the recipients of the vaccines, drugs, medical treatments and the eaters of the tasty and ubiquitous “Franken Foods” – particularly when they are consumed in combinations, doses and potencies that have never been tested for safety or long-term effectiveness.

Dr Kohls’ Duty to Warn columns are archived at: http://duluthreader.com/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=2;

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

http://freepress.org/geographic-scope/national; https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/gary-g-kohls/; and 

https://www.transcend.org/tms/search/?q=gary+kohls+articles

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

U.S. Out of Africa: U.S. Imperialism in Somalia

August 14th, 2021 by Farid Abdi Mohamed Omar

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The US Africa Command confirmed that it carried out its third airstrike allegedly against an Islamic resistance movement in less than two weeks. The airstrikes took place on August 1, July 23, and July 20. This is a continuation of the broader shadow war on Somalia in which the U.S. conducted 63 strikes in 2020.

The U.S. mainstream media and politicians blame the U.S. shadow war in Somalia on Al-Shabaab, an Islamist insurgent group that controls much of southern Somalia, but the main culprit is the United States government that led a military invasion of the country from 1992 to 93 in a nefariously dubbed Operation Restore Hope. Ever since, Somalia has been in a perpetual state of war, and the U.S. has continued with destabilization efforts since 1992.

Somalia’s only hope for sustainable peace and development lies within the national unity of its people absent the tutelage of the US.

AFRICOM Watch Bulletin talks with Farid Abdi Mohamed Omar, a long-time radio journalist, a conflict analyst, peace researcher, and an international writer on politics, sports, and lifestyle. Farid is a recipient of the prestigious international scholarly award — the Golden Key International Honour Society Award and the New Pioneers Award. The University of Toronto named Farid the Silcox Scholar in Public Administration.

*

AFRICOM Watch Bulletin: Would you be able to give some historical context to U.S. imperialism in Somalia?

Farid Abdi Mohamed Omar: Somalia has endured a long history of imperialism both at the hands of European colonial powers and the U.S.  But the Somali people have always demonstrated their strong determination to resist Western imperialism, and, in 1960, European colonizers were eventually defeated when Somalia attained its national independence.

In the early 1980s, U.S. imperialism gradually took hold in Somalia as the U.S. administration propped up the Barre military dictatorship through financial aid and the massive transfer of arms.

Working in collusion with Barre, U.S. destabilization in this era was aimed at suppressing and dividing the Somali people, thereby making Washington directly responsible for state collapse in Somalia.

AWB: Can you speak to the end of the Islamic Courts Union?

FO: Towards the end of 2006, U.S.-backed Ethiopian forces, with the direct support of American air power, rolled into Somalia to oust the Union of Islamic Courts, of which Al Shabaab was a key member, that had restored peace and security in much of southern Somalia during their brief reign of power. The illegal invasion and occupation of Somalia installed a puppet war-lord regime, marking a new phase of U.S. imperialism in Somalia, plunging the war-torn nation into further anarchy.

It is also part of a U.S. militarist agenda meant to complete the unfinished business of the so-called “Operation Restore Hope,” which went up in smoke in 1993 when nationalist forces defeated and humiliated U.S. forces that occupied Somalia.

AWB: What is appealing about Somalia for U.S. imperialism?

FO: The primary objective of the U.S. hegemonic designs in Somalia is the unfettered access to Somalia’s untapped but massive oil reserves and vast uranium deposits.  In geopolitical terms, Somalia is strategically located because it lies at the confluence where the Indian Ocean, the Gulf of Aden, and the Red Sea converge.  It oversees the daily passage of oil tankers that go through the Suez Canal while its close proximity to the Middle East and Sudan makes it ideal for the U.S. to launch military strikes against a perceived “Islamist threat” in the region.

Worse still, the U.S. planned to use the strategic City of Berbera as the base of its newly launched AFRICOM (Africa Command), a Pentagon-orchestrated scheme aimed at completing the militarization of the entire African continent.

AWB: How have the Somali people resisted?

FO: Just as the Somali people rallied to defeat U.S. imperialism in 1993, Somali resistance against the ongoing occupation will stop at nothing short of stamping out the remaining vestiges of imperialism

As well, the Somali Diaspora has stepped up its peaceful resistance to U.S. imperialism, and this is evident in the recent well-attended Somalia Peace rallies organized by the Somali Canadian Diaspora Alliance (SDA).  The SDA has also built alliances with like-minded organizations and other solidarity groups fighting against war and occupation in other parts of the world.

In fighting the occupation, and by forging ahead to rebuild a united, peaceful Somalia, an umbrella organization bringing together eight progressive Somali Diaspora organizations from both Canada and the United States was formed in November during a major conference held in Virginia.

The mandate of the new organization known as Somali Cause, is to demand an immediate end to the Ethiopian occupation and rampant war crimes, promote an all-inclusive national reconciliation process, and call for the establishment of an International War Crimes Tribunal for Somalia.

The main objective is to forge a united front to peacefully free Somalia from occupation and oppression, and to bring lasting freedom and democracy to the Somali people.

AWB: Thank you for your time and analysis!

*

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.

Selected Articles: What Is the Future of Afghanistan?

August 13th, 2021 by Global Research News

Afghanistan’s “Color Revolution”? Narcotics and the Opium Trade

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 19, 2021

America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan has been  the object of extensive negotiations between Washington and the Taliban. An earlier deal was signed in Doha in late February 2020 during the Trump administration.

Six Questions We Need to Ask About Afghanistan

By Kit Knightly, August 19, 2021

Afghanistan has “fallen”, that’s the line. The Taliban forces have taken the opportunity of US/NATO withdrawal and swept across the entire country, taking every major city within a week and with barely a shot fired.

Did the NY Fed Confiscate $1.3 Billion in Afghan Gold: Striking Revelations from Afghanistan’s Central Bank Chief

By Zero Hedge, August 19, 2021

Digging deeper, the DAB’s June statement stated that the bank owned investments worth $6.1 billion. While the latest report did not provide details of those investments, a breakdown in the year-end report showed that the majority of those investments were in the form of U.S. Treasury bonds and bills…

How Russia-China Are Stage-managing the Taliban

By Pepe Escobar, August 19, 2021

For the record, they also stated that the Taliban took all of Afghanistan in only 11 days: that’s pretty accurate. They stressed “very good relations with Pakistan, Russia and China.”

Six Things You Need to Know About Afghanistan and the Taliban

By Marc Vandepitte, August 18, 2021

The most prominent figure to emerge during that period is Osama bin Laden. In 1988, he founded Al Qaeda, a fundamentalist and ruthless terrorist group. Through the intelligence service of Pakistan [in liaison with the CIA], he could count on a lot of support from the US.

20 Years Ago, Prior to 9/11: US Preparations for the Invasion of Afghanistan

By Shane Quinn, August 06, 2021

Due to America’s declining oil and natural gas stocks, the top priority for president Bush was to increase US influence over rich fossil fuel sources, constructing pipelines, refineries and other such infrastructure.

Afghanistan: A New Pivot in the Greater Middle East?

By Peter Koenig and GEOFOR, August 06, 2021

The withdrawal was decided long before Biden took office. Pressure for disengaging from the US longest war – about 20 years – from Congress and the public has been building up steadily, but ever increasingly since Obama’s promise early on in his second term to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan.

The War in Afghanistan: The Real ‘Crime of the Century’ Behind the Opioid Crisis

By Max Parry, August 04, 2021

Corporate media would have us believe it is simply fortuitous that during the exact time opioid overdose deaths in the U.S. began to increase in the early 2000s, the so-called War on Terror began with the conquest and plundering of a country abroad that has since become the world’s epicenter for opium production.

Graveyard of Empires

By Eric Margolis, July 21, 2021

For the past two decades, the Afghan nationalist mujahidin have faced the full might of the US empire: waves of B-1 and B-52 heavy bombers; fleets of killer drones, constant air strikes from US airbases in Afghanistan, Central Asia and the Gulf; 300,000 US-financed Afghan mercenary troops; up to 120,000 US and NATO troops and other US-paid mercenaries; the brutal Communist-run Afghan secret police, regular government police, Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek militias, hit squads sent by the US and Britain, plus famine and disease. Use of torture by western forces was rampant.

The Spoils of War: Afghanistan’s Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 08, 2021

The US opioid crisis broadly defined bears a relationship to the export of heroin out of Afghanistan. There were 189,000 heroin users in the US in 2001, before the US-NATO invasion of Afghanistan. By 2016 that number went up to 4,500,000 (2.5 million heroin addicts and 2 million casual users).

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: What Is the Future of Afghanistan?

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

After a humiliating defeat in Afghanistan, the USA is about to lose another war likely to come.

Taiwan participates in APEC, not as an independent country, but as a “member economy” under the name of “Chinese Taipei”. This format is acceptable to Beijing.

But Cold-Warrior Biden (declared foreign-policy genius by the New York Times) and the USA want to create conflict with China on an unprecedented level of risk. Biden therefore wants to invite Taiwan’s regional leader Tsai Ing-wen to Biden’s anti-China-Russia “conference of democracies” later this year. Probably together with such Western democracies as Saudi Arabia. That will be a de-facto recognition of Tsai Ing-wen as a head of state, and thereby also de-facto an official recognition of Taiwan as an independent state.

China, of course, cannot live with that.

China therefore in the official media Global Times now threatens to respond by once and for all ending Taiwan’s pretension of independence through forcing Beijing’s control on Taiwan’s airspace:

China must clearly show its stance: We will definitely not accept the US to invite Taiwan regional leader Tsai Ing-wen to participate in the meeting. Allowing Tsai to attend a meeting and show on the screen with the heads of various countries and governments will gravely violate the one-China principle.

“The air over the island of Taiwan will be included in the cruise range of the PLA. The fighters will declare that the land underneath is Chinese territory and will crush all attempts to use the Taiwan question as a bargaining chip with China. If the Taiwan military dares to open fire on the PLA fighters, the large number of missiles aimed at Taiwan’s military targets from the mainland and our bomber fleets will make a decisive answer and write history. See this.

China taking over control of Taiwan’s airspace will most likely happen anyway – now probably sooner rather than later. It is important to note that China is already actively preparing for this future by sending PLA combat aircraft over Taiwan. So far only as incursions, but those ”incursions” can soon be turned into permanent Chinese air patrols over Taiwan.

China taking over control of Taiwan’s airspace are not empty threats from Beijing. The Chinese are much too clever to be caught in making this an empty threat. China has since long acquired the military capability to win a battle against the USA about the Taiwan Strait and control of Taiwan’s airspace. Already in 2015, China had 39 major air bases within 800 km of Taiwan – the USA only has one (Okinawa). Since 2015, China has further widened her military advantage over the US on Taiwan.

The aircraft carriers of the US Navy (of which due to maintenance-cycles probably only a handful will be deployable around Taiwan at any given time) will not change this calculation significantly. It should be noted too, that China’s air bases also give China a strategic defense advantage of depth, compared to the single-point operational facilities of the USA on Okinawa and on a handful of deployable aircraft carriers, which are all vulnerable to China’s carrier-killer missiles.

On top of China’s complete superiority in bases for combat aircraft around Taiwan comes that China has more than 1,000 missiles pointed at Taiwan – and Beijing is ready to fire them.

On the sea, though US Navy ships are on average larger, China’s PLA Navy has more ships than the USA.

All Beijing needs to do is to suppress Taiwan’s air defense, outcombat their air force, and degrade Taiwan’s airports and ports just enough to stop all civil traffic and goods transport. Taiwan’s population and main infrastructure will remain nearly intact, but Taiwan is rendered defenseless and cut off. Beijing can then negotiate Taipei’s surrender.

Peaceful take-over or war. In any case, the USA will lose control over Taiwan and in all East Asia, and the USA thereby totally loses its place in the World. But if in a war, the US will lose its global position in a bloody and cataclysmic way. The US may in such a war lose half of the US Navy, which is the foundation for US power projection in the World. China is prepared to bear enormous sacrifice in life and treasure for Taiwan – the American people is not. Japan is also not. China also no longer depends on US trade, finance, or technology. The USA is over-indebted. A catastrophic US defeat in a Taiwan war which the USA can only lose, will necessarily bring about a total social collapse inside the USA.

Biden is not mentally capable of very much – also not of backing down from his invitation of Tsai Ing-wen to officially represent Taiwan as a de-facto independent state. And China is not politically capable of backing down from her threat to respond by forcefully bringing Taiwan’s airspace – and thereby all the island of Taiwan – under Beijing’s full control.

War on Taiwan is therefore now the most likely scenario.

*

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

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

Featured image is from US-China Perception Monitor

All Global Research articles 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 COVID vaccines offered (and now increasingly and illegally under international law) forced on people are experimental, did not go through complete animal testing, are not vaccines but gene therapy, have not been licensed and in the USA, the UK and Europe there have been over 25,000 deaths and millions of adverse reactions.

But those taking the vaccines have not been told of these reactions prior to being injected and therefore cannot have given “informed consent” as is required under the law – and the Nuremberg Code.

There are those who have died after refusing vaccines – but there have been many thousands who have died after taking the vaccine. At least we know that 93% of the latter were perfectly healthy before they were vaccinated (only 7% of the UK population has been infected and the vast majority of them mildly).

The vaccines, according to official figures, have also given the vaccinated COVID – 1170 (so called breakthrough) cases in the UK. Of those who contracted COVID from the vaccine the fatality rate was (for the Pfizer and AZ vaccines) over 6%. But the overall fatality rate in the UK is only 2.2%.

Contrast these facts with the White House Pandemic Response Coordinator who said (Yahoo news 6/8/21) –

“The vaccines continue to be exceptionally effective in protecting against severe disease and death. On the rare occasions when the coronavirus does break through the protections the vaccines offer, the resulting bout of COVID-19 tends to be mild.”

These political and corporate lies are seducing millions into taking a killer vaccine, one which is far more dangerous statistically for anyone under 50 than the danger of the virus itself. And the average age of those who have died with COVID (not OF COVID) is over 80.

By all means make up your own mind after reading the facts – but do not believe those official, corrupted sources who are proven liars.

COVID Lies and Manipulation

Government and corporatist fascist “fact checkers” (has an expression ever taken on the exact opposite of its meaning so quickly!?) have become expert at lies and manipulation of the truth as regards vaccinations, COVID cases and COVID deaths.

As we expect from a corporatist fascist society the State has not legislated to dismiss employees for not being vaccinated – but is sitting back and allowing state institutions to bar the unvaccinated and private corporations to sack their employees. This is classic arbitrary law (selective and different rules depending on your situation/beliefs – the hallmark of fascism.)

Equally arbitrary are the so called “COVID cases” which are of course not “cases” at all but merely those who have tested positive in the completely useless “lateral flow tests” and the equally useless PCR test (developed when the COVID virus had not even been isolated or sequenced) and now to be phased out in the USA.

Deaths from COVID are no more than about 12% of the actual figure, the rest being death from another cause but with the patient having tested positive within 28 days of death – often having caught the infection in hospital.

So the fatuous “tested positive with 28 days of death” is used by the Government when they count “cases of COVID” but when deaths following the vaccine are counted the same way suddenly they say “there is no proof the vaccine was to blame”.

The arbitrary twisting of definitions to suit State power is another characteristic of Fascism.

Money Corrupts Doctors Giving Vaccines

Despite their symptoms, some of those who reacted to their first vaccine dose are under pressure from GPs to have the second. Maybe because GP practices receive £25.16 for each double-jabbed person. With an average of 9,000 patients for each practice (although under-16s are not yet eligible for the jab so subtract one 6th – 1500) that could be a £188,000 incentive. See this.

