All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The outcome of this legal procedure was not in favour of Patrick King.
Although successful in the court of public opinion, Patrick did not win the court case, at least NOT YET.
We suggest you view the original interview and then scroll down to view Patrick King’s powerful followup interview on Truth Talk
Patrick King has been trending on twitter due to a viral video where it is claimed that the province of Alberta rolled back on their lockdown measures as a result of Patrick’s court proceedings and this is not true as Patrick states“I Wasn’t Successful, No I did Not Win The Court Case”.
In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth speaks with Patrick King in order to clear up some discrepancies in regards to what is happening with his case.
***
Patriot Patrick King represented himself in court after being fined $1200 dollars for protesting against the Covid-Hoax, he slew the beast and emerged VICTORIOUS.
He issued a subpoena to the Provincial Health Minister for proof that the so-called Covid-19 Virus exists, and they were forced to admit that they had no evidence whatsoever. The virus has never been isolated, and thus the government had no legal grounds to impose any of the punishing restrictions they have inflicted on society.
Since this shocking confession came to light, the Province has since rescinded all Covid-Restrictions and now officially treats Covid-19 as nothing more than a mild flu! WE WON!
King has shown the template to be followed WORLDWIDE. This is what can happen when you are not re-presented by a BAR (British Accredited Registry) Lawyer who’s first obligation is to the Corrupted Courts and not their client.
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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).
She wasn’t Venezuelan, not Iranian, not Syrian, nor a citizen of other nations struggling under U.S.-imposed sanctions.
I had just reached Baghdad on one of my missions there during the 1990s. How that question haunted me. I grew to anticipate it on each encounter inside Iraq during successive visits to cover 13 grim years of embargo.
Gracious welcomes turned solemn as my hosts raised concerns about the siege. A perfectly reasonable question: Iraqis knew that U.N. Resolution 661, imposed October 1990, was an American- orchestrated war policy. As I’d arrived from the U.S. those greeting me hoped I might have some revelation to share.
“Hard to say” became my recurring, desolate reply.
Relief looked more doubtful after April 1991 when U.N. Resolution 687 linking any respite to satisfactory removal of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ expanded the already exhaustive 661 sanctions regimen. Even as Iraq agreed to intrusive inspections– no nuclear arsenal was ever unearthed– suffering deepened, the death toll rose, deprivations mounted.
Year after year, I could offer little optimism for these essentially abandoned people. (Not to say doomed; not yet.) Neither the Clinton nor Bush administrations, nor the American public, nor the most liberal media hinted at even a slight opening in the sanctions-fortification.
The humanitarian and economic catastrophe that engulfed the nation remained largely concealed. Endless drama surrounding U.N. weapons inspections filled any news-time allocated for Iraq. Except for a steady flow of fearsome stories about Saddam Hussein.
So effective were threats against any extraterritorial embargo breach, no nation dared engage with Iraq. Even with Baghdad’s steady compliance to the terms of 661 and 687, the U.S. found additional reasons to continue the siege.
A decade passed. Finally, I revised my response to that wretched, heartbreaking query:
“Look at the embargo on Cuba”.
By 2000 this seemed a more realistic although still circumspect reply.
I’d avoided reference to the besieged Caribbean nation, already enduring four decades of sanctions. (A daring vote by Cuba against the U.N.-backed Gulf War should have directed Iraqi eyes in Cuba’s direction.) Anyway, would Cuba’s experience be relevant? Unlike Cuba, Iraq retained a fanciful attachment to putative oil revenues. It also clung to a farfetched prospect of accessing its foreign bank assets–at least for food and humanitarian essentials.
Unlike Cubans, Iraqis hadn’t driven out a colonizer, hadn’t overturned a dictator, hadn’t an alternative ideology to guide them. Iraq’s leadership, unchanged, presented a face not of victory but endurance.
Iraqis were naïve, or ill-informed, about how malicious and thorough modern-day blockades could be. Officials and citizens alike found comfort in a perhaps misplaced pride in 4,000-plus years of civilization. Iraq boasted its world-class doctors, scientists and artists, its many women professionals—as if they could overturn the assault. (Although year after year, their numbers would dwindle, lured abroad by America and its allies, all cognizant of Iraqi talent.)
Instead of mobilizing citizens to innovate and to study others’ experience (Cuba’s, for example), Iraq’s Baath leaders clung to the delusion that the blockade would be bearable and brief.
Although Iraqi troops had been ingloriously expelled from Kuwait –war crimes by the U.S. alliance in that military offensive are erased from history– the country’s leadership remained intact, ready to control any internal dissent.
What a contrast with Cuba! Unlike Iraq, after its revolutionary success, Cuba joined ideologically allied parties, organizations and nations similarly engaged in political struggle and socialist revolution. Concrete alliances resulted in solid support. Cuba’s military assistance to Angola and other African nations is legendary. As are its medical missions, with thousands of health professionals dispatched to nations in need (including Covid pandemic aid).
Cuba’s socialist commitment earned Russia’s alliance as an economic partner and erstwhile military protector. Iraq had no super-power ally. It lacked a single overseas partner, no Arab friend, no religious block, no overseas immigrant voices whatsoever. Whereas Cuba’s revolutionary achievement stirred people worldwide. It welcomed the arrival of countless delegations, offering firsthand testimony not of deprivation but of a worthy socialist model. Cuba’s arrangement with Canada, while limited, provided a route for American delegations to the island to witness its progress. Returning visitors joined a committed, effective anti-sanctions lobby. Their testimonials widened support for Cuba’s transformation.
Cuba’s leadership had nothing remotely akin in Iraq. Fidel Castro’s wholesome, engaging character endeared him to many. The euphoria with which the Cuban president was greeted across the globe and by African Americans is well-known. Especially significant was his historic 1960 meeting with Malcolm Xdocumented by Rosemari Mealy.
One recognizes the prudence and dignity of both Castro brothers in President Díaz-Canel Bermúdez today. His July 17th response to Washington’s exploitation of recent public demonstrations in Cuba honors his predecessors.
Two embargoed nations: their experiences, strategies and circumstances couldn’t be more dissimilar. Iraq’s sanctions, killing untold numbers, ended with a massive military invasion whose disastrous outcome continues to unfold today, 31 years on.
Cuba’s policy was measured and resourceful. The country enjoyed wide international respect. It won successive U.N. endorsements, until, in 2015, the Obama administration signed a treaty with Cuba (only to be undone by Trump).
Today the nation, maliciously designated in 2017 as sponsoring terror, finds itself subject to extended sanctions under Biden. Whichever party rules Washington batters Cuba with this outrageous war plan. The media that endorse these policies permeate the American mind and shred its moral fiber.
Can Americans not understand others’ suffering, death and calamity without a spectacle of bombs and blood?
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, B. Nimri Aziz.
In a shocking revelation first reported by Dan Dicks of Press for Truth (Canada), an FDA document admits that the CDC and FDA conspired to fabricate a covid-19 testing protocol using human cells combined with common cold virus fragments because they had no physical samples of the SARS-CoV-2 “covid” virus available.
China’s second cultural revolution is hitting the brakes. This one is not about Mao’s little red book but TV remote controls, fridges, cars, mobile phones, and yes, most important, property, the trappings of the modern age, admittedly more apparent in the east of the country but aspired to greatly in the less-developed west.
World Economic Forum’s transhumanist founder promotes ‘regionalization’ as globalism’s post-COVID compromise with nationalism. Regional blocs, regional supply chains would be an “in-between solution….a new watered-down version” of globalization.
A narrow perception of what it means to be human has led us, willy nilly—or perhaps with a chilling inevitability—to the literal transformation of people into bizarre hybrid creatures, half human, half machine.
While the Chinese authorities announced on January 7, 2020 that they had isolated and identified “a new type of virus” no details were provided. Then on the 28th of January 2020, the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated that the novela corona virus had been isolated.
WE CAN WIN! Patrick King is a proud father of 2, Freedom Fighter and Patriot who took on the powerful government in Alberta, and WON! We can ALL learn from this, and we MUST battle this in every single city, every single county, every single state, every single NATION! The fight for freedom is a worldwide effort, and WE CAN WIN!
According to statistics released by the CDC in their Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the vast majority of recorded deaths following one of the experimental COVID-19 injections has been among the elderly.
Since the Covid pandemic broke out, Sweden has been fought over more than any other part of Europe since Germany in the 30 Years War. In refusing to use an iron fist to control a virus, lockdown advocates claimed it was either committing murder or suicide; choose your favorite metaphor.
In a new research paper published in the journal Toxicology Reports, author Neil Z. Miller found that out of a total of 2,605 infant deaths reported to VAERS between 1990 and 2019, 58% occurred within three days of vaccination, and 78% occurred within seven days of vaccination.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Wir befinden uns zurzeit in einem gesellschaftlichen Ausnahmezustand, wie ihn die Welt noch nicht erlebt hat.
Im Namen der Gesundheit sind uns Maßnahmen aufgezwungen worden, die uns alle nicht gesünder, sondern viele von uns krank gemacht haben, und zwar nicht nur körperlich, sondern psychisch, emotional und auch wirtschaftlich.
Noch nie sind unter einem medizinischen Vorwand solche wirtschaftlichen Schäden angerichtet worden wie in den zurückliegenden sechzehn Monaten. Betriebe wurden lahmgelegt, Lieferketten zerbrochen, mittelständische Betriebe zu hunderttausenden in Existenznot getrieben und ganze Wirtschaftszweige wie der Tourismus weitgehend zerstört.
Noch schlimmer als bei uns waren die Folgen in den Entwicklungs- und Schwellenländern: Allein 2020 ist der Lebensstandard von mehr als eineinhalb Milliarden Menschen gesenkt und sind mehr als 130 Millionen Menschen zum Hungern verurteilt worden.
Am entgegengesetzten Ende der Gesellschaft dagegen sah es anders aus:
Noch nie haben Regierungen mit Hilfe der Zentralbanken „Rettungsgelder“ in solcher Höhe und solchem Umfang wie 2020 vergeben. Der Löwenanteil dieser Gelder ist auf direktem Weg in die Finanzmärkte geflossen und hat dort eine Rallye befeuert, die zur größten Vermögensumverteilung von unten nach oben geführt hat, die die Welt jemals erlebt hat.
Was steckt dahinter? Wie war es möglich, unter dem Vorwand eines vermeintlichen gesundheitlichen Schutzes der Bevölkerung weltweit einen solch riesigen Wohlstands-Transfer vorzunehmen?
Die Antwort lautet: Wir sind 2020 am Ende eines historischen Prozesses und damit an einem Wendepunkt in der menschlichen Geschichte angekommen, und es ist nicht die Politik, die über den zukünftigen Kurs der Welt entscheidet, sondern eine andere – unendlich viel mächtigere – Kraft, nämlich der DIGITAL-FINANZIELLE KOMPLEX.
Dieser Komplex hat sich in den zurückliegenden 40 Jahren wie ein Krebsgeschwür über die gesamte Welt ausgebreitet und sämtliche Bereiche unseres Lebens durchdrungen. Zu seinen wichtigsten Vertretern zählen die großen IT-Konzerne und die führenden Vermögensberatungen.
Der Börsenwert der fünf größten Digitalkonzerne Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft und Facebook liegt zurzeit bei sagenhaften 8,8 Billionen Dollar, allein die beiden größten Vermögensverwalter der Welt, BlackRock und Vanguard, verwalten zusammen mehr als 16 Billionen Dollar.
Dieser Konzentrationsprozess von Geld und Macht in immer weniger Händen ist einmalig. Noch nie in der gesamten Geschichte der Menschheit haben so wenige Menschen und so wenige Unternehmen so viel Geld besessen wie heute. Noch nie haben sie so viel Macht ausgeübt und noch nie haben sie diese Macht so hemmungslos eingesetzt wie in den vergangenen 16 Monaten.
Trotzdem steht der digital-finanzielle Komplex zurzeit vor einem riesigen Problem: Das System, das ihm zu so viel Geld und so viel Macht verholfen hat, ist im März / April 2020 in sein Endstadium eingetreten und mit den herkömmlichen Methoden nicht mehr zu retten.
Deshalb verfolgen seine wichtigsten Vertreter zurzeit eine Agenda, die mit Gesundheit nichts zu tun hat. Sie besteht darin, das bestehende System in seinem Todeskampf nach allen Regeln der Kunst zu plündern und gleichzeitig im Hintergrund ein neues System vorzubereiten.
Die Plünderung des Systems erleben wir seit Monaten durch die immer neuen Einschränkungen, die vor allem den Mittelstand in die Knie zwingen und ihn in eine immer größere Abhängigkeit von der digitalen Plattformökonomie treiben. Außerdem durch die permanente Einspeisung neuen Geldes, das die Inflation immer stärker anheizt, was sowohl den Staaten als auch den Spekulanten hilft, ihren Schuldenberg abzutragen, die arbeitende Bevölkerung aber gleichzeitig schleichend enteignet.
Von der Vorbereitung des neuen Systems – der Einführung digitaler Zentralbankwährungen – erfährt die Öffentlichkeit dagegen so gut wie nichts. Und das, obwohl die großen Zentralbanken alle unter Hochdruck an diesem Projekt arbeiten. Und diese neue Währung birgt ungeheure Gefahren: Mit ihr wird man das Konsumverhalten der Empfänger gezielt steuern, ihnen das Sparen unmöglich machen und sie zwingen können, das Geld zweckgebunden innerhalb vorgegebener Zeiträume auszugeben. Man wird Wohlverhalten belohnen, Kritiker bestrafen und sogar von allen Finanzströmen abschneiden können.
Digitales Zentralbankgeld wird der Kern eines gesellschaftlichen Zwangsregimes sein, das weitgehend ohne offene Gewalt auskommen wird, weil es jede Opposition bereits im Keim ersticken kann. Digitales Zentralbankgeld ist ein fast perfektes Mittel zur Kontrolle, zur Manipulation und zur Konditionierung der Bevölkerung. Seine Einführung bedeutet nicht mehr und nicht weniger als die am tiefsten in unser Leben eingreifende Währungsreform aller Zeiten. Eine Welt mit digitalem Zentralbankgeld ist nichts anderes als ein digital-finanzielles Gefängnis, in dem für Freiheit und Demokratie kein Platz mehr ist.
Aber sind wir dieser Entwicklung hilflos ausgeliefert? Oder haben wir noch eine Chance, den Alptraum einer Welt der vollständigen Versklavung durch das Geld zu verhindern?
Das hängt nur von einem einzigen Faktor ab: dem Wissensstand der Menschen. Das gegenwärtige undemokratische, ungerechte und sozial zerstörerische System funktioniert nämlich nur deshalb, weil die Mehrheit der Menschen es nicht durchschaut. Würden die Menschen es massenhaft durchschauen, wäre es auf Dauer nicht aufrecht zu erhalten.
Da dieses System aber nur durch immer schärfere Zwangsmaßnahmen am Leben erhalten werden kann, werden in der vor uns liegenden Periode immer mehr Menschen damit in Konflikt geraten. Das wiederum bedeutet, dass sie auf Grund der entstehenden Probleme nach Auswegen suchen werden.
Wir treten also in eine geschichtliche Epoche ein, in der die Aufklärung über die tatsächlichen Strukturen und Machtverhältnisse in unserer Gesellschaft und unserer Wirtschaft bei sehr vielen Menschen auf offene Ohren stoßen wird.
Nutzen wir also diese historische Chance und treiben wir diese Aufklärung trotz aller Zensur, aller Verbote und aller Einschüchterungen voran – und setzen wir es uns zum Ziel, uns, unsere Kinder und unsere Enkel vor der Einkerkerung in einem digital-finanziellen Gefängnis zu bewahren und zukünftigen Generationen ein Leben in Würde und in Freiheit zu ermöglichen.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Since the port of Beirut was destroyed on August 4, 2020, French authorities have increased the number of trips, initiatives, pressures and appeals to the international community to assist reconstruction and stabilization efforts in Lebanon. A year after the explosion, French President Emmanuel Macron and Secretary-General of the United Nations António Guterres organized a virtual summit in order to raise at least $350 million in emergency aid for the Lebanese people. The videoconference will have the participation of 40 heads of state, including U.S. President Joe Biden, Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, King Abdullah II of Jordan and Lebanese President Michel Aoun.
Faced with the worst economic crisis in its history, Lebanon is in the most desperate state it has been in since the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990). Aid is necessary to alleviate the most immediate problems people are facing, but it does not in any way solve the overarching issues in Lebanon – deeply ingrained corruption, sectarianism and a collapsing economy.
Paris has already organized several conferences to try and resolve the Lebanese crisis. The first two were on August 9 and December 12, 2020, mobilizing €257 and €280 million respectively. On June 17, the French Defense Minister organized a virtual meeting to gather emergency aid for the Lebanese army. In addition to the humanitarian and military aid, France is also heavily involved in Lebanese politics, demonstrating that the European country is desperately trying to regain a significant foothold in its former colony.
Faced with the inaction of the Lebanese ruling class and the numerous ministerial blockages, Paris did not hesitate to toughen up its tone. On March 29, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian had mentioned “stepping up the pressure” against Lebanon’s elite. Soon after, France followed through on its threats, sanctioning several Lebanese leaders, including former foreign minister and Christian ally of Hezbollah, Gebran Bassil. In this way, French sanctions towards Lebanese leaders matched Washington’s policies.
Unable to create a new government in Beirut, Paris set its sights on the irremovable governor of the Lebanese Central Bank, Riad Salameh. On June 6, the National Financial Prosecutor’s Office opened a preliminary investigation for “criminal association” and “organized money laundering” against Salameh. France had to learn the hard way that a country with deeply ingrained corruption cannot be reformed in a short time.
However, even this was problematic and demonstrated France’s lack of awareness on its Lebanon file. Macron left this file in the hands of former French Ambassador to Lebanon, Emmanuel Bonne, and Director of the Directorate-General for France’s External Security, Bernard Émié. Both are known for being in favor of the Hariri clan. The Hariri’s are one of the most powerful Sunni families in Lebanon, often holding the Prime Ministership and are worth billions of dollars. The Hariri’s have been involved in numerous scandals and have serious accusations of corruption levelled against them.
However, even Saad Hariri, close to the President of the Republic, was sidelined by Paris. Indeed, during his visit to Lebanon on June 6, Le Drian received him at the residence of the French Ambassador to Lebanon. According to diplomatic protocol, a French minister must go to his hosts and not to a place belonging to France.
Today though, it is Lebanese President Michel Aoun that is in the sights of European sanctions at the request of Paris. In the event of a non-formation of a government, Brussels could sanction Aoun. Despite this more aggressive and dissuasive policy, France is failing to gain significant influence in Lebanon.
It is recalled that during Macron’s visit to Lebanon the day after the port of Beirut explosion, he was received with much jubilation to many of the Lebanese that came out to welcome him. From August 6, two days after the disaster in Beirut, the French President was taking photos and hugging the families of victims, and saw himself as the saviour of Lebanon. Riding this wave of French empathy, some Lebanese even become nostalgic for the era of the French Mandate, i.e. colonial rule.
With two trips in less than a month, Macron had taken the Lebanese file very seriously. After the initial benevolence, he tried to impose a French initiative, a sort of political roadmap to resolve the Lebanese crisis and form a new government. Ultimately, Paris failed as Lebanon remains in a political and economic gridlock.
For France, Lebanon is its only gateway to the Middle East after it severed and destroyed ties with Damascus following the Syrian War in 2011. Macron also wanted to use success in Lebanon as part of his re-election campaign, but it is clear that no serious achievements have been made. One year on from the port of Beirut blast and France remains locked out of the Middle East and Lebanon has not made а serious step towards economic and political stability.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.
Featured image: A damaged car and building are seen after a fire at a warehouse with explosives at the Port of Beirut led to massive blasts in Lebanon, 14 August 2020 [Enes Canli/Anadolu Agency]
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
This week, Twitter was keen to share the news about its new arrangement with The Associated Press and Reuters “to expand our efforts to identify and elevate credible information” on its platform. The company reiterates its commitment that people using its service are able to “easily find reliable information” hoping to “expand the scale and increase the speed of our efforts to provide timely, authoritative text across the wide range of global topics and conversations” taking place on the platform each day.
The global head of user-generated content at Reuters, Hazel Baker, was businesslike in describing a partnership that would “leverage our deep global and local expertise to serve the public conversation with reliable information.” Tom Januszewski, Vice President of Global Business Development at AP, was “particularly excited about leveraging AP’s scale and speed to add context to online conversations, which can benefit from easy access to the facts.”
Such promises to “leverage” could well have been matched to any shadowy information department from the Cold War with the express purpose of ensuring what news was consumed when and by whom. Twitter will seek help from the two newswires “where facts are in dispute or when Twitter’s Curation team doesn’t have the specific expertise or access to a high enough volume of reputable reporting on Twitter.” Those using the platform “can expect more Trends with contextual descriptions and links to reporting from trusted sources more frequently.”
Bringing aboard these news giants is no guarantee that the text and information provided will be authoritative, credible or reliable. News wires are not immune to being disseminators of inaccurate information, or information that is slanted in favour of a power or interest. Often, they hide behind their reputations even as they ventriloquise different interests and planted narratives.
Take Reuters, which, by its claim, “shall supply unbiased and reliable news services to newspapers, news agencies, broadcasters, and other media subscribers and to businesses, governments, institutions, individuals, and others with whom Reuters has or may have contracts.” In 1941, the company created its Trust Principles in agreement with The News Paper Proprietors Associated Limited and The Press Association Limited. These imposed obligations on the organisation and its employees to “act at all times with integrity, independence, and freedom from bias.”
Noble in print, the practise did not always stack up. In 1969, a British government document available in the National Archives called “Funding of Reuters by HMG” (Her Majesty’s Government) also outlined an agreement with Reuters to do the sort of thing that has become popular at Twitter: curate the news.
The way that curating would take place was what mattered. “We are now in a position to conclude an agreement providing discreet Government support for Reuters services in the Middle East and Latin America”. The interests of HMG “should be well served by the new arrangement.” The negotiations with the news outlet were led by the anti-Soviet propaganda unit known as the Information Research Department. “The new relationship established with Reuters in the Middle East and Latin America,” John Peck, former head of the IRD notes in the documents, “can lead to valuable goodwill and cooperation with the Agency on a global scale.” Reuters “could and would provide” what the government needed.
The scheme also brought in that other paragon of objective journalism, the BBC, which paid an “enhanced subscription” to Reuters, which was then going through a financially lean time. That money was duly recouped from the Treasury’s purse. Knowledge of this arrangement, approved by the BBC’s head of external services Sir Charles Curran, was kept to a select few.
With these revelations, Reuters was keen to regard this practise as not only normal but acceptable – at least historically. “Many news organisations received some form of state subsidy after World War Two,” was the weak explanation from the wire’s spokesperson David Crundwell. The arrangement, he claimed, “was not in keeping with our Trust Principles and we would not do this today.”
The BBC, through a spokeswoman, similarly said that, “The BBC charter guarantees editorial independence irrespective of whether funding comes from the UK government, the license fee or commercial sources.”
Much of this is wishful thinking. Such working understandings have not ceased in the post-Cold War era. If anything, the misinformation and disinformation stakes have reached a new frontier, pullulating with contenders. Max Blumental, editor of The Grayzone, revealed last February that Reuters and the BBC had been sponsored to engage in a covert information warfare campaign against that old adversary Russia. This involved a collaboration with the Counter Disinformation & Media Development (CDMD) section within the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). Media organisations worked alongside various intelligence contractors, training Russian journalists under the Reuters umbrella to produce “attitudinal change in the participants”. The aim, fluffily put, was to produce a “positive impact” on their “perception of the UK.”
The development tracker of the UK government also reveals that the CDMD programme involves working with various partners “to enhance the quality of public service and independent media (including the Russian language) so that it is able to support social cohesion, uphold universal values and provide communities across Eastern Europe with access to reliable information.”
Twitter’s response to Blumenthal’s work is a sign of things to come. Providing its own idea of context to the article, the platform placed a warning on all tweets linked to it. Far from discrediting the sources used, the message simply went on to warn that the documents used “may have been obtained through hacking.”
As for Twitter, we already know about executive connections between its operations and the military-intelligence establishment. In 2019, the Middle East Eyefound that Gordon MacMillan, a senior executive with editorial responsibility for Middle East matters, was also moonlighting as a reservist for the 77th Brigade, the British Army’s psychological warfare unit established in 2015 to find ways of waging “non-lethal” war. According to General Nick Carter, the unit’s primary task is to conduct researchinto “information warfare” and give the British military “the capability to compete in the war of narratives at the tactical level”.
The battle against misinformation can very often become a battle against information you do not particularly like or want people to access. The line on this is not always clear, though hope springs eternal that the marketplace of ideas, to use that increasingly empty expression, can sort the wheat from the chaff. Twitter’s calculating pivot towards this new information landscape shows a new strategy to anchor itself in an ecosystem already marginalising independent journalism. In doing so, it is courting the high priests who determine what counts as news and what doesn’t. Soon, a sanitised platform will simply be code for a censored one.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Since 1979 when prisoners at the San Quentin Correctional Facility in California declared the month of August as a period of commemoration honoring political detainees along with those who have sacrificed their well-being and lives in the movement for African emancipation, this holiday has grown in recognition and participation.
For decades the United States government has denied the existence of political prisoners while the entire criminal justice system has grown exponentially.
Looking back even further, the centuries-long enslavement of African people has never been officially acknowledged by the U.S. capitalist state as a crime against humanity. Not even one president out of those elected since the demise of legalized slavery in 1865 has officially apologized for the pain and suffering enduring by African people between 1619 to the Civil War.
Such an admission of guilt by the state and the leading financial institutions and corporations which were built on the profits accrued through slave labor, would inevitably suggest the need for reparations. The question of reparations remains a major source of denial by the state and the capitalist system.
After the period of enslavement there were the attempts to reconstruct a democratic dispensation. However, the overthrow of Federal Reconstruction between 1877 extending to the conclusion of the century which included the passage of Civil Rights Acts and three amendments to the Constitution (13th, 14th and 15th) that specifically addressed the emancipation and the granting of “citizenship rights” to African Americans, set the stage for the criminalization of an entire people.
Resistance to national oppression has always prompted an expansion of the prison system in the U.S. In the South, facilities such as Angola in Louisiana and Parchman in Mississippi were structured in a manner quite similar to plantations. African Americans have been routinely framed for crimes in which they did not commit in order to send them to penitentiaries where they work for slave wages under dangerous and highly exploitative conditions.
African enslavement and the U.S. state (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)
During the era of African enslavement there were prisons which held captured runaways from the plantation system. Plantation owners and enslavers would often place ads in newspapers during the antebellum period seeking information on Africans who had escaped their masters. The detention facilities would charge the slave owners for holding the African people and costs were levied for beatings and other forms of purported discipline.
Black August and the Struggle Against Mass Incarceration
With specific reference to Black August after its founding in 1979, an article in Teen Vogue says of its history that:
“As Dan Berger explained in an essay for Dissent, Black August remains a 31-day period for us to advocate for Black political prisoners, study Black political thinkers, and reflect on the history of Black struggle against white supremacy and state repression. The history of Black August shows us that the current targeting of protesters via carceral, shadowy methods is not new. Black organizers have long sounded the alarm about and resisted government surveillance programs like the FBI’s COINTELPRO, which worked to dismantle leftist movements. Many Black political leaders ended up imprisoned or dead as a result of the notorious covert operation. Black August calls on us to commit, even in the face of authoritarianism, to continued struggle against all forms of oppression and violence that impact Black people today.”
This same article continues by reflecting on a number of historical events which have occurred in the month of August over a period of several centuries:
“A plethora of important moments related to the struggle for Black freedom occurred in August: the beginning of the Haitian Revolution in 1791, the 2014 Ferguson uprising, the landing of enslaved Africans stolen from present-day Angola at the Jamestown settler colony in 1619, the 1963 March on Washington, the 1831 slave insurrection led by Nat Turner, and the 1965 Watts rebellion, to name a few. Joan Little, a Black woman who was charged with first-degree murder after she defended herself against sexual assault by a white prison guard, was acquitted and freed in August 1975. Brilliant Black activists and leaders like Anna Julia Cooper, James Baldwin, Marcus Garvey, Marsha P. Johnson, and Fred Hampton were all born in August. The month marks the passing of prolific Black writers and political thinkers like W.E.B. DuBois and Toni Morrison. Jonathan P. Jackson, the 17-year-old younger brother of George Jackson, was killed in August 1970 as he attempted to free his older brother and two other Black prisoners. This August also marks six years (2020) since the police killing of Michael Brown.”
African American prison intellectual and organizer George Jackson, a co-founder of the Black Guerrilla Family and Field Marshal for the Black Panther Party, was assassinated on August 21, 1971, during a rebellion and attempted escape. Several white inmates and guards were killed in the incident. Jackson was shot to death by guards firing from a prison tower.
Jackson’s assassination sent shockwaves throughout the U.S. both within and without the prison system. Anger over his death sparked other prison rebellions, the most well-known being the uprising at Attica in New York state which erupted just weeks later. The then governor of New York, Nelson Rockefeller, ordered the prison retaken by the state police resulting in the deaths of 43 people including inmates and some guards held hostage for four days.
The writings of Jackson are still being read around the world. In later years, a film entitled “Black August” depicted the life, times and contributions of George L. Jackson.
U.S. Has the Highest Incarceration Rate in the World
Today in 2021, there has been a decline in the number of people held within jails, state and federal prisons in part as a result of the inmate releases due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There were huge outbreaks of coronavirus starting in the spring of 2020 in correctional institutions. The infections impacted the inmates along with the guards, visitors and administrators.
“The number of people incarcerated in state and federal prisons and local jails in the United States dropped from around 2.1 million in 2019 to 1.8 million by mid-2020—a 14 percent decrease. This decline held through the fall. This represents a 21 percent decline from a peak of 2.3 million people in prison and jail in 2008. State and federal prisons held an estimated 1,311,100 people at midyear 2020—down 124,400, or 9 percent, from 2019. Prisons declined by an additional 61,800 people in late 2020, bringing the total prison population to 1,249,300 people, a 13 percent decline from 2019 to late 2020 (the end of September or beginning of October).”
Many hope that this decline is the beginning of a trend towards lower rates of incarceration in the U.S. Nonetheless, the current economic crisis worsened by the pandemic has placed millions in deep financial distress. Large scale evictions are occurring after workers have lost their jobs or are prevented from being employed due to healthcare issues and problems related to the lack of affordable childcare. Schools and daycare centers were closed after the advent of the pandemic in the early months of 2020. These social conditions could easily lead to a renewed wave of criminalization and imprisonment particularly among Black and Brown peoples.
The prison population at its peak in 2008 represented an increase of 500% since the late 1960s, a period of mass resistance and urban rebellion. A government sponsored “war of drugs” beginning under the administration of President Richard M. Nixon was extended by subsequent U.S. leaders. Its impact resulted in higher incarceration rates for African Americans and people of Latin American descent. This disproportionate rate of incarceration among people of color is an aspect of the modern manifestations of national oppression and super-exploitation.
Political prisoners such as Mumia Abu-Jamal and Leonard Peltier have been locked up for decades without cause being accused of crimes and then railroaded through the courts solely based upon their activism. Repeated demands for their releases have not resulted in freedom.
Moreover, the purported labor shortages within the U.S. capitalist system stemming from the pandemic are being addressed by employers through prison labor. A recent article published by the Guardian emphasizes that prisoners on work release are being highly exploited in the industries of construction, waste management, production and food services.
“Employers and industry groups have claimed labor shortages were stifling recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Republican governors blaming unemployment benefits. Some 26 states have canceled federal extended unemployment benefits early, though economists have noted the available jobs recovery data shows there is no economy-wide labor shortage. That hasn’t stopped employers and business groups from using perceived labor shortages as a pretext to seek out cheap labor sources; employers are hiring teenagers to fill open jobs, automating some job roles to avoid raising wages, lobbying Congress to double the cap on work immigration visas and expanding the use of prison labor.”
Therefore, cheap labor exploitation is integral to the continuation of the existing racist capitalist system. The problem of mass incarceration is linked to the struggle for Black liberation and the construction of a socialist economy.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Jonathan Jackson and his comrades on Aug. 7, 1970 in Marin County, California (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Has the flu and the majority of colds been eradicated from society because of mask wearing and social distancing as the so called experts contend or is it more plausible that every case of the sniffles for the past year and a half have been wrongfully diagnosed as Covid-19(84)? Are the current PCR tests reliable and what does the FDA, WHO and CDC say about its use today and in the near future? In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth covers the latest controversial announcement from the CDC which states that the “CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses”.Dan also proves that the “fact checkers” can simply not be trusted.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
At today’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) called for an amendment to a bill to prohibit US participation in a vaccine passport.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
We are at the crossroads of one of the most serious crises in World history.
Freedom of speech and independent media are threatened. Critical analysis and dialogue are essential.
At Global Research, our goal is to bring you timely and carefully documented articles pertaining to the ongoing crisis which is affecting the future of humanity.
Can you help us meet our monthly running expenses and ensure that our articles stay free and accessible to a large Worldwide readership. Please see below for more information on how to make a donation or become a member of Global Research.
Make a one time or recurring donation and/or become a Member and receive free books. Any amount large or small will contribute to supporting Global Research
Help support Global Research with an annual membership payment of $200.00. Each Sustainer Member will receive any two books of their choice from our Online Store, as well as a FREE copy of “The Globalization of War” by Michel Chossudovsky.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
This article provides links to correspondence (pdf) with several of the Health/Science institutions.
For references purposes, below is the scan of the researchers “Freedom of Information” letter. The responses can be consulted. See links below as well as in the related article entitled:
Ninety Health/Science Freedom of Information institutions globally all failed to provide or cite even 1 record of “SARS-COV-2” isolation/purification, by anyone, anywhere, ever.
89. Brazil, Anvisa (Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency)
90. Brazil, Ministry of Health
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
In a shocking revelation first reported by Dan Dicks of Press for Truth (Canada), an FDA document admits that the CDC and FDA conspired to fabricate a covid-19 testing protocol using human cells combined with common cold virus fragments because they had no physical samples of the SARS-CoV-2 “covid” virus available.
Without physical reference material to use for calibration and confirmation, the test has zero scientific basis in physical reality. And all the PCR analysis based on this protocol is utterly fraudulent, flagging people as “positive” for covid when they merely possess tiny quantities of RNA fragments from other coronavirus strains circulating in their blood.
The FDA document, available from the FDA.gov website, is entitled, “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)
Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel .” The document astonishingly admits: (emphasis ours)
Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells andviral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen.
In other words, they had no covid virus from which to develop and calibrate the test, so they mixed up a cocktail of human cells and RNA fragments from a common cold virus, then called it “covid.” The GenBank sequence referred to in this paragraph is simply a digital library definition that’s labeled “covid” but has no supporting reference materials in physical reality either.
That’s because no doctor or researcher has isolated “covid” from any infected, symptomatic patient. As a result, no laboratory instruments can be calibrated against actual covid, and the tests simply rely on digital libraries pushed out by the CDC and WHO, using “covid” as the label.
The PCR tests are then instructed to look for these genetic sequences obtained from the fabricated digital libraries, meaning the entire scheme is junk science circular logic with no basis in physical reality.
Why are there seemingly no certified reference materials for covid available to laboratories for instrument calibration?
I am the founder and owner of an analytical laboratory that routinely conducts quantitative analysis of food contaminants, producing high-precision analysis results for pesticides, herbicides and heavy metals. In every case where we conduct lab analysis, we calibrate the instruments against known physical samples called “external standards” or “certified reference materials.” (CRM)
Any lab can purchase CRMs for mercury, arsenic, glyphosate and even salmonella. For example, this link at Biosisto lists CRMs for various salmonella strains. Labs can purchase those reference materials and use them to calibrate their instruments, making sure their analysis is traced back to physical, real-world samples of a purified material. These CRMs, in turn, must be NIST-traceable in order to confirm their origin and authenticity. All CRMs are therefore labeled with lot numbers and expiration dates.
While labs can purchase reference materials for microbes, heavy metals, pesticides, etc. — all physical materials — I have searched far and wide and have not been able to locate any certified reference materials for SARS-CoV-2 or even a weakened, non-viable version of it. As far as I can tell, there appear to be no physical specimens of isolated covid viruses available for instrument calibrations and testing protocol quality control.
To be clear, I’m not saying that viruses don’t exist, and it’s quite clear that the Wuhan Institute of Virology colluded with Fauci, Daszak, the NIH, Baric and others to develop a weaponized spike protein. But the spike protein is not a virus by itself. It’s simply a toxic nanoparticle that can be synthesized in quantity and then either dumped on cities or added to vaccines and injected into people via immunization protocols.
I ask the big question about all this in my science lab whistleblower video here, which presents more details about all this that will have your head spinning. In essence, if “covid-19” is a real virus that can be isolated, why are there apparently no physical reference materials to calibrate laboratory instruments for covid detection? And why were no such materials used in the development of the FDA-approved, CDC-endorsed PCR testing protocols?