Like these doctors we know that virtually every member of the Government’s SAGE Committee taking decisions during this epidemic worked for institutions in receipt of millions from the Bill Gates Foundation so the UK Medical and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (taking decisions on vaccine safety) received donations from Gates Foundation when gates himself makes hundreds of millions from those vaccines. Gates and the corrupted British medical establishment make David Cameron and the corrupted Westminster Parliament look like amateurs! Freenations already reported the corrupting research effects of Gates’s money at Keele University: see this.

The Vaccinated Are Infectious and Die

As we know from the official VAERS reported on this website tens of thousands of deaths and serious injury and long term injury has been caused by these experimental, unlicensed vaccines. AND THESE PEOPLE WERE NOT ILL PRIOR TO BEING VACCINATED.

In Germany the director of the Pathological Institute of the University of Heidelberg, Peter Schirmacher, (who was already leading a State financed autopsy project on people who have died from Covid-19) also autopsied more than 40 deceased vaccinated people.

He concluded that 30 to 40 percent died from the vaccination itself. The pathologist cited “rare, severe side effects of the vaccination – such as cerebral vein thrombosis or autoimmune diseases”. See this.

The Vaccination Farce Revealed

Although this matter is far too serious to describe as a farce the following conversation between a caller and the Centre for Disease Control in the USA shows how useless the vaccination pushers are:

 

The first thing the CDC tells the caller is that he “should be poked – vaccinated – regardless of whether you already had COVID-19” this is despite studies which show NATURAL long term immunity after COVID (and very long term immunity after other coronaviruses). See this.

Extracts from the conversation:

ME: Um, if I’m healthy and don’t want the poke, is there any reason I should get it?

CDC: Yes, for the collective.

ME: How does the collective benefit from me getting poked?

CDC: Because you could spread the virus to someone else who might get sick and die.

ME: Can a poked person spread the virus to someone else?

CDC: Yes.

ME: So if I get poked, I could still spread the virus to someone else?

CDC: Yes.

ME: But I thought you just said, the REASON I should get poked was to prevent me spreading the virus? How does that make sense if I can still catch Covid and spread it after getting the poke?

CDC: Never mind that.

ME:    Are there a lot of people in the U.S. catching Covid after getting the poke?

CDC: We stopped tracking breakthrough cases. We accept voluntary reports of breakthroughs but aren’t out there looking for them.

ME: Does that mean that if someone comes in the hospital with Covid, you don’t track them because they’ve been poked? You only track the UN-poked Covid cases?

CDC: That’s right

NO COMMENT! 

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

On June 9, 2021, the Ontario Declaration of Emergency, enacted under Section 7.0.1 of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, was revoked, but the government and the municipalities did not announce it publicly and the mainstream media have not reported on this significant development. Restrictions and other emergency measures (masking, social distancing, some lockdowns, as well as attendance or access limitations) still continue. An aggressive coercion aimed at mass vaccination is being applied by the media and by government agencies, as well as by some corporations and organizations.

Yesterday, while driving, I accidently turned on the 680 News and my brain was instantly flooded with “COVID”, the “new variant”, fear campaign, and information that our federal government (yes, Justin and the Liberals) decided to implement segregation and discrimination policies in a form of vaccine passports and a requirement that travelling and certain services will only be available to those “fully” vaxxed.

Doug Ford and the provincial government were more careful. According to 680 News, they announced that provincial vaccination passports will be required for “international travel” but their use as basis for other restrictions (including requirement for masking, social distancing, access to services, events, hospitals, education, and retail) will be decided by the businesses that provide such services. Doug is shedding legal liability and political responsibility, so that he can later point his finger at somebody else and say “It wasn’t me! They did it!”

In the meantime, it appears that:

The C-19 Vaccines and vaccination campaigns are now illegal. The C-19 experimental and still tested vaccines were approved for use under emergency authorization only. Since the provincial Declaration of Emergency has been revoked as of June 9, 2021, there is no emergency in Ontario and the emergency authorization for the C-19 vaccines has therefore expired. It is null and void. Similarly, other emergency orders and measures are now illegal.

Politicians and media outlets, service owners, school authorities, health workers and employers should be aware that coaxing, instigating, and threatening citizens, clients and employees by applying segregation based on the vaccination status constitute a violation of our rights and freedoms and therefore may be categorized as a criminal activity. Every person making and implementing such decisions or encouraging such requirements is personally responsible and liable for his or her actions.

The question remains, under what authority are the emergency orders still being maintained? According to the constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati and the Constitutional Rights Centre,

  • They are being wrongly enacted by local municipalities as well as various businesses and institutions under the false guides of the Reopening Ontario Act. This Act provides basis to relax the emergency measures but, if there is no emergency, then there is nothing to relax.
  • Emergency measures are also being wrongly enacted by local Public Health Officers under Section 22 of the Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Act. By definition, the Health Protection Act does not deal with wide-spread emergencies, otherwise we would not need the Emergency Act. These two pieces of legislation are aimed at two different scenarios. The Health Protection Act is meant to deal with local and limited safety issues, for example, a poisoned water, a limited outbreak in a specific facility, or a highly contagious person that needs to be isolated. It is not meant to apply across the province or across the entire municipality indiscriminately.

In this article, I am omitting other factors that call the credibility of the official “pandemic” narrative into question. For example, the fact that governments implementing the emergency measures have not been able to prove the existence of the SARS-Cov-2 virus and therefore the credibility of the “pandemic” itself. They have greatly overstated both morbidity and mortality statistics by using a highly unreliable RT-PCR test in a way that produces false positive results and by providing financial incentives for false death certificates. They and the mainstream media have contributed to an unprecedented fear campaign based on a pack of lies. They have restricted or delayed regular health services and access to doctors. They have banned effective and proven treatment protocols and medications. They have enforced isolation measures that destroy our natural herd immunity. They have forced the population to wear masks that are ineffective against respiratory viruses and unhealthy, when used for prolonged periods of time. Their decisions have contributed to the destruction of economy and small businesses, loss of jobs, rising poverty and resulting social problems (domestic violence, alcoholism and drug use, suicides). Finally, they have censored and punished scientists and doctors who publicly shared their opinions that differed from the official narrative. It looks like all these initiatives are motivated by a desire to coerce and force the population to accept experimental vaccines that are not yet proven safe, that are ineffective (they don’t prevent infections or transmission) and have already caused adverse effects, including death. Information about these facts and risk factors is also being censored by governments, by mainstream media, and by some social media outlets, as well as by some corrupted employers collaborating with criminal agendas hiding behind the so-called “pandemic”.

Based on available information and existing evidence on record, it is reasonable to assume that the true agendas behind the “pandemic” scare, the restrictions and lockdowns, the isolation measures (including masks and social distancing), and the experimental so-called “vaccines” are linked to globalization, the New Normal, the Great Reset, the undemocratic one-world government, the total control over the population, the total control over the supply chains and money, the enrichment of the elites, and the depopulation. At this time, most of these agendas are unconstitutional, and therefore, criminal.

Similarly, any effort to violate the requirement for informed consent, (as per the Nuremberg Code), or to implement any segregation and discrimination measures in order to force people to undergo experimental treatment or medical intervention, constitute a crime and punishable violation under our Constitution, existing laws and human rights.

All politicians and media managers, all business managers and supervisors of various organizations and services, who willingly participate in such criminal schemes, should be held legally responsible for their actions. The punishment should be especially severe, when such schemes are targeting children.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Dundas Valley.

Featured image is from Inga – stock.adobe.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Are the COVID-19 Vaccines and Emergency Measures Still Legal?
  • 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.

***

Prior to taking any unapproved drug, you have the right to receive a broad and complete spectrum of information about the potential effects of those drugs on your body, in order for you to give “informed consent” or to refuse. Dr. Blaylock wrote this especially for this purpose.

There are four major companies offering the COVID-19 “vaccines” (biological bioengineered agents); Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca. Two (Pfizer and Moderna) use a technology never before approved or used “vaccine” called a messenger RNA (mRNA) biological.

The mRNA biologicals encase spike protein producing mRNA within a nanoparticle capsule–LNP [which contains nano-sized polyethylene glycol (PEG)] to protect the mRNA from enzymatic destruction by the vaccinated person’s cells. This prolongs the survival of the mRNA, allowing it to continuously produce the spike protein in your body.  The latter two biologicals, from Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca, utilize a single vaccine technology involving the use of an altered, attenuated virus (Adeno26) to generate antibodies to the spike protein.

This man-made virus literally infects the person with a spike protein-containing virus. You should know that the spike protein is the pathological part of the COVID-19 virus. In essence, you have a man-made virus, and mRNA biological that does exactly what the COVID-19 virus does to you—it exposes you to massive amounts of spike protein. Once in the body this spike protein can enter all tissues—including the heart, the brain, the lungs, the kidneys, the eyes, and the liver.  The two main sites it invades with the spike protein are the liver and the spleen—both major immune regulating sites.

Since no studies have been done on what happens to the spike proteins once they have been injected and most important, how long the mRNA will keep producing the spike proteins, we have no idea concerning the safety of these vaccines. Moderna and Johnson & Johnson have never made a vaccine before this.

It is also important to appreciate that biodistribution studies have shown that the mRNA injected into a person’s body has been found to deposit a small amount of the mRNA into several tissues, most importantly into the brain. This means that the mRNA from the vaccine is producing large amounts of the spike protein directly into your brain for what could be a prolonged period. In such a location as the brain, the spike protein will act as a continuous source of inflammation and excitotoxicity (immunoexcitotoxicity), known to be a central mechanism of several neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s dementia, Parkinson’s disease and ALS, among others.

Most important, one should understand these are experimental vaccines and do not have the approval of the regulatory agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

In order to allow the population to use these entirely experimental biologicals the government had to declare this “pandemic” a medical emergency and utilize Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)—which emphasizes that the agents are not approved and are entirely experimental. The vaccine approval process for an experimental vaccine normally requires a period as long as ten years of intensive study before a vaccine is approved.

In this case, these companies were studying these vaccines for only two months before they were released, despite the recommendation by the FDA they be studied a minimum of 2 years before approval. Meetings by the regulatory agencies were unable to come to a firm conclusion on the length of the studies needed, so EUA proceeded despite the inherent dangers to the public.

You should be aware that the so-called “studies” by these makers of the vaccines were badly flawed, in that placebos and blinding of the studies were abandoned before adequate studies were completed. This prevents researchers and regulatory agencies from being able to determine if a product is actually safe or effective.

As mentioned, the pharmaceutical companies did not conduct studies to see how the injected biologicals were distributed in the body or how long the immune stimulation would continue—which is absolutely vital as regard to safety and the risk of long-term side effects. The biodistribution studies were done independently.

You should also be aware that research on mRNA vaccines in the past demonstrated many problems and unknowns. Among these concerns are:

  • Possible injection site severe reactions, such as severe pain and swelling at the injection site.
  • Persistence of an intense immune reaction producing continuous tissue and organ destruction.
  • Induction of autoimmunity involving a number of tissues and organs (we known that the spike protein cross-reacts with over 28 human tissues and cell components.)
  • Induction of swelling of various tissues (edema)
  • Problems with coagulation, which can include bleeding and/or blood clots.
  • Induction of immune cell priming, which can set the stage for widespread inflammatory tissue destruction and agonizing death.
  • Triggering of neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer’s dementia, Parkinson’s disease and especially ALS.
  • Triggering transverse myelitis with permanent paralysis—either paraplegia or quadriplegia.
  • Triggering of multiple sclerosis
  • Worsening of reactions to wild type virus in vaccinated individuals, leading to severe immune reactions or death.
  • Myocarditis and sudden cardiac death or progressive heart failure.

Is a vaccine really needed?

Vaccine manufacture has become the major profit maker for pharmaceutical companies, especially for vaccines that are recommended or mandated each year. This has already been proposed for this set of vaccines. This is especially so now that these corporations have been given legal protection from lawsuits by Congress.

Of most importance, is that this virus is being treated as if it were a deadly pandemic of major proportions. Unfortunately, most people do not understand the concept of a “pandemic”. Most assume that any virus that spreads rapidly over the entire globe qualifies. If this were so, the common cold viruses would constitute a pandemic several times a year.

Prior to this event, a pandemic must not only spread around the world rapidly, but it must cause a high death rate among all groups—the healthy, the elderly, both genders and the young. This virus is a danger in essentially one major group—the elderly having two or more major chronic diseases. Death and severe illness in younger age groups are among those who have immune deficiency disorders—obesity, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, hereditary immunodeficiencies and HIV infection.

Because this virus did not meet the accepted criteria for a pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) changed the criteria, dropping the necessity for the virus to be deadly for a significant percentage of the population or causing severe injuries to a mass of the population. This virus has never even come close to satisfying these criteria.

Worse, to increase the perception that everyone was in danger, the public health authorities were instructed by the CDC to only use the RT-PCR tests to diagnose cases and specifically instructed these agencies to set the cycles far beyond what was standard for accurate testing (20 to 30 cycles). By doing this, the CDC, and other agencies, turned negative tests into false positive tests—making it appear that the infection was everywhere.

Worse still, they instructed all hospitals to sign out all hospital deaths as being COVID-19 deaths if at any time in the previous month they had a positive RT-PCR test. This included suicides, car accidents, deaths from a heart attack and many more such examples. Death certificates for people dying in their homes were also altered to imply they all died of COVID-19.

The government also paid hospitals more if they listed their serious cases as being COVID-19 cases and making a pay scale to the hospital that paid more if the person was placed on a respirator.

When examining the death rate by age, it is seen that this virus is hardly the 1918 flu virus authorities are implying it to be.

Official data shows that the non-institutionalized fatal infection ratio for all age groups is 0.26%. For those less than age 40, the risk of dying from this virus falls to 0.01%, meaning these people have a 99.99% chance they will recover should they become infected. In Italy, which had the highest death rate from this virus in the world, they found that over 98% of the case fatalities occurred among those over age 80 years who had at least two prior major medical conditions.

In the beginning, the majority of deaths in the United States occurred in nursing homes—close to 50% of all deaths. In addition, at least two highly successful treatments exist for the most at-risk patients—hydroxy-chloroquine and ivermectin. The latter had a 90% recovery rate among a very large number of hospitalized patients, most having a complete recovery. When effective treatments are available for an infectious disease, there is no need for a vaccine.

Now, to further determine if the vaccines are worth taking, one should examine the death rate associated with the vaccine as compared to the virus infection itself.

Data on vaccine related deaths come from the CDC-associated site called the vaccine adverse events recording system (VAERS). It has been determined by several studies that VAERS collects only cases supplied by the either patients or the government and that no more than 1% of complications are actually reported. Reporting by physicians is not mandatory. Incidences reported to VAERS by patients are investigated to affirm they are legitimate.

The latest VAER’s figures suggest that more than 4200 people have died in connection with the vaccines. Of these, 943 who died were ages 12 to 17 years old. For a published analysis one must go back to an earlier date, as it was used in a calculation for comparison—vaccine deaths vs COVID infection deaths.

At the time of this study, 1551 deaths were reported to VAERS. That would be a death rate of 0.0028%. If we correct for the poor reporting, we will see there were most likely 155,100 deaths or 0.28% death rate for all the vaccinated. The death rate from the infection itself was 0.01% for those under age 40 years. That would mean that the death rate from the vaccine was approximately 28 times higher than the death rate from the virus itself.

Another way to look at it is to compare the death rates associated with the flu vaccine with that of these COVID-19 vaccines. Between the years 2019 and 2020 some 170 million Americans took the flu vaccine. Of this number there were 45 deaths associated with the flu vaccine. That is a death rate of 0.0000265%. The death rate for COVID vaccine is stated by proponents as being 0.0024%, over 90-times higher than with the flu shot. Another way of looking at this is to examine the actual death figures for each year. In 2017 there were 20 deaths and in 2019, 45 deaths associated with the flu shot.

This year, 4200 plus persons have died after taking these COVID-19 vaccines—93-times higher for these vaccines than the flu vaccine. Obviously, something is very wrong with these vaccines and with the regulatory agencies and all those pushing these vaccines on the public. An analysis of data collected by the Israeli Health Ministry discovered that the vaccines killed 40 times more elderly people than did the disease itself. Even more shocking, their analysis demonstrated that the vaccines killed 260 times more of the younger individuals than did the infection itself.

One of the major differences between the death rate for people infected with the virus itself and those dying as a result of the vaccine is that the former occurs almost exclusively in the elderly in poor health, and the vaccine related deaths are occurring in a far greater number of the healthy young and healthy elderly.

With this information, it is obvious a vaccine is not needed.

So, what about the elderly at-risk people? Would they not benefit from the vaccine since they are at the highest risk? The problem with this is that such individuals would not be able to respond to any vaccine in a way that would be protective. We learned this with the flu vaccines.

Elderly people, especially those with chronic debilitating illnesses and frailty, cannot mount a sufficient immune response to vaccination to protect themselves from such an infection. Despite this (mainly for profit) vaccine promoters encourage these elderly immune deficient individuals to get vaccinated anyway. There are many ways to protect these individuals outside vaccinations. The law now says we cannot mention them.

What are the Serious Complications and Side Effects Associated with these Vaccines?

While death is of major concern as regards these vaccine reactions, severe, permanent and often crippling side effects are of equal concern, especially for younger people and children. According to the latest numbers collected by VAERS, over 18,500 people have been permanently injured by these vaccines. Keep in mind that this is only 1% of the actual number of such victims of these vaccines.

At minimum, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of permanently damaged people. And this is just the early reported cases—long term, over years, the numbers most likely will be far higher. For example, it was found that after three years following the hepatitis B vaccine, there was a 3-fold increase in multiple sclerosis in those receiving the vaccine.

Blood Clots and Hemorrhages

Soon after these vaccines were released to the general public, a number of cases of blood clots and bleeding episodes began to be reported—mostly among the younger age group, even teenagers. For example, a 17-year-old boy in Utah was hospitalized with two blood clots on his brain after his first dose of the vaccine.

This side effect has been labeled as the vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenic syndrome. From December 2020 to April 2021 there have been 1,845 cases of clotting disorders reported. Among these 655 were reported after the Pfizer vaccine, 577 after the Moderna vaccine and 608 after the J&J vaccine. Several cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) have been reported after these vaccinations.

Cerebral sinus thrombosis results in a devastating stroke effect that severely damages both sides of the brain, should it involve the superior saggital sinus. A study reported in the journal of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons reported 37 cases of vaccine-associated microthrombi in the brain, heart, liver and kidneys. Most of these clotting problems are associated in young people getting the vaccines. Strokes of varying severity have also been reported.

In Austria there appeared two reports of blood clotting disorders linked to these vaccines. In one such case a 49-year-old nurse died from a severe coagulation disorder and a 35 -year-old nurse at the same hospital developed a pulmonary embolism days after her vaccine. It is interesting to note that coagulation problems also occur with the natural infection, suggesting that by flooding the body with the spike protein, the same mechanism is responsible for the vaccine coagulopathy problems as seen with the natural infection, but on a larger scale and incidence.

As of March 16, 2021, approximately 20 European countries suspended the use of the AstraZeneca’s vaccine, primarily because of the associated blood clots in vaccine recipients. According to the Defender, AstraZeneca vaccine had 77% more adverse events than the Pfizer vaccine.

Anaphylactoid Immune Reactions

Almost immediately after the vaccines were released, allergic reactions to the vaccine components were being reported—usually involving an anaphylactoid reaction of major proportions and in some cases with a lethal outcome. Most of the reactions have occurred with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. While rare, these reactions can be deadly and occur within minutes to one hour after receiving the vaccines.

With these vaccines being given at drive throughs, pharmacies and now military troops, the risk of someone dying from this reaction is greatly increased.

So far, the main culprit with these allergic reactions appears to be the use of polyethylene glycol (PEG) as an ingredient. The PEG is used to re-enforce the lipid nanoparticle shield used to protect the mRNA from being destroyed by enzymes within the cells that take up the foreign mRNA. This allows the mRNA to keep producing the spike proteins in your body far longer than the government, media proponents or pharmaceutical makers claim.

The use of PEG (called a PEGylated product) in one experimental study using people was halted when 96 people among the 1600 study participants developed an allergic reaction and one died.

Serious Side Effects

VAERS has recorded a number of serious side effects among people vaccinated with these vaccines. These include:

  • Persistent malaise
  • Extreme exhaustion
  • Multisystem inflammatory syndrome
  • Myocarditis
  • Chronic seizures
  • Paralysis
  • Loss of hearing
  • Psychological effects: mood changes, anxiety, confusion, difficulty finding words, recent memory loss, and bizarre, frightening thoughts.
  • Bell’s palsy
  • Swollen, painful lymph nodes
  • Thrombocytopenia
  • Miscarriages and premature births among vaccinated pregnant women
  • Severe headaches, migraines that do not respond to medications
  • Cardiac problems—heart arrhythmias, tachycardia, and sudden heart failure
  • Strokes
  • Visual problems and blindness
  • Encephalitis/encephalomyelitis and brain stem encephalitis
  • Narcolepsy
  • Autoimmune diseases
  • Arthritis/joint pains
  • Venous thromboembolism

As of May 20th, 2021 besides the 4,205 reported vaccine-related deaths, there were:

  • 2,275 cases of Bell’s palsy
  • 195 cases of Guillian Barre syndrome
  • 65,854 cases of anaphylactoid reaction
  • 3,758 cases of clotting disorders and other serious conditions.
  • 1,140 vaccinated pregnant women had an adverse event, including 351 cases of miscarriages or premature births.

It is known that activation of the immune system systemically (as with vaccinations) also powerfully activates the immune cells of the central nervous system, primarily microglia. We call this process, priming. Despite being activated, the microglia do not release high levels of inflammatory chemicals (cytokines, chemokines, and interferon). The second activation of the immune system by the second dose of the vaccine then not only fully activates these brain immune cells they are intensely activated, doing great harm to the brain over a prolonged period.  When stimulated by the second dose these brain immune cells release high levels of destructive inflammatory mediators and excitotoxins (immunoexcitotoxicity).

Of great concern with this vaccine is the fact that the spike protein can easily enter the central nervous system (brain and spinal cord) where it can act as a continuous source of microglial activation and subsequent destruction of brain cells and spinal cord cells. In my opinion, there is a significant risk of inducing chronic neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer’s dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and especially Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), in individuals receiving these vaccines. Subsequent vaccines of other types (influenza, shingles, meningococcus vaccines) will worsen these destructive disorders and make them more likely to occur.

Individuals with preexisting neurological disorders, such as head injuries, strokes, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia and autism spectrum disorders, will be at a very high risk of worsening of their condition with these vaccines. No provisions are being made to exclude these individuals from receiving these vaccines, despite the extreme danger.

Dangers to Pregnant Women and Their Baby

As stated, as of May 20, 2021 approximately 1,140 pregnant women reported adverse events after receiving one or two doses of this vaccine. In the past, it was standard knowledge that a woman should not receive any vaccine during pregnancy or if a woman even intends to get pregnant. The WHO agreed with this policy but because of objections from the CDC, they switched their recommendations from no vaccines to endorsing the vaccination of all pregnant women. This is despite the admission by all the makers of these vaccines that no studies of the effect of these vaccines on pregnant women or their babies had been conducted.

Yet, extensive independent research has been done on the effect of immune stimulation during pregnancy. It is known that such stimulation during the last trimester of pregnancy, and even during the first two years after birth, increases the incidence of autism spectrum disorders and schizophrenia dramatically in the offspring. Immune stimulation early in pregnancy results in high rates of miscarriage. So far, we have had 351 reports of miscarriage and premature births among women vaccinated during pregnancy.

Keep in mind that VAERS represents only 1% of the actual number of adverse event cases, so the number of women losing babies is far higher. These reports are not mandated by the physician and one can imagine that an OB doctor who recommended the vaccine to their pregnant patients would not want to admit the vaccine was responsible for the loss of their patient’s baby.

Because no research has been done on the long-term effects of these biological agents (vaccines) we have no idea what will happen to these children, who do survive, over their lifetime. No one in a position of responsibility seems to care.

It is also important to keep in mind that most children in the United States receive over 40 vaccine injections before they attend school. Pediatricians are giving as many as eight vaccines during a single office visit. This causes extreme priming of the brain’s microglia, which has been shown to set the stage for serious, permanent neurological damage when subsequent vaccines are given.

These COVID-19 vaccines produce more powerful immune stimulation than traditional vaccines, meaning the risk to children will be much higher, not just for neurological damage but for death.

There are over one million children suffering with autism spectrum disorders whose lives have been ruined by the extreme vaccine schedule thus far. This will pale in comparison to what the COVID-19 vaccines will do to our youth.

Special Danger to Women in General

From the reports now seen in the VAERS system, all women are at risk from these vaccines, especially to their reproductive health. Studies have shown that the spike protein released by these vaccines, contains a protein that strongly resembles a protein essential to a successful pregnancy (called syncytin-1). Activating the immune system against this spike protein would mean that a young woman may never be able to get pregnant.

Other studies indicate that the vaccines are also causing a number of menstrual problems. These include:

  • Extensive bleeding with blood clots
  • Prolonged period (even a month long)
  • Severe cramping
  • Premature menopause
  • Delayed or absent periods

Excessive bleeding could lead to severe iron deficiency which is associated with a number of medical disorders besides anemia. None of the clinical trials before these vaccines were released even looked at the effect on a woman’s menstrual cycles.

Heart Inflammation

The VAERS report identified 75 cases of myocarditis after the mRNA vaccines. Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle which can lead to progressive heart failure and arrhythmias. Details leaked from the Israeli Health Ministry linked 62 cases of myocarditis including 2 deaths with the Pfizer vaccine. Fifty-six of the cases were associated with the second dose. The ages spanned from 18 years of age to age 30. The VAERS reported cases of myocarditis spanned from age 17 to age 44 years.

Vaccine-Induced Autoimmune Diseases

Two recent studies examined the cross-reactivity of a number of human tissue components and the spike protein. Both studies found extensive cross-reactivity, which means that these vaccines can induce severe autoimmune diseases in a great number of tissues and organs. This includes autoimmune thyroiditis, autoimmune diabetes, systemic Lupus, uveitis, psoriasis, autoimmune kidney disease, autoimmune encephalitis and many more diseases. The onset of these autoimmune disorders can be delayed by months, years and even decades after the vaccines.

Two separate studies found severe cross-reactivity between the spike proteins and human tissues and cell components. One of these cell components includes the mitochondria, the source of energy for all cells. An autoimmune attack would cause severe weakness and impair a number of organs, such as the liver, the heart and the brain. Neurologically, this could translate into brain fog, confusion, disorientation, and poor memory and learning ability.

Vaccine-Induced Visual Disorders

Several cases of visual impairment and even total blindness have been reported following these vaccines. According to the World Health Organization’s European drug monitoring agency there have been nearly 20,000 reports of eye disorders following the COVID vaccines. These include the following problems:

  • Eye pain
  • Blurred vision
  • Eye swelling
  • Itching eyes
  • Double vision
  • Dry eyes
  • Periorbital swelling
  • Swelling of eyelids
  • Blindness (298 cases)
  • Hemorrhage in the conjunctiva
  • Blepharospasm
  • Eye hemorrhage

The fate of these individual’s vision in the future is a big unknown. Many have also reported, along with the visual problems, strange sensations in their head, severe headaches and difficulty thinking clearly.

Long Term Effects

While the regulatory agencies suggested a two-year follow-up for these experimental vaccines, no action was taken to enforce this. Now that the so-called pandemic is essentially over, there is no reason to continue “fast-tracking” this vaccine. The full procedure for vaccine studies should now be implemented. As the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) have never been used among the public, it should be classified as “experimental” until extensive long-term studies are completed and in a much more comprehensive and transparent way than they have thus far. No vaccine should be mandated, but an experimental vaccine certainly should not be mandated.

With 51 percent of the nation now vaccinated with these experimental vaccines, and with approximately one billion people worldwide, this will constitute the largest experiment ever perpetrated on the world’s population. No one knows what the long-term effects of this grand experiment for a non-pandemic virus will be. Potentially it could kill tens of millions, cripple for life far more, and sterilize great numbers of young women around the world. At this point we just don’t know. It has been suggested by some medical experts that brand new diseases may arise from the use of these vaccines.

*

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. Russell Blaylock, author of the Blaylock Report Wellness newsletter, is a nationally recognized board certified neurosurgeon, health practitioner, author, and lecturer. He attended the Louisiana State University School of Medicine and completed his internship and neurological residency at the Medical University of South Carolina. For 26 years, he practiced neurosurgery. He recently retired from his neurosurgical duties to devote his full attention to nutritional research. Dr. Blaylock has authored several books, Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life, Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients, Dr. Blalock’s Prescriptions for Natural Health, was a Co-author of Cellular and Molecular Biology of Autism Spectrum Disorders and his most recent work, The Liver Cure.