CDC pulls its own fraudulent covid PCR testing protocol, implying it cannot differentiate between covid and influenza
What adds to the mystery in all this is the fact that the CDC just issued a “laboratory alert,” announcing their intention to withdraw the faulty PCR testing protocol by the end of this year. As part of their announcement, they implied that the current PCR test — the same one the FDA mentioned above, which was developed without any physical covid samples for calibration — cannot tell the difference between influenza and covid.
From the CDC document:
In preparation for this change, CDC recommends clinical laboratories and testing sites that have been using the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR assay select and begin their transition to another FDA-authorized COVID-19 test. CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses.
Why might it be important to differentiate covid from influenza?
Because, as it seems, influenza cases nearly disappeared in 2020 as influenza was re-labeled “covid” due to the faulty testing.
“Percentage influenza positivity decreased by 64% (p = 0.001) and estimated daily number of influenza cases decreased by 76% (p = 0.002) in epidemiologic weeks 5–9 of 2020 compared with the preceding years,” reported the CDC in 2020.
In essence, the medical establishment simply took all the people who would normally be diagnosed with colds and the flu, and shifted them into the “covid” category in order to push a covid mass hysteria narrative that would drive people into vaccines. The vaccines, then, were formulated with spike protein toxic nanoparticles to cause the “delta” panic wave, which is largely occurring among vaccinated individuals.
From here, the plandemic scam proceeds like clockwork: People get sick from the vaccines, so more vaccine boosters are demanded, which perpetuates the illness. Rinse and repeat. It never ends until the perpetrators are arrested and people wise up to the scam.
It’s entitled, “Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Infections, Including COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Infections, Associated with Large Public Gatherings — Barnstable County, Massachusetts, July 2021” and it shockingly admits that 74% of infections occurred in fully vaccinated (double dose) people:
During July 2021, 469 cases of COVID-19 associated with multiple summer events and large public gatherings in a town in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, were identified among Massachusetts residents; vaccination coverage among eligible Massachusetts residents was 69%. Approximately three quarters (346; 74%) of cases occurred in fully vaccinated persons (those who had completed a 2-dose course of mRNA vaccine [Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna] or had received a single dose of Janssen [Johnson & Johnson] vac- cine ?14 days before exposure).
See, the vaccine is the pandemic. The vaccine is spreading the spike protein, and the fake PCR tests provide the fuel to keep the mass hysteria going.
I cover more details of all this in today’s bombshell podcast via Brighteon.com:
Also see this video from Dan Dicks, who covers the fake PCR tests as well:
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Switzerland wants the world to talk about if and how to use untested technology that tampers with nature to slow climate change – and will ask the UN’s environment arm to take the lead.
Geoengineering techniques that reflect away sun rays and suck carbon from the atmosphere have long been talked about as last-resort solutions to stem the worst effects of climate change.
But as greenhouse gas emissions remain stubbornly high and geoengineering research gets underway, there is growing concern these technologies could be deployed without protections against their serious risks – and that the prospect of a technofix will be taken as a licence to keep on polluting.
To kickstart the conversation, Switzerland will introduce a resolution at the UN Environment Assembly in Kenya in mid-March, calling for an assessment of the potential methods and governance frameworks for each one by August 2020. It would be an early step towards an international system for regulating the suite of technologies.
“There is a risk that geoengineering could be applied by someone without any international control, and we are very concerned about that,” Franz Perrez, head of the international affairs division at Switzerland’s Federal Office for the Environment, told Climate Home News. “Some are already testing solar radiation management, scientific research is already going on. We cannot close our eyes anymore and say ‘This is only science fiction’.”
The resolution is backed by Burkina Faso, Micronesia, Georgia, Lichtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Montenegro, Niger, South Korea and Senegal, according to the latest version dated 25 February.
Geoengineering refers to a wide range of techniques for modifying the climate system, from planting trees to fiddling with clouds.
Untested technologies to manage solar radiation – essentially, dim the sun – pose the biggest concerns. Ideas include releasing aerosol particles from airplanes to reflect sunlight away (mimicking the effects of volcanic eruptions) and spraying seawater drops into clouds to make them more reflective. But they could also change weather patterns, disrupting agriculture and exacerbating geopolitical tensions.
And if this is not accompanied by emissions reductions, more will be needed to sustain the temperature effect – “practically forever”, Douglas MacMartin, a leading geoengineering scientist working at Cornell University and Caltech, told a Chatham House conference in London last week.
Yet with government oversight, it may be preferable to runaway global warming.
“You would not take chemotherapy drugs just for fun, you would not sit in your car and set off your airbags just for fun,” MacMartin said. “There are clearly serious challenges to solar geoengineering, but they only make sense to face in context with the challenges of climate change itself.”
Better-known options, which remove CO2 from the air, include afforestation and combining biomass power plants with technology to catch and store their emissions (known as BECCS). But even simple interventions like tree-planting may call for international rules to ensure that emissions cuts in one place aren’t cancelled out somewhere else.
Attention to geoengineering is growing as the global temperature remains on course to rise by at least 3C compared to pre-industrial levels. The UN’s panel of climate scientists suggested last October it would be difficult to meet the Paris Agreement’s stretch limit of 1.5C without some of these more radical techniques.
“The reality is that [carbon dioxide removal] is no longer a question of whether or not [according to the UN science report]. It’s which one, which technology, how much, when do you start, who pays for it,” said Janos Pasztor, executive director of the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative and the former UN assistant secretary-general on climate change.
“But there has been very little debate [about solar radiation management] in the circles beyond scientists… it’s still looked at as esoteric, science fiction, crazy, difficult, challenging – and all of those things apply,” he told CHN at the Chatham House conference.
For some, however, geoengineering is so dangerous that it should be banned altogether.
It could worsen the climate, be weaponised and exacerbate geopolitical imbalances, said Silvia Ribeiro, Latin America director at ETC Group, an organisation that looks at socioeconomic and ecological issues around new technologies. “Investments in geoengineering are already providing justifications for high greenhouse gas emitters to continue emitting and postpone real reductions.”
The UN has so far taken a cautious, piecemeal approach. Th 190-plus parties to its Convention on Biological Diversity extended a moratorium on all climate-related technologies in 2016, while a 2013 convention on marine pollution prohibited geoengineering of the oceans. The UN’s climate change secretariat regulates global emissions accounting, including from forestry and bioenergy.
ETC Group worries the Swiss resolution implicitly assumes that geoengineering is acceptable and just needs international governance.
Perrez countered that the country wants the UN Environment Programme to assess the state of the science and the research gaps, the risks, benefits and uncertainties, the actors working on research and deployment, and how it could all be governed. Then, he said, countries can start talking about what to allow and how.
But the way emissions are going now, “it’s hard to say that it will not be needed”, Pasztor said, referring to CO2 removal. “The reality is that emissions reductions alone are no longer enough, because we have already put so much carbon into the atmosphere that even if we stop today we’re still going to keep this climate change for hundreds of years.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center / Flickr
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
World Economic Forum’s transhumanist founder promotes ‘regionalization’ as globalism’s post-COVID compromise with nationalism. Regional blocs, regional supply chains would be an “in-between solution….a new watered-down version” of globalization.
Since 1971, influential economist and transhumanist Klaus Schwab has hosted his annual hobnob winter retreat in Davos, Switzerland, for thousands of like-minded globalists and invited guests.
In its early years, Schwab focused his Davos affair on Europe’s place in the world, but in 1987 Schwab expanded his global vision, and the World Economic Forum was launched. Its complete name, “World Economic Forum, the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation,” gives a better understanding of Schwab’s grand corporatist (fascist) sentiments.
Over the years, Schwab’s late-January confab has attracted a veritable who’s who of the world’s leading business executives, politicians, economists, financiers, academics, media moguls and environmentalists, jet-setting to the Davos slopes for discussions on all things global. Even President Donald Trump appeared to present his “America First” rebuttals to globalism in 2018 and 2020.
Pastor and author Rick Warren (right) remarks while seated on a panel next to fellow Council on Foreign Relations member David Harris, president and C.E.O. of the National Jewish Democratic Council, at the 2008 World Economic Forum. Seated next to Harris is former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Religious figures from around the world have also attended, including best-selling author and Council on Foreign Relations member Rick Warren. His book, “The Purpose Driven Life,” has persuaded many evangelical churches to steer away from traditional worship toward modernism, ecumenism and social service.
In the midst of the 2020 COVID-19 scare, Schwab released his book, “COVID-19: The Great Reset.” The book describes his ideas on how globalism can recover its mojo after incurring major setbacks the past few years, most notably by Trumpian and Brexit nationalism, and by the economic shutdowns, travel restrictions, border closings, and global supply chain interruptions during the COVID scare.
Transhumanism
Schwab’s audacious plans for the rest of us are not limited to those mentioned in his Great Reset. Garnering understandably the most sensationalist attention and criticism are his transhumanist views.
In a speech before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in 2019, Schwab paraphrased a statement from the printed introduction of his 2016 book, “The Fourth Industrial Revolution,” an event which, he told the audience, “will lead to a fusion of our physical, digital, and biological identities.”
For those naive to the apocalyptic implications of that statement, Schwab had made it clear in a 2016 televised interview. Asked when the world would see chips implanted in humans, Schwab replied,
“Certainly in the next ten years. At first we will implant them in our clothes, and then we could imagine that we will implant them in our brains or in our skin. And in the end, maybe, there will be a direct communication between our brain and the digital world. What we see is a kind of fusion of the physical, digital and biological world.”
“Smart Dust, arrays of full computers with antennas, each much smaller than a grain of sand, can now organize themselves inside the body….implanted devices will likely also help to communicate thoughts normally expressed verbally through a ‘built-in’ smartphone, and potentially unexpressed thoughts or moods by reading brain waves and other signals,” Schwab wrote in “The Fourth Industrial Revolution.”
Klaus Schwab’s “COVID-19: The Great Reset” pages 83-84
Regionalization
Public reaction to these audacious “in your face” ideas, by comparison, may appear to have buried some of Schwab’s other topics like “regionalization” into the obscure pages of his Great Reset. But regionalization should merit the audacious label in its own right, as its establishment would mark an unprecedented era in modern history, rendering national sovereignty obsolete.
According to Schwab, the COVID scare may well be the pretext to prompt regional blocs around the world, like the European Union, to assume regulation of their own regional supply chains. That would be their near-term compromise between globalism and nationalism. It supposedly would diffuse nationalist patriots within all nations by diverting their pushback against the overreach of global supply chain vulnerabilities and regulatory threats to national sovereignty that were obvious even before COVID.
So Schwab’s “new watered-down version of globalization” would be limited to national populations’ own regional neighborhoods, at least in the near term. Americans would no longer need to be concerned about being dependent upon products made in China, but they would have to settle on having the phrase, “Made in North America” stamped on those products instead of “Made in USA.”
Globalist quotes: Their regionalizaion process to world government
It appears, then, that globalism’s major setbacks in recent years have not been unforeseen at all, but were factored beforehand into the more pragmatic regionalization approach to globalism. That approach matches the “Hagelian dialectic” method of “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” strategy that has been employed by every human manipulator from contract negotiators to despots throughout world history.
In this case, with the thesis (the still-current reality) being the nation-state, then the imposed antithesis (“way-out,” unsustainable opposite) has been overreached globalism in its current, chaotic state. That allows regionalization to be offered as globalism’s synthesis (solution) to which nationalists, by then beleaguered by globalism’s open-border chaos, theoretically would finally acquiesce. Two steps forward for globalism, one back.
Once regional governments get established and consolidate power, they could then merge into authoritarian globalism with minimal opposition.
“Ten kings”
That incremental approach to globalism also matches even the most famous reference to a future oppressive world government, the Bible’s Revelation account. For those of us who believe the Bible account has credibility, it is important to note that the biblical text does not introduce that future one-world government as such, but as initially governed by “ten kings” (see Rev 13:1 with Rev 17:12-13). It enters the narrative not as a monolithic “one-world” government, or even three consolidated “trilateral” governments as some maintain, but as ten. Globalists currently are having a hard enough time corralling the world’s nations into ten governments, let alone three or one.
Regional blocs attempted to gain a foothold during the Bush-Obama years, but President Trump’s nationalism almost single-handedly drove into disarray any momentum toward regionalizion. Trump curtailed U.S. funding of United Nations programs and other foreign aid projects having to do with economic/military nation building and multilateral region building.
Trump: I will not surrender U.S. to false song of globalism.
Meanwhile, Brexit jolted the European Union, South Asia’s SAARC bloc hasn’t gotten beyond the India-Pakistan standoff, and Russia’s economy has limited capacity to underwrite the Eurasian Union. The EU-style “unions” envisioned by both South America and Africa are dysfunctional, as various factions and instability, along with some nationalist pushback, prevent any consensus from their respective member nations to buy in totally. Southeast Asia’s ASEAN cannot project strength without dealing with Myanmar’s coup d’état and China’s maritime bullying, while the Arab (Persian) Gulf”s GCC bloc has to contend with Yemen’s civil war and threats from Iran.
But now the COVID scare ironically has breathed new life into the globalist narrative, although it comes, as Schwab describes, “with a regional twist.” With Trump seemingly out of the way and globalist, “Build Back Better” Biden purportedly in charge, Schwab’s Great Reset is now in vogue among corporatist elites and leftists.
If that group can keep Trump nationalism at bay and maintain their media monopoly on their narrative, it’s not hard to project that Schwab’s separate regional supply chains would lead to Kissinger’s “new mercantilism” of competing “regional units.” That new mercantilism likely would trigger Bloomfield’s quintessential “grave crisis,” leading ultimately to Verhofstadt’s federated New World Order of regional blocs.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All images in this article are from The Liberty Sentinel
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
China’s second cultural revolution is hitting the brakes. This one is not about Mao’s little red book but TV remote controls, fridges, cars, mobile phones, and yes, most important, property, the trappings of the modern age, admittedly more apparent in the east of the country but aspired to greatly in the less-developed west.
Four decades of turbo-charged growth have given way to Xi Jinping thought. Enough is enough. Total party supremacy is what matters now.
This ushers in the profits, not of doom, but slow growth. Entrepreneurs will feel the party’s wrath unless they heed it in every respect. Consequently, party cadres, with no business experience, have and will have a greater say in corporate decision making.
Deng Xiaoping launched China’s pro-market reforms in the late 1970s specifically to avoid this scenario. He knew party interference stifled innovation. Deng grasped that the country was destitute because it was isolated from the world. Deng and his successors lifted controls on private investment, trade, foreign business, travel, education and almost every aspect of society.
The booster rockets were ignited. Growth and wealth followed, albeit in an unbalanced way with the east coast benefitting most. Politics and profit, commerce and communism, could co-exist, or so it seemed.
Xi takes a different line. The booster rockets have been jettisoned. The West’s version of commerce, albeit more honored in the breach, sees the customer as king, has boards that are answerable, offers choices (except for online mega-corporations), would only serve to nurture conditions where one day the party itself would face questioning and criticism. If people felt they had a right to question commercial decisions then they may well feel emboldened to question the party’s policies.
Now state-owned enterprises, inefficient and top heavy, have more bank loans granted, while private companies have seen their market expansion slow.
Even the Covid response plays into this narrative. Not since the cultural revolution, the one of the little red book, have foreigners got such a bad press in China. Americans (accused by Chinese media of denying science and being obsessed with individual rights at the cost of society) are portrayed as too selfish, divided, and ignorant to fight the virus. Prime time TV news delights in images of mask-less Westerners on crowded beaches and streets or at anti-lockdown protests.
Chinese officials are fired if a case is discovered and whole cities can be plunged into lockdown, much stricter than the version in the west.
The government fosters a sense of grievance among the people that they are not getting the praise they think they deserve from the West for tackling Covid. This feeling of being scorned adds fuel to the propaganda fire. US politicians are accused of China-bashing to cover up their own incompetence and (in excess of) 600,000 pandemic deaths.
What is not covered on the TV news or any news is where the virus originated from and how it first became widespread.
But events can sometimes take unexpected turns. One fact rarely commented on in the West and never mentioned in China is how many people are leaving. In the 1960s, tens of thousands of people, not surprisingly, fled China’s cultural revolution. That was at a time when passports were hard to get. As the country stabilized, that number dropped. The number is rising rapidly once again.
From 2012 and 2020 when the West was recovering from the financial crisis and China was booming, the annual number of asylum-seekers from China rose from 15,362 to 107,864, according the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Since Xi took power at the end of 2012, 613,000 Chinese nationals have applied for asylum in another country. The majority, about 70 percent, sought a new life in America. More freedom, protecting their wealth and a better quality of life are the main, and obvious, reasons for the exodus.
Xi wants the party to work harder to ensure its grip on power. Part of this is to make sure that China can stand on its own if the US launches a fully-fledged economic war against it. But China, within in living memory, has stood on its own. Something is amiss when such a scenario repeating itself is even the vaguest of possibilities.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Some have said that the only thing that will save humanity is love. But, as Sinclair Lewis’s character, Elmer Gantry, asks: ‘what is love?’
Our culture seems to have supplanted love with avarice, with greed, with an avid obsessive possessiveness, a.k.a. cupidity. Which might have surprised Cupid, a.k.a Eros, and those who believe ‘love conquers all.’
The present push towards ‘transhumanism,’ sometimes touted as an enhancement of our capabilities, is in fact a disastrous narrowing of our perception, a path to the mental and spiritual slavery of Huxley’s ‘Brave New World.’
A narrow perception of what it means to be human has led us, willy nilly—or perhaps with a chilling inevitability—to the literal transformation of people into bizarre hybrid creatures, half human, half machine.
Knowledge may or may not be power but, in a cybernetic age, wisdom is conflated with knowledge, knowledge with information, and information with data. In the process we have been turned into cyphers. At least in the minds of our overlords, who wish to turn our human consciousness, our physical, mental, emotional and spiritual being, into bits and bytes—into a series of ones and zeros floating in an ephemeral digital cloud.
The lust for power, for control, for conquest, has infected human culture for millennia. The addiction to power, the compulsion to control, has tainted the human race as a drop of ink tints a glass of clear water.
And with this comes a certain attitude to others, an attitude which sees others not as ‘thou’ but as ‘it,’ as Martin Buber says. Others are seen not as people, as fellow sentient beings, but as tools who are valued only as useful to those ‘who matter.’ I.e. the rich and powerful. The ‘players,’ the ‘stakeholders’ in the poker game of life. The rest, when not of use, are merely ‘useless eaters.’
Now it seems these number in the billions, to be experimented on, and finally eliminated, in a giant con game to which the Third Reich seems only a preliminary, a taster, an hors d’oeuvre to the banquet, the feast of flesh.
The desire to turn human beings into machines, logically enough, stems from a mechanical world view.
This sees life as essential lifeless. The cosmos is not intelligent, it has neither feeling nor awareness. People are made from letters strung out on spiral coils of DNA.
And we can be remade from manipulated synthetic material, from nanobots, from self-assembling graphene hydrogels which will upload new programs into us with each and every ‘inoculation.’ Our brains are merely gelatinous computers, our heads hi-tech jelly doughnuts. And, as our consciousness is transformed by the mind parasites, we transition in a diabolical transubstantiation, into cyborgs–totally controlled, yet unaware that the thoughts we are thinking and the feelings we are feeling come not from ourselves, but from an AI algorithm conjured up by scientific sorcery.
The tragedy of the spiritual dwarves pulling the strings on the greatest crime in human history is that they, unable to embrace the love of life, are compelled to kill the life of everyone, bringing the rest of us down with them, like monstrous dogs in a planetary manger. And what sop do we have for them, as Cerberus was pacified at the gates of Hell?
Are they more to be pitied than censured? Can we hate the sin but not the sinner? Can we love-bomb them into becoming human themselves before, in the blind agony of the death throes of the last vestiges of their shrivelled souls, they kill the humanity in all of us?
Perhaps love is not so much an emotion as a kind of perception, an awareness, an appreciation of the miracle of life, of life’s very aliveness. Joy and wonder may be more elusive than ever, but this is our birthright.
We still have the opportunity, as well as the duty, to accept this precious gift.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
America’s hegemonic project in the post 9/11 era is the “Globalization of War” whereby the U.S.-NATO military machine —coupled with covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime change”— is deployed in all major regions of the world. The threat of pre-emptive nuclear war is also used to black-mail countries into submission.
It is intimately related to a process of global financial restructuring, which has resulted in the collapse of national economies and the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.
The ultimate objective is World conquest under the cloak of “human rights” and “Western democracy”.
The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order
In this expanded edition of Chossudovsky’s international best-seller, the author outlines the contours of a New World Order which feeds on human poverty and the destruction of the environment, generates social apartheid, encourages racism and ethnic strife and undermines the rights of women. The result as his detailed examples from all parts of the world show so convincingly, is a globalization of poverty.
This book is a skilful combination of lucid explanation and cogently argued critique of the fundamental directions in which our world is moving financially and economically.
In this enlarged edition – which includes ten new chapters and a new introduction — the author reviews the causes and consequences of famine in Sub-Saharan Africa, the dramatic meltdown of financial markets, the demise of State social programs and the devastation resulting from corporate downsizing and trade liberalisation.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
As COVID — especially the Delta variant — surges among the fully vaccinated, Brian Hooker, Ph.D., said the more the variant deviates from the original sequence used for the vaccine, the less effective the vaccine will be on that variant.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on July 27, issued an update on breakthrough infections, stating they “happen in only a small proportion of people who are fully vaccinated, even with the Delta variant.”
The CDC’s statement, however, stands in contrast to what the director of Israel’s Public Health Services told viewers of the CBS program “Face the Nation” on Sunday — that 50% of new infections reported in Israel are from fully vaccinated people.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical advisor to President Biden, and Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, director of Israel’s Public Health Services, were interviewed during the program.
Israel and the U.S. began administering COVID vaccines in December 2020.
During the interview, Fauci adhered to the CDC’s position — that breakthrough infections are happening only in a small proportion of fully vaccinated people — while Alroy-Preis said Israel is seeing breakthrough infections occurring in 50% of those who test positive for COVID.
Despite mounting evidence COVID vaccine protection is waning over time, Fauci told “Face the Nation”:
“…the predominant message is that if you are vaccinated and you get a breakthrough infection … you’re much, much more protected against getting infected than an unvaccinated [person] who is completely vulnerable.”
A breakthrough case refers to a person who is diagnosed with COVID after being fully vaccinated. A person is considered fully vaccinated 14 days after receiving the second dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID vaccine, or two weeks after receiving the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (J&J) vaccine.
CDC: 3,907 hospitalizations + 750 deaths in people fully vaccinated against COVID with an FDA-authorized vaccine as of June 21.https://t.co/IthNjLnc0G
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) June 30, 2021
The CDC’s latest breakthrough numbers, as of July 25, show 6,587 fully vaccinated people with COVID breakthrough cases. Of those, 6,239 people were hospitalized and 1,263 people died.
In May, the CDC revised its guidance for reporting breakthrough cases, stating it would count only those cases that result in hospitalization or death. Previously, the agency had included in its breakthrough count anyone who tested positive for COVID.
According to the CDC, the surveillance system for breakthrough cases is passive and relies on voluntary reporting from state health departments, which may not be complete.
In addition, some breakthrough cases will not be identified due to lack of testing. This is particularly true in instances of asymptomatic or mild illness, the CDC said.
NBC News investigated breakthrough cases not reported by CDC
NBC News contacted health agencies in 50 states and the District of Columbia to collect information on breakthrough cases, citing a lack of comprehensive data available from the CDC.
Data collected from 38 states showed more than 125,000 fully vaccinated Americans tested positive for COVID, and 1,400 died.
This conflicts with the CDC’s data published July 26. Research by NBC News indicates the number who have been hospitalized or died passed 7,300 in just 30 states providing data.
The total number of breakthrough cases is likely higher than 125,683, as nine states, including Pennsylvania and Missouri, did not provide information, while 11 states did not provide death and hospitalization totals. Four states gave death and hospitalization numbers, but not total cases.
In addition, vaccinated adults who had breakthrough cases but showed no symptoms could be missing from the data altogether, officials told NBC.
For states like Utah, where full data was published, breakthrough cases accelerated in the past two months. As of June 2, just 27 (8%) of 312 new cases in the state were breakthrough cases. As of July 26, there were 519 new cases and almost 94 cases (20%) were breakthroughs, according to state data.
In Virginia, total breakthrough cases resulting in death from COVID increased from 17 in mid-July to 42 on July 30.
In Oklahoma, breakthrough cases are up by 67%, with incidents of breakthrough greater with J&J’s vaccine than with Moderna.
Delta variant more transmissible, but not more pathogenic than original strain
World Health Organization (WHO) officials said they are still trying to understand why the Delta variant is more transmissible than the original COVID virus strain.
“There are certain mutations in the Delta variant that, for example, allow the virus to adhere to a cell more easily,” said Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, WHO’S technical lead on COVID, at a press briefing July 30. “There are some laboratory studies that suggest that there’s increased replication in some of the modeled human airway systems.”
The CDC warned lawmakers July 29 of new research indicating the Delta strain is more contagious than chickenpox. It also appears to have a longer transmission window than the original COVID strain, and may make older people sicker, even if they’ve been fully vaccinated, CNBC reported.
Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., Children’s Health Defense chief scientific officer and professor of biology at Simpson University, said while the Delta variant is likely more transmissible, it’s also likely less pathogenic. “What we’re seeing is virus evolution 101,” Hooker said.
Hooker explained:
“Viruses like to survive, so killing the host (i.e. the human who is infected) defeats the purpose because killing the host kills the virus, too.
“For this reason, new variants of viruses that circulate widely through the population tend to become more transmissive but less pathogenic. In other words, they will spread more easily from person to person, but they will cause less damage to the host.”
Hooker said the more the variant deviates from the original sequence used for the vaccine, the less effective the vaccine will be on that variant, which could explain why fully vaccinated people are getting infected with the Delta variant. But this isn’t the case for natural immunity, he explained.
Hooker said:
“The vaccine focuses on the spike protein, whereas natural immunity focuses on the entire virus. Natural immunity — with a more diverse array of antibodies and T-cell receptors — will provide better protection overall as it has more targets in which to attack the virus, whereas vaccine-derived immunity only focuses on one portion of the virus, in this case, the spike protein. Once that portion of the virus has mutated sufficiently, the vaccine no longer is effective.”
As The Defender reported Monday, vaccinated people may play a key role in aiding the evolution of COVID variants.
Scientific Reports research: highest risk for establishing a vaccine-resistant virus strain occurs when large fraction of population has already been vaccinated but transmission is not controlled.
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) August 3, 2021
According to research published last week in Scientific Reports, the highest risk for establishing a vaccine-resistant virus strain occurs when a large fraction of the population has already been vaccinated but the transmission is not controlled.
The data was consistent with a study released July 30, by the CDC which showed vaccinated people may transmit the Delta variant — now responsible for 80% of COVID cases in the U.S. — just as easily as the unvaccinated.
The team of scientists who published the data in Scientific Reports said their findings follow what’s known as selective pressure — the force that drives any organism to evolve.
“Generally, the more people infected, the more the chances for vaccine resistance to emerge,” said Fyodor Kondrashov of the Institute of Science and Technology Austria.
“So the more Delta is infectious, the more reason for concern,” Kondrashov said. “By having a situation where you vaccinate everybody, a vaccine-resistant mutant actually gains a selective advantage.”
U.S. senator and Kentucky state senator test positive for COVID despite being fully vaccinated
“I started having flu-like symptoms Saturday night and went to the doctor this morning. I feel like I have a sinus infection and at present time I have mild symptoms. I will be quarantining for 10 days.”
Graham’s announcement came amid growing public concern of breakthrough cases.
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) warned reporters against sensationalizing the news about Graham, as it would “probably discourage some people at least from getting the vaccine.”
Blunt has been talking to CDC officials about how to make sure reports of fully vaccinated people getting COVID aren’t overshadowed by the fact that it is less likely to result in a severe case.
Kentucky Sen. Alice Forgy Kerr also tested positive for COVID despite being fully vaccinated, she announced on Facebook Monday night.
Forgy Kerr said in the post three other family members who were also fully vaccinated tested positive in the last three weeks as well, The Enquirer reported.
“Please be careful out there,” she wrote. “This Delta variant is a ‘new ballgame’ apparently.”
At least 233 staffers at two major hospitals test positive for COVID, majority vaccinated
At least 233 staffers at two major San Francisco hospitals tested positive for COVID — the majority of whom were fully vaccinated and became infected with the Delta variant.
Between 75% and 80% of the more than 50 staff members infected with COVID at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital were fully vaccinated, Dr. Lukejohn Day, the hospital’s chief medical officer, told The New York Times Saturday.
The University of California, San Francisco Medical Center said in a statement Friday, 153 of its 183 infected staff members had been fully vaccinated. Some of the cases were asymptomatic, but most involved mild to moderate symptoms with two requiring hospitalization, officials said.
Day said the number of staff infections reported in July is almost as many as during the peak of the winter surge. Despite the majority of staffers infected having been vaccinated, Day said without vaccinations the hospitalization rate would be much worse.
Yankee starting pitcher latest player to get COVID
The Yankees’ top starting pitcher tested positive for the virus and will miss his next game, Manager Aaron Boone announced Monday.
“Gerrit will not be pitching tomorrow,” Boone said. “He’s actually tested positive for COVID.”
Twice this season the Yankees have had outbreaks among fully vaccinated members that involved several players or staff, but Monday’s news was limited to Cole.
Boone did not say whether Cole is vaccinated or not. The majority of COVID cases among Yankees players and staff this season have occurred in those who were fully vaccinated, The Times reported.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
WE CAN WIN! Patrick King is a proud father of 2, Freedom Fighter and Patriot who took on the powerful government in Alberta, and WON!
We can ALL learn from this, and we MUST battle this in every single city, every single county, every single state, every single NATION!
The fight for freedom is a worldwide effort, and WE CAN WIN!
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
In a new research paper published in the journal Toxicology Reports, author Neil Z. Miller found that out of a total of 2,605 infant deaths reported to VAERS between 1990 and 2019, 58% occurred within three days of vaccination, and 78% occurred within seven days of vaccination.
In a new research paper published in the journal Toxicology Reports, author Neil Z. Miller reports on the relationship between sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) death and the timing of vaccination, based on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database.
SIDS is defined as the sudden and unexpected death of an infant that remains unexplained after a thorough investigation. Although there are no specific symptoms associated with SIDS, an autopsy often reveals congestion and edema of the lungs and inflammatory changes in the respiratory system, according to the National Center for Health Statistics Vital Statistics of the United States 1988, Volume II, Mortality, Part A, Public Health Service, 1991.
Prior to contemporary vaccination programs, SIDS — sometimes referred to as “crib death” — was so infrequent it was not mentioned in infant mortality statistics.
After the national immunization campaigns were initiated in the U.S. in the 1960s, for the first time in history, most U.S. infants were required to receive several doses of DPT, polio, measles, mumps and rubella vaccines.
As Miller points out in his article, the ICD category for vaccine-related death, or cause of death as “prophylactic inoculation and vaccination,” was eliminated when the ICD was revised in 1979 — despite the fact that this information would be useful in trying to understand the relationship between vaccination and death.
But Miller, a medical research journalist and the director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute, provides an alternative route for establishing such a correlation — by observing the temporal relationship between vaccines and reported infant deaths, including SIDS deaths, in the CDC’s VAERS database.
Miller found that out of a total of 2,605 infant deaths reported to VAERS from 1990 through 2019, the majority “clustered” in close temporal proximity to vaccination — 58% occurred within three days of vaccination, and 78% occurred within seven days of vaccination.
Miller found the excess deaths within these ranges were statistically significant (p<0.00001), meaning the chance that this result is random is less than 0.001%.
The same type of clustering was present in the 1,048 reports of infant deaths (out of the total 2,605) reported to VAERS specifically as SIDS.
According to Miller, if there were no correlation between vaccination and infant deaths, one would expect to see an even spacing of deaths within the time range reported prior to vaccination —- not a clustering of deaths as Miller found.
Miller included a comprehensive literature review in his paper refuting the “official” claim that the SIDS epidemic was curtailed by having infants sleep on their backs — as recommended by the “Back to Sleep” campaign, initiated in 1992 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
The subsequent rate of SIDS dropped by an annual average of 8.6% between 1992 and 2001. However, the neonatal mortality rate due to “suffocation in bed” increased during that same time at an average annual rate of 11.2%.
Other similar causes of infant death also increased significantly during this period, as reported by Miller. Further, from 1999 through 2015, the U.S. SIDS rate declined 35.8%. while infant deaths due to accidental suffocation increased 183.8 %.
Miller also affirms his main results from the paper (i.e., the temporal clustering of SIDS deaths with vaccination) through the discussion of seven additional peer-reviewed studies and two confidential reports.
On average, these authors found that substantial proportions of infant deaths occurred within one day (mean = 25%), three days (mean = 49%) and seven days (mean = 71%) post-vaccination, matching the results of the present study.
Mechanistically, vaccine injury has been tied to SIDS multiple times. Matturri et al. (2014) examined 13 SIDS deaths occurring within seven days of a hexavalent vaccine. Analysis of the brainstem and cerebellum of the deceased infants showed brain edema and congestion in all victims.
The authors hypothesized that
“several compounds and immuno-potentiation adjuvants of the hexavalent vaccine might easily go beyond the blood-brain barrier, which in the first year of life is still immature and quite permeable, inducing neuronal molecular alterations in DNA, RNA and proteins of brainstem neurons regulating vital functions, with consequent fatal disorganization of respiratory control in particularly predisposed infants.”
Specifically, these authors implicated aluminum-based adjuvants in the dysregulation of respiratory control.
Scheibner and Karlsson (1991) monitored infant breathing during sleep before and after the DPT vaccination, revealing an increase in episodes where breathing nearly ceased or stopped completely. These episodes, which continued for several weeks post-vaccination, were not seen prior to vaccination.
Despite the official insistence that SIDS deaths are not caused by vaccination, as Miller points out, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation (NVICP) is set up to compensate families of individuals who are injured and/or die from vaccine administration.
Death from vaccination is compensated with $250,000 for “pain and suffering” to family members of the deceased victim. Conditions typically leading to death that are considered “table injuries” to be compensated under the NVICP include anaphylaxis and encephalopathy or encephalitis.
‘Healthy babies just don’t die for no apparent reason’
Kari Bundy, who lost her son after his four-month vaccinations, said she’s always been “flabbergasted” at the denial of the medical community of the link between SIDS and vaccines. “For me, it was too obvious to even attempt to ignore,” Bundy said.
Bundy lost her third-born child, Mason, in 2011.
“A few days after his routine four-month vaccinations, my husband and I discovered his dead body in the middle of the night, laying on his side, his body still warm,” Bundy said
Mason’s autopsy came back “unremarkable,” aside from some thymic petechiae, which is the most common gross finding in SIDS cases at autopsy.
“I was assured time and time again that he had not suffocated,” Bundy said.
When Mason died, Bundy learned if you can’t pay for a funeral, you can’t have one. So a few months after Mason’s death, she founded a nonprofit called Mason’s Cause, to provide grants to cover funeral costs for families who had experienced the loss of a child under the age of 1.
“I never wanted any parent to experience this devastating loss and not be able to bury their child,” Bundy said. She continued running the charity for just under 2 years, during which time she worked with 94 different families who experienced the death of a child under age 1.
Of those 94 infant deaths, 87 died from SIDS, or from causes “unknown.” Of the SIDS cases, 81 — or 93% — died within seven days of routine vaccinations.
“When I realized SIDS seemed to be undeniably related to vaccines, I realized I could no longer dedicate my life to running a charity that would help bury babies,” Bundy said. “That’s when I realized I wanted to save babies by speaking out about the real risks of vaccination.”
Bundy, who works for Children’s Health Defense as translations coordinator, said she’s grateful for research like Miller’s because it shows what she and all SIDS parents already knew — healthy babies don’t just die for no apparent reason.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Brian S. Hooker, PhD, PE, is an Associate Professor of Biology at Simpson University in Redding California where he specializes in microbiology and biotechnology.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
According to statistics released by the CDC in their Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the vast majority of recorded deaths following one of the experimental COVID-19 injections has been among the elderly.
According to the CDC, 60% of all reported deaths following COVID-19 injections have been in people age 44 or higher, 50% of all reported deaths have been in people age 65 or older, and 35% of all recorded deaths have been in people age 75 or older.
When you consider that 38% of all recorded deaths following COVID injections the age is “unknown,” then those percentages among the elderly are most certainly even higher.
For those who refuse to accept the CDC’s explanation that all these deaths recorded following the COVID-19 injections had nothing to do with the shots, then it is clearly obvious that the elderly are being killed in much higher numbers from these shots than the rest of the population.
We have documented many of these stories of mass deaths in senior care homes earlier this year, often in homes where few or no deaths occurred in all of 2020 during the COVID-19 Plandemic. In some cases, these seniors were forcibly injected against their will.
For those who survived the injections, there are now plans in motion to roll out a 3rd COVID-19 “booster” shot to be injected into the seniors who survived the first two shots.