Sources

  1. Michael Erman Julie Steenhuysen U.S. CDC finds more clotting cases after J&J vaccine, sees causal Reuter’s May 12,2021.
  1. Megan Redshaw. Brazil Suspends AstraZeneca Vaccine After Pregnant Woman Dies, New Study Links Vaccine to Blood Clots, More Countries Hit Pause. Defender 5/12/21.
  1. Tucker Carlson: Fauci More Responsible for COVID Pandemic Than ‘Any Other Single Living American’; Fox News (Reported on Defender website, 5/12/21.
  1. Nicholas Wade What’s the Origin of COVID? Did People or Nature Open Pandora’s Box at Wuhan? Defender 5/06/21.
  1. CDC Covid Data Tracker: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-datatracker/# cases_casesper100klast7days.
  1. Peter R. Breggan and Ginger R. Breggin. The Breggin Report. https:// breggin.com/coronavirus/Final-Fauci-Treachery-Report-10.19.2020.pdf.
  1. Rogin, J. 2020, April 14, State Department cables warned of safety issues at Wuhan lab studying bat coronaviruses, Washington Post. https://www. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-department-cableswarned- safety-issues-wuhan-lab- studying-bat-coronaviruses/.
  1. Seneff S, Nigh G. Worse than the disease? Reviewing some possible unintended consequences of the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19. IJVTPR 2(1): 402-443.
  1. Arvin, A. M., Fink, K. Schmid, M. A., Cathcart, A., Spreafico, R., Havenar- Daughton, C. … Virgin, H. W. (2020). A Perspective on Potential Antibody- Dependent Enhancement of SARS-CoV-2. Nature 584(7821): 353-363. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2538-8.
  1. Buonsenso, D., Riitano, F., & Valentini, P. (2020). Pediatric Inflammatory Multisystem Syndrome Temporally Related with SARS-CoV-2: Immunological Similarities with Acute Rheumatic Fever and Toxic Shock Syndrome. Frontiers in Pediatrics 8: 574. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2020.00574.
  1. Buzhdygana, T. P., DeOrec, B. J., Baldwin-Leclair, A., Bullock, T. A., McGary, H. M. … Ramirez, S. H. (2020). The International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), May 10, 2021 Page | 433.
  1. SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Alters Barrier Function in 2D Static and 3D Microfluidic in-Vitro Models of the Human Blood-Brain Barrier. Neurobiology of Disease 146: 105131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. nbd.2020.105131.
  1. Classen, J. B. (2021). Review of COVID-19 Vaccines and the Risk of Chronic Adverse Events Including Neurological Degeneration. Journal of Medical-Clinical Research and Reviews 5(4): 1-7. https:// foundationforhealthresearch.org/review-of-covid-19-vaccines-and-therisk-of-chronic-adverse-events/.
  1. Lyons-Weiler, J. (2020). Pathogenic Priming Likely Contributes to Serious and Critical Illness and Mortality in COVID- 19 via Autoimmunity. Journal of Translational Autoimmunity 3: 100051. https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S2589909020300186.
  1. Vojdani, A., & Kharrazian, D. (2020). Potential Antigenic Cross-Reactivity Between SARS-CoV-2 and Human Tissue with a Possible Link to an Increase in Autoimmune Diseases. Clinical Immunology (Orlando, Fla.) 217: 108480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clim.2020.108480.
  1. Ndeupen, S., Qin, Z., Jacobsen, S., Estanbouli, H., Bouteau, A., & Igyártó, B.Z. (2021) The mRNA-LNP Platform’s Lipid Nanoparticle Component Used in Preclinical Vaccine Studies is Highly Inflammatory. bioRxiv 2021.03.04.430128. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.04.430128.
  1. Vojdani, A., Vojdani, E., & Kharrazian, D. (2021). Reaction of Human Monoclonal Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 Proteins with Tissue Antigens: Implications for Autoimmune Diseases. Frontiers in Immunology 11: 3679. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.617089.
  1. Wylon, K. Sabine Dölle, S., & Margitta Worm, M. (2016). Polyethylene Glycol as a Cause of Anaphylaxis. Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology 12(1): 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13223-016-0172-7.
  1. Su, J. R., Moro, P. L., Ng, C. S., Lewis, P. W., Said, M. A., & Cano, M.V. (2019). Anaphylaxis after vaccination reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, 1990-2016.Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 143(4): 1465-1473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2018.12.1003.
  2. Shaw, C.A. (2021). The Age of COVID-19: Fear, Loathing, and the New Normal. International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 1: 98-142. https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/11.

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com/NewsTarget.com

Next on the US Agenda: War with China?

August 13th, 2021 by Connor Freeman

All Global Research articles 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 2014, Lew Rockwell wrote, “Clearly the empire is targeting China…The U.S. seeks to encircle China and make it bow down before the hegemon. The increasing prosperity and freedom of China threatens the empire’s self-image.”

America’s new Cold War with China is a bi-partisan imperial project. In 2011, former President Barack Obama began it in earnest, dubbing it the “Asia Pivot.” The ‘pivot’ entails surrounding China with hundreds of bases and shifting two thirds of all U.S. naval and air forces to the Asia-Pacific, the greatest military buildup since World War II.

Putative outsider Donald Trump took office and sizably enlarged the U.S. military’s footprint in what is now referred to as the “Indo-Pacific” region and significantly increased provocations of China.

Now President Joe Biden and his hawk infested administration are escalating tensions with Beijing to heights previously unseen.

Biden has said bluntly that the U.S. is in “extreme competition” with China. In his first address to Congress, Biden said we are competing with China to “win the 21st century.” Space Force has plans for the moon to be a “militarized front.” They see it as a venue for a future war. Washington is spending more on the military and so called “defense” than at any time in the nation’s history. The Republican Party’s neocons say that even Biden’s 2022 national security budget request for more than $750 billion is not enough to counter China and are demanding that number be increased by tens of billions.

The Pentagon’s excuse for its record high spending is Beijing, the so called “pacing threat.” China poses a threat to the hawks’ world domination, at least that is what has been said by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley. According to the general, since the end of the previous Cold War, America has held “unchallenged global military, political and economic power. With the rise of China, that is changing and changing fast.”

The U.S. Military Is Incessantly Goading China

Last year, while Americans were distracted by the COVID-19 crisis, Trump’s war cabinet seized the opportunity to dramatically expand military activity around China. U.S. warships and aircraft carrier group strike forces sailing in the South China Sea were reported constantly. In July 2020, according to the South China Sea Strategic Situation Probing Initiative (SCSPI), a Beijing based think tank, the U.S. flew record numbers of aerial surveillance flights in the South China Sea and near China’s coast. The number of reconnaissance flights averaged three to five per day. In the same month, the Trump administration formally rejected almost all of China’s claims to the waters in the South China Sea. This policy has since been reaffirmed by the Biden regime. Under both administrations, the U.S. has been challenging China, using the Navy’s Seventh Fleet, inserting itself into disputes between regional actors there whom all have overlapping claims on the waters including over various, sometimes unmanned, rocks, reefs, islands, islets, and archipelagos.

Even if it means war with China, Biden’s administration has pledged that the U.S. will defend Japan‘s claims to the disputed Senkaku Islands. The Senkaku Islands are claimed by Beijing, Tokyo, and Taipei. Similarly, Washington has promised the U.S. military will come to the Philippines’ defense in the event of a violent conflict with China, including in the South China Sea, potentially over the disputed Whitson Reef. The Whitson Reef, the site of recent tensions, is claimed not only by China and the Philippines but by Vietnam as well.

The Navy routinely conducts what it calls Freedom Of Navigation Operations (FONOPS), in the waters surrounding China, sailing warships through the waters, particularly in the South China Sea, usually provocatively close to Chinese controlled or claimed islands. Biden’s regime just conducted its fourth FONOP. Under Trump, in 2020 the U.S. conducted a record high total of nine FONOPs poking China.

In September 2020, record numbers of U.S. warplanes and spy planes near China’s coast were spotted and recorded. There were at least 60 flights including over the South China Sea, the East China Sea, and the Yellow Sea. The U.S. was sending refueling aircraft from Guam to replenish the spy planes enabling them to continue their operations. As Dave DeCamp, news editor at Antiwar.com, has written, the SCSPI interprets these sorties as the U.S. potentially “preparing for long-distance attacks on targets in the South China Sea.” In February 2021, 75 U.S. reconnaissance aircraft flights in the South China Sea were documented.

Indeed, the Chinese Defense Ministry has declared that since Biden took office, the volatile situation in the region has considerably worsened.

As the South China Morning Post reported,

On the day that Biden targeted Beijing in his first speech to a joint session of Congress, Chinese defence ministry spokesman Wu Qian said operations had increased by more than 20 per cent for US warships and 40 per cent for planes in and around waters claimed by China, compared with the same period last year under Donald Trump’s administration.

During the current administration’s reign, U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups have been repeatedly sent to the South China Sea, including, in one instance, for dual carrier drills.

As Patrick Macfarlane, writer and podcaster at the Libertarian Institute, has elaborated,

In February, 2021, U.S. a reconnaissance plane flirted with the same airspace as a sortie of Chinese warplanes. More recently, on May 14, 2021, the U.S. Navy announced the deployment of two MQ-4C Triton drones from Guam to Northern Japan, the first such deployment of high-altitude long endurance unmanned aerial vehicles (HALE-UAVs) to Japan.

These drones spy on the Taiwan Strait, Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) bases on the coast, and military installations in the South China Sea.

In March, a U.S. Air Force RC-135U flew within 25.33 nautical miles of the Chinese coast, closer than any U.S. military plane recorded yet. In April, an American destroyer conducted close surveillance of a Chinese aircraft carrier the Liaoning as it was taking part in exercises in the South China Sea. The U.S. often deploys military aircraft to shadow Chinese drills as well.

The U.S. Navy even released a photo of officers on the deck of a guided missile destroyer, the USS Mustin, staring down the Liaoning. Also in April, satellite imagery revealed that another U.S. guided missile destroyer actually entered into the Liaoning’s strike group and sailed with it for a time, the aircraft carrier was returning from a deployment in the South China Sea to the East China Sea. DeCamp has explained that considering such reconnaissance can be accomplished with the use of satellites, the goal of these hyper-aggressive maneuvers is solely to ramp up tensions.

In July, reports indicated the Navy has been quite busy this year establishing an almost nonstop deployment of surveillance ships in the South China Sea.

As DeCamp has reported,

…U.S. Navy ocean surveillance vessels were operating in the South China Sea for at least 161 days out of 181 days in the first half of this year. The U.S. has five of these vessels stationed in Japan, which are typically active in the South China Sea for more than 10 days at a time, and there is virtually no time between deployments.

The SCSPI report said that the primary purpose of these deployments is “to monitor the dynamics of China’s underwater forces, analyze the scope of submarine activities in key waters and their entry and exit routes, and provide intelligence support for anti-submarine operations.”

Allies Increasingly Join the Pivot

In his aforementioned first Congressional address, Biden boasted he “also told President Xi that we will maintain a strong military presence in the Indo-Pacific just as we do with NATO in Europe…”

Thus, Washington’s allies are getting in on the Asia Pivot. The British will soon be sailing their new aircraft carrier the HMS Queen Elizabeth and its strike group which includes an American destroyer and warplanes as well, into the South China Sea. The warship HMS Defender is already there. London will soon permanently deploy two warships in Asia. This was declared in a joint statement with Japan.

Japan is a part of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, otherwise known as the Quad, along with the U.S., India, and Australia. The hawks hope to make the Quad into an East Asian NATO style alliance.

Financial Times was told by a source “familiar with the strategy,” that “[t]he Biden administration is making the Quad the core dynamic of its Asia policy.”

Last year, in an unmistakable message to China, the Quad’s navies held war drills in the Bay of Bengal, their largest such exercises in more than a decade.

Tokyo has recently been hyping up the threat to Taiwan posed by China. In the event of a “major incident” in Taiwan, Japanese Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso went so far as to say that “Japan and the US must defend Taiwan together.” With more than 50,000 troops, Japan hosts the largest overseas U.S. military presence.

The End of “Engagement?”

In May, Biden’s top Asia official Kurt Campbell, head of Indo-Pacific Affairs on the National Security Council, was speaking at an event hosted by Stanford University where he portentously stated that our “engagement” with China is over. Campbell is known as the architect of Obama’s Asia Pivot.

“The period that was broadly described as engagement has come to an end,” Campbell says, “the dominant paradigm is going to be competition.”

“For the first time, really, we are now shifting our strategic focus, our economic interests, our military might more to the Indo-Pacific,” he added.

Taiwan, Nuclear War, and the Neocons

In 2016, on 12 occasions, Obama sailed warships through the sensitive Strait of Taiwan. Trump beat Obama’s record last year by sending warships through the strait 13 times. Biden has been in office for just over six months and has already sailed warships through the strait seven times.

After the latest passage, China protested. The PLA’s Eastern Theatre Command issued a statement saying, “[t]he US is the biggest destroyer of peace and stability…and the biggest maker of security risks across the Taiwan Strait.”

Carlos del Toro, Biden’s nominee for Secretary of the Navy, recently vowed to the Senate Armed Services Committee that, if confirmed, he will “exclusively” focus on China and “…moving our maritime strategy forward in order to protect Taiwan and all of our national security interests in the Indo-Pacific theater.”

Republican Senator Josh Hawley asked Del Toro if it’s “vital” for the U.S. to be able to prevent an attack on Taiwan by China, the nominee ominously responded “absolutely.”

In the worst case scenario, this policy could kill millions of people or more. This fact apparently did not mean nearly as much to Del Toro as his own petty career advancement.

As Senior Fellow at Defense Priorities and Retired Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis has explained,

It is crucial to understand that for China, the Taiwan issue is not merely a core interest, but an emotionally charged one. They are far more willing to pay extraordinary costs, sacrifice many men, and could risk it all to eventually compel unification with Taiwan. The issue does not directly affect our national security unless we get involved.

If we eventually choose war with China over Taiwan, we will at best suffer egregious losses in ships, aircraft, and troops; in a worst-case, the war could deteriorate into a nuclear exchange in which American cities are turned into nuclear wastelands, killing millions.

America should never take such risks unless our security and freedom are directly threatened. Fighting China for any reason short of that would be a foolish gamble of the highest order.

Although designed and overseen by liberal hawks such as Campbell, and led officially by Democrats like Biden, Obama and Hillary Clinton, the Asia Pivot as well as its ancillary exploitation of the Taiwan issue as a means to goad China has roots in infamous neoconservative circles. That is, namely the now defunct, Project for a New American Century (PNAC) think tank, founded by Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan.

For instance, PNAC’s notorious September 2000 document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” contains an outline of the Asia Pivot;

Raising U.S. military strength in East Asia is the key to coping with the rise of China to great power status.

Reflecting the gradual shift in the focus of American strategic concerns toward East Asia, a majority of the U.S. fleet, including two thirds of all carrier battle groups, should be concentrated in the Pacific. A new, permanent forward base should be established in Southeast Asia.

These are the same neocons who led the push for war in Iraq, in which maybe more than a million Iraqis were killed.

The New (Psychological) Cold War

As is the case with Russia, Washington is also hyping up the threat of China’s cyber-attacks on the U.S. using unsubstantiated allegations spread like wildfire by the imperial press. This is likely done to create a state of hysteria amongst our domestic population. But it serves more than one purpose. In March, Andrei Ilnitsky, an advisor to Russia’s Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, accused the U.S. of executing a “new type of warfare,” a “mental war,” a war being “waged for people’s minds.”

Without sufficient evidence, Moscow is endlessly accused of election interference, hacking the DNC, paying bounties to the Taliban to kill American soldiers, poisoning Alexi Navalny or the Skripals, the SolarWinds hack, as well as assorted ransomware attacks.

These unsubstantiated accusations are deliberately capitalized on by America’s hardliners and used often as grounds for the eschewing critical diplomacy such as arms control talks. This tactic is also deployed to garner support for further expansion of NATO, the mass expulsions of diplomats, cyber-attacks, internet censorship, and more sanctions.

Similarly, the sadistic, ultra-hawkish Mike Pompeo, in one of his last acts as Secretary of State, formally accused the Chinese of “genocide” against its Uyghur Muslim population. Antony Blinken, our current Foggy Bottom chief and Pompeo’s neoliberal analogue, has since reaffirmed this position. This claim is circulated all over the media again and again with weak evidence that relies on “flagrant data abuse and outright falsehoods,” as well as highly questionable sources. The hype is used by Washington to justify multilateral sanctions and increasingly its selective decoupling from China in regions like Xinxiang.

Decoupling from China is an option that is talked about more often all the time by neocons in government like Senator Tom Cotton and others. It would drastically increase the likelihood of war.

Beijing is now being accused by Washington, NATO, the U.K., and others of hacking Microsoft’s Exchange Server, an email platform used by various corporations and governments worldwide. This hacking allegation dates back a few months and, in keeping with the established pattern with the claims against Russia, no evidence has been brought forward yet. The claim is unproven but may be exploited to levy more sanctions on China. Alarmingly, NATO recently included cyberattacks among other things that could trigger the invocation of the Article 5 mutual defense clause. And Biden is now saying cyber-attacks could be used as a pretext for a “real shooting war with a major power,” eyeing Beijing and Moscow.