We reported last week that Israel was the first nation to announce a 3rd booster shot by Pfizer beginning with people over the age of 60.
And now The Telegraph out of the UK is reporting that the UK will also roll out “booster shots” for COVID-19, targeting the people over the age of 50.
Booster vaccines are to be offered to 32million Britons starting early next month with up to 2,000 pharmacies set to deliver the programme, The Telegraph can disclose.
Amid fears that the efficacy of the vaccines may begin to decline, ministers are planning to deliver an average of almost 2.5million third doses a week starting in the first week of September.
Pharmacies will be at the forefront of the vaccine programme so that GPs and other NHS staff can focus on the growing backlog of patients waiting for other treatments.
All adults aged 50 and over, as well as the immuno-suppressed, will be offered the booster jabs.
The campaign could start as soon as Sept 6, which would see the rollout completed by early December if it goes to plan. It is hoped the timetable will leave at least a fortnight for the final people vaccinated to benefit from the jab’s effect before Christmas. (Source.)
Germany is planning something similar, beginning September 1st.
Germany plans to start offering Covid-19 booster shots to the elderly and at-risk from September 1, according to a draft document seen by AFP on Sunday, as concerns grow about the spread of the Delta variant.
Health Minister Jens Spahn and Germany’s 16 regional health ministers are expected to finalise the plans, drawn up by ministry officials, in a meeting Monday.
Mobile vaccination teams will be sent into care and nursing homes to offer Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna booster shots to residents, regardless of which vaccine they had originally, says the document.
Doctors will also be able to administer the booster jab to those who qualify, such as the elderly and people with weakened immune systems.
The text justifies the initiative by citing recent studies showing that protection from infection declines with time, putting vulnerable people at risk again.
Although Germany is currently enjoying relatively low infection rates compared with neighbouring countries, case numbers have been creeping up in recent weeks mainly because of the more contagious Delta variant.
There are also concerns about a slowdown in the country’s vaccination rate, with just over 52 percent of the population fully jabbed. (Source.)
No doubt the rest of Europe and the United States will soon follow this plan.
Can we please stop pretending that this is not a eugenics genocide plan to get rid of as many in the elderly population as possible?
It’s been happening already for years with the flu shots, but combined with the propaganda fear of COVID-19 and locking down these seniors and separating them from their family members and health advocates, deaths are now obviously skyrocketing.
Why Aren’t These Experimental Injections Killing or Injuring Everyone who Takes Them?
A legitimate question that is probably asked of everyone who is trying to warn others about how dangerous and deadly these injections are, is why are there so many people who have received one or two shots, and are relatively unaffected by them in terms of side effects?
There are theories that some of the batches from the COVID-19 shots are placebos, but I have not seen any credible evidence to support that yet.
The more likely explanation is that these are new products never before mass produced and mass distributed, and some of them are just “duds” either because they were manufactured improperly, or after manufacturing they were not handled properly.
For this explanation, we most certainly have ample evidence.
Back in March, for example, we reported on some leaked documents that were supplied to European Medicines Agency (EMA) last December for approval of the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 shots.
With the tens of thousands of pharmacies across the U.S., most of which are severely under-staffed right now, we can certainly expect this is happening quite a bit.
The Pfizer doses need to be kept at temperatures below -70 degrees, and when thawed there are very specific ways of handling the doses to keep them “viable.”
There have been numerous reports of manufacturing issues in the plants where these shots are produced, so it is not only plausible, but highly likely, that many people are getting shots from doses that are either inactive or not fully active enough to produce all the side effects causing injuries and deaths, which is already very high.
It is also possible that some batches are either weakened or placebos, but I have just not seen credible evidence to support that yet. If it is true, the one sector where I could see that they would have a motivation to inject placebos, would be in professional sports, where major side effects and reduced athletic performance would be quickly noticed, giving very negative publicity for the shots.
For years it was known that cholesterol-lowering statin drugs created loss of muscle function, long before the FDA issued warnings about this side effect, but it was well known in the field of Sports and players were forbidden from taking these drugs.
The other motivation to inject a major portion of the population with placebos, especially during an initial roll-out, is to reduce the negative publicity the side effects create in the first doses.
Because as we move towards mandatory vaccinations, it is quite well-known that the most vocal voices opposing mandatory vaccinations are those who were previously pro-vaccine and have now been injured by them, or had a close friend or loved one being seriously injured or killed.
The ones who get the first shots and survive, become willing repeat customers for future “booster” shots.
Mark Dice released a video yesterday that he shot in San Diego, where he posed as someone taking a survey and asking strangers passing by on the street to sign a petition to force people who refuse the COVID-19 shots to be arrested and jailed.
You will be amazed (or maybe not) at how many people willingly gave their name and birthdate to sign this fake petition to arrest and jail their fellow citizens who refuse to take the COVID-19 shots.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Since the Covid pandemic broke out, Sweden has been fought over more than any other part of Europe since Germany in the 30 Years War. In refusing to use an iron fist to control a virus, lockdown advocates claimed it was either committing murder or suicide; choose your favorite metaphor. Relatively few such as me, in three separate articles, claimed the Nordic country was sparing both the economy and something called “liberty” with its light-handed approach. My favorite title (editor chose it): “Media Enraged That More Swedes Aren’t Dying.”
Total Swedish Covid deaths at this writing: 14,651.
It’s not that Sweden did nothing – but very little. “From the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Public Health Agency . . . embarked on a de-facto herd immunity approach, allowing community transmission to occur relatively unchecked,” declared a scathing editorial in the leftwing medical journal TheLancet last December. “No mandatory measures were taken to limit crowds on public transport, in shopping malls, or in other crowded places,” it said. “Coronavirus testing, contact tracing, source identification, and reporting, as recommended by WHO, were limited and remain inadequate.” High schools closed temporarily, but grade schools never.
“In our view,” snarled The Lancet, “there is still not sufficient recognition in the national strategy of the importance of pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmission, aerosol transmission, and use of face masks.”
Time to revisit Sweden as much of the world starts locking down and masking again regardless of vaccination levels, blaming the Delta variant. And those impudent Swedes are pretty much refusing to die of Covid at all.
Not to say that vaccines haven’t contributed to the current low numbers, but … cases peaked during the first week of January while vaccinations didn’t even begin until the end of that month. Currently Sweden ranks 18thin Europe in vaccines per capita, right in the middle. Likewise, there are those who say Sweden finally buckled down and imposed serious restrictions. It didn’t. It imposed more restrictions in the second week of January, perhaps more in response to international opprobrium than anything else. But yes, it was after cases not only had started dropping but actually plummeted by more than half.
What’s happening? According to an as-yet unpublished but online study by two Svenske researchers, it appears the country has reached that Holy Grail of Covid called “herd immunity.” That means a level where those already protected are significantly guarding those without exposure. Mind, they say, it’s not all from Covid-19 per se but possibly in great part to “pre-immunity” from other infections. Four coronaviruses are known to cause colds, but the researchers actually don’t even mention that. It’s just that previous exposure to something seems to be providing natural inoculation. And it shouldn’t be as unique to Sweden as Ingrid Bergman.
Mind, the current figures are just a snapshot. Did the country pay an awful price en route to the apparent herd immunity? Well, certainly the Swedish death rate is higher than its Nordic neighbors Norway, Denmark, and Finland. Those are the comparisons you’ll hear. But it’s well below the rates for larger-population European countries including Belgium, Italy, the U.K., Romania, Spain, France, and Portugal. The U.S., too.
Sweden’s chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, who caught absolute hell, feels vindicated.
“Locking down is saving time,” he said last year. “It’s not solving anything.” In essence the country “front-loaded” its deaths and decreased those deaths later on.
Meanwhile, the Swede haters have also insisted that in exchange for its “butcher’s bill” the country was deriving little or no economic benefit from not shutting down.
“Sweden unlikely to feel economic benefit of no-lockdown approach,” warned the Financial Times in a May 10, 2020 headline. It admitted that so far Sweden has fared better, but select “analysts” cautioned it wouldn’t last.
Wrong. Despite Sweden inevitably feeling undertow from economies that did lock down, “Covid-19 has had a rather limited impact on its economy compared with most other European countries,” according to the Nordetrade.com consulting firm. “Softer preventative restrictions against Covid-19 earlier in the year and a strong recovery in the third quarter contained the GDP contraction,” it said.
Thus the country the media loved to hate is reaping the best of all worlds: Few current cases and deaths, stronger economic growth than the lockdown countries, and its people never experienced the yoke of tyranny.
Not surprisingly, it’s not just Sweden’s pro-freedom position on Covid that sticks in the MSM’s craw. Though routinely labeled “socialist,” it ranks 10th out of 190 economies for ease of doing business, according to the World Bank’s Doing Business report for 2020.
Which for a lot of people is presumably another good reason to hate them.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Michael Fumento is a lawyer, author, and journalist who has been writing on epidemic hysterias for 35 years. His Website is www.fumento.com.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The editor-in-chief of Germany’s top newspaper Bild has apologized for the news outlet’s fear-driven coverage of COVID, specifically to children who were told “that they were going to murder their grandma.”
In a speech delivered to camera, Julian Reichelt said sorry for Bild’s coverage which was “like poison” and “made you feel like you were a mortal danger to society.”
Reichelt directed his main sentiment towards children who have been terrorized by fearmongering media coverage which has caused child depression and suicides to soar across the world.
“To the millions of children in this country for whom our society is responsible, I want to express here what neither our government nor our Chancellor dares to tell you. We ask you to forgive us,” he said.
“Forgive us for this policy which, for a year and a half, has made you victims of violence, neglect, isolation, and loneliness.”
“We persuaded our children that they were going to murder their grandma if they dared to be what they are, children. Or if they met their friends. None of this has been scientifically proven.”
Julian Reichelt, the editor-in-chief of @BILD – one of the largest newspapers in Germany, apologized to the children of Germany for the COVID-19 coverage in his newspaper that made them “victims of neglect, isolation and loneliness.”
“When a state steals the rights of a child, it must prove that by doing so it protects him against concrete and imminent danger. This proof has never been provided. It has been replaced by propaganda presenting the child as a vector of the pandemic.”
Reichelt noted how moderate voices who attempted to offer calmer perspectives on the pandemic “were never invited to the expert table” and urged viewers “don’t believe this lie,” when encountering alarmist proclamations from the government.
The journalist called on authorities to open schools and sports halls instead of polling stations, warning that those who imposed brutal lockdown measures, “will have on their conscience and will leave in the history books, a multitude of innocent souls.”
Bild has a daily circulation of 1.24 million copies and is the best-selling newspaper in Europe, adding even more weight to this story.
As we highlighted yesterday, Germans protesting against plans to impose domestic vaccine passports were brutalized by police during demonstrations that took place in Berlin.
The ugly scenes prompted the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer to put in a request for eyewitnesses ahead of a potential investigation.
Germans were protesting against plans to ban unvaccinated people from a plethora of different venues, including restaurants, cinemas and stadiums.
As we previously highlighted, Germany’s domestic spy agency is monitoring anti-lockdown protesters, claiming they are potentially involved in a plot to subvert the country.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The Public Inquiry into the murder of the resourceful journalist Daphne Caruana Galiziahanded down its findings on July 29. Firm aim was taken at the Maltese State, which had “to shoulder responsibility for the assassination because it created an atmosphere of impunity, generated from the highest levels in the heart of the administration of the Office of the Prime Minister”. Such conditions proved expansive “like an octopus” and “spread to other entities like regulatory institutions and the police, leading to the collapse of the rule of law.”
In such a climate, the State duly failed in recognising “real and immediate risks” including from criminally minded third parties facing Caruana Galizia and also “failed to take measures within the scope of its powers which, with reasonable judgment […] was expected to take to avoid that risk.”
Caruana Galizia was killed on October 17, 2017 by a car bomb. For years she produced exemplary copy, baffling her peers and causing those flutters of irritation that eventually became headaches for the authorities. Her efforts involved an incremental unmasking of rotting institutions. She unearthed the network of offshore companies ranging from the British Virgin Islands to Panama, linking them to funnelled funds from Malta’s government officials in alleged money laundering efforts. She exposed the cash-for-passports scheme in 2013 which was described by members of the European Parliament as “fomenting corruption, importation of organized crime and money laundering.” Members of the Maltese government preferred to call this a matter of being “business friendly”.
According to the Board, the murder of Caruana Galizia was “intrinsically, if not exclusively, linked to her investigative work, which included allegations of irregularities and administrative abuses in the commission of major development projects in the country.”
During the course of its work, the inquiry faced a number of institutional impediments and warnings. On December 15, 2019, Maltese Prime Minister, Robert Abela, lectured the Board that it would have to “shoulder the responsibility of its decisions and the consequences they bring” after the panel ruled to extend the inquiry’s deadline and terms of reference. Justice Minister Edward Zammit Lewis added to the threatening atmosphere in parliament. “If the public inquiry is not completed, the rule of the jungle will take over.”
But pressure from the European Union’s various branches was brought to bear. In 2019, the European Parliament adopted a resolution by 581 votes to 26 that “any risk of compromising the investigations (…) must be excluded by all means”, warning that risk would remain “as long as the Prime Minister remains in office.”
Parliamentary Resolution 2293, adopted that same year, claimed that the murder and continuing failure of the authorities to bring the alleged perpetrators to trial or identify those who gave the order for the assassination raised “serious questions about the rule of law in Malta.”
Much of the resolution reads like a grand rebuke of the Maltese political system. The expansive powers of the Prime Minister and his office was noted, covering “responsibility for various areas of activity that present particular risks of money laundering, including online gaming, investment migration (‘golden passports’) and regulation of financial services, including cryptocurrencies”.
The Prime Minister’s powers in appointing judges and magistrates, the resolution noted in disapproval, was unfettered; the attorney general, as a PM appointee, potentially compromised the separation of powers given the office’s role in prosecuting criminal offences. Senior officials in the civil service were also executive appointments made “through non-transparent procedures”.
The site of the explosion was at the top of Bidnija Road, limits of Mosta (upper right-hand corner). (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Suspects behind the murder were found in erratic fashion, but it took till February this year to secure the conviction of Vincent Muscat, the hit man behind the operation, on six charges. That same day, the Agius brothers Adrian and Robert, and associate Jamie Vella, were also arrested on suspicion of supplying the murderous weapon.
The conviction of Muscat caused further concern among the MEPs in April, given “the possible involvement of ministers and political appointees in the case.” While acknowledging the progress in the investigation and “steps taken by the Maltese authorities to protect independent journalism”, there were “persisting and new issues relating to media freedom and the EU values in the country.”
The Board proposes a range of recommendations for implementation, many touching on the protection of journalists and freedom of expression. They involve specialised protection for the fourth estate, and specially attuned training for the Police Corps “to have a thorough understanding of the role of the journalist as a guardian of democracy and the value of journalism as a valid collaborator with law enforcement to ensure the rule of law.”
Constitutional reforms are also suggested, including greater recognition for freedom of expression, and institutional changes such as the creation of an Ombudsman on journalistic ethics. Further recommendations touch on the legislative aspect: reforming the Media Defamation Act to prevent vexatious suits by politicians against the press and amendments to the Freedom of Information Act to ensure greater compliance with freedom of information requests.
The Public Inquiry’s findings are impressive not merely for revealing the appalling conditions that sowed the seeds of tolerance for such monstrous violence. They also show the probing, relentless effectiveness of a journalist who demonstrated the power of the pen in the face of institutional depravity. The price of doing so was immeasurably ghastly.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
“Designating sex on birth certificates as male or female, and making that information available on the public portion, perpetuates a view that sex designation is permanent and fails to recognize the medical spectrum of gender identity. This type of categorization system also risks stifling an individual’s self-expression and self-identification and contributes to marginalization and minoritization,” said AMA Board Chair-Elect Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, M.D.
A person’s biological sex would still be submitted to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth for medical, public health, and statistical use. Requiring public designation of sex, the AMA said, could lead to discrimination against transgenders when they register for school or sports, adopt, get married, or request personal records.
Robert Jackson, MD, who’s with the American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery, told WebMD Health News he opposed the measure.
“We as physicians need to report things accurately,” Jackson said. “All through medical school, residency, and specialty training we were supposed to delegate all of the physical findings of the patient we’re taking care of. I think when the child is born, they do have physical characteristics either male or female and I think that probably should be on the public record. That’s just my personal opinion.”
The obvious should be stated: Biological sex accounts for medical differences. The AMA has faced plenty of backlash for wanting to eliminate this important biological distinguishment. In some cases, it could mean the difference between life or death. In 2019, a biological female who identified as a male birthed a stillborn baby because ER nurses didn’t think to check if she was pregnant.
By neglecting to specify sex on the hard copy of a birth certificate, medical professionals could improperly treat someone. But instead of recognizing medical truths, the AMA is rallying behind people who flat out deny biology.
The AMA supports health care for transgender children, noting that “it is imperative that transgender minors be given the opportunity to explore their gender identity under the safe and supportive care of a physician.” For an organization that blindly supports genital mutation on minors, it’s no surprise that they want to eliminate sex on a birth certificate.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Haley Strack is an intern at The Federalist and a student at Hillsdale College studying politics and journalism. Follow her on Twitter @StrackHaley or reach her at [email protected].
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Israel’s return to the African Union (AU) as an observer state has sparked a huge backlash in the continent with as many as 14 countries said to be ready to form a block to reject the occupation state’s membership.
Online newspaper Rai Al-Youm reported that Algeria has agreed with South Africa, Tunisia, Eritrea, Senegal, Tanzania, Niger, the Comoro Islands, Gabon, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Liberia, and Seychelles to expel Israel from the AU.
It’s reported that the new block will reject the decision to include Israel in the AU to preserve the principles of the union and support the Palestinian Arab state.
Algerian Foreign Minister Ramtane Lamamra is expected to discuss the issue of Israel’s membership in the African Union in his upcoming trips to Tunisia, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt. He has previously stressed that Algeria will not stand idly by while Israel is allowed to join the block with the consent of its members.
Though Rai Al-Youm did not include Namibia on its list of countries to have agreed with Algeria to block Israel’s admission, the southwest African state’s ministry of international relations released a strongly worded denunciation of the AU’s decision to grant observer status to the occupation state.
“Granting observer status to an occupying power is contrary to the principles and objectives of the Constitutive Act of the African Union,” Penda Naanda, executive director of Namibia’s Ministry of International Relations and Cooperation, said in a statement.
Naanda said it was wrong to grant Israel observer status, particularly at this time, when the state of Israel is increasing its acts of oppression in total violation of international law and disregard for the human rights of the Palestinian people. He stressed that the AU Commission’s decision was against the usual firm and solid commitments made by several African heads of state and government who unequivocally support the Palestinian cause.
South Africa was one of the first countries to express condemnation of the AU’s decision. It said that it was “appalled” by the decision to grant observer status to the 55-country block.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
“Iran’s aggression in the region generally and on the maritime front, in particular, is intensifying,” Gantz during a plenary session of Israel’s Knesset. “This is the exact reason that we must act right now against Iran.”
He said that when Iranian President-elect Ebrahim Raisi comes into office Iran, will be “more dangerous to the world than it has been so far.” Raisi will replace Hassan Rouhani as president this week. “We will act to remove any such threat,” Gantz said.
While it was more toned down, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken also threatened action against Iran.
“We are working with our partners to consider our next steps and consulting with governments inside the region and beyond on an appropriate response, which will be forthcoming,” Blinken said on Sunday.
Neither the US nor Israel have offered any evidence to back up the accusation against Iran.
“If they have any evidence to support their baseless claims they should provide them,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadehsaid in response to the US and UK backing up Israel’s narrative. He also said Iran would “decisively respond to any possible adventurism.”
The attack on the Japanese-owned tanker Mercer Street, which is managed by a company owned by Israeli billionaire Eyal Ofer, killed two crew members; a Romanian and a British national. Both Romania and the UK have summoned Iranian ambassadors over the attack.
Attacks on commercial shipping are common in the region, and Israel has been behind several attacks on Iranian ships. In March, The Wall Street Journal reported that Israel had attacked at least a dozen ships that were either Iranian or carrying Iranian fuel since 2019.
Israel has also carried out covert attacks inside Iran over the past year, including the assassination of Iranian scientist Mohsen Fakrizadeh. Israel doesn’t officially take credit for these attacks, but it’s no secret who was behind them, and Israeli intelligence officials have all but admitted it in comments to the press.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.
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.
The fact that Switzerland hosts not only annually the WEF Davos Forum, a club of corporate and banking billionaires that has gradually taken over the reins of the world, doesn’t bode well with Swiss neutrality, Swiss modesty and the Swiss heroic image of defender of sovereign human rights and justice – the substance of the legendary oath of the Ruetli in 1291.
At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable – a nuclear holocaust which could potentially spread in terms of radioactive fallout over a large part of the Middle East.
The Biden Administration’s effort to withdraw nearly all US troops from Afghanistan and Iraq before the end of the year is commendable and it is hoped that a departure from Syria will follow soon thereafter, but one must nevertheless be concerned that the overseas moves are being made to concentrate government resources on the domestic war that has already begun.
On the fringes of a demonstration against the introduction of the green passport in Italy, a demonstrator described what we citizens can expect in the near future – if we let it happen: “We will soon see how the vaccinated will attack us. People are being played off against each other.”
Over the past decades world ocean trade has expanded almost exponentially as major manufacturing outsourcing from USA and European corporations has blossomed under the advent of economic globalization.
The European Union database of suspected drug reaction reports is EudraVigilance, and they are now reporting 20,595 fatalities, and 1,960,607 injuries, following COVID-19 injections.
A newly uncovered confidential U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report found “suggestive evidence” linking glyphosate to Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a determination that goes against the agency’s long-held public regulatory stance that glyphosate is not a carcinogen.
Numerous students attending Duke University (“Duke”) have reached out regarding Duke’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. We understand that Duke’s students were advised on April 9, 2021 that “we plan to require all new and returning Duke students to present proof of vaccination to Student Health before they can enroll for the Fall 2021 semester.”
Imagine it: a national classification system that not only categorizes you according to your health status but also allows the government to sort you in a hundred other ways: by gender, orientation, wealth, medical condition, religious beliefs, political viewpoint, legal status, etc.
This new publication is a masterpiece of research and analysis, and a great contribution to rectifying the false narrative perpetrated by western propaganda which demonizes the DPRK.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Daraa has been in the spotlight in Syria, leaving both Greater Idlib and the ISIS terrorists in Deir Ezzor in the background.
The situation is in a state of escalation, following several weeks of siege warfare by the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and a subsequent settlement agreement.
The settlement agreement was concluded on July 25th and came into effect on July 28th. This attempt at peace, however, failed in its entirety. Instead of the situation subsiding and calm returning to Daraa, clashes took place all around.
Early on July 29, the SAA launched a military operation to enter and secure Daraa al-Balad, the southern part of Daraa city.
In the very first hours of the attacks, SAA troops managed to secure the outskirts of Daraa al-Balad.
The decision to storm the area has yet to be taken. Currently, the army is shelling posts occupied by local gunmen.
The SAA operation went on for one day before reports of another negotiation for a ceasefire began.
Former rebels captured around 30 posts, camps and checkpoints of the SAA in the eastern and western countryside of Daraa.
Syrian authorities and the former rebels reportedly agreed on a temporary ceasefire on July 30. However, clashes kept happening in different parts of Daraa, mainly in the south. More than 40 service members of the SAA were captured on July 29 in response to an army operation in Daraa al-Balad. The former rebels released some of the captives on July 31st, amid reports of yet another agreement nearing.
In an attempt to throw a wrench into any potential resolution, Greater Idlib’s ruler – Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) voiced its support for the former rebels and their “cause”.
Led by HTS, the Idlib factions stepped up their artillery and rocket strikes on government-held areas in response to SAA shelling on the al-Zaway Mountian in southern Idlib and in support of Daraa’s former rebels.
It all led to Syrian authorities giving local leaders in Daraa al-Balad time until August 1 to accept a new reconciliation agreement.
Under the agreement, 132 local gunmen will be expelled to opposition-held areas in northern Syria.
Tight security measures would also be implemented in Daraa al-Balad.
Instead of an end to hostilities, the Greater Idlib factions renewed their attacks on August 1st in support of the Daraa rebels, and little was achieved.
August 2nd saw a meeting between officers of the Russian military police, the Syrian Minister of Defense and representatives of the former rebels that took place in the stadium in the center of Daraa.
On the same day, the rebels central committee in Daraa rejected the demands of the SAA to hand over their weapons and allow Syrian troops to enter the military checkpoints in Daraa al-Balad.
Clashes are continuing all around Daraa, and especially in the south of the city, it appears that no form of resolution is anywhere near.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The phenomenon of facilitation of viral infections by antibodies (ADE antibody dependent enhancement) as well as the resistance of agammaglobulinemia patients to certain viruses are in contradiction with the protective role of antibodies affirmed by classical immunology. This must be compared to the opsonizing antibodies that promote the specific phagocytosis of extra-cellular bacteria. However, questions about the role of antibodies have been raised since the beginning of the history of immunology.
More recently, Pierre Sonigo has shed light on the contradictions between the finalist interpretation of the role of lymphocytes and the theory of evolution: how can it be explained that cells are selected to protect the organism they constitute? The role of anti-viral and antiintracellular bacteria antibodies could be to allow phagocytosis by the cells: either directly by the Fc fragment of immunoglobulins, or via the complement for many cell types. This makes it easy to understand the selection of antibodysecreting cells. Natural selection favors the cells that produce the most affine Ig and thus guides the maturation of the proB cell to the plasma cell.
A review of recent publications in theoretical immunology is consistent with this hypothesis. The theory of evolution should be integrated at every level of research and teaching in immunology, as it is for biology as a whole.
Introduction
The phenomenon of antibody facilitation of viral infections has recently been re-discussed in relation to the clinical aspect of Covid-19 (Yushun et al., 2020 and Banoun, 2020) and vaccines against this infection (Roper and Rehm, 2009). Antibody dependent enhancement is the accepted mechanism to explain severe reinfections due to dengue virus—among others—(Taylor et al., 2015) as well as the higher occurrence of severe dengue in vaccinated (compared to unvaccinated, Feinberg and Ahmed, 2017).
This effect of antibodies appears to contradict immunological theory, which states that the “role” of antibodies is to protect organisms against pathogens, including viruses.
However, contradictory observations have long been noted.
Already in 1956, a review was published (Good and Zak, 1956) which referred to “the clinical paradox posed by the apparently satisfactory resistance of patients with agammaglobulinemia to certain viral infections and the failure of their response to the virus antigen…. ”. As noted by Burnet (1968), measles immunity is independent of antibodies, but depends solely on cellular immunity. The same demonstration has recently been made for immunity to VSV (vesicular stomatitis virus, Moseman et al., 2012).
These observations have been reviewed by Sanna and Burton (2000). They are criticized because all patients diagnosed wuth aγglobulinemia would have received IM immunoglobulin as early as the early 1950s, and thus the complete null phenotype has been little studied. The authors suggest that the treatment given to these patients indicates that antibodies may play a role in viral infections. Some viral infections that these patients developed before treatment virtually disappeared after the initiation of treatment. However, it cannot be denied that the aγglobulinemia patients were discovered by the bacterial infections they developed and not by the viral infections.
It appears that humoral immunity plays a role in HSV (Herpes simplex virus, neurologically disseminated enterovirus) infections for viruses with nervous tropism and for persistent viral infections.
Moreover, it is difficult to attribute the discovery of an infection in an antibody deficient patient to a particular virus: the serological diagnosis is inoperative; it was necessary to wait for the culture of the viruses and especially the PCR to affirm a viral infection.
Therefore, this last publication does not call into question the first observations on aγglobulinemia patients: patients are very sensitive to bacterial infections and for the majority of viral infections, their sensitivity is comparable to that of the general population.
Much more recently, the pandemic at Covid-19 has mobilized thousands of researchers and allowed significant advances in immunology and virology. One study compared serologies and cell type immunity in Covid-19 index patients and their contacts: only index patients became seropositive, but both groups showed robust and specific cell type reactivity to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus responsible for Covid-19) (Gallais et al., 2020).
Similarly Sekine et al. (2020) showed that most individuals with asymptomatic or moderate Covid-19 generated highly functional durable memory T-cell responses in the absence of a corresponding humoral response.
The role of antibodies in bacterial infections is well established in the defense against extracellular bacterial infections (as opposed to intracellular infections) (Berche, 1988). The frequency of infections in patients with genetic abnormalities of phagocytes is indicative of the importance of phagocytosis.
Bacteria, once phagocytized, are degraded and then exocytosed, making the antigens accessible to the cells of adaptive immunity. The antibodies then act by promoting phagocytosis, which is the natural process of fighting pathogenic bacteria: they are opsonizing antibodies, another term for facilitators. Could the neutralization and agglutination of bacteria observed in vitro not occur in vivo?
Complement (a group of serum proteins) plays an important role in phagocytosis. These proteins act on the one hand by binding to specific antibodies, but complement is also activated by the alternating pathway induced directly by surface bacterial antigens: lipopolysaccarides, capsule polyosides, lipotechoic acids, and this in the absence of antibodies.
However, as with viral infections, the first line of defense is innate immunity: during a primary infection it takes 7 to 10 days to mount a specific humoral reaction, and it is non-specific phagocytosis that operates first. A good example is pneumococcal pneumonia. Pneumococcus is a commensal upper airway bacterium that becomes pathogenic when it acquires a phagocytosis-resistant capsule. In young adults the evolution is typical: after incubation of 1 to 3 days, a sudden onset, high fever, cough, the evolution is favorable in 8-10 days with a sudden improvement. This improvement corresponds to the appearance of specific antibodies. The inflammatory (polynuclear) reaction aided by the opsonizing specific antibodies will destroy the pneumococci and lead to healing.
How can this opsonizing role of antibacterial antibodies be related to the phenomenon of the facilitation of viral infections by the antibodies?
Pierre Sonigo, one of the discoverers of the AIDS virus in the 1980s, reflected on the theory of immunology and the problems it poses in relation to the theory of evolution (Kupiec and Sonigo, 2003).
Before giving a brief summary of his theses, a historical overview of this science can account for the theoretical gaps that accompanied its birth.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
National Interest editor Jacob Heilbrunn interviews Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the United States of America H. E. Anatoly Antonov.
Jacob Heilbrunn: President Vladimir Putin has recently published a new essay on Ukraine stating that Ukrainians and Russians are the same people. He also indicated that there are red lines that neither Ukraine nor NATO would be allowed to cross. Some say Putin is laying the groundwork for tougher action on Ukraine. Have you communicated anything like that to the Biden administration?
H. E. Anatoly Antonov: The article of the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin had a huge resonance in Washington. For many here, it was a new look into relations between Russians and Ukrainians, an opportunity to learn the roots of the people. Unfortunately, there are ill-wishers who deny the good, especially when it comes to Russia. They try to pervert the picture—to present the article as if it were an ultimatum against the independent nation. We have to acknowledge that there are many representatives of the administration who share this view. They ignore the main thesis of the Russian leader that a true, real and strong sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership and good relations with Russia.
We have to fight lies and fake news virtually on a daily basis. Before the article was published, we had faced a smear campaign from politicians and experts with regard to the talks between President Putin and President Biden in Geneva. As you know, the heads of our countries constructively discussed the intra-Ukrainian conflict. They agreed that the Minsk agreements serve as the sole framework for political settlement of the conflict in Donbass. Instead of working on ways to implement the Minsk arrangements, certain State Department officials blame Russia for all the troubles in Ukraine and label my country an “aggressor.”
We have repeatedly warned the administration that such counterproductive statements have nothing to do with reality. Solutions can be found only through diplomatic means without propaganda. Right now the United States can influence the government of Ukraine by encouraging it to engage in a substantive dialogue with representatives of Donetsk and Lugansk, withdraw heavy weapons from the line of contact, and undertake concrete and tangible measures with regards to the autonomous status of Ukraine’s southeast.
Heilbrunn: The United States and Russia have agreed to start a new dialogue on cyber issues. What is the progress in this area and do you see any grounds for optimism after years of sharp disagreements?
Antonov: The agreement to launch a dialogue on cybersecurity is one of the key outcomes of the Russia-U.S. summit in Geneva. Experts from both countries have already started to communicate. Russian and U.S. Security Councils provide overall coordination.
For now, there have been several rounds of consultations, and it is definitely an important and promising sign. American colleagues, however, prefer to focus discussions mainly on ransomware activities, while cybersecurity is much broader. I hope that this dialogue will acquire a comprehensive character in the near future. As an option, we can debate on cyber threats to arms control systems, etc.
It is obvious that our countries equally suffer from cybercriminals. The cases of recent attacks against the healthcare system of the Voronezh region in Russia and the Kaseya company here in the U.S. just confirm that.
We have consistently sought to establish professional cooperation on cybersecurity issues in Washington. In particular, since 2015, we have taken six attempts to launch such interaction. Moreover, on September 25, 2020, the president of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, proposed a comprehensive program of measures to restore Russia-U.S. cooperation in the field of International Information Security (IIS). Unfortunately, there has been no official reaction from the United States so far.
By the way, requests of the Russian competent authorities regarding cyber-attacks also remain without reaction from the U.S. side. There were forty-five of them in 2020, and thirty-five in the first six months of 2021. For our part, we fully satisfied ten requests from the United States last year and two appeals in the first half of the current year. This indicates that we have a lot to work on.
We would like to reiterate that Russia is ready for honest and mutually beneficial cooperation, without politicization and hidden agendas. We take a responsible approach to cybersecurity issues. In this context, we are proud to announce that our country has become the first state to develop and submit to the UN a draft Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communication Technologies for Criminal Purposes. The official presentation of the document took place on July 27 in Vienna.
One more thing to mention. Almost every day we deal with media materials about hacker attacks, which are allegedly carried out from the Russian territory. Evidence is never provided. Such issues should be raised not by reporters, but professionals. American colleagues if they ask for it can count on rapid and high-level assistance from the Russian side. Our National Computer Incident Response and Coordination Center is ready to cooperate closely.
Heilbrunn: How do you assess the perspectives of the Russia-U.S. strategic dialogue?
Antonov: A myriad of problems has accumulated in arms control and strategic stability over the past ten years. Irrespective of the political conjuncture, complex bilateral negotiations are needed to resolve them.
The issue of overcoming the crisis in this area was one of the key topics at the kick-off Russian-U.S. meeting on July 28 in Geneva. Representatives of the two countries exchanged their perceptions of the direction it is necessary to move in to reduce strategic risks. Despite the considerable differences in approaches to many matters, both sides demonstrated their willingness to engage in a regular and constructive dialogue and seek common ground. It is definitely a positive sign. Nevertheless, we are at the very beginning of a long road. The difficult work before us is to restore trust in this sphere.
I would like to emphasize that the Russian side is open to discussing any arms control issues. There are no taboo topics for our country. We are ready to consider the concerns of the United States with regard to Russia’s newest strategic systems.
However, such conversation should not be a one-way street. It is necessary for U.S. counterparts to heed our claims too, and take into account Russia’s national security interests. Dialogue cannot be fruitful without an equitable exchange of views.
Heilbrunn: You have returned to Washington after the Geneva summit a month ago and your U.S. counterpart John Sullivan has returned to Moscow. Do you have anything positive to report, particularly on the contentious issue of the work of the embassies in the two capitals? Are there any new developments on the status of the U.S. and Russian consulates which were closed in recent years?
Antonov: Unfortunately, the situation does not change for the better. Russian diplomatic missions in the United States are still forced to work under unprecedented restrictions that not only remain in effect, but are stepped up. Regardless of the Biden administration’s declarations concerning the important role of diplomacy and willingness to develop stable and predictable relations with our country, the Russian diplomatic presence experiences continuous strikes.
U.S. colleagues get persistent and creative in this business. The expulsions of diplomats are implemented under far-fetched pretexts now and then. Last December the State Department unilaterally established a three-year limit on the assignment period for Russian personnel in the United States that, as far as we know, is not applied to any other country. Moreover, we received a list of twenty-four diplomats who are expected to leave the country before September 3, 2021. Almost all of them will leave without replacements because Washington has abruptly tightened visa issuing procedures.
It has gotten to the point where the U.S. authorities cancel valid visas of spouses and children of our staff with no reasons provided. The widespread delays in renewing expired visas are also aimed at squeezing Russian diplomatic workers out of the country. As a result, about sixty of my colleagues (130 together with family members) cannot return to their motherland even under urgent humanitarian circumstances.
We have shown restraint for a long time but after another wave of aggressive sanctions by the United States in April we were obliged to take additional steps to equate conditions of work for U.S. missions in Russia, including a prohibition to hire local personnel. It is certain that nobody benefits from such a situation. There is a need for solutions based on the principle of parity. We are convinced that the easiest and fastest way to do it is to completely repeal all the measures and countermeasures which are constraining the activity of diplomats.
Washington does not show a readiness to take such a decision while trying to secure unilateral advantages for the American side. The same is true about the prospects of resuming the work of the Consulates General of Russia in San Francisco and Seattle which were closed by coercion. Even temporary access of maintenance teams to the confiscated premises of the Russian diplomatic property is still denied, which leads to a further deterioration of conditions there.