Ali Abunimah, of the Electronic Intifada, has noted these unverified claims against China over Beijing’s suspected involvement in the Microsoft hack have been amplified and endorsed by western governments and the corporate press. Whereas in contrast, so many of these same entities seem unconcerned about Washington’s satellite Tel Aviv and its direct responsibility in the massive Pegasus spyware scandal.

Microsoft, incidentally, is a major donor to the Center For A New American Security (CNAS), the anti-China, neoconservative foreign policy think tank founded by the likes of Asia Pivot architect Campbelland war criminal Michele Flournoy. Flournoy has openly stated her desire for the Pentagon, in the event of a war, to acquire the ability to completely destroy China’s entire civilian merchant and military fleet within 72 hours. Before former Raytheon board member Lloyd Austin was chosen, Flournoy was considered a shoe in to head Biden’s War Department. She was failed candidate Hillary Clinton’s pick for the post as well.

As this columnist has written previously, CNAS holds enormous sway over the Biden administration, with many of its hawkish co-founders, associates, former CEOs, and members proliferating throughout the regime in several key positions. CNAS is also funded by a veritable who’s who of the ruling elite including, among others, the U.S. State Department, Taiwan’s de facto embassy, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Comcast, Exxon, Mastercard, the Japanese Embassy to the United States, Citigroup, Facebook, Georgetown University, Google, and Raytheon.

The Hawks and Their Death Toll

On the world stage, the American Empire is rapidly losing any vestiges of credibility it has left. While mass murderers like America’s top diplomat Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivancondemn China’s alleged violations of the so called “rules-based order that maintains global stability,” Washington backs some of the most criminal, genocidal, and totalitarian regimes flagrantly violating international law today, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel. The U.S. ruling elite relentlessly wages economic warfare against weaker nations like Syria and Iran targeted by the above “allies” as well.

Washington also maintains bipartisan crushing sanctions still levied against other impoverished nations, posing zero threat to the American people, like Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. Under these sanctions, just within Venezuela, experts say more than 100,000 people have been killed, many deprived to death of their vital medicines.

Robert Kagan’s wife Victoria Nuland, now the highest ranking member of the Foreign Service, along with then Vice President Biden, led a 2014 coup in Ukraine that put neo-Nazis in power on Russia’s doorstep. Paraphrasing Robert Parry, the late investigative journalist and founder of Consortium News, the ‘mess Nuland made’ caused the ongoing war in the east of the country which has claimed the lives of well over ten thousand people, mostly civilians and militiamen murdered by Kiev’s forces. The bipartisan U.S. policy now includes piling sanctions on Moscow, sending hundreds of millions dollars’ worth of arms to Kiev, and constantly conducting military exercises in the Black Sea. This has largely led to the current state of affairs, the worst U.S.-Russian relations since the previous Cold War.

Americans can no longer ignore that it is, in fact, their government, the world empire, with some 800 bases in 70 countries, that began this new Cold War and remains the aggressor. The U.S. Empire is the single greatest threat to peace and global stability. After all, it was Washington that unilaterally withdrew from major 20th century arms control pillars such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and Open Skies. It is these jingoistic moves which have triggered a nuclear arms race in the 21st century.

The U.S. government has still not been held responsible for its recent atrocities including George W. Bush’s torture program, the devastating 20-year Afghanistan war, the Iraq War, as well as the ongoing U.S.-Saudi total war and siege on Yemen, the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. At the highest levels, Washington has even committed outright treason against the American people taking the side of al Qaeda and its affiliates notably in the wars on Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Hundreds of thousands of people have been slaughtered in these conflicts alone.

As Martin Luther King Jr. said during the Vietnam War, in which successive U.S. regimes butchered millions, it is this government that is “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.”

Getting Off the Path to War

There is no reason for war and brinksmanship, nor this mammoth buildup. “Renewed Power Competition” with Russia and China is a project of neoconservatives and other American imperialists. These hawks are ideologically bent on global primacy and “full spectrum dominance.” Their chosen brand of “competition” serves doubly as a gargantuan public works project for the military, particularly the Air Force and the Navy, and is a multi-trillion-dollar corporate welfare scheme for the military industrial complex. However, America is broke and $30 trillion in debt. This “competition” is at our direct expense, it undoubtably will further impoverish and imperil the American people. The new Cold War era will also surely suffocate any and all of our remnants of liberty.

To avoid the coming calamity, Americans and especially libertarians of all stripes can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines while their corrupt ruling class recklessly drives us towards war with Beijing and Moscow. At a minimum, we must promptly regain control of our foreign policy and, in the spirit of the Ron Paul Revolution, unceasingly pursue diplomacy, free trade, free travel, and cultural exchange. We can still choose peace.

China has not attacked us, but has been surrounded by myriad American warplanes, warships, submarines, missiles, and hundreds of military bases.

For what ultimate purpose do we suppose these hawks, who have killed so many, intend to use those warplanes, warships, submarines, missiles, and bases?

*

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 Libertarian Institute

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Police in Switzerland are rising up against the “Great Reset” by refusing to enforce government-imposed restrictions on the general public.

A group representing Swiss police officers wrote a letter to the Swiss Federation of Police Officers (FSFP) declaring that cops work for the people and not the global elite.

The group warned they will not enforce restrictive measures that disproportionately undermine the fundamental rights of citizens.

“If the measures were to conflict with the general opinion of the population, disproportionately limiting their fundamental rights, many police officers would no longer be willing to apply them,” the group wrote in the letter.

While the letter was received favorably by the Swiss public, the FSFP attempted to downplay the uprising by claiming it only represents a small number of police officers.

Adrian Gaugler of the Conference of Cantonal Police Commanders went further, threatening the officers with sanctions if they refused to enforce the measures.

swiss police say they work for the people  not the global elite

Swiss police say they work for the people, not the global elite

“An officer who refuses to enforce the law can be punished,” said Gaugler.

“Police refusing to enforce coronavirus measures is not unique to Switzerland,” writes Chris Tomlinson.

“Earlier this year, police in the Canadian province of Ontario rejected new powers given by the provincial government that would have allowed them to stop any motorist or pedestrian and demand to know where they live and why they were not at home.”

It’s not just in Europe where restrictive measures are being rejected, however.

Lawmakers in the United States are now also calling on the public to demand freedom.

As Neon Nettle first reported last week, Republican Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has released a statement calling on patriotic Americans to rise up against Joe Biden’s tyrannical government to “resist” the “Great Reset” through mass civil disobedience.

Senator Paul has called on the public to stand up against unconstitutional lockdowns, mandates, and harmful policies being imposed by “power-hungry” elites.

In an op-ed for Fox News, Paul slammed Democrat leaders Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as “tyrants.”

“They can’t arrest us all,” Paul declared as he urged patriots to “resist” the Democrats’ attempts to “destroy America.”

“We are at a moment of truth and a crossroads,” Paul declared.

“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: Swiss police are refusing to support ‘the great reset’/All images in this article are from Neon Nettle

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

U.S. Media have played up the recent anti-government protests in Cuba as a harbinger of regime change and a reason for U.S. intervention

But they deceitfully hide the fact that anti-government protestors (funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, the National Endowment for Democracy and CIA) number only a few hundred, whereas pro-government supporters—in defense of the revolution and opposed to U.S. intervention—have been flooding the streets, not by the hundreds, but by the hundreds of thousands

The July 11th protests in Cuba had the Cuban opposition salivating with the hope of once again being the benefactors of an American takeover of the island of 11 million.

As we have seen in the last couple of weeks, this has not been the case. On the contrary, the 17th of July saw more than 100,000 Cubans take the streets of el Malecón in defense of the revolution and against U.S. intervention.

There were also demonstrations in other provinces across the island, altogether dwarfing the U.S.-backed opposition hecklers of the previous week.

Nonetheless, the opposition protests, although insignificant in size and duration (in comparison to the pro-revolution assemblages), have provided fertile ground for Western media to perform their traditional role in setting the stage for the imperial war drums.

The war drums have been played, as Miami Mayor Francis Suarez and the Cuban exile community have urged the Biden administration, to implement a “humanitarian intervention,” one that does not take airstrikes off the table.

Although a Biden administration pivot toward military intervention does not seem likely, Biden has sustained and expanded on the Trump aggression on Cuba. On July 22nd Biden implemented a series of new sanctions on Cuba and assured that “this is just the beginning.”

Whether this means military intervention is on the table is unknown, but what it confirms is that, without strong pressure from the American Left, his campaign promise to return to the Obama-era relationship with Cuba seems unlikely.

Although the July 11th protests, as Madea Benjamin and Leonardo Flores note, “pale in comparison, both in terms of turnout and in state repression, to mass mobilizations that have rocked Colombia, Haiti, Chile, Ecuador and other Latin American countries over the past few years—or even Portland, Oregon, or Ferguson, Missouri,” they are nonetheless the largest oppositional protests since the 1994 Maleconazo uprising during which Cuba was undergoing what it called el Período especial (the Special Period).

Situating this event in its proper long- and short-term historical contexts is necessary to provide a holistic understanding of it. It is not sufficient merely to point to the Trump administration’s tightening of the blockade, even if we agree that such actions are what immediately generated recent events. Instead, we must understand the blockade itself historically. Only then can we know how and why it is effective.

Conditioned to Be Sweet

Although for centuries Havana was an important port for the Spanish empire, it was not until the 18th century that Cuba became the sugar hub of the world.[1] Starting in 1763, the Cuban export economy was centered around sugar, a process it would sustain for the centuries to come. Forty years before the 1959 revolution “sugar accounted for 82% of Cuba’s export earnings.”[2]

This historically determined sugar dependency shows how the ancestral fingers of colonialism created the precondition for the Cuban economy being at the whim of global sugar price fluctuations. Beyond this, the centuries-long monocropping of Cuba’s economy, coupled with the destructive industrial means through which this monocropping took place, has left Cuba, according to the United Nation’s Environment Programme (UNEP), with “over three-quarters of its 6.6 million hectares of arable land affected by soil erosion.”

As the UNEP states, “The result is that Cuba imports 80 per cent of its food necessities at a cost of nearly two billion dollars a year—a heavy burden for any developing country, especially one that continues to suffer an ongoing economic embargo from a major world power.” In our globalized world every country is dependent on international trade for acquiring the basic necessities for its people.

Just think what would happen to the U.S., a country territorially about 90 times bigger than Cuba (with far greater soil biodiversity), if it were blocked from trading with the rest of the world and put into a commensurable position with the position it has put Cuba in. What would the material conditions in our country be like?

How would this trade limitation affect us in moments of crisis, when basic necessities are scant, and allocation is based on our market logic? If, under our current condition as the global hegemon, we have 42 million people experiencing food insecurity, the famines that would result if we were in Cuba’s shoes are unimaginable. Yet, no such famine has ever occurred in Cuba. Even in the toughest of times, rationing measures have allowed the population to get what it needs to survive.

The Cuban revolution did not come about in a void. Instead, it came about in a country shackled by centuries of plunder, having to face the results of forces that were already in the world before they were thrown into it. In this world, Cuba has international trade as an absolute imperative for its existence. The blockage of this capacity by the world’s largest empire represents a constant existential threat for the island.

Early U.S. Imperialism and Pre-Revolutionary Cuba

In 1898 Cuba ended its century-long anti-colonial struggle against Spain and began its soon-to-be half-century anti-imperialist struggle against the U.S. which, with a sprinkle of yellow journalism, intervened in Cuba’s war against Spain.

For Cuba, this was not just a transition from one master to another. Instead, this transition marked a qualitative leap into a new stage of capitalism, one which Lenin, a couple of decades later, would describe as Imperialism.

From 1898 until the 1959 revolution, Cuba would be militarily occupied three times by the U.S. (1898-1902, 1906-1909, 1917-1922), including a continuous occupation since 1903 of the U.S.’s favorite torture spot, Guantanamo Bay.

Nonetheless, even before the Cuban War of Independence, the U.S. was already engaging in practices that were making Cuba economically dependent on the U.S. For instance, in 1865, 65% of Cuba’s sugar exports were going to the United States.[3] Cuba’s sugar dependency became inextricably linked to its ability to trade with the U.S.

After 1898 the U.S.-Cuba relationship transcended dependency and entered into complete political-economic supremacy by the U.S. over Cuba. U.S. companies had nearly total control over the central industries in Cuba. For instance, by 1920, 95% of the sugar industry’s harvest was controlled by U.S. investors.[4]

A similar condition existed in other industries, “by the late ’50s, U.S. financial interests included 90 percent of Cuban mines, 80 percent of its public utilities, [and] 50 percent of its railways.” For a small percentage of Cubans, those who compose the first generation of exiles, this condition was a paradise: “In 1946, less than 1% of all Cuban farmers controlled 36% of the farmland, and 8% of the farmers controlled 70% of farmland.”[5]

For the great majority of the population this was a wretched existence, where 93% of rural households lacked electricity, 85% lacked running water, 54% lacked an indoor or outdoor toilet, 96% lacked a refrigerator, and fewer than half of children were enrolled in school.[6]

U.S. control of Cuba allowed the island to become a gangster’s paradise. Havana was the city of sin that would make modern-day Las Vegas look like it was owned by Puritans. A viewing of the classic film The Godfather II should remind one of pre-revolutionary Cuba and the Mafia-loving corruption of U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista, who had killed about 20,000 Cubans by the time the revolution came to Havana.[7]

It is in this context that the revolution arrived. As Cuban revolutionary folk singer Carlos Puebla said:

Here they thought they could
Continue playing democracy
And the people who in their misfortune
Were being left to die
And to continue in a cruel mode
Not even caring about their form
With robbery as the norm
And that’s when Fidel arrived.

The Revolution, the Blockade, and the Historical Toolbox of Imperialism

Shortly after the triumph of the revolution in 1959, the new revolutionary government would implement an agrarian reform which would distribute land amongst the campesinadoand establish limitations for landholdings.

As a cherry on top, these reforms would offer compensation to the previous owners that was “fixed on the basis of its value on the municipal tax rolls prior to October 10, 1958.”[8]

Similar expropriation conditions would be offered to U.S. and other foreign companies in Cuba under the 851, 890, and 891 laws. These en masse expropriations eventually led to the nationalization of all of Cuba’s central resources and industries, establishing conditions where for the first time Cuba would belong to Cubans.

Although a partial embargo (on arms) had already been imposed on Cuba in 1958, in the first couple of years after the revolution the U.S. sustained and expanded it. Each activity the revolutionary government would take to implement distributive measures was met with increased pressure from the expanding embargo. Such increased pressures would often be met with further expropriations.

For instance, the Eisenhower administration prohibited the transport of oil to Cuba, forcing the island to turn to the USSR for imports. Then, as a reaction to “Washington’s orders, multinational oil companies refused to refine the Soviet oil, leaving Cuba no choice but to nationalize the companies.” This back-and-forth culminated in the Kennedy administration’s full implementation of the blockade in 1962.

The Cuban revolution, from its inception, represented a grave threat to U.S. economic and political interest in the region. Such a rejection of U.S. hegemony existing right under the nose of the U.S. was unacceptable in Washington.

Thus, from the outset, the reasons for the blockade have been clear. As Lester Mallory, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, wrote in 1960:

“Every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. If such a policy [blockade] is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.”