We hope that common sense will prevail and we will be able to normalize the life of Russian and American diplomats in the United States and Russia on the principle of reciprocity. Our presidents agreed in Geneva to continue consultations between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia and the State Department with a view to resolve this problem.
Heilbrunn: One issue that has aroused concern in recent years is the matter of high-level access for Russian and American diplomats in Washington and Moscow? Do you believe you have adequate access now? Has it improved? Are there any serious disappointments?
Antonov: After returning to Washington in the aftermath of the Geneva summit, I had an opportunity to meet with some senior officials in the administration. However, these meetings were mostly isolated incidents. According to diplomatic practice, dozens of requests have been sent in order to conduct “courtesy visits” of the Russian Ambassador to the newly appointed leaders of key American authorities. The vast majority of them have been either denied or ignored.
Sometimes we fail to organize high-ranking conversations, even when we need to convey certain signals on behalf of Moscow.
The situation with contacts on Capitol Hill is still depressing. All my meeting requests addressed to the heads of parties, factions of both chambers of Congress, as well as committees on foreign affairs, have seemingly gone into the void. They just remain unanswered. At the same time, the State Department shrugs its shoulders and claims that it cannot provide any assistance because of “separation of powers.”
Heilbrunn: In 2017 there was a summit between former president Donald Trump and President Putin in Helsinki. While the meeting itself was highly controversial, there were also high expectations that relations between Washington and Moscow might improve. The meeting between Biden and Putin in Geneva proved to be less controversial. Do you see a new momentum or more business as usual?
Antonov: It is too early to make any judgments in this regard. At this point, we can positively assess the agreement between the two presidents to restore professional and systemic dialogue on key topics of mutual interest. These include the issues already mentioned—strategic stability, cybersecurity and functioning of diplomatic missions.
You are right that, as we have seen earlier, the positive impetus of our leaders has drowned in the corridors of the U.S. bureaucracy and has been doomed for fruitlessness. Let us hope that Russia-U.S. relations will no longer be a token coin in the U.S. domestic political rivalry. Their improvement serves crucial security interests of Russia, the United States and the whole world. It will take time and efforts from both sides. And we are ready for such work.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
“Humanitarian” lies serve to brainwash the population into supporting imperialist wars. Fed by far-right propaganda, and funded by the CIA, the mainstream “news” outlets describe the Soviet labour camps – also known as the “the Gulags” – as Stalin’s means to repress pro-democracy dissidents and to enslave the Soviet masses. However, the same CIA that, through Operation Mockingbird, gave the US military almost-total control over the mainstream press in order to foster anti-Soviet disinformation (Tracy 2018), has recently released declassified documents that invalidate the slanders surrounding the Gulags.
The CIA which conducted various anti-Soviet operations for almost five decades, and whose staff strived to obtain accurate intelligence about the USSR, cannot be said to have any bias in favor of the USSR. Therefore, the following declassified CIA files that surprisingly “confess” in favor of the Soviet Union are particularly valuable.
While acknowledging the harsh conditions that existed in the Gulags – as with any prison system in the world – the goal of this article is to shed light on the following facts:
(1) the harshness of the prisons has been exaggerated by the Western press, with numerous lies being made up,
(2) the statistics in regards to the Gulag population have been exaggerated,
(3) there was a genuine effort at improving the prison conditions when given the chance, and
(4) the prison standards were much higher than those of many capitalist countries.
The Conditions of the Prisons
A 1957 CIA document titled “Forced Labor Camps in the USSR: Transfer of Prisoners between Camps” reveals the following information about the Soviet Gulag in pages two to six:
1. Until 1952, the prisoners were given a guaranteed amount food, plus extra food for over-fulfillment of quotas
2. From 1952 onward, the Gulag system operated upon “economic accountability” such that the more the prisoners worked, the more they were paid.
3. For over-fulfilling the norms by 105%, one day of sentence was counted as two, thus reducing the time spent in the Gulag by one day.
4. Furthermore, because of the socialist reconstruction post-war, the Soviet government had more funds and so they increased prisoners’ food supplies.
5. Until 1954, the prisoners worked 10 hours per day, whereas the free workers worked 8 hours per day. From 1954 onward, both prisoners and free workers worked 8 hours per day.
6. A CIA study of a sample camp showed that 95% of the prisoners were the mainstream criminals.
7. In 1953, amnesty was given to 70% of the “ordinary criminals” of a sample camp studied by the CIA. Within the next 3 months, most of them were re-arrested for committing new crimes.
The following are excerpts of the CIA document, underlined and put together for the reader:
These facts negate the narrative that Gulag prisoners were unpaid. The labour was indeed forced; however, material rewards were provided. The prisoners were paid from 1952 onward, and rewarded by food prior to 1952.
According to Western mainstream media reports, the Soviet “regime” sought to deliberately starve the Gulag populations. However, as a matter of fact, there indeed were Soviet efforts to increase the food supply of prisoners, after World War II.
The fact that the working day was only two hours more than that of the free workers until 1954, and equal to that of the free worker from 1954 onward is a clear demonstration of the egalitarian tendencies of the Soviet State.
All the while, the noteworthy fact is that criminals, not “pro-democracy revolutionaries” were sent to the Gulags. Like all justice systems, there certainly were errors and some innocent people were sent to the prisons; the point though is that this fact has been exaggerated by the Western press.
Let’s compare the Soviet system to that of the United States. The 13th amendment permits prison slavery, with many prisoners victimized by racial profiling. Even the Clinton Dynasty had slaves in the Arkansas Province (News 2017).
The Numbers
According to page four of another CIA (1989) document titled “The Soviet Labour System: An Update,” the number of Gulag prisoners “grew to about 2 million” during Stalin’s time.
These figures match Soviet statistics as well, from declassified Soviet archives. The following is a 1954 declassified Soviet archival document (Pykhalov), an excerpt of which is translated into English:
“During the period from 1921 to the present time for counterrevolutionary crimes were convicted 3,777,380 people, including to capital punishment – 642,980 people to the camps and prisons for a period of 25 years old and under – 2,369,220 into exile and expulsion – 765,190 people.
“Of the total number of convicts, approximately convicted: 2,900,000 people – College of OGPU, NKVD and triples Special meeting and 877,000 people – courts by military tribunals, and Spetskollegiev Military Collegium.
“It should be noted… that established by Decree … on November 3, 1934 Special Meeting of the NKVD which lasted until September 1, 1953 – 442,531 people were convicted, including to capital punishment – 10,101 people to prison – 360,921 people to exile and expulsion (within the country) – 57,539 people and other punishments (offset time in detention, deportation abroad, compulsory treatment) – 3,970 people…
Attorney General R. Rudenko
Interior Minister S. Kruglov
Justice Minister K. Gorshenin”
The Soviet archives remained declassified for decades, only to be released near or after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In addition, after Stalin died, the Stalin-Era head of the NKVD (Soviet interior ministry) Lavrenty Beria had already been executed by Khrushchev, a staunch anti-Stalinist (History in an hour 2010). These facts make it very unlikely that Soviet intelligence would have a pro-Stalin bias.
American historian Michael Parenti (1997, pp. 79-80) further analyzes the data provided from the Soviet archives:
“In 1993, for the first time, several historians gained access to previously secret Soviet police archives and were able to establish well-documented estimates of prison and labor camp populations. They found that the total population of the entire gulag as of January 1939, near the end of the Great Purges, was 2,022,976. At about that time, there began a purge of the purgers, including many intelligence and secret police (NKVD) officials and members of the judiciary and other investigative committees, who were suddenly held responsible for the excesses of the terror despite their protestations of fidelity to the regime.
“Soviet labor camps were not death camps like those the Nazis built across Europe. There was no systematic extermination of inmates, no gas chambers or crematoria to dispose of millions of bodies…. [T]he great majority of gulag inmates survived and eventually returned to society when granted amnesty or when their terms were finished. In any given year, 20 to 40 percent of the inmates were released, according to archive records. Oblivious to these facts, the Moscow correspondent of the New York Times (7/31/96) continues to describe the gulag as ‘the largest system of death camps in modern history’.
“Almost a million gulag prisoners were released during World War II to serve in the military. The archives reveal that more than half of all gulag deaths for the 1934-53 period occurred during the war years (1941-45), mostly from malnutrition, when severe privation was the common lot of the entire Soviet population. (Some 22 million Soviet citizens perished in the war.) In 1944, for instance, the labor-camp death rate was 92 per 1000. By 1953, with the postwar recovery, camp deaths had declined to 3 per 1000.
“Should all gulag inmates be considered innocent victims of Red repression? Contrary to what we have been led to believe, those arrested for political crimes (‘counterrevolutionary offenses’) numbered from 12 to 33 percent of the prison population, varying from year to year. The vast majority of inmates were charged with nonpolitical offenses: murder, assault, theft, banditry, smuggling, swindling, and other violations punishable in any society.”
Thus, according to the CIA, approximately two million people were sent to the Gulag in the 1930s, whereas according to declassified Soviet archives, 2,369,220 up until 1954. When compared to the population of the USSR at the time, as well as the statistics of a country like the United States, the Gulag percent of the population in the USSR throughout its history was lower than that of the United States today or since the 1990s. In fact, based on Sousa’s (1998) research, there was a larger percentage of prisoners (relative to the whole population) in the US, than there ever was in the USSR:
“In a rather small news item appearing in the newspapers of August 1997, the FLT-AP news agency reported that in the US there had never previously been so many people in the prison system as the 5.5 million held in 1996. This represents an increase of 200,000 people since 1995 and means that the number of criminals in the US equals 2.8% of the adult population. These data are available to all those who are part of the North American department of justice…. The number of convicts in the US today is 3 million higher than the maximum number ever held in the Soviet Union! In the Soviet Union, there was a maximum of 2.4% of the adult population in prison for their crimes – in the US the figure is 2.8% and rising! According to a press release put out by the US department of justice on 18 January 1998, the number of convicts in the US in 1997 rose by 96,100.”
Conclusion
Seeing the USSR as a major ideological challenge, the Western ruling class demonized Stalin and the Soviet Union. Yet after decades of propaganda, declassified archives from both the US and USSR together debunk these anti-Soviet slanders. Worthy of our attention is the fact that the CIA – a fiercely anti-Soviet source – has published declassified documents debunking the very anti-Soviet myths it promoted and continues to promote in the mainstream media. Together with declassified Soviet archives, the CIA files have demonstrated that the mainstream press has lied about the Gulags.
*
Saed Teymuri is a student at the University of British Columbia, currently studying economics.
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Sources
13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Abolition of Slavery. (n.d.). Retrieved August 28, 2018, from https://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/13th-amendment
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). (1989). THE SOVIET FORCED LABOR SYSTEM: AN UPDATE (GI-M 87-20081). Retrieved February 12, 2018, fromhttps://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000500615.pdf
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). (2010, February 22). 1. FORCED LABOR CAMPS IN THE USSR 2. TRANSFER OF PRISONERS BETWEEN CAMPS 3. DECREES ON RELEASE FROM FORCED LABOR 4. ATTITUDE OF SOVIET PRISON OFFICIALS TOWARD SUSPECTS 1945 TO THE END OF 1955. Retrieved January 5, 2018, from https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80T00246A032000400001-1.pdf
Hillary and Bill used ‘slave labour’. (2017, June 08). Retrieved June 10, 2017, from https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/hillary-and-bill-clinton-used-black-prisoners-for-forced-slave-labour-in-the-arkansas-governors-mansion/news-story/9af23848a5d44770b538c931c62460fe
Игорь, П. (n.d.). Книга: За что сажали при Сталине. Невинны ли «жертвы репрессий»? Retrieved August 28, 2018, from https://www.e-reading.club/bookreader.php/1008874/Pyhalov_-_Za_chto_sazhali_pri_Staline._Nevinny_li_zhertvy_repressiy.html
Parenti, M. (1997). Blackshirts and reds: Rational fascism and the overthrow of communism. San Francisco, Calif: City Lights Books.
Sousa, M. (1998, June 15). Lies concerning the history of the Soviet Union. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from http://www.mariosousa.se/LiesconcerningthehistoryoftheSovietUnion.html
The Death of Lavrenty Beria. (2015, December 23). Retrieved August 31, 2018, from http://www.historyinanhour.com/2010/12/23/lavrenty-beria-summary
Tracy, J. F. (2018, January 30). The CIA and the Media: 50 Facts the World Needs to Know. Retrieved August 28, 2018, fromhttps://www.globalresearch.ca/the-cia-and-the-media-50-facts-the-world-needs-to-know/547195
Featured image: The fence at the old Gulag camp in Perm-36, founded in 1943 (CC BY-SA 2.0)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Am Rande einer Demonstration gegen die Einführung des Grünen Passes in Italien beschrieb eine Demonstrantin, was uns Bürger in naher Zukunft erwarten wird – wenn wir es geschehen lassen:
„Wir werden bald sehen, wie die Geimpften uns angreifen werden. Die Menschen werden gegeneinander ausgespielt. Letztes Jahr waren es diejenigen, die einen Arbeitsplatz hatten, und diejenigen, die ihn verloren hatten. In diesem Jahr wird die Gesellschaft zwischen denen, die geimpft sind, und denen, die nicht geimpft sind, gespalten.“ (1)
Friedliche Bürger werden auf diese Weise gegeneinander in Stellung gebracht und sollen so die Eugenik-Agenda der herrschenden „Elite“ voranbringen. Dabei werden diejenigen, die diesen teuflischen Plan zu verantworten haben, ihre Hände in Unschuld waschen und für den zu erwartenden Hexensabbat – wie in jedem Krieg – den angeblich angeborenen Aggressionstrieb des Menschen verantwortlich machen. Doch dieser ist ein Mythos, der für Tyrannen aller Couleur schon immer als willkommene Legitimation für einen Bruder- oder Völkermord dient. In Wahrheit ist der Mensch ist von Natur aus gut und nicht böse.
„Der Mythos vom Aggressionstrieb“
Die Lehre vom ererbten Aggressionstrieb oder -instinkt gehört zu den umstrittensten Formeln, mit deren Hilfe Psychoanalytiker und Tierverhaltensforscher Probleme der politischen und sozialen Situation, ja der Geschichte des menschlichen Zusammenlebens schlechthin zu erklären suchen. Doch die Selbstverständlichkeit, mit der im Anschluss an Konrad Lorenz (1903-1983) von einem angeborenen Aggressionstrieb gesprochen wird, ist keinesfalls berechtigt. Das zeigen Vertreter verschiedener Wissenschaften im Sammelband „Der Mythos vom Aggressionstrieb“ auf (2). Lorenz war ein österreichischer Vertreter der „Tierpsychologie“. Nach den Erkenntnissen der Humanwissenschaften Anthropologie, Soziologie und Psychologie ist der Mensch von Natur aus gut und nicht böse.
Der Mensch hat eine Tötungshemmung, eine ursprüngliche Aversion zu töten. Damit er den Mitmenschen aber trotzdem angreift, muss diese Hemmung durch entsprechende Erklärungen ausgeschaltet werden. Der deutsche Philosoph Arno Plack nennt sie in dem oben erwähnten Sammelband aus den 70er-Jahren:
„Dass ein vitales Gewissen sich sträubt, Mordbefehle auszuführen, damit hatten und haben allemal militante Führer zu rechnen. Und sie trugen dem Rechnung durch eine über die Jahrhunderte hinweg gleichgebliebene Erklärung, dass es sich bei dem jeweils befehdeten Volk oder der verfolgten Gruppe eigentlich gar nicht um richtige Menschen handle, sondern um ‚höhere Tiere‘ (so Papst Paul III. über die Indianer) oder um ‚Bestien‘, ‚Heiden‘, ‚Hexen‘, ‚Untermenschen‘, ‚Ungeziefer‘ gar, das man vertilgen müsse. So greift Manipulation des Bewußtseins von seiten mordlüsterner Machthaber ein, um die Menschen, die noch anders empfinden, auf Vordermann zu bringen.“ (3)
Diese Auffassung Placks wird durch neuere Fachliteratur bestätigt. Für den renommierten amerikanischen Sozialpsychologen und Gewaltforscher Philip Zimbardo ist es die Macht der Umstände, die den Menschen zum Gewalttäter und Mörder machen. In seinem Buch „Der Luzifer-Effekt“ schreibt er:
„Nicht die Veranlagung bringt gute Menschen dazu, Böses zu tun, sondern die Situation, in der sie sich befinden oder in die man sie versetzt.“ (4)
Voraussetzung für die Taten sei, dass die Opfer zu einer Bedrohung erklärt und gleichzeitig entmenschlicht würden. In Ruanda verkündete die Hutu-Regierung, Tutsis seien nichts weiter als „Katerlaken“ und hätten deshalb den Tod verdient. Deutsche Nazis stellten Juden als gefährliches „Ungeziefer“ dar.
Heute wird die große Gruppe der nicht geimpfte Mitbürger von den Adlaten der herrschenden „Elite“ zur lebensbedrohlichen Gefahr für die Gesundheit der Bevölkerungsgruppe der bereits Geimpften erklärt, die dringend bekämpft oder gar aus der menschlichen Gemeinschaft ausgeschlossen werden solle. Selbstständig Denkende werden seit langem als verwirrte „Querdenker“, als unverbesserliche „Verschwörungstheoretiker“ und damit als Bedrohung für die Regierenden diskriminiert – und zum Abschuss durch die Massenmedien freigegeben. Wohin wird das führen, wenn sich immer mehr autoritätshörige, regierungstreue Mitbürger dieser menschenfeindlichen und gefährlichen Sichtweise anschließen – und die Opfer dieser staatlichen Diskriminierungskampagne sich das nicht gefallen lassen werden? Die weltweiten Demonstrationen und der offensichtliche Einsatz unverhältnismäßiger Gewalt von beauftragten Polizeikräften lässt nichts Gutes erahnen.
Holocaust-Überlebende Vera Sharav: „Die Geschichte wiederholt sich“
Die Vorgeschichten vergangener Bürger-, Regional- und Weltkriege bieten genug Anschauungsmaterial, um hellhörig und doch noch einsichtig zu werden. Hierzu zählt auch die seit Jahren andauernde Verunglimpfung des russischen Präsidenten und russischer Bürger als eine Methode der Psychologischen Kriegsführung.
In einem Artikel des österreichischen „Wochenblick“ vom 3. Juli wird die Holocaust-Überlebende, Frau Vera Sharav, mit den Worten zitiert: „Die Geschichte wiederholt sich“ (5). Es ist wert, längere Passagen aus diesem Artikel wörtlich zu zitieren:
„Vera Sharav überlebte als Kind den Holocaust. Sie schildert: ‚Als ich nach New York kam, fragte ich mich: Wo waren alle? Wo waren alle, als ich in der Hölle war?‘ Gerechtigkeit und das Nicht-Wegschauen wenn Unrecht geschieht, ist Sharav deswegen ein großes Anliegen. Sucharit Bhakdi wurde unlängst vorgeworfen, er sei Antisemit, weil er Israel als die ‚Hölle auf Erden’ bezeichnete. Doch die Holocaust-Überlebende Vera Sharav stimmt ihm zu: ‚Ich wünschte, es wäre nicht so.‘ Die Geschichte wiederhole sich. Sie fordern Nürnberger Prozesse für die Verursacher des Covid-‚Menschheitsverbrechens‘.
Sharav erklärt: Die Nazi-Verbrechen geschahen ohne Widerspruch zum Internationalen Recht. Doch es entstanden die Nürnberger Prozesse, die für Gerechtigkeit sorgten und das Konzept der Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit einführten. Damit so etwas wie in Nazi-Deutschland nicht mehr passieren kann. Der Nürnberger-Kodex wurde im Zuge der Ärzteprozesse (1946) nach dem 2. Weltkrieg eingeführt und sollte den ethischen Umgang der Medien mit Menschen sicherstellen. Doch trotzdem wiederhole sich die Geschichte nun. (…)
Es sei schrecklich für Sharav, nun den Niedergang der Demokratie mitzuerleben. Die verfassungsmäßig sichergestellten Freiheitsrechte wurden außer Kraft gesetzt, wie in Nazideutschland, analysiert die Holocaust-Überlebende. Das sei ein großer Vertrauensbetrug, den die Regierungen gegenüber ihrer Bevölkerung begingen. Sharav kritisiert die israelische Regierung stark. Sie ist schockiert darüber, wie Nichtgeimpfte dämonisiert werden. ‚Unter den Nazis wurden die Juden als Verbreiter von Krankheit stigmatisiert und in Lager gesperrt.‘ Jetzt würde wieder eine Zweiklassengesellschaft geschaffen. Die Gesellschaft werde in Privilegierte und Unterprivilegierte gespalten.“ (6)
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Rudolf Hänsel ist Diplom-Psychologe und Erziehungswissenschaftler.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The legend has it that Switzerland was celebrating on 1 August 2021 her 730th Anniversary. That’s the legend about the creation of an independent, neutral and sovereign nation. It’s a legend that has taken hold in every Swiss citizen’s heart and mind. It’s a legend that has made Switzerland around the world what it still is in reputation and – sometimes – even in appearance: a neutral, ethical country in the heart of Europe.
When we look closer, this legend was largely born from the pen of a German author who had never set foot in Switzerland. When Friedrich Schiller wrote the play “Willhelm Tell” in 1804, the basis for the heroic, unique and neutral Switzerland, he had never visited Switzerland. However, the legend has become reality, even though it was born 513 years after the alleged event took place.
This little detail is unimportant. What counts is the background to the story, namely that the territory that gradually became Switzerland, was originally inhabited by the Helvetians, or Helvetic Celts. As was much of Europe, they were largely dominated by the Habsburg Dynasty until the early 19th Century.
However, the Helvetians rebelled on or around the late 13th Century, when according to the Friedrich Schiller legend, called “Wilhelm Tell” – name of one of the legend’s principal liberating hero’s – the Governors of the three original cantons, Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden, got together on a mountain called Rütli, facing the Lake of Lucerne.
With an oath, a promise to God, the three governors united their lands in an act to defend themselves sovereignly against any aggressor, meant were in particular the rulers of the Habsburg Empire. According to the legend this happened on 1 August 1291 – 730 years ago. Thus, was the Confederatio Helvetica (Swiss Confederation) born.
This is what the Oath said, roughly translated:
“We want to be a single People of brethren,
Never to part in danger nor distress.
We want to be free, as our fathers were,
And rather die than live in slavery.
We want to trust in the one highest God
And never be afraid of human power.”
From that date forward the alliance of cantons against the Habsburg dynasty grew, though only in 1848, when a new Constitution was adopted, was the present federal republic formed. Today the Swiss Confederation, or the modern Switzerland, consists of 26 fairly autonomous cantons.
Having been oppressed for centuries as Helvetians, the new Switzerland pledged to become a neutral Confederation. This noble principle of neutrality was also enshrined in the Swiss Constitution. Thus, the Friedrich Schiller legend on which much of the origins of the 730 years of Swiss history is based, as well as the believe and pride for the heroic liberation from oppression, is still part of the Swiss characteristic.
By and large, the Friedrich Schiller “Wilhelm Tell” legend – and the noble believe of rebellion for freedom and of a sovereign but federal nation, benefitted many countries with ideas of their own constitutional and geopolitical structure.
Only few, though, have achieved a true federalism, where regions, provinces or districts remained largely autonomous in budget as well as decision- and law-making. Much of the staunch Swiss federalism may be outdated in modern times, as it seems ludicrous that a small nation of only 8.4 million people has 26 different education schemes, and 27 different tax systems, the 27th being the National Federal Tax. Education is in the process of being harmonized; taxes not yet. This is small fry, as compared to geopolitics, practiced then and what it has become today.
Although, de facto Switzerland has always taken the side of the West, her constitutional neutrality has and still benefits Switzerland greatly. A truly neutral country would have been free from taking positions for or against Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela – and the list could go on.
A truly neutral country would have been free from taking positions for or against the colonial powers of the past centuries. However, while never a colonial power, Switzerland has often participated, even with soldiers, in colonial wars in favor of European colonialists – and has royally benefitted from colonialism.
“Throughout their modern history the Swiss usually took the side of the colonizers rather than the colonized. It is true that Switzerland as a nation-state did not engage in imperialism, and conquered no colonial territories. Attempts to found great economic empires like the East India Company failed.
But it was part and parcel of colonialism to believe that the peoples in colonized lands were inferior to white Europeans. And in 19th-century Switzerland this was definitely part of the prevailing framework of assumptions about the world.
Generations of Swiss grew up with tales of “half-witted negroes”, travelers’ accounts of naïve, child-like savages, and advertising where the colonized were at best a decorative backdrop for colonial products. This thinking affects the country even today.”
SwissInfo continues revealing Swiss soldiers fighting in the colonies,
“The problem of Switzerland’s historical involvement in colonialism goes beyond controversies about derogatory names or statues. At times the Swiss were actually fighting as soldiers in the colonies.
In 1800, when black slaves in present-day Haiti on the island of Hispaniola, rose in revolt against their French colonial masters, Napoleon sent 600 Swiss troops to fight them. France was able to draw on these mercenaries thanks to an agreement with the Helvetic Republic. This was by no means an exception; even after the modern federal republic was founded in 1848, Swiss defied the law to fight for colonial powers as mercenaries. They could look forward to considerable earnings as long as they didn’t die of tropical diseases.”
And on slavery,
“However, the big money from the colonies did not go to the mercenaries, who mostly came from impoverished families and saw it as a great adventure to enlist in Dutch or French service. Instead, trade was the moneymaker, be it in goods or human beings from the colonies.
One of the worst kinds of Swiss involvement with colonialism was that of the slave trade. Swiss individuals and companies made money out of slavery as investors and traders, organizing slave-hunting expeditions, buying and selling people as slaves, and, as slave owners, running great plantations which, they often proudly called “colonies”.
As a result, quite a few famous Swiss names have started to look bad in recent years. The family of Alfred Escher, a major figure in the development of modern Switzerland, came under a cloud when it became known that it had a plantation run with slave labor. In Sacramento, California, demonstrators pulled down a statue of General John Sutter. The Swiss native son, who hailed from the Basel area, at one time ranked as a hero of the Wild West until historians revealed that he had dealt in child slavery.”
Enough. That’s the past. But, fast forward, is the present so much different?
Take the covid plandemic the entire world, all 193 UN member countries, have been subjugated to this higher order of – let’s call it – a satanic cult. Its aims are multiple. The key and all overarching goal consists of a massive population reduction, a mass-genocide – eugenics at its worst. Another objective is digitization of everything including the human brain, transforming humans into “transhumans”.
Klaus Schwab, founder and CEO for life of the World Economic Forum – WEF, in a 2016 interview with Swiss-French Radio/TV – SRG, divulges the plan to make from surviving humans “transhumans” – see this 2-min. video interview.
Transhumans will react and obey to 5G / 6G -powered electromagnetic-directed Artificial Intelligence (AI); and finally, the last but not least of the three key objectives is transferring the assets of which the lower- and middle-class owners and industries were destroyed by the covid plandemic – to an “upper-class”, insanely rich small elite. This is already happening – and, of course, hardly reported in the mainstream media. While poverty has increased exponentially in the Global South, the dozen richest individuals have added hundreds of billions to their fortunes.
The fact that Switzerland hosts not only annually the WEF Davos Forum, a club of corporate and banking billionaires that has gradually taken over the reins of the world, doesn’t bode well with Swiss neutrality, Swiss modesty and the Swiss heroic image of defender of sovereign human rights and justice – the substance of the legendary oath of the Ruetli in 1291. The WEF itself is registered as an NGO in a small, lush suburb of Geneva.
Today this NGO is more powerful than the United Nations. It dictates the rules of the game to the UN. Of course, in many subtle ways, for example, by carefully choosing the people who run the UN and its sub-organization like WHO and others – and by letting money flow and talk, where need be. Money is never an issue for the rulers of the universe. And if money fails, there are other, less subtle ways.
Switzerland remains proud host of the WEF, despite worldwide protests against the WEF and the WEF’s machinations and plans for a One World Order (OWO). The WEF’s ideology is closer to the Swiss heart – if there is such a thing as a Swiss heart – than pledged Swiss neutrality, as anchored in the Constitution.
Aside from the WEF – which is a clear sign in which direction neutral Switzerland is leaning – Switzerland is also host to the corporate pharma-directed World Health Organization (WHO), as well as GAVI – the Bill Gates created Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, or short, the Vaccine Alliance. GAVI is physically housed just next door to WHO.
As we know, WHO is calling the controversial and most often contradictory shots on the measures to be imposed by governments with regard to the covid plandemic – and we also know who calls the shots on WHO.
We also know that the WHO recommended mRNA-experimental genetic therapy injections, not vaccines, are causing more deaths than covid does. Here is an insider assessment of WHO and it’s harmful measures imposed on the world. Dr. Astrid Stueckelberger speaks from the United Nations Plaza in Geneva.
Neutral Switzerland is aligned with pharma-corrupted WHO and GAVI, following the UN-agency’s deadly guidance and dictate. – Why?
On yet another score that goes in the direction of global control and population reduction through long-term misery and famine – weaponized man-made weather – what we are experiencing for the last few months almost everywhere on Mother Earth’s “hot spots”, Switzerland appears to be a lead initiator of applied HAARP technologies, as this 5 min video and pertaining text of 4 March 2019 show. See this.
HAARP stands for High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program. It was initiated as an ionospheric research program jointly funded by the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Navy, the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a semi-secret Pentagon thinktank.
The pretext and official reason, as usual, for weather manipulation is to stem against climate change and fight for greenhouse gas reduction. When the agenda is a different one, as we live through this northern summer, with never-seen-before floods and droughts, with Siberian heat in the plus 40-degrees C, torrential floods in Saudi Arabia, and around the Three Gorges Dam in China; and with the western US and Canada, all the way up to Alaska extremely hot and burning.
Why would neutral Switzerland be a key instigator of geoengineered weather that destroys vital infrastructure, harvests – and lives?
As if this was not enough, Switzerland subsidizes her mainstream media by – listen to this! – the equivalent of about US$ 1.9 billion per year. That is about US$ 226 million per capita of the 8.4 million Swiss population.
This must be worldwide the highest media subsidy. It assures that the lies and fears the government wants to instill in the population stick, that the media do not transgress and deviate from their role.
Unfortunately, there is little left of legendary heroic, neutral, sovereign human rights defending Confederatio Helvetica of 730 years ago, of the Gruetli Oath – a noble Oath to God to respect life and to fight for equality and liberty.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)
Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Ironically, the incidence of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant which is “detected” by the totally invalid RT-PCR test (routinely tabulated by the health authorities) is significantly higher for vaccinated individuals. Why?
This should be obvious. It is a simple issue of categorization.
A vaccinated individual who goes home and then a week or two later feels sick will seek medical attention at a health clinic or at the hospital where he/she was vaccinated. This individual will invariably be subjected to a medical diagnosis as well as to a routine RT-PCR test.
It’s statistics 101. It pertains to “probabilities”.
The probability of a vaccinated individual suffering from adverse effects (seeking medical attention) being subject to the PCR-test (in a clinic or a hospital) is much higher than that pertaining to a healthy unvaccinated individual.
Moreover, there is rising trend in vaccine deaths and injuries which the health authorities are anxious to obfuscate.
There is a lot of nonsense published on this matter.
Ask yourself. What is the cause of this trend among the vaccinated? The SARS-2 Delta Variant or the Killer Vaccine?
The vaccinated person subjected to the flawed RT-PCR test is categorized as “positive” or is diagnosed as a “probable” Covid-19 positive. And the numbers of covid positive cases assigned to the “vaccinated” go fly high.
In turn, in the US, the “certifiers” are instructed to indicate Covid-19 as “the underlying cause of death” “more often than not”. And no autopsy is allowed.
The deaths and injuries resulting from the mRNA vaccine are now being assigned to the “deadly” SARS-2 Delta Variant.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Two weeks after being brutally assassinated, Haitian President Jovenel Moïse was buried on July 23 in Cap-Haïtien. Seriously injured during the attack, his wife Martine had her arm in a sling and questioned at the funeral: “What crime have you committed to deserve such punishment?” Among the U.S. diplomats at the funeral was Daniel Foote, new American envoy for Haiti, and Linda Thomas-Greenfield, U.S. ambassador to the UN. Returning to the U.S., the latter said: “The people of Haiti deserve peace, security, and a better future.”
Several countries are cited in the case investigating the July 7 assassination of the Haitian President, including the U.S., Colombia and even the partially recognized Taiwan. In fact, some have hypothesised that the murder of Moïse could have been in response to Haiti’s desire for rapprochement with China, which of course would have greatly displeased American authorities since Haiti is in the heart of the Caribbean.
Haiti’s shift in foreign policy would have also irritated Washington because it is Taiwan’s main ally and arms supplier. One of the few countries to still maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan, which China considers its territory and a rebel province, Haiti was the only state in the Western Hemisphere without a vaccination program until the month of Moïse’s assassination. With COVID-19 ripping through Haiti, Moïse saw neighboring Dominican Republic, which had recently recognized China and severed its diplomatic relations with Taiwan, receive assistance from Beijing. The Dominican Republic has also attracted significant Chinese investments.
During a hearing before the House of Representatives committee on June 17, Linda Thomas-Greenfield confirmed Washington’s frustration at China’s growing influence in the Caribbean. The ambassador to the United Nations criticized Beijing’s vaccine diplomacy as it put “tremendous pressure” on Haiti to no longer recognize Taiwan.
Pressing demands by Beijing, which maintains a “One China” policy, convinced some Latin American countries to sever their relations with Taiwan, such as Panama in 2017, and El Salvador and the Dominican Republic in 2018. In the past twenty years alone, China has become the first, second, or third commercial and technological partner of almost all of Latin America despite the region supposedly being the “U.S.’ backyard.” Chinese influence, which is continually challenging U.S. dominance in Latin America, was beginning to penetrate Haiti, a country with a GDP of only $697 per person in 2021 and the 15th poorest country in the world.
It is recalled that some of the suspects were hiding in the Taiwanese Embassy in the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince. In a press release, the Taiwanese Embassy confirmed that they held suspects but indicated it authorized Haitian police to arrest them.
More than twenty people who actively participated in the operation (including 18 Colombians and three Haitians, two of them also having American nationality) have already been arrested by the local police. Colombian mercenaries claim to have been recruited to capture Moïse. Their mission was to hand him over to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).
The Pentagon confirmed that some of the mercenaries had benefited from training sessions offered by the U.S. military during their time serving in the Colombian Army. Former Colombian soldiers are often recruited by mercenary companies for their experience in fighting guerrillas and drug traffickers, and are deployed in Yemen and Afghanistan, and also monitor pipelines in the Middle East.
However, local complicity must also be explored, especially since there was a very obvious absence of resistance from the presidential guard against the assassination. However, it is worth noting that Moïse was not simply assassinated, but was tortured: His legs were broken, his eyes wrested, and he experienced other forms of horrific abuse.
Revelations from the investigation, whose neutrality raises questions, have not answered some of the most pressing questions, such as to what extent was Taiwan’s role in the assassination, and was the assassination in response to Haiti’s growing ties with China?
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
For more than four years, Western media outlets have exhaustively claimed that President Vladimir Putin of Russia waged a sweeping influence campaign to install Donald Trump in the White House and undermine U.S. democracy.
According to The Guardian, the long elusive smoking-gun evidence has been found. On July 15, the British newspaper published an article by one of the leading media promoters of the Trump-Russia narrative, Luke Harding, and two colleagues. Harding and company report that they have obtained secret “Kremlin papers” – bearing Putin’s signature – that authorized the malicious Russian plot. The documents call for using “all possible force” to support Russia’s preferred candidate, and thus trigger “the destabilization of the U.S.’s sociopolitical system.”
Yet remarkably, this supposed earth-shattering scoop has been greeted with resounding silence from The Guardian’s U.S. media counterparts. Two weeks later, the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS have ignored it. The lone exception was Washington Post columnist Philip Bump who, rather than parrot Harding’s story, laid out multiple reasons why it is “hard not to be skeptical” of it.
For Harding, the media shutout stands in sharp contrast to the warm embrace of his 2017 book “Collusion,” which rode the once-towering Trump-Russia conspiracy wave to become a No. 1 New York Times bestseller. Times columnist Michelle Goldberg called it “essential” and wished that “everyone who is skeptical that Russia has leverage over Trump would read it.”
The release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report in April 2019 undermined Harding’s collusion narrative, and discredited his primary source, ex-British spy Christopher Steele. It also included nothing to support Harding’s evidence-free November 2018 report in the Guardian, which claimed that one-time Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and Julian Assange held three secret meetings in Ecuador’s London embassy – one of the most surveilled locations on the planet.
The cold reception to Harding’s latest “bombshell” suggests that he may have worn out his welcome with fellow collusion chasers across the pond. But if this story is a bridge too far, what does that say about the others that preceded it?
Content-wise, Harding’s article is not much different than the sloppy coverage that, for example, won a 2018 Pulitzer Prize for the New York Times and Washington Post. Just like Harding, these prominent outlets also used anonymous sources, evidence-free claims and hedged language to advance the narrative that Trump’s presidency was all one dastardly Russian operation.