In the same memorandum Mallory stated that “the majority of Cubans support Castro (the lowest estimate I have seen is 50 percent),” and there is “no effective political opposition.” Therefore, “the only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship.”

By removing Cuba’s historical and geographically natural trading partner and removing access to the planet’s largest economy to all countries which dared to trade with Cuba, the policy intended to “bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government” was in full swing.

Nonetheless, one would be wrong to consider the blockade the only method of force the U.S. has used against Cuba.

Instead, the last 60 years have shown that nothing is off the table, the toolbox of American imperialism is open to anything, from military attacks, attempted assassinations, biological warfare, and terrorism.

Some of these beyond-economic attacks on Cuba include: a) the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, squashed within three days; b) the 600+ CIA led unsuccessful attempts on Fidel’s life (some whose creativity is quite laughable); c) ten or so biowarfare attacks, most famously, as CAM reported, the 1971 CIA-orchestrated African Swine Fever virus spread; and d) the backing and funding of groups and individuals who partook in terrorist bombings, the cases of Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles are perhaps the best known, specifically the latter’s involvement in the 1976 bombing of Cubana Airline’s flight 455 which killed 73 people—both are celebrated figures of the Miami exile community.

As the 1962 Operation Northwoods shows, the U.S. government was considering orchestrating a “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” which “would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.”

Effectively, the consideration was to terrorize U.S. cities to delegitimize Cuba and justify a full fledged U.S. military intervention. This surface-level assessment of the beyond-economic forces used to topple the Cuban government shows that, for the U.S., the means through which regime change is sought are irrelevant.

The policy of the U.S. toward Cuba, from the emergence of the revolution until now (with a slight variation during the Obama administration) has been the following: Cuban socialism must be overthrown by any means necessary.

Thus, over the last 60 years Cuba has not only been at the whim of the global market because of inherited colonial-era economic dependencies but, stemming from the breadth of the U.S. empire’s blockade and the variety of regime-change tactics used, it has also been dependent on the existence of a global counter-hegemonic force to American Imperialism. Until the mid-1980s the Soviet Union and the Socialist Bloc provided a global alternative that was necessary to ameliorate the effects of the blockade. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba was left to fend for itself outside of U.S.-dominated neoliberal capitalism.

Nonetheless, even under the difficulties of the Special Period, Cuba was able to remain a global beacon of hope and, through the devastating economic hardships, it was able to sustain a revolutionary and innovative spirit that kept it alive until solidarity arrived via the election of Hugo Chávez in 1998 and the subsequent “pink-tide” that swept across Latin America, creating the counter-hegemonic force that Cuba needed to re-stabilize itself.

It is a truly impressive feat that, even under such conditions as the ones Cuba suffered in the 1990s, it was still able to develop innovative and sustainable agricultural reforms which served as the precondition for its current state as the “most sustainable developed country in the world.”

Obama, Trump, and the Pandemic

It would take 55 years from the triumph of the revolution for minimal positive change in the aforementioned U.S.-Cuba relationship to come about. In 2014, though sustaining the economic embargo, the Obama administration would begin normalizing diplomatic relations with Cuba, a process that was mediated with the help of Pope Francis.

This process, known as the Cuban Thaw, saw the easing of travel and export sanctions; the opening of a Cuban government bank account in the U.S., allowing it to free itself of the burden of having to handle financial affairs in cash; the removal of Cuba from the U.S. list of “state sponsors of terrorism”; mutual openings of embassies; Obama’s visit to Cuba, which was the first time a U.S. president had done so since Calvin Coolidge in 1928; and much more.

Although this normalization process was mutually beneficial, it was the partial easing of the 60-year-old blockade weight off Cuba’s back that was the most significant. Within a year of the initial moves toward normalization, Cuba would have one of the highest GDP growth percentages in all of Latin America.

With the election of Donald Trump and the backing he received from the Cuban exile community, the minimal advances of the Obama era were rolled back. Trump’s cancellation of the Obama policies toward Cuba included restricting travel to Cuba, banning the sending of remittances, reinstating Cuba to the list of “state sponsors of terrorism,” and implementing 243 new sanctions on the island.

The effects of such measures cost Cuba $9.1 billion between April and December of 2020, a number which rises to about $1,300 billion when accounting for the six decades-long blockade and the dollar’s depreciation against the value of gold in the global market.

It is also important to note that the tightening of the blockade on Cuba comes at a time when its largest trading partner, Venezuela, is also facing dire conditions thanks to a similar blockade and various regime-change efforts.

Although an analysis of U.S. imperialism in Venezuela is beyond our scope, it is important to note that a central reason why the tightening of the blockade has been so effective in crippling Cuba also has to do with the pre-established and continued imperial policy against Cuba’s central allies.

While Trump’s maximum pressure strategy toward Cuba was effective in causing economic distress on the island, the emergence of the pandemic would intensify these hardships. The COVID-19 pandemic has been difficult for every country in the world.

In the U.S. millions have lost their jobs, employer-based health insurance, and more than 600,000 have lost their lives. Cuba has had to endure the blockade, the pandemic (resulting in the closing of the border and the commensurate losses to the tourism industry), and the U.S.’s exploitation of the pandemic to increase pressure for regime change.

The combination of the pandemic and the blockade has created a situation where, over the last year and a half, the Cuban government has struggled to procure the basic medical necessities to treat the virus.

For instance, in April 2020, with the pandemic in full swing, the U.S. blocked Cuba’s ability to buy ventilators. In the same month the U.S. would block a shipment of coronavirus aid to Cuba coming from the Jack Ma Foundation. Similar events have occurred throughout the pandemic.

Nonetheless Cuba, as the country with the most doctors per capita, has sent volunteer doctors all over the world to help countries deal with the pandemic. For these efforts the U.S. and its media puppets have produced unsubstantiated allegations of the doctors’ missions as “forced labor” and has urged its allies to refuse Cuban medical aid.

Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, who expelled Cuban doctors, quickly begged for their return, as their departure left Brazil’s medical system in egregious condition.

However, the world has not been fooled by these preposterous allegations. For its courageous internationalism which has saved countless lives around the world, the Henry Reeve Brigade, named after an American who fought and died in the first Cuban revolutionary war with the army of liberation, has created a movement for it to receive the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize.

The Protests

On the 23rd of June, the United Nations General Assembly voted on a resolution concerning the U.S.’s embargo on Cuba. As CAM reported, the result was clear: 184 countries voted in favor of lifting the embargo, 2 (U.S. and Israel) voted against.

This decision marks the 29th consecutive year that the General Assembly has called for an end to the U.S.’s economic, commercial and financial embargo on Cuba. For 29 years the U.S. has been ignoring the near unanimous will of the world and has continued, as Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla stated, a blockade that, “like the virus… asphyxiates and kills.”

This systematic rejection of international will is at the core of the material conditions that led to the events of July 11th.

Source: Liberation News

The policies of the blockade and its intermingling with the conditions of the pandemic have led Cuba to a state where, months before the protests, shortages in various areas arose. As Cuban President Díaz-Canel stated in his speech on the day of the protests:

“This whole situation [blockade + pandemic] caused a situation of shortages in the country, especially of food, medicines, raw materials and supplies to be able to develop our economic and productive processes that at the same time contribute to exports. Two important elements are cut off: the ability to export and the ability to invest resources. And from the productive processes, to then develop goods and services for our population.”

These shortages, manifested through the annoyance of long lines, power outages, and rationing, ensure a quantitative and cumulative process of dissatisfaction.

The U.S. Capitalist media seizes on this dissatisfaction to further indict Cuba’s socialist economy, ignoring the impact of the U.S. blockade and long war on Cuba.

Further ignored is the fact that Cuba, despite a syringe deficit and vaccination slowdown, has produced 5 vaccine candidates, two (Abdala and Soberana) of which have already been shown to be safe and effective.

Overlooking the Underlying Source of Malaise

Like in Plato’s allegory of the cave, the July 11th anti-government protesters are capable of seeing only the immediacy of the shadows. In a world limited to only seeing the government’s role in rationing, discourse on the blockade sounds as irrational as the escaped slave explaining to the others what it’s like outside the cave.

Nonetheless, the misguided upheavals were not simply the spontaneous expression of a genuine opposition grounded and influenced solely by the Cuban situation. In these upheavals there exists an externally added variable which organized, funded, and facilitated these rabble-rousings as yeast does to water and flour when baked.

This external variable is the decades-long U.S. funding of the Cuban opposition and its anti-government propaganda media outlets under the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, which allowed television broadcasting from the U.S. into Cuba and also tightened the embargo and permitted Cubans who had become U.S. citizens to sue in U.S. courts anyone who had purchased property once belonging to them in Cuba but was confiscated by the regime after the revolution.

Yankee Meddling

Tracey Eaton, founder of the Cuba Money Project, has found that, between the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)—the CIA’s two new fronts—and the U.S. State Department, more than $1 billion has been given to Cuban opposition groups and media, both within Cuba and in the Cuban exile community.

Furthermore, over the last 10 years “more than $300 million of U.S. taxpayers’ money has been wasted for these kinds of purposes.” These opposition funding campaigns have been most successful at enticing the island’s youth through the USAID and NED’s decades-long funding of the Cuban hip-hop scene and groups like Los Aldeanos.

Recently, the San Isidro Movement—whose joint work with Gente de Zona in the song “Patria y Vida” has become the token expression of the recent protests—has been shown to be heavily funded by the NED and USAID. As Max Blumenthal writes,

“Leading members of the San Isidro Movement have raked in funding from regime-change outfits like the National Endowment for Democracy and U.S. Agency for International Development while meeting with State Department officials, U.S. embassy staff in Havana, right-wing European parliamentarians and Latin American coup leaders from Venezuela’s Guaidó to OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro.”

In the era of woke intersectional imperialism, this afro-Cuban “movement” has been the perfect token for the regime-change goons.

Altogether, the uprisings on July 11th have not only had their source in the difficulties created by the combination of the blockade and the pandemic, but also in a heavily funded opposition which was intentionally created by the U.S. to channel the natural distress of the politically unconscious into the streets to protest the government.

It is important to note that the orchestration of the protests by U.S.-funded agents takes place a few weeks after yet another near unanimous vote against the blockade in the United Nations. The protests and the media treatment of it (examined below) help redeem the blockade-justifying narrative of the “Cuban police state” pushed by the U.S. at a time when international opinion is unanimously against the blockade.

People Fail to Come Out

Nonetheless, what is impressive here is how, with the combination of the blockade, pandemic, and U.S.-funded opposition and propaganda campaigns, so few Cubans were at the protests.

Considering the breadth of public and covert tactics used by U.S. imperialism, it has been a laughable defeat to see that all its efforts and spending was only able to materialize into a few thousand hecklers in the streets for less than a day.

These protesters quickly disappeared, given that shortly after Díaz-Canel told revolutionaries to hit the streets. Tens of thousands of them did so—chanting “these are Fidel’s streets,” “I am Fidel, I am Díaz-Canel,” “Homeland or Death,” while waving Fidel portraits and the black and red 26th of July Movement flags—dwarfing the anti-government groups.

Media Disinformation

The MVP (most valuable player) of the July 11th protest must be awarded to the media. Both mainstream and social media coverage of the protests tossed any shred of journalistic integrity aside and showed themselves for what they really are—lapdogs of the American empire whose sole function is to manufacture consent for wars and plunder abroad.

By ignoring the blockade, the U.S.’s exploitation of the pandemic, and the U.S.’s role in funding and organizing the opposition, the media were able to spin the myth that a majority of Cubans were protesting a repressive, one-party dictatorship.

For anyone familiar with the structure of Cuba’s participatory democracy, these “dictatorship” allegations are laughable, especially as they take place on the heels of the 2019 enactment of the citizen-drafted and massively supported socialist constitution.

A critique of the audacity and hypocrisy liberal democracies in accusing Cuba of being undemocratic and repressive—governed in reality as dictatorships of capital—is beyond the scope of this essay.

Nonetheless, it is important to ask what standing a government with the largest incarceration rate in the world—with just 4.4% of the world’s population yet approximately 25% of the world’s prisoners—to talk about repression in Cuba?

Similarly, what standing does the government, whose elections are 91% determined by who can raise the most corporate money, have to talk about the problem of democracy in Cuba?

For the media’s coverage of the July 11th protests, nothing was off the table: From fake photos to twitter bots, everything was fair game. For instance, mainstream media outlets like the Guardian, Fox News, Boston Globe, Financial Times, Yahoo! News and NBC’s Today have used images from large pro-government demonstrations in previous years and claimed them to be from the July 11th protests. CNN also used a picture of a rally in Miami and titled it “Cubans Take to Streets in Rare Anti-Government Protest Over Lack of Freedoms, Worsening Economy.”

After public humiliation most of these outlets have removed these “errors,” but their intended effect remained. One must ask: Was this an issue of ignorance or willful action? It seems hard to miss the massive 26th of July Movement flags in the pro-government demonstrations. It also seems unlikely that one would miss the southwest Miami street signs and the red Make America Great Again hats in CNN’s images.

In the case of Fox News any claim of ignorance is preposterous: In its July 13th segment with Ted Cruz, in which he discussed the “bravery” depicted in the images of the protesters, the image that appeared on screen in that moment was of a pro-government rally where the words on the sign—“the streets belong to the revolutionaries”—were intentionally blurred and quickly replaced by a clip of a Miami rally in front of the famous Cuban-cuisine Versailles restaurant in the Little Havana section of the city.

The U.S.-funded Cuban opposition has also been effective in creating false narratives about the protests’ size, police repression, and claims about the destabilizing effect the protests have had on the government.

For instance, photos of mass protests and demonstrations in Washington, D.C. (2007), Egypt (2011) and Argentina (2021) have been used and described as Cuban anti-government protests.

To spark sentimentalism, the opposition has also used photos of an 11-year-old boy who was shot in the face in Caracas, Venezuela, and claimed that the Cuban police shot and killed him.

To intensify the narrative of “police repression,” the opposition has created Facebook groups dedicated to those allegedly lost after being kidnapped or killed by the Cuban police.

These claims have been shown to be false. Such was the case of Juan Carlos Charon, who was alleged to have been killed but who appeared in a phone call with Cubadebate to be quite alive and angry at his image’s tokenization by the Cuban opposition.

One of the most repulsive tactics used has been bribes. As exposed private messages have shown, the Cuban opposition has attempted to bribe Cubans with phone recharging points if they beat themselves up and then make a video claiming the police did it.

Furthermore, there have also been fabricated claims intended to produce the narrative that the government was losing power. For instance, claims were made that, in Camaguey, the “people” had seized power and kidnapped the first secretary of the province’s Communist Party.

This information was quickly disproven by images of thousands of pro-government demonstrators and with an interview conducted with the (supposedly kidnapped) first secretary of the party, who not only affirmed by his presence that he had not been kidnapped but also attested to the conditions in Camaguey as normal.

The opposition has also used a 2015 picture of Raul Castro exiting an airplane for the Third Summit of Latin American and Caribbean States in Costa Rica and declared he had fled to Venezuela because of the protests.

This misinformation campaign was made viral with the “Bay of Tweets” bot campaign. Days before the protests broke out in Cuba, the hashtag #SOSCUBA began to show up on Twitter. On the day of the protests the hashtag started trending thanks to thousands of newly created Twitter accounts that were retweeting it at speeds impossible for mere mortals.

Although a clear violation of Twitter’s “coordinated inauthentic behavior” rules, Twitter allowed the bot scheme to unfold, propelling an en masse campaign to distribute the sort of fabricated information discussed above. Concerning this bot campaign, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez said he had “irrefutable proof that the majority of those that took part in this (internet) campaign were in the United States and used automated systems to make content go viral, without being penalized by Twitter.”

This would not be the first time the U.S. has used a social media bot campaign to push regime change, as Ben Norton noted last year when the same tactic was used to prop up the right-wing opposition in Bolivia, Venezuela, and Mexico. For instance, during the 2019 coup in Bolivia, there were 68,000 fake Twitter accounts made to support the coup.

Conclusion

For the U.S., as we have seen, the “by any means necessary” philosophy remains intact in its regime-change efforts in Cuba. The plot laid out more than 60 years ago by Lester Mallory continues today: Starve the population and agitate around their dissatisfaction.

Although new equipment has been added, the David and Goliath battle—a gigantic empire dripping in blood and dirt vs. a small, autonomous, socialist, and internationalist island 90 miles away—remains.

On July 23rd, an open letter entitled “Let Cuba Live,” signed by 400 prominent activists, scientists, intellectuals, and artists urging Biden to remove the criminal blockade on Cuba, appeared in The New York Times.

As folks living within the empire, now is not the time to criticize Cuba or measure its deficiencies against our ideals. Now is the time to stand in solidarity with the Cuban people and their revolution.

This requires doing everything in our power to push the Biden administration to end the blockade. The words of the late Howard Zinn ring as true as ever today—“you can’t be neutral on a moving train.”

*

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.

Carlos L. Garrido is a Cuban American philosophy graduate student and professor at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. He is an editorial board member and co-founder of Midwestern Marx and the Journal of American Socialist Studies. Carlos can be reached at: [email protected].

Notes

1. Franklin W. Knight, Slave Society in Cuba during the Nineteenth Century (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1970), p. 3.

2. Carmen G. Gonzalez, “Seasons of Resistance: Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security in Cuba.” Tulane Environmental Law Journal. Vol. 16 (2003), pp. 685-732, p. 692. 

3. Ibid. 

4. Hugh Thomas, Cuba Or the Pursuit of Freedom (Boston: Da Capo Press, 1998), p. 557. 

5. Gonzalez, “Seasons of Resistance,” p. 694. 

6. Ibid., pp. 692-3. 

7. Leo Huberman and Paul M. Sweezy, Cuba: Anatomy of a Revolution (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1960), p. 29. 

8. Richard C. Allison, “Cuba’s Seizures of American Business,” American Bar Association Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1 (1967), pp. 48-51. 

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Anti-Government Protests in Cuba Provoked by U.S. Embargo Has Right-Wingers Salivating at the Prospect of Regime Change
  • 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.

***

There is no longer any doubt that scientific information provided by renowned experts is being suppressed in order to protect the false Covid and vaccine narratives. 

The medical bureaucrats, politicians, and presstitutes tell us that the Covid vaccine provides a high level of protection and that the new cases or “delta variant” are among the unvaccinated.  This is a blatant lie contradicted by official reports from all over the world. 

We know for an absolute indisputable fact that 75% of what are labeled “new cases,” “breakthrough cases,” “delta variant,” are among the fully vaccinated.  We also have from the vaccine adverse reactions databases that deaths and illnesses associated with the vaccines are rapidly rising. A number of highly credible experts say that the alleged delta variant is actually the illnesses caused by the vaccine.

Another disturbing piece of information is that it is the vaccinated who are the public health threat, not the unvaccinated.  The vaccinated shed the pathogens in the vaccine just as Covid patients shed pathogens from the virus.  With half of the us population now vaccinated, the vaccinated people are giving Covid illnesses to the healthy population.  

The evidence is clear that the Covid vaccine is a lose-lose game and has made tens of millions of vaccinated Americans threats to everyone, included others who are vaccinated.

Never before in world history has such an irresponsibly dangerous experiment been conducted on entire populations.  According to the official EudraVigilance, MHRA, and VAERS databases, as of August 1, 2021, there are 34,052 deaths and 5,460,000 health injuries associated with the Covid vaccine Injections. As it is universally agreed that only a small percentage of vaccine adverse reactions are reported, the actual figures are much higher. 

If the concerns of some experts are on the mark, the vaccines will kill more people than Covid.

Read the following:

Three Charts The Delta Variant Scaremongers Don’t Want You To See

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

Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from UsforThem

All Global Research articles 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 under a year, more than 500,000 post-COVID vaccine injuries have been reported to VAERS — nearly a third of all reports accumulated over the system’s entire three-decade lifespan — yet regulatory agencies remain silent.

A few months before the first COVID-19 vaccines received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in late 2020, a global vaccine safety expert cautioned the rushed circumstances made it essential to “get [safety monitoring] right” by “intensively” and “robustly” scrutinizing adverse events following the experimental rollout.

As this expert stated, “Deploying any new vaccine based on data from expedited clinical trials into a population without a functioning safety monitoring system in place is reckless and irresponsible given the tools that are available.”

Moreover, she added, any investments needed to beef up safety monitoring would be “inexpensive in comparison” to the massive funding allocated to COVID-19 vaccine development and scale-up.

In theory, the U.S. has had a national vaccine safety monitoring system in place since 1990 — the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) — intended to function as an “early warning system.”

VAERS and its U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) counterpart FAERS (FDA Adverse Event Reporting System) constitute the principal data sources that regulators rely on when pulling drugs or vaccines from the market for safety reasons.

Not only has VAERS never lived up to its promise, but there can be little doubt its glaring failures are largely, and malignantly, by design.

For example, when a government-commissioned study highlighted VAERS inadequacies in 2010 — estimating more than 99% of vaccine adverse reactions were going unreported and that one of every 39 doses of vaccine administered was linked to adverse events corroborated in vaccine package inserts — the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) simply shut the project down.

Now, in less than a year, more than half a million reports of injuries have flooded into VAERS following experimental COVID jabs, including thousands of deaths. Yet a deafening regulatory silence has greeted this record-setting volume of adverse reactions, which accounts for nearly a third of all reports accumulated by VAERS over its entire three-decade lifespan.

How is the absence of “early warning system” alarm bells possible? In a recent commentary, “Defining Away Vaccine Safety Signals,” an experienced statistician suggested not only have safety experts’ admonitions to get COVID vaccine safety monitoring “right” not been heeded, but CDC and other public health agencies have taken steps to intentionally hide safety signals.

It’s all in the algorithm

Statistician Mathew Crawford’s various articles have a humble aim: to “lay out the tools for how to think about difficult problems” that he suspects “many people are highly confused about.”

In the matter of COVID vaccine safety signals, Crawford performs a valuable service by competently scrutinizing the VAERS “Standard Operating Procedures for COVID-19,” which, he notes, CDC published “without much fanfare” on Jan. 29.

Specifically, Crawford dissects a key data-mining tool outlined by CDC in the Jan. 29 document. The tool, called a “proportional reporting ratio” (PRR), assesses one vaccine against another — comparing “the proportion of a specific AE [adverse event] following a specific vaccine versus the proportion of the same AE following receipt of another vaccine.”

So far, so good — except rather than doing the job it is professed to do, the PRR instead appears to be shockingly impervious to safety signals.

Even for those with no statistical background, Crawford’s bottom-line conclusion could not be plainer:

“[O]ne vaccine that kills and cripples 20 or 50 or 1,000 times as much as a very safe vaccine will show the same PRR … and no safety signal will be identified by the CDC. By design … [E]ven if I take a cell … and plug in some enormous number like 1500, there is still no safety signal as per CDC definitions.” [Emphasis in original]

As Crawford points out, these undeniable mathematical patterns cannot help but raise suspicions that the PRR function is designed to “establish an illusion of safety” and provide “a reason to ignore the true signs of danger.”

Initially, Crawford was willing to entertain the possibility that incompetence, rather than malevolence, might explain his findings — but he quickly rejected this explanation, in large part because the mathematical defect is so brazenly obvious that even a “middling programmer without the fundamental mathematical training” would notice it.

In Crawford’s words, “There is a pride among geeks in identifying subtle mathematical or logical flaws in a system, and this is not subtle at all.”

According to Crawford, this leads to some stark implications:

“At some point, when the potential for conflicts of interest are high and the point of failure is fundamental to the task of those doing the job, incompetence should no longer be differentiated from criminal intent.”

The imploding safety narrative

Statistical tricks (and conflicts of interest) are not new to the vaccine or pharmaceutical industries, which have used them for decades to successfully mask the “chasm between vaccine rhetoric and reality.”

Even when drug warning systems seem to “work,” the lag time between reports of harm and regulatory action is, on average, 20 years.

In that light — with FDA speeding toward full approval of the Pfizer injection, Moderna gaining fast-track designation to test other experimental mRNA vaccines in children and adults and CDC benignly maintaining that the results of COVID vaccine safety monitoring are “reassuring” — it is not hard to be discouraged about the agencies’ continued ability to get away with misusing and abusing safety data from VAERS and other sources.

However, the safety narrative started imploding in a big way in late 2019, when the world’s top vaccine experts gathered at the World Health Organization and admitted, almost to a person, that vaccines are sometimes fatal and that safety monitoring is failing to capture the dangers.

COVID may have provided these worried experts with a temporary and convenient reprieve, but more and more people recognize that the premise that vaccine adverse events are “one in a million” is an utter fiction.

With injuries from COVID vaccines occurring on an unprecedented scale — and credible doctors and scientists issuing urgent warnings about short-term and longer-term damage — it may become increasingly difficult for the vaccine establishment to shove its problems under the statistical carpet.

In 1976, public health authorities were forced to halt their rollout of a rapidly mobilized swine flu vaccine, after a spate of negative publicity and some 4,000 serious adverse events — including Guillain-Barré syndrome and death — became impossible to ignore. This “medical debacle,” now widely acknowledged as such, became the focus of a 1979 episode of 60 Minutes.

With more than half a million COVID vaccine injuries now reported to VAERS alone, and many more reported around the world, current events dwarf the 1976 “debacle.”

Unfortunately, with 60 Minutes and its media ilk having abdicated their investigatory role, it is now more difficult to generate the kind of widespread attention to harm that typically mobilizes the public.

Last September, the global vaccine expert quoted above, Helen Petousis-Harris, Ph.D., wrote that failure to assess COVID vaccines for safety “to our full ability” would be fundamentally “wrong.”

Without corporate media support, many individuals and organizations are therefore holding unethical government officials’ and profiteering corporate executives’ feet to the fire.

They recognize, as the nonprofit Stand for Health Freedom recently noted, that the matter of data is not inconsequential: “The COVID pandemic is built on data,” and data are driving policies that are “changing the structure of our society.”

*

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

Featured image is from CHD

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Whenever one gets into discussions about the decline of America’s ability to positively influence developments around the world a number of issues tend to surface. First is the hubristic claim by successive presidents that the United States is somehow “exceptional” as a polity while also serving as the world’s only superpower and also the anointed Leader of the Free World, whatever that is supposed to mean. Some critics of the status quo also have been willing to look a bit deeper, recognizing that it is the policies being pursued by the White House and Congress that are out of sync with what is actually happening in Asia, Africa and Latin America, being more driven by establishing acceptable narratives than by genuine interests.

The problem starts at the top. One can hardly have a great deal of respect for presidents who appointed neocon or neoliberal ideologues Condoleezza Rice, Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton, Mike Pompeo or current incumbent Tony Blinken as Secretaries of State, but when all is said and done the area where the U.S. fails is most egregiously is in the personnel it actually sends overseas. It has far more non-professional ambassadors than any other country in the world. Does the American public know, for example, that fully 44% of American Ambassadors sent overseas under Donald Trump were political appointees, whose sole distinction in many cases is that they contributed large sums of money to the Republican National Committee? Though such individuals can sometimes turn out to be surprisingly effective, many frequently know nothing of the country that they have been assigned to and do not speak the local language. To cite my own experience, in my 21 years as an intelligence officer spent mostly in Europe I did not once work for an ambassador who was a Foreign Service Officer career diplomat and few of the political appointees I knew never bothered to learn the local language.

Part of the problem is that many U.S. ambassadors do not know what their job consists of. Ambassadors have existed since the time of the ancient Greeks. They were from the beginning granted a special immunity which enabled them to talk to enemy spokesmen to attempt to resolve issues without resort to arms. In the modern context, Ambassadors are sent to reside in foreign capitals to provide some measure of protection for traveling citizens and also to defend other perceived national interests. Ambassadors are not soldiers, nor are they necessarily the parties of government that ultimately make decisions on what to do when dealing with a foreign nation. They are there to provide a mechanism for exchanging views to create a dialogue while at the same time working with foreign governments to avoid conflict, whether over trade or politics. They should be bridge-builders who explain how American politics function, how the American government works, and at the same time educate Americans on how the country they are based in sees the United States.

By all these metrics, the U.S. diplomatic effort has been a failure and, at the end of the day, the United States taxpayer spends astonishing sums of money to support its global representational and security structures that provide little in return, rarely experiencing any notable successes and watching the reputation of the U.S. decline due to sheer ineptness. In my experience, the worst U.S. Ambassadors tend to be academics, which brings us to Michael McFaul, who served as Ambassador to Russia under Barack Obama from 2012-2014.

To be sure, viewing Russia as an enemy is a bipartisan impulse among the Washington political class. The neoconservatives and their neoliberal allies have both long been dreaming of regime change for Moscow, either because it is perceived as a threat or as an unacceptable autocracy. Given that, the appointment of Stanford Academic and Russia expert McFaul as Ambassador was intended to “reset” the bilateral relationship while also pushing the democracy promotion agenda and confronting various aspects of the domestic policies of the Vladimir Putin government that were considered unacceptable, to include the treatment of homosexuals. Pursuing that end, McFaul made a point of openly meeting with the political opposition in Russia. He thereby antagonized the officials in the government that he should have been working with to bring about acceptable change to such an extent that his term of office became untenable and he was an embarrassing failure.

But now McFaul has turned the usual Washington trick, converting failure into personal success. He is a regular go-to guy when Democrats either in Congress or in the White House need expert testimony on Russia and he is reliably a passionate supporter of the largely unsustainable Russiagate tale and all that implies. He is again a tenured professor at Stanford, where another top government failure Condi Rice, she of “mushroom cloud” fame, serves as Director of the Hoover Institution.

McFaul was recently bothered by what he described as an anonymous presumed “Russian troll” attack on twitter which had referred to his failure as Ambassador to Russia. This is how he responded:

“I have a job for life at the best university in the world. I live in a giant house in paradise. I make close to a million dollars a year. I have adoring fans on tv and half a million followers on twitter 99% who also admire me. I’m doing just fine without a damn visa from Russia. And I am not afraid to tweet under my own name. I feel sorry for people like you who aren’t brave enough to do so.”

Not surprisingly, McFaul’s message, which was replayed in a number of places on the internet, struck many as a bit over the top, dripping with entitlement and self-esteem coming from someone who had been given an important government job and had only succeeded in making matters worse. He responded to the criticism by tweeting an addendum:

“I wrote that message in a private channel. I did not expect it to be published. But it was still a mistake, I apologize. It was arrogant and idiotic. A swarm of Russian trolls was accusing me of failure, and I responded in a most unprofessional way. Explanation, not excuse.”