What appears to have changed is not a newfound embrace of journalism standards, but instead a shifting of narrative priorities. With Joe Biden now in office, the Russiagate fixation no longer suits a political and media establishment that relied on it as a means to undermine his predecessor.
In response to emailed queries from RealClearInvestigations, a Guardian spokesperson said, “We stand by our story and our reporting.”
‘Apparently’ a Bombshell
According to Harding and his co-authors, Julian Borger and Dan Sabbagh, leaked Kremlin papers show that Putin convened a meeting in January 2016 where he “personally authorised a secret spy agency operation to support” Trump in that year’s U.S. presidential election. Trump’s Russian backers viewed him as “mentally unstable” and accordingly saw his candidacy as a vehicle for creating “social turmoil” in their U.S. adversary. The papers even provide “apparent confirmation that the Kremlin possesses kompromat, or potentially compromising material, on the future president.”
Although it published the story, the Guardian hedged its bets regarding the authenticity of the article’s explosive claims with an abundance of qualified language long characteristic of Russiagate coverage, starting with the headline: “Kremlin papers appear to show Putin’s plot to put Trump in White House” (emphasis added).
Along with the qualifiers, Harding and company deploy the passive voice to try to disingenuously lend their “Kremlin papers” the appearance of credibility. They “are assessed to be leaked Kremlin documents,” Harding and company write – although details such as which person or persons actually “assessed” the material, how they did it, and why we should trust them, are left unstated. The documents contain “a decree appearing to bear Putin’s signature” – in the same way that forged autographs can often appear to bear Michael Jordan’s signature too (although, in fairness, at least fake memorabilia can be seen; The Guardian conspicuously fails to show us this “apparent” Putin “signature”). The papers “seem to represent a serious and highly unusual leak from within the Kremlin” — just as The Guardian seems to represent Luke Harding as a serious journalist.
Suggesting an explosive conclusion while tacitly acknowledging the absence of verified evidence to support it was also a hallmark of the Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee reports on Russiagate, which used long-winded innuendo and words like “appear,” “likely” and “suggest” to insinuate damning conclusions without having to substantiate them.
Fittingly, even Harding’s own attempt to promote the documents’ authenticity has to be qualified: “The Guardian has shown the documents to independent experts who say they appear to be genuine.” Other observers have cast doubt on multiple strands of the story.
Harding can’t even muster a stamp of approval from his usual sources in the U.K. spy services and their cutouts: “Western intelligence agencies are understood to have been aware of the documents for some months and to have carefully examined them.” How exactly it’s “understood” that Western spies are “aware of the documents” and “carefully examined them,” Harding does not say. Nor, conspicuously, does he say what they concluded from their purportedly “careful” “examinations.”
A Convenient ‘Route Map’ for Russiagate Propaganda
Harding’s story follows the Russiagate playbook in another important sense: comporting with the propaganda aims of the anonymous intelligence officials and political operatives behind it.
With the “collusion” conspiracy theory now shattered, Harding’s story amounts to a renewed effort to preserve the credibility of the leftovers. If the qualified language for every outlandish assertion isn’t enough of a tell, Harding and his co-authors even make their propaganda aim explicit: “The papers appear to set out a route map for what actually happened in 2016,” they write.
How convenient. After years of writing a largely evidence-free, explosive narrative – in his case, a Russian campaign to destroy Western democracy via their Oval Office asset, conspirator, or dupe – Harding says he has come into possession of a set of “documents” that just happen to confirm the dastardly plot in writing, right down to the signature of the alleged Kremlin mastermind.
In yet another convenient development, Harding reports that the papers “appear” to confirm the long-speculated, Steele-originating claim “that the Kremlin possesses kompromat” on Trump. The damning “details,” his article reports with impressive specificity, are apparently included in “appendix five, at paragraph five.” There’s just one snag: The Guardian can’t show it to us. “It is unclear what the appendix contains,” Harding writes.
According to Harding’s “experts,” the “overall tone and thrust” of the documents “is said to be consistent with Kremlin security thinking.” Their thinking echoes the former national security officials who declared right before the November 2020 election that Hunter Biden’s laptop “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” Just as with that attempt to censor the Biden story, the overall tone and thrust of Harding’s article and the “leaks” it’s supposedly based on is entirely consistent with those who have used fearmongering around Russia and a credulous Western media to advance a political agenda.
In reality, the notion that Russia waged a sweeping interference campaign to install Trump is unsupported by all of the available evidence. The social media memes that supposedly brainwashed millions of Americans into rejecting Hillary Clinton were juvenile in nature, minor in reach, and mostly devoid of any mention of the election. The allegation that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee and then gave the stolen emails to WikiLeaks remains full of glaring holes.
Meanwhile, as Democratic leaders and media allies denounced him as a Kremlin puppet, Trump in fact presided over a far more hawkish posture toward Russia than his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, whom Biden served as vice president. “The dirty little secret about the Trump administration,” CNN host Fareed Zakaria admitted in the last weeks of Trump’s presidency, “was that while Donald Trump clearly had a kind of soft spot for Putin, the Trump administration was pretty tough on the Russians. They armed Ukraine. They armed the Poles. They extended NATO operations and exercises in ways that even the Obama administration had not done. They maintained the sanctions.” If Putin’s plan was to install a puppet in the White House, it clearly backfired.
The Other Hardings
Given the predominance of the Russiagate narrative for four years, it might seem surprising that Harding’s story did not trigger the same kind of frenzied “bombshell”-based news cycle of years past. If taken at face value – as were countless Russiagate-serving stories before it – then Harding’s “scoop” that Putin ordered a pro-Trump influence campaign in January 2016 would instantaneously justify so much of the breathless innuendo that has flooded U.S. media since.
As Bump of the Washington Post noted, a major reason to doubt the story is the fact that it is authored by Harding, whose last Guardian “bombshell” is just as dubious. In November 2018, he wrote an article claiming that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort held three secret meetings with WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange at London’s Ecuadorian embassy. Both WikiLeaks and Manafort vehemently denied the story, and no evidence has emerged to substantiate it. The story was so patently ridiculous that one anonymous CIA officer resorted to a pseudonym to speculate in Politicothat the Russian government “planted” the Manafort-Assange claim in an effort to discredit Harding’s reporting.
The fact that U.S. media outlets have widely shunned Harding’s story does not mean that they are prepared for a long overdue Russiagate reckoning. Quite the contrary. Months before giving Harding the cold shoulder, a similarly evidence-free bombshell assertion was given a warm embrace. In April, the Treasury Department declared that former Paul Manafort aide Konstanin Kilimnik is a Russian spy who shared Trump polling data with Russian intelligence. Despite the absence of any evidence – and ample countervailing facts — political and media voices immediately portrayed the Treasury press release as a significant vindication.
“That one sentence,” Bump wrote of the Treasury statement, “appears to finally complete the long-speculated line from Trump’s campaign to Russian intelligence.”
In the New York Times, reporters Mark Mazzetti and Michael S. Schmidt described the Treasury’s evidence-free claims as “the strongest evidence to date that Russian spies had penetrated the inner workings of the Trump campaign.” Mazzetti and Schmidt were so confident in the “Treasury document” that they even declared that it, coupled with the Senate Intelligence report of last year, now “confirm[s]” the Times’s own highly contested report from February 2017 that “there had been numerous interactions between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the year before the election.” FBI Director James Comey publicly denied the story, calling it “not true,” and the Mueller report provided no evidence to support it. (In attempting to portray the Treasury press release as vindication, Mazzetti and Schmidt also mischaracterized their original claim, which was that Trump campaign aides “had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials” (emphasis added).
Re-inserting the Russiagate ‘Media Virus’
The rush to promote unsupported allegations and ignore countervailing facts shows that U.S. officials and their media allies have obsessively accused Russia of what they have in fact carried out themselves: a massive, divisive disinformation campaign aimed squarely at the Western public. Accordingly, every piece of content that advances the Russiagate narrative is an iteration of the “propaganda” and “disinformation” that it purports to document or challenge. Harding’s article is certainly no exception. He writes:
There are paragraphs on how Russia might insert “media viruses” into American public life, which could become self-sustaining and self-replicating. These would alter mass consciousness, especially in certain groups, it says.
There is no “media virus” inserted into American public life that has done more to alter the consciousness of certain groups than Russiagate, which has enlisted millions of malleable liberals into a fantasy that the Kremlin is brainwashing their country with social media ads and that Donald Trump was a Manchurian president.
Accordingly, if Harding’s story is evidence of anything, it is of the absurdity of a Russiagate narrative that was once treated as gospel when establishment media deemed it politically and financially expedient. The fact that it has now been shunned by the same outlets that would have previously treated it as a “bombshell” suggests that it may have finally outlived its utility.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
By now, George W Bush should have completed volumes one and two of his prison letters.
But, as we know, the world is not a just place. So, like all the other American presidents who have avoided the dock despite the crimes they have committed at home and abroad, the former US president remains a free, and, indeed, carefree, man.
I suspect that Bush is happy, too, biding his time during his “golden years” painting what can charitably be described as globby, deformed “portraits” and tending to the tangled bush on his Texas estate.
It is inconceivable to me, though, that a once immensely powerful man who is almost singularly responsible for two calamitous wars-of-choice which have caused such immeasurable harm and suffering to so many innocents, in so many places, could ever experience a genuine moment of stillness, let alone happiness.
I wonder, as well, if Bush ever pauses from his painting and gardening to consider the appalling measure of his guilt or shudders at the unfolding and halting scope of the profound, disfiguring consequences of his many and manifest crimes against decency and humanity.
That may well be a largely rhetorical question since one of the principal qualifications of becoming president is the necessity to kill, maim, and traumatise other human beings in the murderous pursuit of the ever malleable US “national interest”.
So, Bush likely finds considerable solace in the slimy evasion that being president is often a thankless, dirty job that requires, on occasion, the occupant to order “hits” – big and small – against America’s “enemies” just like a mafia don, but with a much larger, more well-equipped army, of course.
I have pondered these questions lately about this banal, unrepentant killer and torture-approving thug with a presidential library because, rather than finally doing the world a smidgen of service by permanently shutting up in lieu of being charged, Bush continues to believe, incredibly, that his musings on war and diplomacy have serious merit and should be heeded.
Earlier this month, Bush was interviewed at his palatial summer home in Kennebunkport, Maine, by a German broadcaster with apparently nothing better to do with its time and resources.
The agreeable tête-à-tête was billed as a “rare” departure of form for Bush, who reportedly avoids sit-down interviews with journalists.
Gee, I wonder why?
Apart from briefly prying Bush away from his juvenile tinkering with paint on a canvas and taming his unruly hedges, an interview conducted by an intrepid reporter might cause the stammering, reclusive ex-president a little discomfort and serve as a mild, belated comeuppance of sorts.
Bush could, for once, have been challenged to account finally for the litany of lies he concocted and told to start wars that he and his posse of criminal “advisers” in slick suits and designer outfits convinced themselves would be cheap, easy and quick.
Two decades later, the cruel, lethal folly of Bush’s cocky, catastrophic delusions and fabrications is plain: millions dead and scarred in body, mind and spirit, countless other lives ruined or left adrift in refugee camps where disease, want and hopelessness are rampant, countries engulfed by endless uncertainty, violence and sectarianism and a patient, resurgent Taliban poised to reimpose its malignant dominion over Afghanistan.
Bush could also have been pressed about his role in engineering an international abduction racket – known as “renditions” – that permitted America’s state-sanctioned hoodlums to kidnap mostly Muslim men and dump them into secret dungeons in Iraq and beyond where they were bound, interrogated, humiliated, electrocuted, attacked by dogs, sexually assaulted, water-boarded and, ultimately, murdered.
None of that appears to have happened. Instead, Bush was given unfettered licence to object to the withdrawal of the remaining US and NATO troops from Afghanistan.
“The consequences are going to be unbelievably bad,” Bush said, without, I imagine, even a hint of irony.
That this callous cretin would suggest anywhere, at any time, for any reason, that the “consequences” of another president’s actions “are going to be unbelievably bad” for Afghanistan is blatant proof of Bush’s genetically programmed stupidity and obscene, near nauseating hubris.
Then, Bush proceeded to demonstrate that he is damaged in ways that only a psychologist could possibly decipher and is incapable of introspection or remorse for the horror he has wrought on so many people, in so many places because of his orders as commander-in-chief.
First, he told his German guests that the Afghan withdrawal was a mistake.
Given his atrocious geopolitical record, Bush should be banned from ever uttering, under any circumstances and in any context, the word: “mistake”.
Still, to define how Bush and equally culpable company went about methodically defacing Iraq and Afghanistan as “mistakes” would, itself, be a mistake.
The injuries and atrocities Iraqis and Afghans have endured in the long, bitter aftermath of Bush’s decision to invade cannot be diminished or dismissed simply as errors.
They were and remain the inhumane corollaries of the sinister, calculated choices made by an inept president who was convinced that it was his and America’s destiny to “liberate” two distant lands for the same evangelical reasons.
Second, remarkably, Bush took implicit credit – amid all the death and destruction the American-led invasion has visited on Afghans – for brutally refashioning Afghan society as a recuperative antidote to the Taliban’s brutality.
“It’s unbelievable how that society changed from the brutality of the Taliban,” Bush said.
No, what is unbelievable, is Bush’s lunatic idea that the US military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan had any redeeming or salutary impact on the fates of both nations.
Finally, and so cynically, Bush attempted to rewrite his incriminating history by implying that he unleashed American forces and drones on Afghanistan not to rout the Taliban or punish it for harbouring al-Qaeda, but to emancipate women and girls.
“All of a sudden – sadly – I’m afraid Afghan women and girls are going to suffer unspeakable harm,” Bush said from the comfort of his picture-postcard oasis.
The name George W Bush is synonymous with the suffering and unspeakable harm girls, boys, women and men in Iraq and Afghanistan have braved for decades.
With the eager help of grovelling, amnesiac television hosts, Bush has mounted a muted, yet determined campaign to rehabilitate his foul reputation. In its place, a new, gracious, if slightly awkward and endearing caricature of Bush has emerged.
It is a sick mirage.
Bush is an unindicted mass murderer. He ought to be sharing a bunk bed with Ratko Mladic at The Hague. Failing that, he should keep monastically quiet and go away.
As penance, it is the least this intolerable piece of crud could do.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Andrew Mitrovica is an Al Jazeera columnist based in Toronto.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
On Tuesday, Ebrahim Raisi will be formally confirmed as Iran’s next president by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Two days later, he will be sworn in as president in the country’s parliament. Yet another orderly transfer of power is under way in Iran.
This transition is of momentous importance for the future trajectory of Iran, regional politics and international security. That is because a rare confluence of circumstances has appeared over the Iran nuclear issue and a new mainstream is taking shape in Tehran.
Contrary to expectations, the negotiations since April in Vienna over the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) are in a state of suspended animation. Things could go either way.
On the one hand, Raisi is widely regarded as an arch conservative (‘hardliner’) which means that the United States is getting a much tougher interlocutor in Tehran, although Iran’s compass remains well set under the watchful eyes of the Supreme Leader.
On the other hand, the Biden presidency is coming under pressure with the early signs that the much-vaunted strong economic recovery from the deep recession in 2020 may be hitting a snag. The massive stimulus and the buoyant Wall Street haven’t fired up the economic acceleration but will inevitably drive up the inflationary pressure. The resurgence of the Delta variant of coronavirus from America’s south to north also bring in uncertainties.
Simply put, President Biden cannot afford to be seen as a ‘weak’ negotiator at Vienna. Conversely, Tehran would sense that Biden may not even have the political capital to get Congressional approval for a new nuclear deal, which means that history may repeat.
In fact, the US officials are already arguing that no American president can guarantee that an agreement with a foreign country will not be undone by a future president or Congress.
Given the tortuous history of the US-Iran relations and the trust deficit, Tehran once again faces the dilemma of negotiating a deal with an uncertain shelf life whose expiry date may lapse even before the incumbent American president retires.
Meanwhile, the US negotiators drove a hard bargain in Vienna. They underestimated Iran’s grit to secure its core interests. They assumed that given Iran’s economic difficulties, it would bend over backward to get the sanctions lifted. And they began dictating terms and conditions.
Thus, from available details, Biden’s team insists that the US’ return to the JCPOA depends on potential future talks on regional issues; that the US cannot agree to the lifting of arms embargo as provided under the JCPOA; the present administration will not lift the sanctions imposed by Trump; the US is not obliged to compensate Iran for the huge damage caused to its economy by pulling out of the JCPOA unilaterally; Iran must agree to newer restrictions on its nuclear agreements far beyond those stipulated by JCPOA.
The US remains ambivalent on Iran’s demand that any lifting of sanctions should be open to verification. And it believes that Iran will give up its longstanding position that the nuclear deal should not be made conditional on its missile programme or regional policies. read more
Broadly, Biden team hopes to realise the key objectives that the Trump administration pursued — and failed to achieve — through its ‘maximum pressure’ strategy, namely, an updated version of the 2015 agreement that would, amongst other things, almost permanently prohibit Tehran from exercising its prerogative to conduct a peaceful nuclear programme as a non-nuclear weapon state under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is entitled to, such as Japan. (In Brazil, another non-nuclear-weapons state, the military actually leases uranium enrichment technology to the civilian nuclear programme and the navy drives technological advances in the nuclear field, even developing a nuclear-powered submarine.)
Evidently, serious differences remain between Iran and the US over the revitalisation of the JCPOA. The latest remarks by the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken — “The ball remains in Iran’s court and we will see if they’re prepared to make the decisions necessary to come back into compliance” — blithely sidestepped this reality. So indeed, his veiled threat that “this (Vienna) process cannot go on indefinitely.”
Khamenei, who has the last word on Iran’s state matters, declared last Wednesday that Tehran would not accept Washington’s “stubborn” demands in nuclear talks and again flatly rejected the insertion of any other issues to the deal. Khamenei’s remarks spell out the parameters within which Raisi will approach the negotiations in Vienna as and when they resume. read more
In the coming weeks, Raisi will need to assemble his cabinet and thereupon get the Majlis’ approval for his nominees, especially the new foreign minister. That means, serious negotiations cannot resume in Vienna, if at all, before the fall.
This is where Biden’s team probably goofed up by making such excessive demands on Iran that were way beyond the previous government’s mandate to discuss — predicated apparently on the naïveté that for President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif this was a legacy issue more than anything else. (Khamenei implicitly censured Rouhani and Zarif for their manifest eagerness to strike a deal with the Biden Administration.)
Meanwhile, pressure is going to build on the Biden Administration, since Iran’s nuclear research and production are speeding up and the ‘breakout time’ for making a bomb may be shrinking dramatically.
The New York Times noted, “Far more worrying, (US) officials said, is the scientific knowledge that Iran is steadily gaining by building more advanced centrifuges and experimenting with enriching uranium to 60 percent, just shy of what is needed for a weapon.”
The point is, the IAEA inspectors are increasingly clueless since June when the agreement with Tehran to keep cameras and sensors running lapsed, as regards what is happening in the underground Natanz plant where the advanced centrifuges are spinning,.
Above all, it is all but certain that Raisi’s team will be much tougher at the negotiating table and may even make new demands. Thus, there is the ‘X’ factor: Does the restoration of the JCPOA matter anymore? read more
Having weathered the brunt of Trump’s ‘maximum pressure’, Tehran is in a better situation today. The international situation works in its favour too. Iran has gained strategic depth in the deepening partnership with Russia and China. It is neither possible now to ‘isolate’ Iran nor prudent to exercise the military option against it.
Make no mistake, Raisi, who has welcomed the negotiations at Vienna, will insist on stricter verification and US implementation of its part of a revived agreement. That seems an irreducible minimum demand.
Can Biden deliver on that?The Biden administration is showing signs of weakening. On the contrary, Raisi’s ascendance underscores great cohesion at the leadership level, something which has been lacking through successive presidencies since the 1990s.
In such unequal situations, optics matter unduly in statecraft. For sure, the unresolved Iran question still lurks below the surface as the Biden presidency’s most dangerous foreign-policy challenge.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The Biden Administration’s effort to withdraw nearly all US troops from Afghanistan and Iraq before the end of the year is commendable and it is hoped that a departure from Syria will follow soon thereafter, but one must nevertheless be concerned that the overseas moves are being made to concentrate government resources on the domestic war that has already begun. I am, of course, referring to the ongoing efforts being made to extirpate “extremists” among American citizens who have been further identified as largely consisting of “white supremacists.”
As part of the new war, ideas or even demonstrable facts that are considered to be undesirable are being targeted by the government working together with internet resources, most particularly the social media, to attack critics. It is being argued that the alleged provision of “misinformation” is doing actual harm to the country and the American people. Recently, much of the focus has been on the COVID virus, in support of the government’s intention to have all Americans vaccinated and, increasingly, again compelled to be masked when inside buildings that are accessible to the public. These efforts are being supported by media including Facebook, which features pop-ups directing the reader to a “safe” site whenever a piece appears that challenges the government orthodoxy on the spread of the virus.
One might reasonably argue that there is a national public health crisis that is part of a global problem which requires coordinated government intervention, but the actual statistics that reveal the existing low levels of infection and death in most states would not support that contention. And one might also observe that the growing problem involving the regulation of speech and even ideas by government working in cooperation with large corporations is potentially more serious than COVID or any other virus.
If the United States government and its corporate partners were in an honest way trying to protect the American people one might at least be sympathetic regarding the efforts being made, but both government and businesses have proven to be serial liars and purveyors of egregious untruths to serve their own agendas. Recently, the White House spokesman Jen Psaki suggested that those spreading false information about COVID vaccinations might well be banned from spreading such lies on social media. The implication was that the government could compile lists of such “extremists” and use its regulatory authority to compel companies on the internet to censor individuals and groups in compliance with orders coming from the White House. The justification would be that government in this case gets a pass on limiting free speech and association due to a national health crisis.
Psaki has undoubtedly discovered a certain benevolence in big government which few Americans have noted before. Foreigners, however, being on the receiving end of wars resulting from the stream of lies emanating from Washington might well have a different viewpoint. President Bill Clinton relied on a false narrative to go to war in the Balkans and then used unprovoked attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan to draw attention away from an affair he was having with an intern. George W. Bush and his pack of neocon scoundrels, most of whom are still holding prestigious positions, used what was known to be fake information to justify destroying Afghanistan and Iraq. Barack Obama lied to overthrow the governments in Libya and Ukraine while also attempting to do the same in Syria.
All lies, all the time, and now we Americans are supposed to believe that the Biden Administration is seeking to benefit us? Online one wag quipped that “The party that believes that men can get pregnant now wants to control ‘misinformation’ on the internet?” Never forget that policies that compel all Americans to behave in certain ways, no matter how innocent in appearance, can also be used and expanded upon to mandate something more sinister.
And what about the social media companies? Facebook has long had a censorship group headed by a former Israeli government official. CEO Mark Zuckerberg has admitted to Congress that Facebook suppresses nearly all so-called “hate speech”automatically using computer algorithms that rely on word associations to determine what is allowed on the site. Pieces that are considered borderline are allowed only limited exposure, having their distribution among contacts automatically restricted and disabling sharing. Google search uses similar algorithms to make sure that sites and individuals that it does not approve of do not appear among search results. It also uses software to actually “re-direct” users away from sites that it does not approve.
And now PayPal, owned by online auction service eBay and an essential tool for small public interest groups’ support, has now announced that it will henceforth be working with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to “fight hate” by cutting off financing of extremist groups. But its definition of “hate,” criticized as highly subjective and inclined to condemn groups disliked by ADL for political reasons, has prompted legitimate concerns about where this all is going. ADL has often been criticized for finding hate virtually everywhere, particularly among conservative white groups. RT cites a recent example of such fervor “in response to an article published in Canada’s National Post, which was denounced by the ADL because its author mentioned that one of the 32 US lawmakers supporting a tax reform belonged to a Jewish fraternity.” In short, any discussion of Israel or of the behavior of Jewish individuals and groups in anything but a positive context will be considered “hate” by ADL and PayPal.
Indeed, PayPal and ADL issued a self-serving statement last week which said “PayPal and ADL will focus on further uncovering and disrupting the financial pipelines that support extremist and hate movements,” adding that they would also go after “actors and networks spreading and profiting from all forms of hate and bigotry against any community.”
The joint venture will also include the “launch[ing] of a research effort” to determine how “extremist and hate movements throughout the US are attempting to leverage financial platforms to fund criminal activity.” The negative information collected will be shared with police, financial services, and the government, presumably to create an environment where such groups will be marginalized and shut out of the public space completely, to include possibly having their supporters arrested, charged and convicted.
The growing collusion between big government and large public-accessible online information and opinion services is not a good thing. It permits those well-funded and politically connected organizations to work together to limit what the public is allowed to know. Its zeal to eliminate “misinformation” is misplaced, replacing dissident voices that have limited access to a wider audience with massive agenda driven public-private organizations that will essentially determine what is acceptable and what is not. If allowed to continue, it will be the death of free speech in this country as everything that disagrees with the approved narrative will be labeled “hateful” or “extremist,” eventually to include criminal penalties for those who disagree. It is not too much to suggest that we are witnessing the first steps in the creation of a totalitarian de factoone-party state. Perhaps that is the intention.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on The Unz Review.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Over the past decades world ocean trade has expanded almost exponentially as major manufacturing outsourcing from USA and European corporations has blossomed under the advent of economic globalization. The result has been that Asia, most especially China, has become the essential manufacturing source for everything from iPhones to antibiotics and everything in-between. The creation of the World Trade Organization to impose new rules on the trade has been a key driver. It has also made global supply chains for delivering goods more fragile than ever in history. The rise in cost of ocean container shipping indicates the growing crisis. Compounding the growing crisis are enormous labor shortages owing to global COVID measures.
Origins of the Crisis
According to German-based Statista Research Department, some 80 percent of all goods globally are carried by sea including oil, coal, grains. Of that total, in terms of value, global maritime container trade accounts for some 60 percent of all seaborne trade, valued at around 14 trillion US dollars in 2019. This ocean shipping has become the arteries of the world economy for better or worse.
This is a direct consequence of the 1990’s creation of the WTO with new rules favoring out-sourcing of manufacture to countries where production was far cheaper, that is as long as ocean transport was cheap. After China became a WTO member in 2001, they became the greatest beneficiary of the new rules and within a decade China was called the “workshop of the world.” Entire industries such as electronics, pharmaceuticals, textiles, chemicals as well as plastics were transferred to China with then the world’s lowest wages, for factory assembly. It worked because the cost of shipping to Western markets was comparatively low.
As the economic output of China grew, China became a world shipping giant, shipping their goods cheaply to places such as Long Beach or Los Angeles, California in the US or Rotterdam in Europe. The Walmart retail giant was destination for a huge share of the China goods with as much as 80% of its products of China origin. This is not small beer as they say in Texas. Walmart is the world’s largest company by revenue, with annual sales of $549 billion. Today as a result of this globalization China has 8 of the world’s 17 largest ports in terms of shipping volumes to handle its exports.
The China shipping expansion combined with that from Japan and South Korea to make up the major ocean container shipping traffic worldwide. That vital economic flow is now under unprecedented stress, which could soon have catastrophic global economic consequences for the world goods supply chains.
When what was termed by WHO as a novel coronavirus, first appearing in Wuhan, was declared by the WHO as a global pandemic in March 2020, the impact on world trade was immediate and huge as countries locked down their economies, something unprecedented in peacetime. Orders for products from China and other Asian producers were frozen by Western buyers. Container ships were cancelled everywhere in 2020. Then as US and EU governments released trillions of dollars in unprecedented stimulus, demand for containers from Asia to the West in relative terms exploded, compared with supply, as people began using stimulus, especially in the US to buy online, most of which was “made in China.”
That has had a serious disruptive impact on what was once a minor cost—ocean container shipping. Modern container ports, especially those in China, are state-of-the-art, computer automated operations loading thousands of containers daily via automated cranes. At destination ports such as Long Beach or Hamburg the containers are then off-loaded to trucks or train and brought to their destination cities before being returned to the port for return shipping. It is this intricate supply chain that is now in crisis.
In 2019 before the pandemic crisis, the cost of shipping a 40-foot-long container from China to Europe by sea cost between USD 800-2,500. For the bulk of products such as textiles, pharmaceuticals or smart phones, ocean containers were clearly the best low-cost option for Asia-Europe trade despite rail possibilities. For Asia-North America trade it was almost the only option, as air was a costly alternative. Today with a corona-linked 50% reduction in air travel, container ships are virtually the only long-distance option.
Now port-to-port spot rates, for example from Shanghai, China’s largest container port, to Los Angeles, have exploded from around $1,500 per 40-foot container just before the WHO Pandemic in early 2020, to $4,000 in September 2020, and to $9,631 in the week ended July 8, 2021, according to Drewry Supply Chain Advisors. This is an increase of over 600% from early 2020, pre-pandemic. And this is just one source of the global inflation we now see erupting.
This is not the worst. According to Drewry, “We have heard reports of $15,000 from China to the West Coast and are aware that carriers are charging additional premiums on top to prioritize the loading of a late booking ahead of normal FAK [Freight All Kinds] rate cargoes.” From $1,500 to $15,000 in two years is a rise of tenfold. And rates from Shanghai to Rotterdam have also skyrocketed from below $2,000 in early 2020, to over $12,000 in July, or 600%.
To cite one product that experienced panic buying at the start of the Pandemic, China is the world leader in exports of toilet paper with 11% of global supply. A 600% rise in ocean freight cost makes it inevitable that the price of something as ordinary as toilet paper is slated to rise significantly or become in short supply in key places globally. When such pressures are coming all across the product line, ocean container rates become a significant driver of general inflation.
Bottleneck of Containers
In early 2020 as nations around the world went into unprecedented panic lockdowns over coronavirus fears, global shipping froze. Factories everywhere were closed. Later in 2020 the flows slowly resumed as China opened up. As it became clear in later 2020 that the various huge government economic stimulus money would spark a recovery in demand for Asian goods, especially demand via e-commerce platforms like Amazon, a dramatic shortage in available containers developed. In the USA alone a combined $9 trillion in total fiscal and monetary stimulus has been released since early 2020. That is world historic.
World trade flows can be compared with the human body’s blood circulation system. When bottlenecks develop with port congestion, or say Suez Canal blockage, it is similar to blood clots to the human circulation system. The March 2021 blockage in the Suez Canal of the giant container ship, Ever Given, from Taiwan’s Evergreen Co. stopped ship traffic for almost a week in one of the world’s major waterways between China and Europe, causing bottlenecks to container deliveries not yet completely resolved. Then in China new testings for corona in the large container port of Yantian – part of the world’s 4th largest container port Shenzhen– caused added major disruptions of shipping, further aggravating rate rises. Those disruptions are likely to continue.
When lockdowns had spread globally by April 2020, suddenly millions of containers were stranded in various ports unable to return to China. Empty boxes were left in places where they were not needed, and repositioning was not planned. Massive workforce disruptions from the pandemic lockdowns across the US in 2020 and into 2021 affected not only ports, but container cargo depots all across the country as well as inland transport lines. There was no way to get the containers back to China when China began to restart industry. Moreover, as carriers introduced “blank sailings,” or skipped port calls, the mismatch between supply and demand for empty containers was exacerbated, as empty boxes were left behind and failed to be repositioned to China ports. Global “transport clots” appeared.
Danish consultancy Sea-Intelligence estimates that as much as 60% of the container imbalance in Asia today is due to North America, most due to lack of investment in California and other West Coast ports which have the worst port congestion problems.
One Japanese consultancy estimated that terminal productivity in North America lags Asian counterparts by up to 50% in part due to less working hours and union opposition to further automation that would take union jobs. A statement that the US regulator, the Federal Maritime Commission, is “looking into” the issue of equipment availability as part of a wide ranging investigation into the supply chain chaos that has hit the nation’s ports, retailers and exporters over the past eight months, is hardly reassuring. The bottleneck problems in US container ports have been chronic and serious since at least 2015. The job of the maritime commission is to monitor just such bottlenecks before they become problematic. They don’t, obviously.
As demand for products from China recovered in late 2020, this all had an impact on container rates. Compounding the container shortages were the lockdowns globally which froze huge volumes of world trade. Construction of needed new containers is also being sharply restricted owing to shortages of steel and lumber as well as manpower, owing to the pandemic measures.
The overwhelming world dependence on shipped goods from China in recent years has become a glaring Achilles Heel in the world economy amid the lockdowns. Such global interdependency was not a factor in the 1930s global depression, contrary to the economic myth about the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act as a prime cause. Then it was the international debt structures centered on New York banks.
Sea Manpower Crisis
Aggravating the crisis in container availability and port logjams in key world ports, there is a growing crisis of seafaring manpower. Most non-officer seaman labor for container shipping is recruited from Asia. According to the International Chamber of Shipping, The Philippines is the biggest supplier of Ratings (skilled seafarers), followed by China, Indonesia, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The global corona lockdowns and most recently the alarm over the so-called Indian or “Delta” corona variant, despite lack of data on its lethality, have created a growing catastrophe in the situation of ship labor. Before the corona pandemic declaration in 2020, ship labor supply was already very tight. This manpower problem is impacting ship cargo rates as well.
In July an estimated 9% or 100,000 seamen on container and other ships were stranded on ships past their legally contracted time, as countries from China to the US prohibit them to come ashore owing to corona contagion restrictions. That means crew changes are not taking place and the sea-stranded crews are under growing psychological and physical stress, even leading to suicides. Then, an additional estimated 100,000 or more seamen or Ratings are stranded ashore in various countries due to pandemic lockdowns, unable to work. The maximum allowed contract length is 11 months, as stipulated by a UN seafaring convention. Normally there is a rotation of some 50,000 seafarers monthly on and off ship. Now it is a fraction of that. According to the International Transport Federation union, as many as 25% fewer seafarers are joining vessels than pre-pandemic. The union General Secretary stated, “We have warned that global brands need to be ready for the moment some of these tired and fatigued people finally snap.”
Onshore as the pandemic lockdowns in especially California kept thousands of workers from the major US-Asia ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach, it was not possible to clear the very large backlog of containers before more started arriving, a bit like the plague of the Sorcerer’s apprentice. North America currently faces a 60% imbalance; which means that for every 100 containers that arrive only 40 are exported. Sixty out of every 100 containers continue to accumulate.
Drewry estimates that these negative factors will also lead to a decade-high shortfall of officers to crew in the world merchant fleet in the next several years. All this underlines how extremely fragile and brittle the delivery system of the globalized world supply chains are today. The global COVID lockdowns are having far more serious long-term impacts than most are aware. The world economy is a dynamic, highly complex interconnected web that is not able to turn off and on like a flick of a light switch.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Featured image is from NEO
Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation
Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index
List Price: $25.95
Special Price: $18.00
This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”
This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.
The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The European Union database of suspected drug reaction reports is EudraVigilance, and they are now reporting 20,595 fatalities, and 1,960,607 injuries, following COVID-19 injections.
A Health Impact News subscriber from Europe reminded us that this database maintained at EudraVigilance is only for countries in Europe who are part of the European Union (EU), which comprises 27 countries.
The total number of countries in Europe is much higher, almost twice as many, numbering around 50. (There are some differences of opinion as to which countries are technically part of Europe.)
So as high as these numbers are, they do NOT reflect all of Europe. The actual number in Europe who are reported dead or injured due to COVID-19 shots would be much higher than what we are reporting here.
The EudraVigilance database reports that through July 31, 2021 there are 20,595 deaths and 1,960,607 injuries reported following injections of four experimental COVID-19 shots:
From the total of injuries recorded, half of them (968,870) are serious injuries.
“Seriousness provides information on the suspected undesirable effect; it can be classified as ‘serious’ if it corresponds to a medical occurrence that results in death, is life-threatening, requires inpatient hospitalisation, results in another medically important condition, or prolongation of existing hospitalisation, results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly/birth defect.”
A Health Impact News subscriber in Europe ran the reports for each of the four COVID-19 shots we are including here. This subscriber has volunteered to do this, and it is a lot of work to tabulate each reaction with injuries and fatalities, since there is no place on the EudraVigilance system we have found that tabulates all the results.
Since we have started publishing this, others from Europe have also calculated the numbers and confirmed the totals.*
Here is the summary data through July 31, 2021.
Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccineTozinameran (code BNT162b2,Comirnaty) from BioNTech/ Pfizer: 9,868 deaths and 767,225 injuries to 31/07/2021
21,004 Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 126 deaths
19,717 Cardiac disorders incl. 1,489 deaths
177 Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 14 deaths
57,313 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 2,188 deaths
345 Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 20 deaths
1,803 Immune system disorders incl. 9 deaths
6,151 Infections and infestations incl. 332 deaths
4,652 Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 102 deaths
4,289 Investigations incl. 103 deaths
2,105 Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 125 deaths
26,743 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 107 deaths
252 Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 27 deaths
38,118 Nervous system disorders incl. 552 deaths
432 Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 5 deaths
46 Product issues
4,224 Psychiatric disorders incl. 90 deaths
1,306 Renal and urinary disorders incl. 85 deaths
1,526 Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 2 deaths
9,377 Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 521 deaths
11,300 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 45 deaths
925 Social circumstances incl. 20 deaths
700 Surgical and medical procedures incl. 55 deaths
5,985 Vascular disorders incl. 207 deaths
Total reactions for the experimental vaccine AZD1222/VAXZEVRIA (CHADOX1 NCOV-19) from Oxford/AstraZeneca: 4,534 deaths and 923,749 injuries to 31/07/2021
10,912 Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 184 deaths
15,131 Cardiac disorders incl. 523 deaths
132 Congenital familial and genetic disorders incl. 3 deaths
244,487 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 1,128 deaths
729 Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 41 deaths
3,663 Immune system disorders incl. 18 deaths
22,077 Infections and infestations incl. 284 deaths
10,114 Injury poisoning and procedural complications incl. 119 deaths
20,068 Investigations incl. 105 deaths
11,087 Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 62 deaths
140,986 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 63 deaths
446 Neoplasms benign malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 13 deaths
194,032 Nervous system disorders incl. 727 deaths
363 Pregnancy puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 8 deaths
135 Product issues incl. 1 death
17,296 Psychiatric disorders incl. 39 deaths
3,324 Renal and urinary disorders incl. 40 deaths
11,369 Reproductive system and breast disorders
31,980 Respiratory thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 534 deaths
42,437 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 30 deaths
1,093 Social circumstances incl. 7 deaths
971 Surgical and medical procedures incl. 19 deaths
21,839 Vascular disorders incl. 336 deaths
Total reactions for the experimental COVID-19 vaccine JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S) from Johnson & Johnson: 733 deaths and 57,159 injuries to 31/07/2021
531 Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 23 deaths
867 Cardiac disorders incl. 92 deaths
21 Congenital, familial and genetic disorders
346 Ear and labyrinth disorders
24 Endocrine disorders incl. 1 death
705 Eye disorders incl. 3 deaths
5,449 Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 27 deaths
15,097 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 177 deaths
78 Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 7 deaths
231 Immune system disorders incl. 5 deaths
915 Infections and infestations incl. 21 deaths
529 Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 11 deaths
2,936 Investigations incl. 51 deaths
305 Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 12 deaths
9,614 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 18 deaths
24 Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 2 deaths
12,240 Nervous system disorders incl. 90 deaths
17 Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 1 death
17 Product issues
659 Psychiatric disorders incl. 8 deaths
207 Renal and urinary disorders incl. 9 deaths
354 Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 2 deaths
1,878 Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 57 deaths
1,602 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 2 deaths
143 Social circumstances incl. 3 deaths
468 Surgical and medical procedures incl. 30 deaths
1,902 Vascular disorders incl. 81 deaths
*These totals are estimates based on reports submitted to EudraVigilance. Totals may be much higher based on percentage of adverse reactions that are reported. Some of these reports may also be reported to the individual country’s adverse reaction databases, such as the U.S. VAERS database and the UK Yellow Card system. The fatalities are grouped by symptoms, and some fatalities may have resulted from multiple symptoms.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
A newly uncovered confidential U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report found “suggestive evidence” linking glyphosate to Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a determination that goes against the agency’s long-held public regulatory stance that glyphosate is not a carcinogen.
Why would the agency charged with protecting public health and the environment go against its own science and allow a probable carcinogen like glyphosate to remain in use? According to Intercept journalist Sharon Lerner, agrichemical industry giants like Monsanto (acquired by Bayer AG in 2018) have successfully “hoodwinked, bullied, and persuaded” the EPA to base chemical regulations on inaccurate science that favors industry at the expense of public health.
Lerner reports that industry influence over the science that EPA relies on to set the safe exposure levels to chemicals like glyphosate is one of many tools Monsanto and other agribusinesses use to “increase and maintain the use of products even when they damage health and the environment.”
Lerner’s article includes a 2016 internal EPA report that vindicates what plaintiffs’ attorneys suing Monsanto on behalf of Roundup cancer victims have been saying for years about Monsanto’s scientific manipulation and the EPA being a captured agency.
In March of 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a review on glyphosate, listing it as a probable human carcinogen. The IARC report led to thousands of people throughout the U.S. filing lawsuits against Monsanto alleging exposure to Roundup caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
As part of the litigation, a number of U.S. law firms were able to obtain internal company reports, emails, text messages, and other memoranda, that include communications with or about EPA officials. The documents, now known throughout the world as the Monsanto Papers, allowed the public to see firsthand how EPA staff bragged about killing an Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) review of glyphosate; that the agency has based its regulatory decisions for Roundup almost exclusively on Monsanto’s own science; and that the agency mysteriously changed glyphosate’s cancer classification in 1991 from having “suggestive evidence” of carcinogenic potential to having “no evidence” of carcinogenic potential, a designation that persists even to this day.
Attorneys for Monsanto have argued since the start of the litigation that EPA has repeatedly approved the use of glyphosate, each time concluding that it is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. But the internal EPA report cited in Lerner’s reporting provides stark evidence that the agency has been covering up science showing the cancer-causing potential of glyphosate.
What Does the EPA Internal Report on Glyphosate Say?
In the summer of 2016, the EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) analyzed seven epidemiological studies on the association between glyphosate and Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The internal “confidential” report concluded that four of the highest-quality studies “all reported elevated risks of NHL associated with exposure to glyphosate even after controlling for other pesticide exposures.” The report further concluded that the reviewed studies “provide suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential between glyphosate exposure and increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”
The internal report never saw the light of day. Instead, Lerner notes:
“[EPA] released reports in 2016 and 2017 that clearly drew on the earlier document — several sections have identical wording — but reached the opposite conclusion: that glyphosate is ‘not a probable carcinogen.’”
In 2019, just days before a California jury was to decide a case involving a husband and wife who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after spraying Roundup around their properties for years, an EPA preliminary report on glyphosate again declared that glyphosate is not a probable carcinogen. The timing of the preliminary report was something that plaintiffs’ attorneys took notice of: why did the preliminary report come out just days before the end of the trial?
In his closing statement in the case of Pilliod et al. v. Monsanto Co., Monsanto attorney Tarek Ismail, made light of the plaintiffs’ allegation that EPA is an agency captured by industry:
“Today you heard Mr. Wisner (co-lead counsel for the Pilliods) ask you to disregard completely the findings of the EPA. He told you that they engaged in — what did he call it? Regulatory capture? 40 years of EPA review by the career scientists at the agency, he wants you to throw aside.”
Ismail had good reason to play down the regulatory capture allegation to the jury. In her report, Lerner interviewed more than a dozen former EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) employees who described the agency as “unable to stand up to the intense pressures from powerful agrochemical companies, which spend tens of millions of dollars on lobbying each year and employ many former EPA scientists once they leave the agency.”
The jury must have, at the very least, questioned whether the EPA was a captured agency. After only a few short days, the jury returned a $2.055 billion verdict in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Pilliod, one of three verdicts against Monsanto between 2018 and 2019. The jury verdicts worth a combined $2.424 billion paved the way for a $10.9 billion settlement with several leading law firms in the Roundup litigation.
Despite its own scientists finding a link between glyphosate and cancer in studies of human populations in the internal 2016 report (and the IARC report a year earlier), the EPA re-registered glyphosate in 2020 for another 15 years. Per Lerner, the EPA allows glyphosate use because there is “insufficient evidence to conclude that glyphosate plays a role in any human diseases” and that “there are no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label.”
But consumer advocates like Genna Reed, senior analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, believe the 2016 internal report shows a pattern of EPA favoring industry over safety. “They only used the pieces of the meta-analysis that fit the conclusion they wanted to support,” Reed told Lerner of the EPA report. Reed added that the agency’s suppression of the internal report’s conclusion shows that there “is clearly a need for more firewalls to prevent political interference with the science.”
2016 Internal Report Could Impact Glyphosate Prop 65 Appeal
The internal EPA report could have an impact in the case of National Association of Wheat Growers, et al. v. Becerra, which will decide whether a Proposition 65 warning can be added to glyphosate products.
California’s Proposition 65 (Prop 65), also known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, prohibits businesses from exposing people to chemicals on the state’s Prop 65 List without providing “clear and reasonable” warnings. Chemicals are added to the Prop 65 List based on the state’s evaluation of current scientific information and in situations where, EPA and IARC determine a substance is a human carcinogen. While IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic” to humans, EPA concluded that there is no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer.
In 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California decided that the state could not require Prop 65 cancer warnings for glyphosate. Per the Court, such warnings would violate the First Amendment because the EPA found that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that glyphosate causes cancer.
Last year, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed an appeal to challenge the decision. Now, with the new internal report contradicting EPA’s public findings—which the Court used as the basis to not require a Prop 65 warning for glyphosate—the appeal can pull the rug out from under the assertion that there is no evidence glyphosate is a carcinogen.
Industry Influence Has Weakened Pesticide Regulation
Lerner says that industry influence over EPA has “weakened and, in some cases, shut down the meaningful regulation of pesticides in the U.S. and left the country’s residents exposed to levels of dangerous chemicals not tolerated in many other nations.”
Charles Benbrook, an agricultural economist who served as an expert witness during the Monsanto Roundup litigation, agrees with Lerner:
“The regulatory affairs departments of these companies actually compete against each other and sometimes brag that they were able to keep one of their high-risk pesticides on the market longer than some other company that threw in the towel prematurely.”
If anything, Lerner’s article and the issues she raises reinforce the power that litigation has to raise public awareness and spark real and lasting change. “We always felt that the evidence supporting everything we were saying from day one—that Monsanto manipulated science, that they captured agencies, that they bullied scientists that dared to question Roundup’s safety—would only continue to grow,” said Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman attorney, R. Brent Wisner, who served as co-lead trial counsel in two of the three Roundup trials. “It’s bittersweet that it’s taken all these years for these truths to come out, but any progress made in the name of protecting people’s health—however incremental—is something we will always fight for.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from Global Justice Now/Flickr/CC BY
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The Taliban’s gains have reached critical mass and they are now attempting to capture key cities in Afghanistan.
Airports in the second and fourth largest cities in the country, Kandahar and Herat, were struck by rockets in the last days of July and on August 1st.
Flights at airports in both cities had to be suspended, and the airport in Kandahar suffered a partially damaged runway.
Most recently, on August 1st, at least three rockets were launched towards the Ahmad Shah Baba International Airport in Kandahar.
Two of the projectiles hit the runway.
Officials in Kandahar claimed that there was a serious risk of the Taliban taking control over the city, adding that the group wanted to turn Kandahar into their temporary capital.
It is of symbolic importance since the Taliban movement was first created in Kandahar province.
In Herat, the Taliban claimed that its fighters had breached the main defense line of the northwestern Afghan city of Herat.
The Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid shared a video showing fighters on the outskirts of the city.
He then claimed that the Taliban were inside the city itself breaching its defenses.
The Afghan government sent large reinforcements of security forces to Herat in order to repel the Taliban’s attack.
The clashes have been on-going since July 28th.
The government forces are preparing to launch a large-scale operation to push Taliban fighters away from Herat city.
At least 20 people were killed, including 16 security force members, and 90 people were wounded in the past four days of fighting in Herat.
Meanwhile, the city most vulnerable to Taliban capture is reportedly Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand province.
It is famous as a fighting point where many US and British soldiers have lost their lives in the past.
Pro-Taliban social media accounts have uploaded videos of Taliban fighters in the heart of the city.
Afghan special forces are being sent in to help push them back.
It is unknown whether that will work out, as the Taliban’s advance seems to be quite effective.
On July 31st, Taliban fighters were only a few hundred meters from the governor’s office in Lashkar Gah, but were subsequently pushed back.
Afghan and US air strikes have reportedly targeted Taliban positions and government forces say they have killed dozens of militants.
The fighting is evidently ramping up, as the Taliban now seek to capture the most significant cities in the country and prepare to put even more districts and provinces under their control.
Currently, the Taliban control at least 150 of the 407 districts in Afghanistan.
The Kabul government holds all 34 provincial centers, but that could quickly change.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Re: Duke University’s COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate (1662 words)
Dear President Price:
Numerous students attending Duke University (“Duke”) have reached out regarding Duke’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. We understand that Duke’s students were advised on April 9, 2021 that
“we plan to require all new and returning Duke students to present proof of vaccination to Student Health before they can enroll for the Fall 2021 semester.”
As I am sure you are aware, the COVID-19 vaccines are presently authorized under emergency use authorization (“EUA”).
It is a violation of federal law to mandate receipt of a product that is only available pursuant to an EUA. Duke cannot lawfully require students to receive a COVID-19 vaccine that is being distributed under an EUA.
Emergency Use Authorization of COVID-19 Vaccines
In December 2020, the FDA granted EUA for two COVID-19 vaccines, one sold by Moderna and the other by Pfizer. Both are based on an RNA technology never before used in a licensed vaccine. In February 2021, the FDA granted EUA for a third COVID-19 vaccine sold by Janssen.
This is a novel viral vector vaccine platform. The clinical trials that the FDA will rely upon to decide whether to license these vaccines are underway, but they are far from complete.
The EUA applications for these experimental vaccines were based on data which supports that these products may reduce certain symptoms of COVID-19 for some individuals, but the FDA’s EUA authorizations made clear that there is no evidence the COVID-19 vaccines can prevent recipients from becoming infected with and transmitting the virus.1
As the FDA explains, at the time of the EUA approval, the data was “not available to make a determination about how long the vaccine will provide protection, nor is there evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 [i.e., the virus that causes COVID-19] from person to person.”2 In fact, the FDA Briefing Documents for the COVID-19 vaccines supporting the grant of an EUA list the following as still unknown:
“[e]ffectiveness in certain populations at high-risk of severe COVID-19,”
“[e]ffectiveness in individuals previously infected with SARS-CoV-2,”
“effectiveness against asymptomatic infection,”
“effectiveness against long-term effect of COVID-19 disease,”
“effectiveness against mortality,” and
“effectiveness against transmission of SARS-CoV-2.”3
The FDA Briefing Documents also make clear much is unknown about the safety of these products, including,
“[a]dverse reactions that are very uncommon,”
adverse reactions “that require longer follow-up to be detected,” and
whether the vaccines will cause “[v]accine-enhanced disease.”4
As a result, the authorization letters for both COVID-19 vaccines expressly provide that the vaccines are each “an investigational vaccine not licensed for any indication” and require that “[a]ll promotional material relating to the COVID-19 Vaccine clearly and conspicuously … state that this product has not been approved or licensed by the FDA, but has been authorized for emergency use by FDA.”5
Reflecting that these vaccines have not yet been demonstrated to be safe and effective, use of one of them was recently paused by the CDC and FDA due to serious reactions that have proven fatal in some cases.6
This exemplifies why the authorization letters for the COVID-19 vaccines, in accordance with federal law, expressly provide that these vaccines cannot be required and must remain optional.
Federal Law Prohibits Mandating Products Granted EUA
The same section that authorizes the FDA to grant an EUA [Section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “Act”), codified at 21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3], requires that the public have “the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.” 21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3(e).
It even provides that the Secretary of HHS is to “ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed” of “the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.” (Id.)
The FDA and CDC’s guidance and regulations reflect the statutory prohibition from mandating that an individual receive a product that has only been granted EUA.
For example, the FDA guidance entitled Emergency Use Authorization of Medical Products and Related Authorities provides that: For an unapproved product [such as the COVID-19 vaccines], the statute [21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3] requires that FDA ensure that recipients are informed … [t]hat they have the option to accept or refuse the EUA product…7
Similarly, when responding to an inquiry regarding whether the COVID-19 vaccines can be required, the Executive Secretary of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (“ACIP”), Dr. Amada Cohn, publicly stated that “under an EUA, vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory.“
Therefore, early in the vaccination phase individuals will have to be consented and cannot be mandated to be vaccinated.”8
Dr. Cohn then reaffirmed to the FDA’s Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee that no organization, public or private, can mandate the COVID-19 vaccines:
Organizations, such as hospitals, with licensed products do have capability of asking their workers to get the vaccine. But in the setting of an EUA, patients and individuals will have the right to refuse the vaccine.9
The EUAs for the COVID-19 Vaccines Repeats this Prohibition
The EUA letters for Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen provide that each COVID-19 Vaccine is authorized for emergency use with the following product specific information required to be made available to the vaccination providers and recipients, respectively (referred to as ‘authorized labeling’):
Fact Sheet for Health Care Providers Administering Vaccine … [and]
Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers.10 These fact sheets each provide that the receipt of the vaccine must be optional.
The Fact Sheets for Healthcare Providers for the three COVID-19 vaccines state that: “The recipient or their caregiver has the option to accept or refuse [the] COVID-19 Vaccine.”11
Similarly, the Fact Sheets for Recipients and Caregivers for each COVID-19 vaccine state on the first page: “It is your choice to receive the [] COVID-19 Vaccine.”12
The Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers for each of the COVID-19 vaccines also set forth in sequence the information required to be provided to recipients of the vaccine pursuant to section 564 of the Act, including “the option to accept or refuse administration of the product” and “the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product.” 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii).
All of the COVID-19 vaccine fact sheets provide the required information in sequence, including telling potential recipients: “It is your choice to receive or not receive the [] COVID-19 Vaccine,” and that if “you decide to not receive it, it will not change your standard of medical care.”13
Duke’s Vaccine Mandate Violates the Act, the EUA, Public Policy and the Nuremberg Code
By implementing its vaccine mandate, Duke is deliberately taking away each student’s statutorily guaranteed right to decide whether to accept or refuse administration of the COVID-19 vaccines.
The university is doing so openly, without any regard for the personal and autonomous right of each student to choose whether they want to receive an unapproved and unlicensed medical product.
Duke is effectively forcing each student to choose between facing expulsion from Duke or receiving an experimental medical treatment to which they do not consent.
The right to informed medical consent is considered a fundamental, overriding principle of medical ethics and international law, first laid down by United States government jurists in the Nuremberg Code.
See e.g., The Nuremberg Code (1947), 313 BMJ 1448 (1996) (“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person…[is] able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of…coercion.”);14 see also UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6(1).15
Public policy further demands that uncoerced consent is required.
Congress made this plain in the Act by assuring that individuals can make their own medical decisions when it comes to EUA products, even during times of emergency.
The only exception Congress granted for allowing an EUA to be mandated is a Presidential order requiring members of the armed forces to receive the product.16
The clear policy choice made at the highest levels of government to protect the individual’s right to choose is further supported by the fact that whether COVID-19 vaccines are actually safe and effective is not yet known and will not be known until, at the earliest, the Phase III clinical trials are completed.
The FDA-approved study protocols for the COVID-19 vaccines’ timelines for collecting safety and efficacy data from trial participants is approximately two years.
(Moderna’s calls for 759 days of data collection, Pfizer’s 742 days, and Janssen’s 24 months.) When these companies submitted applications for an EUA, they had only accumulated data from study participants for a median of 6 to 8 weeks, i.e., less than 10% of the full study period.
Additional Considerations
As explained above, these vaccines have not been proven to prevent infection or transmission. Therefore, requiring that students receive these vaccines to prevent infection is unscientific.
It is also nonsensical to not require faculty and staff, some of whom may have a risk of severe COVID-19, while requiring healthy, young students to receive this experimental product.
To the extent the university’s policy permits faculty, staff, and other individuals on campus to choose or refuse vaccination, but does not allow that same choice for students, this may raise equal protection issues.
Additionally, Duke is failing to take into consideration that a significant portion of its student population is likely to have had SARS-CoV-2 and fully recovered. Putting aside the immunity conferred by having been previously infected, there have been concerns raised by medical professionals that vaccinating those recently infected can lead to serious injury or death by causing antigen specific tissue inflammation in any tissues harboring viral antigens.17
The university should consider whether it might be liable for any damages, poor health outcomes, and loss of life due to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies forced upon its students.
While manufacturers and vaccine administrators are protected by the PREP Act, Duke is not.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that Duke give serious consideration to the issues raised herein and withdraw its COVID-19 vaccine mandate forthwith since requiring an unlicensed and unapproved product violates federal law, international laws, civil and individual rights, and public policy.
Very truly yours,
Aaron Siri, Esq. Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq. Jessica Wallace, Esq.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Victorious Olympic athletes are awarded medals, their national flags arise behind them, and the national anthem of the gold medalist plays. The athletes thus represent not just themselves but collective national pride before the world. But what if that pride is incongruous with national behavior in matters far more important than sports?
Such was the world’s judgment of apartheid South Africa, which was prohibited from Olympic participation from 1964 through 1988.
South Africa’s apartheid system was launched in 1948 to assure political and economic dominance by the White European settler-colonial population over the Black indigenous population. Citizens were classified by race, with Blacks dispossessed of properties and transferred into Blacks-only “townships” or “homelands” quickly labeled “bantustans” implying division into separate, fully autonomous nations replicating the India-Pakistan model with equal rights for all within each state. However, this 2-state vision was a cruel euphemism for segregation and disenfranchisement of Africa’s native peoples with Whites maintaining control of the land and resources while Blacks were confined to powerless, disconnected enclaves administered by Black collaborators.
Implementation of this plan extended across the next three decades without Black consent, with massive dislocations of the Black population. Meanwhile, South Africa’s institutions and public spaces became segregated to minimize inter-racial contact that might produce friendships, cooperative ventures, romance, and everyday relationships that risked evoking White awareness, empathy and conscience.
International condemnation of this suffocating racism led eventually to a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against the state, including exclusion from Olympic participation until early 1990s political transformation dismantled apartheid.
A simultaneous parallel movement, a different trajectory
Also launched in 1948, the European Zionist movement seized Palestine as British mandate forces withdrew, leaving its disarmed indigenous population helpless against displacement and property confiscation by Zionist terrorist militias described by Israeli historian Ilan Pappe in his book based largely on declassified Israeli archives, “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.”
Almost a million Palestinians were driven from their homes, businesses and communities and never allowed to return in defiance of UN Resolution 194, Articles 13 and 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Israel’s own pledges for its 1949 admission to the UN. Israel’s UN ambassador Abba Eban assured the UN of its intentions to comply fully with the UN Charter, “the resolutions of the Assembly and the Security Council” and the UN’s mission and principles of self-determination and equality (while offering excuses for its failure to yet do so). This pledge has remained unfulfilled, including UNGA resolutions 181 and 194 calling for return of Palestinian refugees, compensation for lost properties, and international administration of Jerusalem.
The takeover continued in 1967 with Israel’s seizure of the West Bank and Gaza from Jordan and Egypt in the 6-day war falsely justified as defensive, a fabrication Menachim Begin admitted in a 1982 speech to Israel’s National Defense College. The UN demanded Israeli withdrawal to no avail. Similarly, Israel not only illegally incorporated but is now relentlessly colonizing Palestinian East Jerusalem, ignoring 1980 UNSC Resolution 478 declaring this “null and void.” Their West Bank separation wall wasjudged illegal in 2004 by the International Court of Justice but it remains nevertheless.
The UN Security Council has voted overwhelmingly 45 times to censure Israel, each time vetoed by the US while joined 44 times by no other member state. In numerous UN General Assembly resolutions condemning Israel, few members ever vote against these (only the US, Israel, and three South Pacific island US protectorates do so consistently).
Israel’s human rights violations continue to parallel and arguably exceed those of apartheid South Africa. The Palestinian Arab population remaining after 1948 and 1967 have grown to some 6.5 million, approximately equal to the Israeli Jewish population, living under flagrantly unequal conditions tightly controlled or trapped entirely by Israel.
A crushed and fragmented Palestine
A 20% Palestinian minority population of Israel lives under a comprehensive set of some 65 apartheid laws, denied numerous basic rights and liberties in virtually every significant area of life including property ownership restrictions and the 2018 Jewish Nation-State Law formally declaring Jewish supremacy and exclusive entitlement to the entire state.
A second population lives under undemocratic UN-designated “belligerent occupation” in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, separated by Jewish-only roads and physical barriers into non-contiguous enclaves (i.e., Bantustans), subjected to Israeli military law with Palestinian collaborators (the PA) in Areas A and B not under full Israeli “security.” Although formally constrained by the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel violates this at will. Among dozens of other violations, this includes prohibition against moving its own population into occupied territory, which has continued unabated since 1967.
A third population lives in Gaza, where removal of Israeli settlers in2005 cleared the way for a continuous modern replication of medieval siege warfare amplified by frequent direct military assaults, compared with the Warsaw ghetto by Princeton emeritus professor of international law and UN rapporteur Richard Falk (who is Jewish). Gaza long ago eclipsed Soweto.
A fourth population of 2,350,000 remains within 27 impoverished refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza, supported not by those who expelled them but by the rest of us through UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
Who will discipline the spoiled children who never grow up?
Although comfortably self-sufficient, well-developed and prosperous, Israel is the largest single recipient of US foreign aid. Why? to support our democratic values? Israeli professor Nurit Peled-Elhanon thinks not. In a detailed study, she documents flagrant racism in Israeli schoolbooks grossly distorting and obscuring Palestinian history and culture. She views this as preparing young Israelis for IDF violence, repression and degradation intended to obliterate an ancient Arab civilization from history.
I spoke with her brother Miko after a speaking engagement in Oregon where he recounted that he had grown up in Jerusalem not far from Palestinian neighborhoods, but had never met a Palestinian until moving to San Diego as an adult and joining a Middle East discussion group. Segregation and supremacy would appear to be a multi-generational Israeli intention.
South Africa matured morally, Israel still hasn’t. But despite its long criticism as an international outlaw state, Israeli Olympic participation has never been excluded or made conditional on the same human rights reforms required of South Africa.
Perhaps today’s BDS movement should be speaking with the IOC.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Jack Dresser, Ph.D., a retired psychologist and behavioral scientist, is national vice-chair of the Veterans for Peace working group on Palestine and the Middle East.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Last month’s revelation by a representative of the Russian Armed Forces that the Syrian-manned anti-air systems that his country dispatched to the Arab Republic successfully downed most “Israeli” missiles during a recent strike suggest that the Eurasian Great Power might be recalibrating its de facto alliance with the self-professed “Jewish State”.
Russia and “Israel” have been de facto allies in Syria for over the past half-decade as I argued at length over the years, especially in my top four analyses on the subject here, here (which lists 15 other pertinent ones), here, and here.
To summarize, Russia sought to actively “balance” Iranian influence in Syria which it regards as regionally destabilizing due to its reported role in organizing attacks against the self-professed “Jewish State” from the Arab Republic’s territory. Moscow was motivated by the desire to comprehensively expand its ties with Tel Aviv, which it also expected would improve its geostrategic positioning vis-a-vis Washington by gradually becoming “Israel’s” most significant regional security partner.
It advanced this aim by “passively facilitating” literally hundreds of “Israeli” strikes against the IRGC and Hezbollah there, which importantly were never thwarted by Syria’s Russian-supplied S-300s from a few years back due to what some believe is the Kremlin’s continued refusal to transfer full operational control over these systems to Damascus. The thinking goes that if Syria succeeded in downing any more “Israeli” jets in self-defense, then Tel Aviv would be triggered into launching a disproportionate response against its neighbor that could completely cripple its military and therefore inadvertently reverse Russia’s recent anti-terrorist gains in the country. The Kremlin calculated that it’s better to give “Israel” freedom of the skies than risk that scenario.
This strategy seems to be changing though as evidenced by a Russian Armed Forces representative revealing late last month that the Syrian-manned anti-air systems that his country dispatched to the Arab Republic successfully downed most “Israeli” missiles during a recent strike. This suggests that the Eurasian Great Power might be recalibrating its de facto alliance with the self-professed “Jewish State”. It’s unclear exactly what Moscow’s motivations may be, but some educated hypotheses might suffice for pointing sincere observers in the right direction. These are the recent removal of President Putin’s close friend Netanyahu from power; the ongoing efforts to clinch a “New Detente” with the US; and restoring regional geostrategic balance.
In the order that they were mentioned, the first development might have resulted in the coming to power of influential forces that don’t share Netanyahu’s vision of a de facto Russian-”Israeli” alliance. Those individuals can speculatively be described as more pro-American than pro-”Israeli” in the sense that they’d prefer to put their traditional patron’s interests before their own polity’s. To explain, regardless of however one feels about Netanyahu’s legacy, he was nevertheless very successful in comprehensively improving relations with Russia, which in turn made “Israel” less dependent on the US’ regional security services for defending his polity’s interests. His successor and that man’s team might feel more comfortable returning under the US umbrella.
The second point is pertinent insofar as it’s increasingly clear that the US and Russia are attempting to negotiate a series of “mutual compromises” across a wide array of spheres following June’s Biden-Putin Summit in Geneva. Russia wants to relieve American pressure along its western flank in order to focus more on its “UmmahPivot” for reducing potentially disproportionate dependence on China in the future while the US wants to refocus the bulk of its strategic efforts on more aggressively “containing” China in the “Indo-Pacific”. “Israel”, which is important to both of their interests, might have come to be treated as little more than a piece to be traded by Russia on this “Great Power Chessboard” in exchange for US “compromises” elsewhere.
Finally, this might simply be due to Russia realizing that “Israel” is now far too strong and must therefore be “gently” balanced through increased military (and specifically anti-air) assistance to Syria. After all, one of the primary reasons why Russia de facto allied with “Israel” in the first place is because Iran was becoming too strong in the region and thus had to be balanced according to the Kremlin’s geostrategic calculations. It would therefore be natural for Russia to temporarily recalibrate its balancing strategy in light of succeeding so well with its earlier motivation. This suggests that Russia might eventually oscillate back towards “Israel” if/once Iran regains its momentum, and so on and so forth in accordance with the Kremlin’s Eurasian balancing strategy.
While a lot still remains unclear at the moment, all that can be known for sure is that Russia wanted the world to know that it credibly bolstered Syria’s air defense capabilities, which certainly hints that it’s actively recalibrating its balancing act and in particular the “Israeli” dimension thereof. It’s unknown exactly how far it’ll go and whether it’ll ever cross the Rubicon that many Non-Russian Pro-Russians (NRPRs) have been practically begging for with respect to letting Syria finally use the S-300s to shoot down attacking “Israeli” jets, but it’s obvious that something has changed even though the reasons for this perceptible shift are debatable and could even potentially be a combination of each of the three earlier described hypotheses.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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).
Recently the Core Group (US, Canada, France, Spain, Germany, Brazil, UN and OAS) published a note saying Ariel Henry was the prime minister of Haiti. Within 48 hours the other individual claiming the position fell into line behind Henry, who was a member of the US/France/Canada created ‘Council of the Wise’ that appointed the prime minister after President Jean Bertrand Aristide was ousted in 2004.
The Core Group’s bid to unify the PHTK (right wing ‘Bald-Headed’ Party) regime was designed to undercut an effort by a broad group of Haitian political actors to form a consensus government. The Commission pour la recherche d’une solution à la crise is seeking to form a government that would remain in place for a year or two in a bid to stabilize the country and revitalize moribund state institutions. Then it would oversee elections.
But the Core Group wants the PHTK regime to oversee quick elections, which will be easy to manipulate. Something that has happened numerous times in the recent past.
As a result, many Haitian civil society and political actors have criticized the Core Group’s ‘selection of Haiti’s leader by statement’. To understand their concerns, imagine the Jamaican, Congolese, Guatemalan and Filipino ambassadors releasing a collective statement on who should be prime minister of Canada.
The assassination of President Jovenel Moïse reflects the disintegration of Haitian politics after a decade of foreign intervention that empowered the neo-Duvalierist PHTK since an earthquake devastated Port-au-Prince and surrounding regions in January 2010. Instead of dispatching Heavy Urban Search and Rescue Teams to help with relief and medical support after the quake, Ottawa sent 2,000 troops to join over 10,000 US troops deployed to Haiti. As internal Canadian government documents show, they were deployed out of concern over a “popular uprising” amidst the political vacuum and the return of Haiti’s most popular politician, Aristide, from forced exile.
While their massive capacities offered certain logistical benefits, the foreign troops trampled on Haitian sovereignty by seizing control of the airport and port. Simultaneously, the government was sidelined from international reconstruction. In the months after the quake the US and Canada demanded the Haitian parliament pass an 18-month state of emergency law that effectively gave up government control over the reconstruction.
Not viewing then-President Renée Préval as sufficiently compliant, the US and Canada pushed for elections to take place only months after the horrific earthquake. With rubble throughout Port au Prince and hundreds of thousands living in camps, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannondemanded Préval hold elections by the end of the year. In May 2010 Cannon said, “the international community wants to see a commitment, a solid, serious commitment to have an election by the end of this year.” (With far fewer logistical hurdles, it took two years to hold elections after the 2004 US/France/Canada coup.)
As a result of various obstacles tied to the earthquake and a devastating cholera outbreak introduced to the country by negligent UN troops in October 2010, hundreds of thousands were unable to vote during the first round of the November 28, 2010, election. Another factor dampening turnout was the exclusion of Aristide’s Fanmi Lavalas from participating.
Following the first round of voting the US and Canada forced the candidate whom Haiti’s electoral council had in second place, Jude Celestin, out of the runoff. Rather than the candidate of Préval’s social democratic INITE party, US and Canadian officials claimed the extreme right-wing Michel Martelly deserved to be in the second round. A US and Canada dominated OAS electoral mission concluded Martelly was in second place despite, explains the Centre for Economic Policy Research, no “legal, statistical, or other logical basis for its conclusions.” Nevertheless, Ottawa and Washington pushed the Haitian government to accept the OAS’s recommendations. Cannon said he “strongly urges the Provisional Electoral Council to accept and implement the [OAS] report’s recommendations and to proceed with the next steps of the electoral process accordingly.” In an interview Canada’s foreign minister warned that “time is running out”, adding that “our ambassador has raised this with the president [Préval] himself.” As part of their full-court press, Haitian officials had their US visas revoked, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled to Port-au-Prince and there were threats that aid would be cut off if Martelly’s vote total was not increased as per the OAS recommendation.
The pressure worked. But only about 20% of voters participated in the second round of elections, which Martelly ‘won’.
Washington and Ottawa backed Martelly as he failed to hold constitutionally mandated elections and became ever more violent. As president, Martelly surrounded himself with former Duvalierists and death squad leaders who’d been arrested for rape, murder, kidnapping and drug trafficking. When brutal dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier returned to Haiti after 25 years, Martelly told the New York Times no one wanted him prosecuted except for “certain institutions and governments” abroad.
During repeated visits Canadian foreign minister John Baird praised Martelly for “going in the right direction” and operating “a really functioning government.” In 2013 Baird and minister for the Americas Diane Ablonczy met Martelly and his Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe in Port-au-Prince saying, “we share with Haitian leaders the goal of seeing a self-sustaining economy with opportunity for all Haitians and a greater role for private-sector actors, including Canadian companies.” Ottawa backed Martelly until protests forced him to leave office at the end of his five-year mandate.
They also helped Martelly make the little-known Jovenel Moïse his successor. The US and Canada pushed to move forward with the second round of voting after mass protests broke out over election irregularities. When the second round was finally canceled Global Affairs put out a statement headlined “Ministers Dion and Bibeau concerned by postponement of Haiti’s presidential elections.” A subsequent audit of the election results found that 92% of polling place tally sheets had significant irregularities and a stunning 900,000 of the 1.5 million votes cast were from ‘accredited poll observers’ who could vote at any voting station.
In a new election a year later barely one in five eligible voters participated. According to official figures, Moïse received less than 600,000 votes — just 9.6 percent of registered voters. Voter suppression was widespread.
Beyond direct efforts to dampen turnout, elections had largely lost their legitimacy. Many Haitians believed then and believe today that no matter who receives the most votes the tallies will be ‘arranged’ to suit the ruling candidate. And if a pro-poor candidate wins, their agenda will be stifled or they will be overthrown.
This belief is based upon experience. In the most credible election in Haitian history, Aristide’s Fanmi Lavalas won more than 70% of the votes for 7,000 positions. In the May 2000 legislative and municipal elections they took an unprecedented 89 of 115 mayoral positions, 72 of 83 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and 18 of 19 Senate seats.
Knowing they had no chance of gaining power via the ballot box in the foreseeable future, the foreign backed opposition parties cried foul. After initially describing the elections as “a great success for the Haitian population”, the OAS subsequently criticized the counting method in a handful of Senate seats (as has been done in previous selections, the electoral council determined the 50 percent plus one vote required for a first-round victory by calculating the percentages of the top four candidates.) The opposition boycotted the subsequent presidential election, which they had no chance of winning. A USAID poll of 1,002 Haitians conducted on the eve of the November 2000 presidential election showed that Aristide was far and away the most popular politician and Fanmi Lavalas was the preferred party by an incredible 13 to one.
In one of the most impressive feats of 21st-century imperial propaganda, supposed ‘irregularities’ in the May legislative and municipal election became the justification for destabilizing and ultimately overthrowing Aristide. In other words, the 2004 coup against President Aristide began with an effort to discredit elections he neither participated in nor oversaw.
The US- and Canada-sponsored destabilization campaign included an aid embargo, funding for opposition groups, diplomatic isolation and paramilitary attacks. It culminated with US, French and Canadian troops invading the country to physically remove the president.
Incredibly this was all planned, in broad outline, in advance, in Canada.
In 2003 Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government organized the “Ottawa Initiative on Haiti” where high-level US, French and OAS officials discussed ousting Haiti’s elected president, re-creating the dreaded army and putting the country under UN trusteeship. Thirteen months after the meeting Aristide was forced out and Haiti was under UN occupation. The military was subsequently re-created.
The current Core Group traces its roots to the 2003 Ottawa Initiative on Haiti meeting. Some have labeled it a “fourth branch” of the Haitian government. But the Core Group’s success at rallying the PHTK behind Ariel Henry demonstrates its influence may be greater than that.
The vast majority of Haitians are right to be angry at foreign interference in their country. Look at where it has led.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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).
Imagine it: a national classification system that not only categorizes you according to your health status but also allows the government to sort you in a hundred other ways: by gender, orientation, wealth, medical condition, religious beliefs, political viewpoint, legal status, etc.
This is the slippery slope upon which we are embarking, one that begins with vaccine passports and ends with a national system of segregation.
It has already begun.
With every passing day, more and more private businesses and government agencies on both the state and federal level are requiring proof of a COVID-19 vaccination in order for individuals to work, travel, shop, attend school, and generally participate in the life of the country.
No matter what one’s views may be regarding the government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, this is an unnerving proposition for a country that claims to prize the rights of the individual and whose Bill of Rights was written in such a way as to favor the rights of the minority.
By allowing government agents to establish a litmus test for individuals to be able to engage in commerce, movement and any other right that corresponds to life in a supposedly free society, it lays the groundwork for a “show me your papers” society in which you are required to identify yourself at any time to any government worker who demands it for any reason.
Such tactics can quickly escalate into a power-grab that empowers government agents to force anyone and everyone to prove they are in compliance with every statute and regulation on the books. Mind you, there are thousands of statutes and regulations on the books. Indeed, in this era of overcriminalization, it is estimated that the average American unknowingly breaks at least three laws a day.
This is also how the right to move about freely has been undermined, overtaken and rewritten into a privilege granted by the government to those citizens who are prepared to toe the line.
It used to be that “we the people” had the right to come and go as we please without the fear of being stopped, questioned by police or forced to identify ourselves. In other words, unless police had a reasonable suspicion that a person was guilty of wrongdoing, they had no legal authority to stop the person and require identification.
Unfortunately, in this age of COVID-19, that unrestricted right to move about freely is being pitted against the government’s power to lock down communities at a moment’s notice. And in this tug-of-war between individual freedoms and government power, “we the people” have been on the losing end of the deal.
Now vaccine passports, vaccine admission requirements, and travel restrictions may seem like small, necessary steps in winning the war against the COVID-19 virus, but that’s just so much propaganda. They’re only necessary to the police state in its efforts to further brainwash the populace into believing that the government legitimately has the power to enforce such blatant acts of authoritarianism.
This is how you imprison a populace and lock down a nation.
It makes no difference if such police state tactics are carried out in the name of national security or protecting America’s borders or making America healthy again: the philosophy remains the same, and it is a mindset that is not friendly to freedom.
You can’t have it both ways.
You can’t live in a constitutional republic if you allow the government to act like a police state.
You can’t claim to value freedom if you allow the government to operate like a dictatorship.
You can’t expect to have your rights respected if you allow the government to treat whomever it pleases with disrespect and an utter disregard for the rule of law.
If you’re tempted to justify these draconian measures for whatever reason—for the sake of health concerns, the economy, or national security—beware: there’s always a boomerang effect.
Whatever dangerous practices you allow the government to carry out now, rest assured, these same practices can and will be used against you when the government decides to set its sights on you.
The war on drugs turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with SWAT teams and militarized police. The war on terror turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with warrantless surveillance and indefinite detention for those who dare to disagree.
The war on immigration turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with roving government agents demanding “papers, please.”
This war on COVID-19 is turning out to be yet another war on the American people, waged with all of the surveillance weaponry and tracking mechanisms at the government’s disposal. You see, when you talk about empowering government agents to screen the populace in order to control and prevent spread of this virus, what you’re really talking about is creating a society in which ID cards, round ups, checkpoints and detention centers become routine weapons used by the government to control and suppress the populace, no matter the threat.
No one is safe.
No one is immune.
And as I illustrate in my new novel, The Erik Blair Diaries, no one gets spared the anguish, fear and heartache of living in a police state.
That’s the message being broadcast 24/7 with every new piece of government propaganda, every new law that criminalizes otherwise lawful activity, every new policeman on the beat, every new surveillance camera casting a watchful eye, every sensationalist news story that titillates and distracts, every new prison or detention center built to house troublemakers and other undesirables, every new court ruling that gives government agents a green light to strip and steal and rape and ravage the citizenry, every school that opts to indoctrinate rather than educate, and every new justification for why Americans should comply with the government’s attempts to trample the Constitution underfoot.
Yes, COVID-19 has taken a significant toll on the nation emotionally, physically, and economically, but there are still greater dangers on the horizon.
As long as “we the people” continue to allow the government to trample our rights in the so-called name of national security, things will get worse, not better.
It’s already worse.
We’ve been having this same debate about the perils of government overreach for the past 50-plus years, and still we don’t seem to learn, or if we learn, we learn too late.
Curiously enough, these COVID-19 mandates, restrictions and vaccine card requirements dovetail conveniently with a national timeline for states to comply with the Real ID Act, which imposes federal standards on identity documents such as state drivers’ licenses, a prelude to a national identification system.
Talk about a perfect storm for bringing about a national ID card, the ultimate human tracking device.
In the absence of a national ID card, which would make the police state’s task of monitoring, tracking and singling out individual suspects far simpler, “we the people” are already being tracked in a myriad of ways: through our state driver’s licenses, Social Security numbers, bank accounts, purchases and electronic transactions; biometrics; by way of our correspondence and communication devices (email, phone calls and mobile phones); through chips implanted in our vehicles, identification documents, even our clothing.
Add to this the fact that businesses, schools and other facilities are relying more and more on fingerprints and facial recognition to identify us. All the while, data companies such as Acxiom are capturing vast caches of personal information to help airports, retailers, police and other government authorities instantly determine whether someone is the person he or she claims to be.
This informational glut—used to great advantage by both the government and corporate sectors—has converged into a mandate for “an internal passport,” a.k.a., a national ID card that would store information as basic as a person’s name, birth date and place of birth, as well as private information, including a Social Security number, fingerprint, retinal scan and personal, criminal and financial records.
A federalized, computerized, cross-referenced, databased system of identification policed by government agents would be the final nail in the coffin for privacy (not to mention a logistical security nightmare that would leave Americans even more vulnerable to every hacker in the cybersphere).
Americans have always resisted adopting a national ID card for good reason: National ID card systems have been used before, by other oppressive governments, in the name of national security, invariably with horrifying results. After all, such a system gives the government and its agents the ultimate power to target, track and terrorize the populace according to the government’s own nefarious purposes.
For instance, in Germany, the Nazis required all Jews to carry special stamped ID cards for travel within the country. A prelude to the yellow Star of David badges, these stamped cards were instrumental in identifying Jews for deportation to death camps in Poland.
Author Raul Hilberg summarizes the impact that such a system had on the Jews:
The whole identification system, with its personal documents, specially assigned names, and conspicuous tagging in public, was a powerful weapon in the hands of the police. First, the system was an auxiliary device that facilitated the enforcement of residence and movement restrictions. Second, it was an independent control measure in that it enabled the police to pick up any Jew, anywhere, anytime. Third, and perhaps most important, identification had a paralyzing effect on its victims.
In South Africa during apartheid, pass books were used to regulate the movement of black citizens and segregate the population. The Pass Laws Act of 1952 stipulated where, when and for how long a black African could remain in certain areas. Any government employee could strike out entries, which cancelled the permission to remain in an area. A pass book that did not have a valid entry resulted in the arrest and imprisonment of the bearer.
Identity cards have also helped oppressive regimes carry out eliminationist policies such as mass expulsion, forced relocation and group denationalization. Through the use of identity cards, Ethiopian authorities were able to identify people with Eritrean affiliation during the mass expulsion of 1998. The Vietnamese government was able to locate ethnic Chinese more easily during their 1978-79 expulsion. The USSR used identity cards to force the relocation of ethnic Koreans (1937), Volga Germans (1941), Kamyks and Karachai (1943), Crimean Tartars, Meshkhetian Turks, Chechens, Ingush and Balkars (1944) and ethnic Greeks (1949). And ethnic Vietnamese were identified for group denationalization through identity cards in Cambodia in 1993, as were the Kurds in Syria in 1962.
Despite a belated apology and monetary issuance by the U.S. government, the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to declare such a practice illegal. Moreover, laws such as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) empower the government to arrest and detain indefinitely anyone they “suspect” of being an enemy of the state.
So you see, you may be innocent of wrongdoing now, but when the standard for innocence is set by the government, no one is safe.
Everyone is a suspect.
And anyone can be a criminal when it’s the government determining what is a crime.
It’s no longer a matter of if, but when.
Remember, the police state does not discriminate.
At some point, it will not matter whether your skin is black or yellow or brown or white. It will not matter whether you’re an immigrant or a citizen. It will not matter whether you’re rich or poor. It won’t even matter whether you’ve been properly medicated, vaccinated or indoctrinated.
Government jails will hold you just as easily whether you’ve obeyed every law or broken a dozen. Government bullets will kill you just as easily whether you’re complying with a police officer’s order or questioning his tactics. And whether or not you’ve done anything wrong, government agents will treat you like a suspect simply because they have been trained to view and treat everyone like potential criminals.
Eventually, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, when the police state has turned that final screw and slammed that final door, all that will matter is whether some government agent chooses to single you out for special treatment.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
In mid-July, 100 Afghan families from Bamiyan, a rural province of central Afghanistan mainly populated by the Hazara ethnic minority, fled to Kabul. They feared Taliban militants would attack them in Bamiyan.
Over the past decade, I have gotten to know a grandmother who recalls fleeing Talib fighters in the 1990s, just after learning that her husband had been killed.
Then, she was a young widow with five children, and for several agonizing months two of her sons were missing.
I can only imagine the traumatized memories that spurred her to again flee her village today. She is part of the Hazara ethnic minority and hopes to protect her grandchildren.
Girls and mothers, waiting for donations of heavy blankets, Kabul, 2018. [Source: Dr. Hakim]
When it comes to inflicting miseries on innocent Afghan people, there is plenty of blame to be shared.
The Taliban have demonstrated a pattern of anticipating people who might form opposition to their eventual rule and waging “pre-emptive” attacks against journalists, human rights activists, judicial officials, advocates for women’s rights, and minority groups such as the Hazara.
In places where the Taliban have successfully taken over districts, they may be ruling over increasingly resentful populaces; people who have lost harvests, homes, and livestock are already coping with a third wave of Covid-19 and severe drought.
An injured man receives treatment at the Ibn-e-Sina Hospital in Mazar-e Sharif following a bomb attack in Balkh province on June 6, 2021. [Source: Afghanistan-analysts.org]
In many northern provinces, the re-emergence of the Taliban can be traced to the Afghan government’s incompetence, and also to criminal and abusive behaviors of the local military commanders, including land grabs, extortion, and rape.
President Ashraf Ghani, showing little empathy for people trying to flee Afghanistan, referred to those who leave as people looking to “have fun.”
Responding to his April 18 speech when he made this comment, a young woman whose sister, a journalist, was recently killed, tweeted about her father who had stayed in Afghanistan for 74 years, encouraged his children to stay, and now felt that his daughter might be alive had she left. The surviving daughter said the Afghan government could not protect its people, and that is why they tried to leave
President Ghani’s government has encouraged the formation of “Uprising” militias to help protect the country. Immediately, people began questioning how the Afghan government could support new militias when it already lacks ammunition and protection for thousands of Afghan National Defense Forces and local police who have fled their posts.
The main backer of the Uprising forces, it seems, is the formidable National Directorate of Security, whose main sponsor is the CIA.
Some militia groups have raised money through imposing “taxes” or outright extortion. Others turn to other countries in the region, all of which reinforces cycles of violence and despair.
The staggering loss of landmine removal experts working for the nonprofit HALO Trust should add to our sense of grief and mourning.
About 2,600 Afghans working with the demining group had helped make more than 80% of Afghanistan’s land safe from unexploded ordnance strewn over the country after 40 years of war.
Tragically, militants attacked the group, killing ten workers.
Human Rights Watch says the Afghan government has not adequately investigated the attack nor has it investigated the killings of journalists, human rights activists, clerics, and judicial workers that began escalating after the Afghan government began peace talks with the Taliban in April.
Yet, unquestionably, the warring party in Afghanistan with the most sophisticated weapons and seemingly endless access to funds has been the United States. Funds were spent not to lift Afghans to a place of security from which they might have worked to moderate Taliban rule, but to further frustrate them, beating down their hopes of future participatory governance with 20 years of war and brutal impoverishment.
Disabled people from the war are a common sight across Afghanistan. [Source: progressive.org-photo taken by Dr. Hakim]
The war has been a prelude to the United States’s inevitable retreat and the return of a possibly more enraged and dysfunctional Taliban to rule over a shattered population.
The troop withdrawal negotiated by President Joe Biden and U.S. military officials is not a peace agreement. Rather, it signals the end of an occupation resulting from an unlawful invasion and, while troops are leaving, the Biden administration is already laying plans for “over the horizon” drone surveillance, drone strikes, and “manned” aircraft strikes which could exacerbate and prolong the war.
U.S. citizens ought to consider not only financial recompense for destruction caused by 20 years of war but also a commitment to dismantle the warfare systems that brought such havoc, chaos, bereavement, and displacement to Afghanistan.
We should be sorry that, during 2013, when the United States spent an average of $2 million per soldier stationed in Afghanistan, the number of Afghan children suffering malnutrition rose by 50%. At that same time, the cost of adding iodized salt to an Afghan child’s diet to help reduce the risk of brain damage caused by hunger would have been 5 cents per child per year.
We should deeply regret that while the United States constructed sprawling military bases in Kabul, populations in refugee camps soared.
U.S. military base outside of Kabul. [Source: wired.com]
During harsh winter months, people desperate for warmth in a Kabul refugee camp would burn—and then have to breathe—plastic.
Refugee camps provide a stark contract to U.S. military bases. [Source: unhcr.org]
Trucks laden with food, fuel, water, and supplies constantly entered the U.S. military base immediately across the road from this camp.
We should acknowledge, with shame, that U.S. contractors signed deals to build hospitals and schools which were later determined to be ghost hospitals and ghost schools, places that never even existed.
On October 3, 2015, when only one hospital served vast numbers of people in the Kunduz province, the U.S. Air Force bombed the hospital at 15-minute intervals for one-and-a-half hours, killing 42 people including 13 staff, three of whom were doctors. This attack helped greenlight the war crime of bombing hospitals all around the world.
More recently, in 2019, migrant workers in Nangarhar were attacked when a drone fired missiles into their overnight camp. The owner of a pine nut forest had hired the laborers, including children, to harvest the pine nuts, and he notified officials ahead of time, hoping to avoid any confusion. While the workers were resting after an exhausting day of work, 30 were killed and another 40 were badly wounded.
U.S. repentance for a regime of attacks by weaponized drones, conducted in Afghanistan and worldwide, along with sorrow for the countless civilians killed, should lead to deep appreciation for Daniel Hale, a drone whistleblower who exposed the widespread and indiscriminate murder of civilians.
Drone whistleblower Daniel Hale spoke out against the atrocities of the drone war and was sent to jail, while the criminals who ordered the murderous attacks live in luxury. [Source: progressive.org]
Between January 2012 and February 2013, according to an article in The Intercept, these air strikes “killed more than 200 people. Of those, only thirty-five were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets.”
On July 27, Hale was sentenced to four years in prison under the archaic Espionage Act.
We should be sorry for night raids that terrified civilians, assassinated innocent people, and were later acknowledged to have been based on faulty information.
We must reckon with how little attention our elected officials ever paid to the quadrennial “Special Inspector General on Afghan Reconstruction” reports which detailed many years’ worth of fraud, corruption, human rights violations and failure to achieve stated goals related to countering narcotics or confronting corrupt structures.
We should say we are sorry, we are so very sorry, for pretending to stay in Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons when, honestly, we understood next to nothing about humanitarian concerns of women and children in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan’s civilian population has repeatedly demanded peace.
When I think of the generations in Afghanistan who have suffered through war, occupation and the vagaries of warlords, including NATO troops, I wish we could hear the sorrow of the grandmother who now wonders how she might help feed, shelter and protect her family.
Her sorrow should lead to atonement on the part of countries that invaded her land. Every one of those countries could arrange visas and support for each Afghan person who now wants to flee.
A reckoning with the massive wreckage this grandmother and her loved ones face should yield equally massive readiness to abolish all wars, 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.
Kathy Kelly is a peace activist and author whose efforts to end military and economic wars have sometimes led her to live in war zones and U.S. federal prisons. She can be reached at [email protected].
Featured image: An Afghan man and children, suffering hardships from America’s longest war, pose for a portrait in Kabul, Afghanistan, on March 19, 2021. [Source: theintercept.com]
In this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky’s 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by “Islamic terrorists”. Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.
The expanded edition, which includes twelve new chapters focuses on the use of 9/11 as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, the militarisation of justice and law enforcement and the repeal of democracy.
According to Chossudovsky, the “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.
September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington’s agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Every very seldom often a book comes along that greatly exceeds expectations. Lawrence in Arabia is one of those books. Scott Anderson’s writing is highly entertaining and highly informative at the same time. It reads in a way that gives the impression more that it is a spy novel rather than an historical study. It is more than just about Thomas Edward Lawrence, although he is the character who all the others orbit around in this perspective. It includes a cast of characters that are wonderfully fallible and incompetent – liars, deceivers, manipulators – at their imperial best.
Cast of Characters
The cast of characters is broadly known for most people who have read histories of World War I, its precedents and aftermaths. Scott Anderson made a wonderful effort in researching the main characters who travelled through the Middle East, sometimes encountering each other, always on the move, always looking for their advantage.
Going in alphabetical order, Aaron Aaronsohn comes first. He is described as an optimist, arrogant, and intelligent, and agronomist who set up many research projects in Palestine mostly to further interest in a Jewish state in the region. He worked both sides, initially serving the Ottoman Empire (of which he was citizen) and later setting up a spy network that proved very effective, but was generally ignored by the British until very late in the war.
The French had their local spy with Colonel Édouard Brémond who handled French policy in the region. As he “juggled two largely contradictory agendas” he came across to Mark Sykes (see below) as having a “deliberately perverse attitude and policy.”
Ahmed Djemal Pasha served as the Governor of Syria – Syria at that time incorporating most of the modern states of the Middle East. His managerial style was “mercurial” as he “Forever oscillated between raging severity and gentle magnanimity, often within the same conversation, he often kept everyone around him permanently off balance.”
Germany had its representative in the Ottoman Empire, Curt Prüfer, the German Oriental Secretary. As head of German intelligence for the region, he was also their master spy, described as being a “consummate charmer” and a “notorious seducer.”
Another one keeping people off balance, Mark Sykes, a British politician and diplomatic advisor on the Middle East, played a strong role in this nest of manipulators. He had a “breezy arrogance”, “was an aristocratic gadfly…and also a liar.” While he had a “fecund mind” he was “forever contradicting positions or policies he had advocated earlier – often mere days earlier.”
And what would the war be without an American State Department “special agent”? William Yale, of the family establishing Yale University, served two other roles: that of military attaché to the Egyptian Expeditionary Force (British), as well as continuing his ‘normal’ line of work as a more or less regular employee of Standard Oil.
‘Other’ Characters
There are of course many other characters, but the above listed assortment carry the main narrative. The most important ‘other’ (as they are mostly considered by western narratives) were the Arab contacts that Lawrence and his coterie interacted with in many different capacities, but always trying to manipulate them to their own advantage.
Faisal Ibn Hussein, Emir of the Hejaz, had to deal with all the double dealings of people like Sykes. At the same time he had many separate Arab tribes and villages he had to work with, ibn Saud being his chief rival. His son Abdullah ibn Huissein played a significant role in the area Lawrence operated in. After the war his dreams and plans for an Arab state were quickly demolished by British and French interests in the region.
As for the British cast of characters, Lawrence thought very little of them. The military is viewed as having “impregnable walls of military idiocy,” – how little things have changed! For the diplomats and politicians they are seen as self-serving, without imagination, essentially a rather dull minded set of people.
Once upon a time in Palestine…
As with most good mystery/spy novels, the cast of characters come together at the end of the story and the various deceits and lies are worked out. All these characters presented themselves at Versailles, where the “war to end all wars” essentially established the setup for WW II and our current situation in the Middle East.
While this is a story of Lawrence in Arabia, it serves amazingly well as an historical review of Palestinian history in that era and how the various factors came together to create the British Palestinian Mandate with vague authorization to settle Jewish immigrants in Palestine.
Mark Sykes played a significant role in this, while he conceded “Arab, Christian and Moslems alike would fight in the matter to the last man against Jewish Dominion in Palestine,” he wanted to use “Zionism as a pro-British vehicle in Palestine”, and held meetings with leading British Zionists without the knowledge of either the Foreign Office or the War Department. The Sykes-Picot agreement, negotiated in relative secrecy, and in contradiction to the McMahon-Hussein Agreement, played a pivotal role in the final Versailles settlements.
Aaronsohn played a significant role, and while he did not advocate fighting per se, he did support force, “The ultimate future of Palestine…was not a British protectorate in which a Jewish minority would be protected, but a de facto Jewish nation. This would be achieved both politically and economically, with Zionists simply buying up all the land between Gaza and Haifa and forcing the fellaheen from the land.”
William Yale wrote of Lawrence’s concerns that “the Arabs have no faith in the word of England and of France, and that they believe only such territory they are able to secure by [their own] force of arms will belong to them.” Lawrence later reflected that in one of his “most prescient comments..that ‘if a Jewish state is to be created in Palestine, it will have to be done by force of arms and maintained by force of arms amid an overwhelmingly hostile population.’”
Well beyond the story of one person, “Lawrence in Arabia” is a finely crafted work providing interesting details and lively characters in these highly significant years for the development of our modern geopolitical world. As an historical spy ‘novel’ it would be a great addition to history classes relating to any of the dimensions discussed above (and more). It can stand alone as a reference and as such creates a level of intrigue and interest leading to the reader wanting and needing to make further inquiries into that history. Alternatively, it is an excellent and necessary perspective on the normally drab histories covering this period of time. It makes history interesting, bringing it down to the very human level of personalities with all their abilities and all their faults – and all the repercussions still active today.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Devastating fires on legally protected land in the Amazon rainforest have surged under Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, according to a new report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
Satellite mapping of blazes and data on illegal deforestation show the number of major fires on embargoed rural land increased from 77 in 2018, immediately before Bolsonaro took office, to 124 in 2020.
The Bureau’s investigation also found that beef from farmers accused of illegal deforestation — and subsequently sanctioned with embargoes — was still making its way into global supply chains, including those serving at least two of the world’s biggest meat companies, JBS and Marfrig.
Embargoes imposed by Brazil’s environment agency, known by its acronym IBAMA, are intended to penalize landowners and allow illegally cleared forest areas to recover. JBS and other major Brazilian meat producers have made commitments not to buy cattle from protected land.
But in one case involving a farmer doing business with the companies, multiple fires were recorded on land that had been embargoed after earlier deforestation.
The Bureau tracked cattle supplied by the farmer implicated in this deforestation to abattoirs run by JBS and Marfrig. The Marfrig abattoir has exported beef to the United Kingdom. The findings raise serious questions about the effectiveness and enforcement of the embargo system and undermine the “deforestation-free” claims of multinational meat companies and their international customers.
The burning of the Amazon has become a global political issue, with Brazil pledging to strengthen environmental enforcement under pressure from the U.S. government. In the U.K., the environment bill going through parliament will require companies to ensure their supply chains are free of links to deforestation.
Under his administration, IBAMA has issued fewer embargoes, sanctioning just 385 areas in the Amazon in 2020, compared with more than 2,500 in 2018. The area of land under embargo has remained roughly the same.
The number of fines issued for illegal burning and deforestation in the Amazon has plummeted, dropping from an average of 4,600 a year between 2012 and 2018 to 2,600 a year in 2019 and 2020.
Area next to the borders of the Kaxarari Indigenous territory, in Labrea, Amazonas state. Taken 17 Aug, 2020. Image by Christian Braga / Greenpeace.
Even before Bolsonaro came to power, fires on embargoed land were a problem. There were 243 major blazes in embargoed areas of the Amazon in 2015 — the worst recent year.
The number of such fires subsequently declined, but the destruction has now ramped up again. Experts say this year’s dry weather could increase the risk of severe blazes when the fire season peaks in August and September.
The Bureau has established that Brazilian meat giants sourced hundreds of cattle from Vilymar Bissoni, a farmer linked to repeated cases of deforestation resulting in multiple embargoes in Mato Grosso state, a major center for beef and soy production.
Records seen by the Bureau and Repórter Brasil show that, between them, JBS and Marfrig bought nearly 1,000 head of cattle from Bissoni over 15 months in 2018 and 2019. Bissoni owns a company with a shareholding in the agribusiness group Bissoni Agropecuária.
Bissoni Agropecuária and related companies run a sprawling network of farms in the municipality of Gaúcha do Norte, with more than 350 square kilometers (135 square miles) of land producing soy and other crops and a beef enterprise with at least 7,000 head of cattle.
Bissoni and other family members connected with the business have been the subject of five environmental embargoes issued between 2009 and 2017, according to public records. At least three, spanning more than 26 km2 (10 mi2), were linked to illegal deforestation.
Unlawful clearing linked to the family business has also resulted in fines totaling more than $1 million.
The Bureau has established that at least three fires — in 2015, 2018 and 2020 — burned within the perimeters of two of these embargoed areas, after the sanctions were imposed.
When approached by the Bureau, the company denied the fires were deliberately set.
Recent satellite images reveal how 6 km2 (2.3 mi2) of forest was destroyed in the vicinity of another farm, Fazenda Vó Jovita, linked to Bissoni Agropecuária, in September 2020. Fires were recorded at this property, which is not currently under embargo, in the same month.
Satellite images show fires on Fazenda Vó Jovita. Image courtesy of Planet Labs Inc
The company told the Bureau: “There was a fire in the indigenous land and in neighbouring areas. We were successful in fighting the fire before it entered our property.”
Records seen by the Bureau reveal that cattle were repeatedly transported from Fazenda Vó Jovita to abattoirs supplying Marfrig and JBS between 2018 and 2019. The Marfrig meat plant that slaughtered the Bissoni cattle had exported to the U.K., highlighting how British consumption of Brazilian beef could inadvertently be helping to drive rainforest destruction thousands of miles away.
JBS and Marfrig’s U.K. customers include Sainsbury’s, Asda, Lidl and other major supermarket chains, as well as wholesalers, some of which supply the country’s National Health Service (NHS).
JBS did not deny doing business with Vilymar Bissoni but said Fazenda Vó Jovita did not correspond with any farm listed on its supplier system. The company said: “JBS does not tolerate any illegal deforestation in the Amazon or other biomes.”
Marfrig confirmed that Bissoni had been a supplier to one of its slaughterhouses, but said the farmer was no longer on its supplier list. The company said the farmer was “fully compliant” with its rules for suppliers at the time of the transactions.
The company said it was committed to zero deforestation in the Amazon biome by 2025 and had introduced a system for monitoring cattle suppliers to reduce the possibility of transferring cattle from “irregular” areas to areas that are complying.
In response to information provided about these supply chain links, an Asda representative said it would stop stocking JBS Brazilian beef in its ‘newly sourced’ canned goods. “We have worked with our supplier to ensure that any newly sourced canned products do not contain any Brazilian beef from JBS by the end of 2021,” an Asda spokesperson said, adding the business is committed to stopping food production linked to deforestation.
A Sainsbury’s spokesperson said, “Sainsbury’s is committed to sourcing sustainably and working together with Global Witness and the wider industry to tackle deforestation and preserve the essential ecosystems in the Amazon and Cerrado.”
Lidl referred to a retail industry statement, which said: “Our members take every effort to ensure the products they sell have no links to deforestation.”
The NHS said its food buying followed government standards for environmental protection, and that since last year it has asked for sustainability strategies from all suppliers for its procurements.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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).
This new publication is a masterpiece of research and analysis, and a great contribution to rectifying the false narrative perpetrated by western propaganda which demonizes the DPRK. “Immovable Object” repudiates the massive brainwashing campaign which for more than 70 years has perpetuated a despicable fabrication of the cause of the Korean War from 1950-1953, promulgating Orwellian distortions and lies with almost impenetrable consistency.
This work should be required reading at all educational institutions, globally, as it successfully refutes the too many appalling misconceptions and dangerous and defamatory disinformation which corrupts the thinking about the DPRK by too many people in the West and elsewhere.
The book begins with a phenomenally powerful and convincing documentation of the historic context of the Korean War from 1950-1953, and the author, A.B. Abrams presents irrefutable evidence that the DPRK did not initiate that war and had no motivation to do so.
Further, Dr. Abrams presents compelling evidence that both the United States and the corrupt and fascistic government of Syngman Rhee in the South, were powerfully motivated to provoke and initiate that horrific war because the United States saw it as a springboard to gain control of Northeast Asia, in particular Taiwan, and ultimately to force regime change in the communist People’s Republic of China, replacing Mao Tse Tung with the Chiang Kai-shek. To its infinite shame, the United Nations “coalition” under U.S. military command attacked the DPRK and later China, using overwhelming weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons (dropping thousands of tons of napalm on defenseless Korean civilians, especially women and children), biological weapons (many inspired by the Japanese war criminal, General Ishii, head of Unit 731 in Japan) and had authorized and planned the use of nuclear weapons against the DPRK and China.
Image on the right: Kim Il Sung
The author emphasized that the DPRK received no aid from the USSR or China at the beginning of the war, or prior to the war, because the USSR and China did not want to risk a confrontation with the United States: this refutes any suggestion that the DPRK was acting at the behest of Beijing or Moscow, or that they might have initiated aggression in anticipation of aid from the USSR or China.
However, the author suggests that the initial failure to aid the DPRK was a mistaken strategy by the USSR and China, because if they had provided aid to the DPRK at the beginning, the war could have been ended within three months of its onset, as the Republic of Korea was suffering under the gross venality and repression of the Syngman Rhee regime and the tacit US occupation, and would, in large numbers have welcomed liberation by the DPRK.
The heroism of the DPRK was astounding, and the fact that they were compelled to defend their country without any assistance from the USSR or China at the beginning underscores the wisdom of their policy of “Juche” (self-reliance). On page 28 the author presents the 20 point program (essentially the constitution, it would seem) of the DPRK, issued by Kim Il Sung, Chairman of the Communist Party of Korea in 1946, and the implementation of this program provided a very high level of development for the DPRK, and a very high standard of living for its people, in glaring contrast to the extremely degraded standard of living of South Korea under Syngman Rhee and the US occupation.
The opening five chapters of this book are a masterpiece of accuracy, with multiple pages of quotes from U.S. sources, including the leaders of the U.S. military, confirming the essentially genocidal character of the war. It is difficult and painful to read some detailed passages, as the criminal injustice of the war is both obvious and intolerable.
Chapters 6 and 7 describe, in graphic detail, the barbaric and generally sadistic character of the U.S. military aggressors, and the pathological racism that probably underlies it. However, motivating their cruelty was most probably also arrogant vengeance for their injured pride when they discovered that the North Korean fighters were so skilled that they initially succeeded in defeating the invasion by the excessively armed U.S. military, and such humiliating defeats were unexpected by the U.S, which responded with unspeakable sadism.
The author understates the ideological differences between the two opposing forces during that war. However, the fact that both North Korea and the People’s Republic of China were socialist, and extremely successful examples of the superiority of the socialist development model was undoubtedly one of the primary motives of the U.S. invasion of the DPRK and China. The capitalist determination to “roll-back” socialism by any means seems to be and to have been one of the most powerful and primary bases for US policy since the 1947 “Truman Doctrine of National Security.”
Much of the author’s cited information was publicly available in the United States, even while that war was raging. However, following the victory of the Chinese Communists over both the Japanese and Chiang-Kai-shek in 1949, the panic in the U.S. government over “who lost China” led to the period of McCarthyism in the United States, with the terrorization of Americans by the U.S. government itself, crippling most Americans with the fear of speaking out, lest their work, their homes, their families, their very lives be destroyed by Senator McCarthy and his “House Un-American Activities Committee.”
School teachers were tasked with indoctrinating American children with hatred of communism, hatred of North Koreans and Asians in general. The appalling, stultifying legacy of this fear continues to cripple the capacity for critical thinking, and, indeed, creative thinking among many Americans, and, indeed in many areas of the world. There were a few courageous and notable exceptions, including the great musical play, “South Pacific,” by Rogers and Hammerstein, which attacked the culture of racism, and did reach the hearts of many Americans. The words of the song “You’ve Got To Be Taught To Hate and Fear” are immortal, even today.
Chapter 8 of this book, entitled “Ending the War: Maximum Pressure and a Hard Lesson on American Power”, is, perhaps one of the most damning indictments of Western, particularly U.S. military barbarism in history. When it became clear that a stalemate existed, and that U.S. plans for hegemony over all of Northeast Asia were conspicuously failing, with President Truman refusing General McArthur’s call for the reckless nuclear bombing of North Korea and China, “peace negotiations” for an armistice began. With the U.S. holding enormous air power of unimaginable ferocity, of course, the dragging out of peace negotiations for two years while the saturation bombing of the DPRK and China continued throughout the two years of “negotiation” is an example of cynical cruelty possibly unmatched in human history.
While it is difficult to conceive of atrocity beyond what has preceded, yet the west’s demand for a “policy” of “voluntary repatriation” surpasses everything:
P.216: ”The prisoner of war issue became so heated in light of the wholly unexpected and illegal new Western demands that the signing of the ceasefire was effectively delayed for eighteen months—with Western warplanes, artillery and warships all the while continuing to bombard northern Korea.” “The importance of engineering prisoner defections went beyond the need for a propaganda victory for the West however – and would come to form the basis of the American claim to be a benevolent as opposed to an imperial power. Western rhetoric increasingly placed a new emphasis on moral universalism to frame the rationale of its interventionism abroad in a new light. A world order based on the dominance of Western military might ever-present across the globe would remain as it had in the colonial era—but the pretext for this order and for Western interventionism would change. The West’s wars were now ‘humanity’s wars’ fought on behalf of mankind, and those such as the Chinese and North Koreans who resisted the West were thus portrayed to be acting not only against Western interests—but against the interests of humanity, the ‘international community’ and even their own people. The will of the ‘free world’ and the ‘international community’ and the designs of the West were to be indistinguishable. The first use of this rhetoric, and new justification for Western dominated order and the quashing of independent anti-imperial forces by Western might came in Korea.”
”Hugh Deane, American reporter and former Coordinator of Information and naval intelligence officer on General MacArthur’s staff, reported on the U.S. strategy which necessitated a high number of defections from the armies of the East Asian allied powers:…”President Truman and an increasing number of others in the leadership had come to envisage a substitute for the victory the U.S. had failed to win on the battlefield—a propaganda triumph in line with the rollback doctrine that was prevailing over mere containment. An impressive number of prisoners were to refuse adamantly and publicly to go home to the communist evils awaiting them. To do the brunt of the dirty work in selected compounds (there were 32 of them on Koje, all overcrowded) the U.S. secured some 75 persuaders from Taiwan, mostly from Chiang Kai-shek’s equivalent of the Gestapo, and a larger number of members of terrorist youth groups sent in by the Syngman Rhee government. Some wore neat American uniforms, others were posing as prisoners…Their continuing task was to locate prisoners who wished repatriation and to do whatever was necessary to dissuade them. Control of the food supplies was a powerful means, and that, threats, beatings, slashings and the killing of the most stubborn led to a gratifying number who muttered ‘Taiwan, Taiwan, Taiwan’ when asked the key question…Thus many Chinese who didn’t want to go to Taiwan found themselves there. Of the Chinese prisoners, 6,670 were repatriated to China, 14, 235 were sent to Taiwan.”
John Nuccio, U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Korea (South Korea), himself alleged that the Taiwanese representatives involved in repatriation were “members of Chiang Kai-shek’s Gestapo.” “He passed on reports that Chinese prisoners were being forced to sign petitions in blood and undergo tattooing to prove that they were anti-communists and wanted to go to Taiwan. One report stated: ‘In early 1952 the brigade leader, Li Da’an wanted to tattoo every prisoner in Compound 72 with an anti-Communist slogan…He ordered the prison guards to beat those who refused the tattoo in front of the five thousand prisoners. Some of those who couldn’t stand the beatings gave up and agreed to the tattoo. One prisoner, however, Lin Xuepu, continued to refuse the tattoo. Li Da’an finally dragged Lin up to the stage and in a loud voice asked Lin: ‘Do you want it or not?’ Bleeding and barely able to stand up, Lin, a nineteen year old college freshman, replied with a loud ‘No!’ Li Da’an responded by cutting off one of Lin’s arms with his big dagger. Lin screamed but still shook his head when Li repeated the question. Humiliated and angry, Li followed by stabbing Lin with his dagger… Li yelled to all the prisoners in the field: ‘whoever dares to refuse the tattoo will be like him.’” Muccio would later refer to news on the treatment and coercion of Chinese and Korean prisoners as ‘very disturbing reports of horrors being perpetuated in the prisoners camps,’ for which he said the United States was responsible.”