Well, it’s nice to hear an apology for a change from anyone associated with the United States government, but the point is that McFaul is symptomatic of much of what is wrong in terms of how the White House makes policy impulsively and appoints poorly informed ideologues to implement what has been decided. McFaul is not unique. President Donald Trump certainly set a precedent in providing a whole group of incompetents to support the clueless Mike Pompeo at State, to include Nikki Haley at the United Nations, Rick Grenell in Germany, David Friedman in Israel, and the ubiquitous John Bolton at the National Security Council. It is almost as if in the area of foreign policy, the United States government as it is currently configured is designed to fail.

The solution is obvious. The United States desperately needs a foreign policy that is based on genuine national interests. It needs to stop rewarding political donors and needs also to send people as Ambassadors who are sensitive to the culture and red lines existing in the countries where they are posted. That doesn’t mean approving what others do, but it does mean listening to what they have to say. If one wants to restore America’s credibility and its reputation, examining the McFaul experience in Russia should be an excellent learning tool and taking steps so as not to repeat that failure would be a good place to start.

*

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

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.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 Gage Skidmore

All Global Research articles 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 hear a lot lately about the US billionaires increasing their wealth by more than $1 trillion over the past year, as Covid precipitated the most severe recession since the 1930s of the real economy over the past year–from the spring quarter of 2020 last year through the spring quarter 2021.

Over the same period, however, US stock markets surged to record levels. This past week in early August they attained record breaking levels nearly every consecutive day.

Much of that record surge in stock and other financial markets has been due to the US central bank, the Federal Reserve, over the past year pumping almost $4 trillion in virtually free money into the banks and big corporations even though they were flush with excess cash.

The Fed in effect ‘pre-bailed out’ the banks even when they weren’t in trouble.

Moreover, the Fed has indicated its intent to continue to pump free money into the banks and even non-banks at the rate of $120 billion per month, through 2022 at a minimum. That’s more than $2 trillion after the past year’s nearly $4 trillion–even though no banks are in trouble or need it.

But bankers and billionaires were not the only big beneficiaries of government bail out policies over the past year.

So were the vast majority of largest US corporations. Starting in January and February 2020, medium and large non-bank corporations began to raise trillions of dollars in cash by selling their corporate bonds at dirt cheap rates made possible by the Fed driving interest rates to near zero. Added to this cash hoard created by low Fed rates and record corporate bond rates, the same medium-large US corporations drew down hundreds of billions more from their credit lines with banks, then got $650 billion in new tax breaks from Congress in March 2020. They also got to cut their operating costs big time (especially wages and facilities costs) dramatically due to the shutdowns. The combined result was record income gains for big US corporations–not only for US billionaires! How big?

Reports just released in recent days reveal 89% of the Fortune 500 companies increased their revenue this latest quarter (April-June 2021) by no less than 24.7% over the same quarter in 2020 when the Covid induced recession began.

That 24.7% revenue explosion compares, by the way, to an average quarterly revenue gain of 4.5% over the past 5 (non-recession) years; and 3.4% average over the preceding 10 years after the last official recession ended in 2009.

So Corporate America did fantastically well as result of the recession, not just the ‘tip of the wealth receiving iceberg’, US billionaires!

In contrast to the record gains of billionaires, stock shareholders, and big corporations in general, over the same past year, more than 35 million American workers lost their jobs at one time or another. And at least 17 million are still jobless: 12m are still collecting unemployment benefits + 3m dropped out of the labor force + 1.5m are still improperly classified as ‘furloughed but working’ by the US Labor Dept. (which it admits was incorrect but still refuses to correct).

That 17m is twice the ‘official’ number of 8.7m jobless being pushed by the government and parroted by the mainstream media. Both numbers are from government sources, but politicians & media like to cherry pick the best number even though it represents only part of the total picture.

Most of the US work force this past year also experienced big wage cuts, due in part to the massive unemployment (no job equals a total wage cut), or reduced hours of work (millions converted to part time from full time work), or just lower hourly pay over the same period. Wage collapse at the middle to lower end of the structure of wages in the US left the highest paid, still working, receiving their higher salaries and pay. That raised the average pay in general while the vast majority saw their actual wages collapse. (Government & media also like to report this distorted figure of rising wages over the past year as well).

As the economy has begun to reopen again this summer 2021, some workers have returned to work but now it appears that pace is slowing.

The June & July jobs reports by the labor dept reflect a pick up of rehiring as many service industry workers have begun returning to work. But these aren’t ‘job gains’ or new jobs in the economy. They are ‘job returns’. Moreover, signs are now emerging that the rehiring is beginning to slow. Many industries and companies do not have plans to return all laid off this past year back to work. They have already begun to implement AI and other technologies that allow them to displace workers with machines and software. And they are doing so.

Just as important, millions of workers who have returned have done so to jobs providing fewer hours of work per week and therefore less weekly earnings than before the recession. That’s likely a major reason why many laid off service workers are resisting returning to work. They’ll actually see less weekly pay due to hours of work per week reduced. Others can’t return because affordable child care is not available. Others aren’t simply because they’ve come to realize their service occupations were dead-end low paid and unstable jobs. Future waves of Covid could once again throw them out on the street. Who can blame them for not returning!

As for small businesses, they too have been on the negative receiving end of the recession, like the workers and unlike their medium and large corporate cousins.

Most accounts show around a million small businesses have gone under despite the Government’s fiscal bailout having provided about $1 trillion in guaranteed loans and outright grants since March 2020! With nearly a million small business failures, one can only conclude from that much of the $1T loans and grants bailout money did not get to those needing it most. Exposing how much of the bailout of small business was ‘gamed’ and by whom is a work in progress but will certainly be revealed at some point.

Like workers and small businesses, the nearly 75 million renters (in 48 million rental units) have also been bearing the economic brunt of the pandemic. Many have been evicted this past year, despite the CDC-federal govt ‘moratorium’ on rent payments. That moratorium–extended several times but now set to completely end by October 2021–has never been total. It has only covered rental units that have been supported some way by federal subsidies or rules. Millions have already fallen through the moratorium cracks. And the floor will collapse for all come October. (Only six states have supplemental state rent moratoria in place–none in the south or midwest).

In recent weeks the fight over evicting renters has emerged in the media, along with reports that $47 billion of the March 2020 ‘Cares Act’ $52B earmarked for renter assistance has yet to get into the economy. The media likes to portray this as due to government bureaucratic bungling. But it ignores the fact that resistance by landlords to process the rent assistance is likely the real cause of the failure to disburse funds. Some landlords don’t like the fact that the government assistance funds only cover 80% of the back rent. Others don’t want to give up the right to collect all back payments in the future; others want to sell or convert the rental units others want to retain the right to evict even though receiving the assistance payments and others want to continue to evict if even one late payment occurs. The public does not know–and media generally refuses to explain–that rental assistance payments must be filed both by the renter and the landlord. And millions of landlords have refused to file. Thus, the real cause of the $47 billion not being paid.

Then there’s the much publicized child care assistance payments that began this past July, as part of the Biden ‘American Rescue Plan’ (aka March 2021 $1.8T Covid Relief Act). While a positive program to make up for the discontinuation of supplemental unemployment benefits and rent assistance, what most Americans don’t realize it is only to run through December 2021 then expires as well. Furthermore, it is not actual new real money payments to households, but a pulling forward into July-December 2021 child care payments that would have been received anyway from the IRS next April 2022 when filing with the IRS for the 2021 period child care tax credit.

With recent developments–like the cutting off of unemployment benefits, the expiring of rent assistance, the gaming of small business bailouts, and the soon to expire child care benefits and end of student loan forbearance–one can conclude that a period of ‘creeping incremental austerity’ for the many has already begun–exempting of course bankers, businesses & investors for whom it appears the free money will continue to flow. Fortune 500 companies, banks, and US billionaires who have reaped massive income gains over the past year, appear exempted from any future austerity.

*

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 Charleston’s TheDigitel | CC BY 2.0

War, Herbicides and Moral Disengagement

August 13th, 2021 by Robert C. Koehler

All Global Research articles 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.

***

And the least secret agent of all . . . Agent Orange!

On August 10, 1961, the United States, several years before it actually sent troops, started poisoning the forests and crops of Vietnam with herbicides. The purpose: to deprive our declared enemy, the commies of Ho Chi Minh, of food and ground cover that allowed them to trek from North to South. It was called, innocuously, Operation Ranch Hand.

Agent Orange, the most powerful of the herbicides used in Operation Ranch Hand, contained dioxin, one of the most toxic substances on the planet. We dropped 20 million gallons of this and other herbicides on Vietnam, contaminating 7,000 square miles of its forests. Half a century later, we are fully aware of the consequences of this strategic decision, not just for the Vietnamese, the Laotians, the Cambodians, but also for many American troops: hundreds of thousands of deaths and debilitating illnesses, horrific birth defects, unending hell.

History, in all its moral primness, has relegated our use of Agent Orange to the status of “controversial.”

Much to my amazement, I learned the other day that August 10 is now a day with official status. Numerous international organizations, many of them Vietnamese, have declared it Agent Orange Awareness Day.

I say, let’s keep this awareness alive and evolving at least for the next decade, which is how long the United States continued to wage its chemical warfare on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. And they didn’t wage it in ignorant innocence. Top military leaders, whose personal lives, of course, were unaffected by Agent Orange, were fully aware of its toxicity.

This raises what I choose to call The Question from Hell: How is it possible to make such a decision — to place short-term military strategy ahead of moral restraint and compassion for civilians? And this leads to a second, larger question: Why are military and political leaders so unwilling or unable to envision the long-term consequences of their decisions, that is to say, the consequences that utterly transcend the significance of the war they’re trying to win? Why are they so indifferent? Why are they so . . . stupid?

Pondering these questions was how I spent Agent Orange Awareness Day. Whether the U.S. won or lost the war, stopped or failed to stop the communist dominoes from tipping, the landscape would still be ravaged, the infected would still be dying, newborns would still have shocking birth defects (missing limbs, extra limbs, misplaced organs and so much more).

As the War Legacies Project notes on its website, the U.S. was trying to fight an “invisible enemy” who was hiding in the jungle, living off the land, by — what’s the big deal? — killing the jungle itself. As a result: “Ever since the war’s ending, the people of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia have been saddled with an invisible enemy of their own.”

To sum it up as simply as possible, war is insane — and growing ever more so. The military establishment isn’t just brutal and cruel. It is so advanced in the technology of lethality that its capable of destroying the world. Hasn’t the time come to defund war — completely! — and rethink how we deal with conflict?

Well yes, of course, but we all know this isn’t going to happen. Nonetheless, the creation of Agent Orange Awareness Day could well be a moment of human awakening, a chance for there to be a collective focus on that Question from Hell: Why?

Here’s a starting place, thanks to psychologist Albert Bandura, as quoted by Russell P. Johnson in an essay published by the University of Chicago Divinity School. In essence, Bandura has sought an answer to the Question. What gives political leaders the wherewithal to violate basic human values — established moral standards — and perpetrate the inhumanity of war?

He calls the phenomenon of doing so “moral disengagement” and posits four forms that this behavior takes:

1. Euphemistic labeling: We may drop bombs and kill dozens or hundreds or thousands of civilians, including children, but the action is described by the lapdog media as, simply, an “airstrike.” We may torture Iraqi detainees but it’s not such a big deal when we call it “enhanced interrogation.” We may poison the jungles of Southeast Asia, but what the heck, there’s Jed Clampett leading the way in “Operation Ranch Hand.” The list of military euphemisms goes on and on and on.

2. Advantageous comparison. If the enemy you’re fighting is evil — and he always is — the actions you take to defeat him, whatever they are, are ipso facto justified. The alternative is doing nothing, a la Neville Chamberlain, appeasing Hitler. Violent response to evil — carpet-bombing Hamburg or Tokyo, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki — is not simply justifiable but the essence of morally necessity.

3. Displaced responsibility. I was just following orders, cries the Buchenwald guard. I did what I was told. As Johnson writes: “Decisions are made and justified without anyone ever having the sense of a moral threshold being crossed.” Indeed, “an entire society can rely on displacement of responsibility to shield themselves from moral scrutiny.” A pernicious side effect of this is known as “moral injury.” Once a soldier is out of the military, the justification for killing someone may completely vanish; the result is a high suicide rate among vets.

4. Attribution of blame. They made us do it! “One’s actions are treated as mere reactions, caused not by one’s own decisions but by the actions of the enemy,” Johnson writes. “. . . If our actions are excessive or barbaric, it is the other side’s fault for driving us to such extremes.” When both sides in the conflict resort to this, which is almost always the case, Bandura calls the result “reciprocal escalation.” The war gets increasingly bloody.

Agent Orange Awareness Day, as I noted, was Aug. 10. I think we should spend the rest of the year honoring War and Dehumanization Awareness Day.

*

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.

Heroes or Murderers? Colombian Government Defends Its Mercenaries

August 13th, 2021 by José Manuel Blanco Diaz

All Global Research articles 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 government of Iván Duque this week spoke up in defense of the Colombian mercenaries who assassinated Haiti’s president Jovenel Moïse at his official residence in Port-au-Prince on July 7.

PSUV deputy Diosdado Cabello, during his television program Con el Mazo Dando, referred to statements issued by Colombian officials who,  before multilateral organizations, decided to intercede in favor of the former Colombian military personnel involved in the assassination.

“The latest is that the [Colombian] Ombudsperson’s Office asked the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the OAS for precautionary measures in the case of the Colombian mercenaries who are detained in Haiti for the assassination of Jovenel Moïse,” said Cabello. “Colombia came out to defend its mercenaries.”

In addition, Cabello displayed items published by Colombian news outlets reporting how the relatives of the accused “asked, among other things, that they not call their loved ones mercenaries.” He added that in the midst of these demands a group of people displayed banners demanding “a fair trial for heroes in Haiti.”

In this sense, he reflected on the narrative that the Colombian media is trying to manufacture for the public, based on the treatment that the mercenaries have received in recent days. “The guys are heroes, because they went to assassinate a president,” proposed Cabello. “Duque sent them to assassinate a president.”

Terrorism industry

On the other hand, Diosdado Cabello recalled that Iván Duque, who sent terrorists contracted to kill the president of Haiti, tried to impose another false positive concerning the alleged attack against him, for which Duque is trying to hold the government of President Nicolás Maduro responsible.

“By the way, one of the military ‘heroes’ captured in Haiti is under investigation for false positives in Colombia,” recalled the first vice president of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV). In Colombia’s false positive (falsos positivos) scandal, members of the military lured innocent Colombians to remote parts of the country with various deceitful promises, then killed them and presented their corpses as those of guerrilla insurgents in order to receive promotions, bonuses, and other military benefits. In addition, another mercenary is the cousin of Ivan Duque’s National Security Advisor, Rafael Guarían.

Likewise, Cabello cited a statement by the Vice President and Foreign Minister of Colombia, Marta Lucía Ramírez, who said that she spoke personally with the relatives of the military personnel involved in the terrorist actions that ended the life of the head of State of Haiti.

Cabello added that the Colombian government, protected by US power groups, is singled out daily as the world champion in drug trafficking, paramilitary criminals, mercenaries, internally displaced persons, massacres, false positives, journalists killed, and persecution.

*

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.

José Manuel Blanco Diaz is Vice President of the Radio Miraflores Foundation, Presenter of UCV Social Communication and UCV announcer.

Featured image: Expensive poster—of the type printed at Kinko’s—in Colombia demanding a “fair trial for our heroes in Haiti, they were hired by legal ‘social’ security companies and they were tricked.” Colombia never ceases to amaze people around the world, commented Orinoco Tribune’s editor. Photo courtesy of RedRadioVE.