Asymmetry in possession and control of nuclear weapons, with the West able to dangle the nuclear sword of Damocles over the Chinese and North Korean participants in “negotiations” for the “armistice,” ultimately resulted in an armistice with conditions vastly favorable to the West, and the East Asians essentially forced to relinquish their own interests to a vast degree. This lesson was not lost on either the Chinese or the DPRK, with a spokesman for the Chinese stating: “only when we ourselves have the atomic weapon, and are fully prepared, is it possible for the frenzied warmongers to listen to our just and reasonable proposals for ending the war.” The DPRK has learned the deadly lessons of history, repeated throughout the Korean war of the 1950’s and up to the terrifying example of Libya’s renunciation of their nuclear program. Anyone who fails to respect the DPRK’s need for the only adequate defense against its own destruction must be considered either ignorant or dangerous.
Image below: Comfort women (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
“Immovable Object” continues, in following chapters, to describe the degradation of a majority of South Korean women, forced to prostitution by economic destitution throughout the U.S. military occupation following the war, becoming the equivalent of the “comfort women” they previously were, sexual slaves of the Japanese, and now virtually sexual slaves for the U.S. military occupiers. The self-hatred and total loss of pride in their cultural identity has turned South Korea into the capital of plastic surgery, as South Korean women physically alter their appearance in an effort to emulate the “superior” Western facial features of their conqueror.
One of the book’s most important contributions is its accurate description of the DPRK’s period of almost insurmountable hardship throughout “The 1990’s: An Arduous March and a New World Order,” Chapter 12 of Part Three: “State Survival in the Unipolar Era.”
As the DPRK had been an integrated part of the Soviet economic system, the collapse of the Soviet Union left the DPRK on the verge of economic collapse, with all its economic partners sharing that disastrous economic and social catastrophe. With its people lacking often barest necessities, hitherto provided in economic exchanges with the former Soviet Union, and climate catastrophies in the form of flooding, drowning crops, drowning entire villages and all methods of agricultural production, millions died.
There is a politically sinister Western narrative that accuses the government of the DPRK of intentionally killing millions of its citizens. Only willful ignorance, based on crudest prejudice can make such venal allegations. The large numbers of deaths of victims of a now demolished economic system that had previously sustained the DPRK, exacerbated by climate disasters of staggering proportions, can only be considered an overwhelming national tragedy.
368: “The DPRK’s energy-intensive food production was seriously threatened by the Soviet collapse and the resulting closure of fuel and fertilizer imports from the USSR. Blacklisted as a ‘rogue state’ by the Western Bloc and placed under harsh economic sanctions, the DPRK struggled to import necessary inputs for its agriculture sector from other sources. International organizations such as the World Food Programme responsible for preventing famine remained widely inactive at this time, allowing the crisis to worsen. Although the DPRK was not facing famine, its agriculture was struggling due to the unforeseen political events of the early 1990s. Food shortages in North Korea only reached critical levels when the situation was exacerbated by natural disaster, with independent observers reporting floods of ‘biblical proportions’ and devastated crops, arable land and economic infrastructure. The United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs reported: ‘between July 30 and 18 August 1995 torrential rains caused devastating floods in the DPRK. In one area, in Pyongsan county in North Hwanghae province, 877 mm of rain were recorded to have fallen in just seven hours, an intensity of precipitation unheard of in this area…water flow in the engorged Amnoc River which runs along the Korea/China border was estimated at 4.8 billion tons over a 72 hour period. Flooding of this magnitude had not been recorded in at least 70 years.” “A number of reports indicate that the United States and its allies took more direct measures, alongside their economic sanctions policy to exacerbate crisis in the DPRK during the Arduous March.” “During the Arduous March when food reserves were empty and farming was impossible, the U.S. blocked oil from coming in so 70% of our factories were shut down. We couldn’t produce anything. The state needed produce to distribute to the people but we had nothing. All of a sudden (from 1995) our collective food source was devastated. We simply had no choice but to starve.”
Exploiting this tragic devastation of North Korea, the CIA connived a savagely ugly strategy to destroy even the simplest agricultural efforts of the people of the DPRK to produce food to survive, preying upon the innocence of DPRK citizens.
Previously quoted U.S. reporter Hugh Deane, former Coordinator of Information and naval intelligence officer on General MacArthur’s staff, wrote regarding the causes of the Korean agricultural crisis:
“In 1995 the Yalu River, along the northern border, flooded south as torrential rains fell, causing mountain avalanches and rock slides as well as inundated villages. The Korean People’s Army evacuated many people in peril, dropping down in helicopters when necessary. The 1996 flood came when the earlier flood had not entirely receded and the damage was even more extensive. Close to a million acres of paddy and dry field were covered with mud or otherwise taken out of cultivation. A million tons of stored grain were washed away. Railroads, roads, bridges, dams and irrigation systems suffered, coal mines were flooded, some to such an extent that they have been abandoned. More industries were lost, some soon torn down for scrap. Then this year the usual rainy season was rainless. Nearly all the maize crop, normally a million tons, was lost. The rice crop was reduced, both because of the drought and because there was no fertilizer to apply to it. Such are the circumstances that brought hunger and starvation to a great many.” (Page 369)
Nevertheless, “against the near unanimous expectations of U.S. intelligence, the DPRK did not collapse and would begin a slow recovery from crisis in the late 1990’s.”
During his visits throughout socialist countries, Cuba’s Minister of Industries, Ernesto Che Guevara stated that the DPRK was the most advanced of all countries he saw. This, too, was my own impression when I visited the DPRK in 2017. It is a testament to the almost superhuman strength, intelligence, and resilience of the people and government of the DPRK that they have not only survived, but have created one of the most intellectually sophisticated and humanitarian economic and social systems in history.
Perhaps a clue to the extraordinary success in surviving catastrophic wars, economic and environmental disasters, and egregiously cruel sanctions may be found in the symbol of the DPRK created by Kim Il Sung, a symbol which is unique among socialist countries or any other country throughout the world. Although the symbol of most socialist countries is the sickle and the hammer, representing the agricultural and industrial worker, the symbol of the socialist DPRK has a brush standing in the center of the symbol, emblematic not only of the agricultural and industrial workers, but including the artists and the intellectuals of their society, according them the same prestige as the other two groups in the symbol. This was an act of genius by Kim Il Sung, because by granting such prestige to the artistic and intellectual members of society, their talents were developed and available to help devise methods of withstanding the horrors and almost inconceivable disasters which the DPRK has endured. That unique symbol expresses the attitude of a nation which embraces all that is greatest in humanity, and provides a model and blazes a trail toward a more humane and civilized world order.
Chapters 14, “Introducing Mutual Vulnerability: Implications of North Korea Attaining a Nuclear-Tipped ICBM” through Chapter 19: “Information War: The Final Frontier” describes the multiple methods the west, in particular the U.S. is using to undermine, demoralize, and weaken, by attrition, the economic, social, and cultural strength indispensable for the survival of the DPRK. The violation of the sanctity of the values of the entire DPRK is incessant, as the west continues to devise and concoct more and more devious and covert methods of aggression.
Among the most barbaric and criminal methods of attack against the people of the DPRK are the United Nations Security Council sanctions, which have been attempting to strangle the country, especially those sanctions passed since 2017, which altogether must be described as genocidal. The so-called “humanitarian exemptions” have failed, almost completely, and this disgraceful United Nations policy must change. The famous neurosurgeon, Dr. Kee Park, Director of The Korea Health Policy Project at Harvard Medical School has described, in graphic detail, how his surgery on patients in the DPRK has become impossible, as surgical instruments required for complex neurosurgery operations are prohibited, by the sanctions, from entering the DPRK. Humanitarian medical assistance for the crucial treatment of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis patients has become impossible as the result of the sanctions. The government of the DPRK has welcomed these humanitarian workers so desperately needed by their people. The United Nations Security Council sanctions are obstructing these highly skilled humanitarian workers, especially medical workers, from assisting the people of the DPRK. These Security Council sanctions constitute violation of International Humanitarian Law, and ultimately constitute crimes against humanity.
The author also points out another fact of vital importance: the cost of the nuclear program of the DPRK is vastly less than the cost of maintaining a conventional army, an army which would be needed, overwhelmingly, in the event of another military attack by the U.S. and/or its allies. This often overlooked fact completely undercuts the allegation that the DPRK nuclear program is depriving its people of needed social services. In fact, this nuclear program is freeing up money crucial for these social services. In view of the fact that the overt and covert aggression against the DPRK is unlikely to diminish anytime soon, the DPRK has no alternative other than to protect itself with the only deterrent capacity that would most likely shield them from a repetition of prior military devastation.
“Immovable Object,” interestingly, describes the extreme disinformation regarding the leadership of the DPRK, adding the words of former U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright, who is quoted saying:
“After meeting Kim Jong Il she expressed her surprise that the way he had been portrayed to her had been completely wrong. ‘He was actually quite charming…He was very, very well prepared, responded without notes, was not only respectful but also interested in what I had to say.’ To her complete surprise the talks were a success” “In an interview nineteen years later, the former State Secretary’s impression remained unchanged, stating: ‘I do think that what is interesting is how smart and informed Kim Jong Il was…he technically knew an awful lot of things. We were actually talking about missile limits at the time. He did not consult his experts. He really was able to talk about various aspects of the programs. And he spent a lot of time on it. It was very interesting. He also could be very gracious. I mean, it was all kinds of dinners and all kinds of things. But I think that he was determined to make some progress…I was surprise by how technically adept and smart he was.’ According to Albright, the success of future negotiations would rely heavily on whether or not American leaders would recognize how adept and capable the North Korean leadership was—in sharp contrast to what briefings based on U.S. intelligence had led her to believe.”
“Immovable Object” describes the people and government of an extraordinarily advanced nation, the DPRK, with objectivity, and even more importantly, with massive, fully credible documentation refuting all bigoted efforts to demonize and destroy this remarkable people by all means. As such, it is a desperately needed contribution to the accurate understanding of North Korea.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Carla Stea is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and Global Research’s Correspondent at UN headquarters, New York.
Dr. Malone did not just take Fauci at his words, he did something that mainstream media refuses to do. He deconstructed Fauci’s talking points in ways the average person can easily understand; what he deduced are the very issues I have been writing about for months.
Peter McCullough, MD, MPH speaks with Laura Ingraham about the CDC admitting that vaccinated individuals can transmit Delta and about how Dr McCullough is being sued by BSW Health over media and meeting appearances.
As the inventor of the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine platform, Dr. Robert Malone is one of the most qualified individuals to opine on the benefits and potential risks of this technology.
Mexican Foreign Minister Ebrard, reclaiming Mexico’s sovereignty, further declared Mexico’s determination to re-open full diplomatic and economic relations with North Korea.
The leaked audio of a phone call between a Moderna representative and a woman who developed Guillain-Barre syndrome after receiving the company’s experimental drug has confirmed something many of us already knew: We are witnessing the biggest clinical trial in vaccine history.
Unvaccinated Americans were the talking point of the day on Monday with a slew of figures slamming those who have chosen not to take the coronavirus jabs, assigning blame to them for America ‘going backwards’, likening them to murderers, and suggesting that they are to blame for more deadly variants of the virus emerging.
For decades, in great many countries, the American democracy has been the role model of political regime. In fact, the popularity of the American democracy is such that the basic principles of democracy are integrated even in the constitutions of non-democratic countries.
What threat could possibly be more impactful? Christian breaks down the WEF’s “Cyber Polygon” tabletop exercise, its participants, and predictive programming around a looming large scale cyberattack on critical infrastructure that would unleash a Dark Winter and help to usher in the Great Reset.
When the military mandated the anthrax vaccine and military pilots showed they were willing to throw away careers and pensions in order to avoid the vaccine, it got the military’s attention — maybe they can do the same with COVID vaccine mandates?
A new open-source study concludes that Syrian insurgents carried out the Ghouta sarin chemical attack in August 2013. The explosive findings add to a growing body of public evidence that undermines US-led efforts to blame the Syrian government, which almost led to US military intervention.
The CDC now says even those people fully vaccinated for COVID are able to get, and spread, the virus. According to internal documents obtained by The Washington Post, the CDC said it’s time to “Acknowledge the war has changed.”
Today with the height of imperial arrogance and hubris, the US State Department issued a joint statement to further its plans to destroy Cuba and all the gains it has made in health, education and welfare.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
This morning, Dr. Robert Malone—inventor of the mRNA technology that is used in Covid-19 “vaccines”—confirmed that my worst fears about these experimental boosters might very well be upon us. He deconstructed the cagey announcement that Dr. Anthony Fauci made where he stated that the nasal titers in “vaccinated” people are the same as the unvaccinated population. That dissembling assertion on its own is a bombshell, Dr. Fauci affirmed that folks who got jabbed have no better levels of protection than people who are either hesitant or hostile to getting shot up with experimental gene therapy nostrums.
Dr. Malone did not just take Fauci at his words, he did something that mainstream media refuses to do. He deconstructed Fauci’s talking points in ways the average person can easily understand; what he deduced are the very issues I have been writing about for months. Dr. Malone noted that nasal titers are poor indicators when it comes to determining the concentration of antibodies and that blood-based titers are a better way of assessing whether or not vaccines are actually working as advertised. Dr. Malone then referred to an NBC report passed on by USA Today—which was subsequently deleted—that quoted a high-level government official who attested that “vaccinated individuals could have higher levels of virus and infect others amid the surge of cases driven by the delta variant of the coronavirus”.
This is only shocking to people who have not done their research about mRNA “vaccines” and are in the dark about their checkered history. Past studies on ferrets and cats should have been enough to subject these yet unproven and unsafe boosters to the full 10-15 year timeframe required to develop safe and effective vaccines. Even though the initial results were promising, once the lab animals were challenged with SARS pathogens, they were wiped out as they developed a deadly condition called Antibody-Dependent Enhancement or ADE. Leveraging a virus that was almost certainly man-made, biotech corporations went all in to validate a treatment that works in theory as they gamble with the lives of billions of people in the hopes that everything works out.
Not only are authority figures treating humans like test subjects, they are flat out peddling medical misinformation only to turn around and malign those of us who call out their fabrications. Their latest distortion is that people who are “unvaccinated” are the sources of the mutations when the reality is the complete opposite as Fauci confirmed this week. Last year, Oxford and AstraZeneca teamed up to develop their booster and then deployed them in the UK, South Africa, Brazil and India. Those four countries are the sources of the variants. This is where “vaccine” propagandists will spout the ever disingenuous “correlation is not causation” trope.
Close to 11,405 deaths and more than 62,000 severe injuries attributed to mRNA and adenovirus “vaccines” in the United States alone yet politicians, pundits, medical professionals and the establishment writ large insanely keep conditioning people to get jabbed. Back in April, I wrote an article in which I warned that humanity could very well be facing a global holocaust if ADE emerges among the billions of people who have been “vaccinated” thus far. What Dr. Malone did was authenticate, with qualification, my worst fears. I don’t write this to gloat or to somehow say “I told you so”; I have family members who were “vaccinated” so being proven right about my concerns will come at a cost that I cannot bear to think of.
NIH knew about the risks of Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE) vis-a-vis Covid-19 “vaccines” all along, this is from NIH’s website published Dec 4th, 2020! [click pic to view original source]
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Teodrose Fikremariam is the co-founder and editor of the Ghion Journal. Prior to launching the Ghion Journal, he was a political organizer who once wrote a speech idea in 2008 that was incorporated into Barack Obama’s South Carolina primary victory speech. He is originally from Ethiopia and a direct descendent, seven generations removed, of one of Ethiopia’s greatest Emperors Tewodros II.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Peter McCullough, MD, MPH speaks with Laura Ingraham about the CDC admitting that vaccinated individuals can transmit Delta and about how Dr McCullough is being sued by BSW Health over media and meeting appearances.
Video
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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).
Safety data analysis and reporting in clinical trials of the COVID jabs appear to have been manipulated in at least some cases. One method for manipulating randomized clinical trial safety data is to only analyze the “per protocol” treatment group (those who completed all doses and were fully compliant with the study design) as opposed to “intent to treat” which would include all patients that have signed informed consent
For example, if a participant only accepted one dose and trial protocol called for two, under a “per protocol” analysis, adverse events they experienced would be dismissed and not included in the safety analysis. This is a classic way to manipulate safety data in clinical research, and it’s usually forbidden
Since the COVID shots only have emergency use authorization, they are experimental products and, as such, they are not authorized for marketing
Bioethics are written into federal law. As an experimental trial participant, you have the right to receive full disclosure of any adverse event risks. Full disclosure of risks is not being done, and in fact is being suppressed
Adverse event risks must also be communicated in a way that you can comprehend what the risks are, and the acceptance of an experimental product must be fully voluntary and uncoerced. Enticement is strictly forbidden
As the inventor of the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine platform, Dr. Robert Malone is one of the most qualified individuals to opine on the benefits and potential risks of this technology.
His background includes a medical degree from Northwestern University, a master’s degree from Salk Institute, a bachelor’s degree in biochemistry from UC Davis, a Giannini fellowship in pathology and a post-graduate fellowship in global clinical research at Harvard.
He taught pathology to medical students for about a decade at the University of Maryland and the University of California Davis, and then became an associate professor of surgery at Uniformed Services, University of the Health Sciences, where he launched a major research institute focused on breast cancer and high-throughput screening in genomics for breast cancer.
After that, he helped found a company called Inovio, which has brought forth a number of gene therapy discoveries, including vaccines, and the use of pulsed electrical fields as a delivery method. After 9/11, a colleague at the University of Maryland’s department of business and economic development connected him with Dynport Vaccine Company, a startup that had received a DoD contract to manage its biodefense products.
“That’s when I transitioned from being more of an academic to the advanced development world of clinical research, regulatory affairs, project management, compliance, quality assurance — all of that stuff that goes into actually making a product,” Malone explains.
“It was a huge epiphany that the world really didn’t need more academic thought leaders and [that] I was wasting my time focusing on that. What the world really needed was that people understood the underlying technology and the discovery research world, but also understood advanced development, which is that drug development is a highly-regulated world. And there aren’t very many of those.
So, I set out to become really expert in that latter part and worked with the government, particularly in biodefense and vaccine development, for a couple of decades. And that brings me to the present.
I’ve captured a couple of billion dollars in grants and contracts for companies that I’ve worked with, and clients from the government, from BARDA [Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority], from the Department of Defense and others.”
COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ Are Gene Therapy
I’ve been accused of falsely stating that these COVID shots are not vaccines but gene modifying interventions. However, even Malone agrees with this statement, and as the inventor of the technology, he should know. He points out that in Germany, by law you cannot refer to this technology as a genetic vaccine or gene therapy vaccine. “The German government has specifically outlawed the use of gene therapy-based vaccine as a term,” he says.
With his background, and having received the COVID shot himself, he can hardly be called an “anti-vaxxer” and/or someone who doesn’t believe in gene therapies. Yet, he recently went public with concerns about the safety of rolling out this kind of technology on a mass scale, and the unethical ways in which they’re being promoted.
As has become the trend, he was immediately censored. Wikileaks even went so far as to erase him from the historical section of the mRNA vaccine page and his own personal Wikipedia page was removed. All references to Malone inventing the mRNA technology were removed and attributed to a variety of institutions instead.
Blowing the Whistle
Malone’s public involvement with the COVID jab issue began with a short essay1 reflecting on the bioethics of the current campaign to get a needle in every arm. This essay grew out of a conversation he’d had with a Canadian physician. Malone’s essay catalyzed an interview with Bret Weinstein in June 2021 on the DarkHorse Podcast.
This isn’t the first time Malone has spoken out against unethical behavior in science. He was also a whistleblower in the Jesse Gelsinger death case,2 back in 1999. Gelsinger was a young man who had a rare metabolic disorder called ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency syndrome (OTCD), where dangerous amounts of ammonia build up in your blood.
He’d been diagnosed at the age of 2, and was managing his condition with a regimen of nearly 50 drugs a day. At 17, Gelsinger signed up for an investigational gene therapy. Like the COVID shots, the therapy involved injecting a gene attached to an adenovirus, which would be integrated into his DNA to permanently produce an enzyme that prevents ammonia buildup.
Gelsinger was the 18th person to receive the gene therapy, and while the others had only experienced mild side effects, Gelsinger had a severe response after scientists at the University of Pennsylvania administered adenoviruses doses that were far above what had been approved by the corresponding safety committee.
Gelsinger became disoriented and developed jaundice and acute inflammation, followed by a rare blood clotting disorder and multi-organ failure. He was dead within days. Even a decade later, Gelsinger’s death is still considered the biggest setback for gene therapy.3
“When the Jesse Gelsinger events happened, I also had long been a deep insider in the gene therapy space, so I had specific knowledge of what had happened at Penn — the ethical transgressions, shall we say, that occurred — and had awareness, again, just like now, of the technology,” Malone says. “So, I was able to make sense of things that otherwise were obscure for journalists and even other scientists.”
After speaking out about the ethical transgressions that contributed to Gelsinger’s death (dosing which exceeded approved levels), Malone became a “persona non-grata” in the gene therapy community. In other words, he was blacklisted by his peers and prevented from participating in gene therapy research.
“That’s part of why I went in a different direction with my career and focused on government work and biodefense, supporting the Department of Defense,” Malone says. “The lesson learned for me is that I’m able to be resilient, together with my wife’s support.
Another key lesson was that your friends will support you through times of crisis if you behave with integrity and maintain your friendships and treat people with respect. I also had a lot of support for having spoken out and taken an ethical high road on that and not compromised myself …
It’s part of why I’m comfortable [speaking out now]. People tell me that I come across as balanced and calm. But yes, this is a little bit frightening and once again, [I’m] putting my career on the line. But once again many of my colleagues in the government are grateful that I’m speaking this way. They are not able to have a voice because of their jobs and government policies about speaking out.”
Public Responses to Censorship Make a Difference
As explained by Malone, he’s been heavily censored since his three-hour interview with Brett Weinstein. LinkedIn even deleted his account. However, LinkedIn users all around the world canceled their accounts in protest and wrote the company, explaining their cancellations were in protest of Malone being censored.
The social media uproar culminated in a major news article in a mainstream Italian paper, which appears to have pushed LinkedIn over the edge. LinkedIn eventually reinstated Malone’s account and even sent him a letter of apology.
“I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a company writing a letter of apology after delisting and deleting somebody,” he says. “My sins were ‘profound,'” he says sarcastically, “They were that I outed the chairman of the board of directors of Reuters who is also sitting on the board of Pfizer, for cross-posting the Wall Street Journal article on vaccine toxicity risks, and well, basically for complaining about censorship.
So, they sent me my list of sins with six different posts that were to pretty much anybody’s eye innocuous, which I then took and cross-posted onto Twitter. So, that revealed the absurdity of that … The note [of apology] that I received basically said, ‘Look, we don’t have the expertise to censor you, but if you cross the line, we have the right to summarily delete you again and so mind your manners.'”
The Repurposing of Drugs to Combat Pandemics
In recent years, Malone has been involved in yet another startup company (Atheric Pharmaceuticals), in collaboration with the DoD, that focused on repurposing drugs to combat Zika infection. That company went bankrupt for lack of investor interest in repurposing drugs for treating infectious diseases.
When the COVID-19 outbreak began, he got a call from a colleague who works in the intelligence community in Wuhan, China, who urged him to put together a team to investigate the possibility of repurposing old drugs against COVID.
His team is currently about to enter clinical trials for a number of licensed off-patent drugs. That said, his biggest contribution so far is probably his commentary on the bioethics of what is going on.
“Both my wife and I are deeply ethical people,” he says. “We’re high school sweethearts. We try really hard to live ethical lives and to help our fellow man as well as the animals in our lives. So that’s just the place we come from. It’s bedrock. We’re not rich people.
I recall a long telephone call with the Canadian physician that poured his heart out about the situation in Canada that he’s encountering, both with vaccine administration in primary practice, and also in administering alternative therapies to outpatients, which generally have no therapies available.
I mean, the position is a bit shocking — in the emergency rooms all across the world. Basically, you go to the ER and if your O2 sets are down, pushing towards 80, they say, ‘Well, go [home] and come back when your lips are blue.’ And that’s the essence of it. They don’t really offer anything.
So many physicians, including this gentleman in Canada, have been seeking alternative strategies and they’ve tested and administered these various agents. We’ve heard of fluvoxamine, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine. There are many, many others now, including those that we’re working with (famotidine and celecoxib) that seem to have therapeutic benefit when administered early to shut down this hyperinflammatory response.
So, he shared this and the stories of multiple reports of vaccine adverse events that in his clinical judgment were clearly vaccine related, some of them quite serious, and that the Canadian government would summarily dispose of those as non-related even though in his clinical judgment, they clearly were related.
He spoke about the enticement of children in Canada with ice cream and the willingness of the Canadian government to administer vaccine to children without their parents or guardians consent after enticing them with ice cream cones, and some of the other things that I just found shocking …
It mirrors what we’re seeing across the world, where governments are taking liberties with people’s health and their rights without real legislative authorization to do so in most cases.”
Core Bioethical Principles Are Being Violated
Malone and his wife Jill are both trained in bioethics, so after listening to this Canadian colleague, he decided he could help by writing a lay press opinion piece about the bioethics of experimental vaccines under emergency use authorization.
“I have intimate knowledge of not only the emergency use authorization legislation, the FDA policies behind it, I even know the people that wrote it,” Malone says.
“So, we dove in, refreshed our memories on the whole history of the modern bioethics construct that briefly runs from Nuremberg Trials to the Nuremberg Code, to Helsinki Accord, to the Belmont Report in the United States, and to the common rule that exists in the code of federal regulations.”
In summary, since the COVID shots only have emergency use authorization status, they are experimental products, and as such, they are not authorized for marketing. The core bioethical principles that apply therefore involve three key components:
1. Bioethics are written into federal law — As an experimental trial participant, which is what everyone is at the moment who accepts a COVID shot, you have the right to receive full disclosure of any adverse event risks. Based on that disclosure, you then have the right to decide whether you want to participate.
Adverse event risk disclosure should be provided at the level of detail disclosed in any drug package insert. However, the COVID shots have no such insert or detailed disclosure, and adverse event reports are even being suppressed and censored from the public.
Instead, as explained by the FDA,4 since the COVID shots are not yet licensed,5 rather than providing a package insert, the FDA directs health care providers to access a lengthy, online “fact sheet” that lists both clinical trial adverse events and ongoing updates of adverse events reported after EUA administration to the public.
A shorter, separate, online fact sheet with far less information in it is available for patients — but, provider or patient, you still have to know where to look up each of the three EUA vaccines separately on the FDA website to access those fact sheets.6
2. Adverse event risks must be communicated in a way that you can comprehend what the risks are — This means the disclosure must be written in eighth grade language. In clinical trials, researchers must actually verify participants’ comprehension of the risks.
3. The acceptance of an experimental product must be fully voluntary and uncoerced — enticement is forbidden. “I argue that all of this public messaging that we’ve all been bombarded with … constitutes coercion,” Malone says.
“The most egregious example of this that I’ve ever seen, is the federal government identifying 12 people … and labeling them as the dirty dozen, [saying] that they are responsible for causing death because they are disseminating what the government has determined to be misleading information about vaccines. This is mind boggling to me and to most of my colleagues.”
How Falsehoods Are Getting Top Billing
As you probably know, I am on that “disinformation dozen” list. The irony of this situation is that government officials are really the ones contributing to the deaths by not adhering to bioethical principles that are enshrined in law. It’s a classic case of 1984 Orwellian doublespeak.
“Yeah, you don’t even have to go to dark money. It’s out in the open. There’s this Trusted News Initiative led by the BBC. They announced … last fall that they have integrated Big Tech, Big Media and new media, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, et cetera, into an organization that was intended to control false narratives relating to elections, but they decided to turn it on what they perceived as false narratives for vaccines,” Malone says.
“As if that wasn’t enough, the Wellcome Trust and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have announced initiatives where they’re making block grants to Facebook, which is then funding these new pop-up fact-checker organizations … [that] are employing methods to smear people and to ban information …
What happens is these fact-checker organizations will make their pseudo fact check, like what I experienced with Reuters — which was transparently false, their fact check — and then the media will recycle the fact check. So that moves up in the Google ranking and they’re citing themselves. That’s what’s going on. And it’s sponsored by the likes of Wellcome Trust and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and they’re quite proud of it.”
Why Target Children and Pregnant Women?
Considering the unknown risks involved, why are governments and vaccine makers pushing so hard for children and pregnant women to participate in this experiment? Both have an extremely low risk for complications from COVID-19, which makes adverse effects of the vaccine all the more unacceptable, if not all together intolerable.
Making matters worse, there’s no process in place to capture all side effects. Somehow, this was left out, and there’s evidence to suggest this was done intentionally.
“I think it’s important for the listenership to recognize that what we have is still an emerging understanding of what the adverse events are,” Malone says. “I could tell you the story of how the cardiotoxicity adverse event was recognized, and it was not through official channels. There is [also] the appearance that the CDC is deliberately under-reporting adverse events to the public.
And there’s the appearance that there was manipulation of safety data analysis and reporting in the Phase 1, 2, 3 clinical trials for some of these products by focusing on patients who had completed the study per protocol, as opposed to those that entered the study as intended to treat.
That’s a subtle distinction, but what it means is that if you’ve only accepted one dose of vaccine under those clinical trial protocols and you have an adverse event, and you decide to drop it out, or they gently suggest that you shouldn’t take the second dose, that information about the adverse events that you received — which would have made you at even higher risk for the second dose — is lost. It’s not included in the safety analysis.
This is a classic way to manipulate safety data in clinical research, and it’s strictly forbidden. So, the FDA is onto that trick. Normally, if I was to do that, I would get slapped down immediately. Why they allow these large drug companies to do this (if, in fact they did) — and you can’t claim that Pfizer didn’t know what they were doing — is beyond me.
Now that we know about the adverse events associated with the cardiotoxicity in adolescents and the damage to the heart and the deaths associated with that, people can start to do calculations based on official CDC data, [but] those data are flawed.
They probably under-report the true adverse event rate by about a 100-fold if you’re relying on the various historic analysis information. But you can look at those data. And if you’re a data scientist, you can do the calculations that the CDC is not doing and not disclosing to us about risk benefit.
The ones that I’ve seen done by well-trained and highly experienced specialists, people that work for the insurance industry that do this for a living … come out literally upside down.”
If the clinical trials did not include patients dropped after Dose 1 in the safety analysis, this would indicate a “per protocol” safety analysis was performed, and therefore that the safety data analyses leading to the emergency use authorizations were not based on rigorous safety assessments.
Multiple patients claiming to have been included in COVID-19 clinical trials have also reported on social media that their reports were excluded from final safety analyses, although this cannot be verified.
Risks Significantly Outweigh Benefits
A study7 posted July 7, 2021, which looked at deaths occurring in children in the U.K. during the first 12 months of the pandemic, found 99.995% of children diagnosed with COVID-19 survived.
By July 19, 2021, in the United States, a total of 335 children under 18 had died with a COVID-19 diagnosis on their death certificate.8 An analysis by Marty Makary and colleagues at Johns Hopkins, together with FAIR Health, showed none of the children under 18 who died and were diagnosed with COVID-19 between April and August 2020 were free of preexisting medical conditions such as cancer.9
Now, while the average healthy child has a minuscule chance of dying from COVID-19, and their risk of developing heart inflammation from the COVID jab is also quite low, the risk associated with the injection is still significantly greater than any risk associated with the natural infection. As explained by Malone:
“That ratio comes out suggesting that there will be more lives lost to receipt of the ‘vaccine’ in a universal vaccine campaign than there would be if all those kids were infected by SARS-CoV-2. This upside-down ratio appears to extend or very close to equivalent at least up to the age of 30.
So, we’re in a position where the data that we have are admittedly flawed. Is that by intent or what? From my standpoint, the data are the data, so I can’t smoke out what somebody within health and human services intended to do, but I can look at the data, and others can.
And the data absolutely do not support a positive risk-benefit ratio for vaccination of infants through young adults, based on any normal criteria. So then why are they doing this crazy stuff? It seems to all be wrapped around the axle of the need to justify universal vaccination.
I argue that this is actually a mid-century policy that goes back to the ’50s and the ’60s polio vaccine campaign, when the government and world health authorities established a position that it was OK to lie, to withhold information about risk for vaccines, because to have the full spectrum of information about the risks of vaccines would cause people to not accept the vaccine.
So, ‘Shut up, we know it’s best for you and don’t question us’ is a firmly authoritarian position. It is intrinsically authoritarian and paternalistic. It’s exactly the kind of stuff that George Orwell wrote about in his book ‘1984.’ It was a warning … of how governments and authoritarian structures will behave and do behave.”
Denial of Vaccine Dangers Has Been Federal Policy Since 1984
Ironically, Malone points out that in the 1984 Federal Register,10 it’s stated that posting information into the federal register about vaccine risks that jeopardizes vaccine I uptake shall be suppressed.
“So, it’s a clear federal policy going back to 1984,” Malone says. “This is the way they’re going to handle things. And they’re going to handle it with the noble lie of saying, ‘No, there are no risks and what we’re doing is fully justified’ …
I don’t think we have to go to imagining some grand conspiracy at Davos between certain individuals. I think this is an emergent phenomena of the intersection of old-school thinking about information management and new-school capabilities and technologies.
I think the CDC, HHS, WHO, and Wellcome Trust or Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, etcetera, have just grossly misread the population, certainly in the United States. And so now we’re in a position where before, according to Del Bigtree, there was about 1% to 2% of people that self-identified as anti-vaxxers, and we’re now [above] 40%. Clearly, about 40 to 50% of the population are just dug in. They’re not going to accept these vaccines.
The White House now finds it necessary to have a special group to identify and target 12 American citizens for what they believe to be vaccine disinformation, and to make a big public press announcement about it. Don’t they have anything else to do? It seems like the world has got bigger problems than Dr. Mercola, but what do I know?
The whole thing is mind-bending. And a lot of people, including many Europeans, are really lit up over this. They remember. European intellectuals are very aware of the dynamics that happened in Germany in the 1930s … I think this could be a turning point in a lot of things.”
The Powers That Be Have Been Given Free Reign
While Malone is not interested in speculating about the intentions behind all this malfeasance, he’s intimately familiar with the power of Big Pharma to manipulate governments. As detailed in other articles, several of the COVID injection makers have a rich history of illegal activity and unethical behavior, and now they have been given free reign to do as they please.
They’re been completely absolved from liability if and when something goes wrong with these injections, and governments are enticing and bullying citizens to participate in Big Pharma’s experiment.
“If you give that kind of liberty and power to a global multinational and absolve them of any accountability, they will serve their stockholders,” Malone says. “They are not geared to serving the rest of us, whatever they may say in their press releases.
That’s just how big pharma behaves, and we’ve chosen this model. Messaging having to do with alternative treatments and the importance of wellness, those are not consistent with the ‘Take this pill, pay your price and shut up’ kind of business model.
Personally, I think that Mr. Gates and his foundation have done enormous irreparable harm to world health community through his actions and his own personal biases. He has really distorted global public health. At some point, there will be books written about this, and I’m sure an enormous number of Ph.D. theses will be granted. But meanwhile, we all have to live with it.”
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
According to the most recent stats released by the CDC this past Friday, their Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) now has recorded twice as many deaths following the non-FDA approved experimental COVID-19 shots during the past 8 months, than deaths recorded following ALL FDA approved vaccines for the past 30 years.
In spite of these U.S. Government CDC-verified facts regarding the experimental COVID-19 shots, not only are they continuing to administer them, but the big push now is to MANDATE them as a requirement for employment in both government and private sector jobs.
And so far, at least, it seems that the majority of the U.S. public is willing to comply and participate in what can only be labeled mass genocide.
As we reported last week, Israel is now planning to roll out a third injection of the Pfizer shots to those who have already been injected twice and survived, targeting seniors first, and we can certainly expect the same rollout soon here in the U.S. as well.
The July 30th data dump into VAERS, which everyone acknowledges is not the full data of deaths and injuries following COVID-19 shots, reveals 11,940 deaths and 618,648 injuries among 518,770 cases, including 12,808 permanent disabilities, 65,272 emergency room visits, 40,873 hospitalizations, and 11,198 life threatening injuries.
There are also 1,175 premature deaths of unborn children following COVID-19 injections of pregnant women. (Source.)
This has to be the most censored information in the U.S. right now, even though it is based on the government’s own data and own reporting system.
When confronted with these statistics, the CDC’s response is that these reports do not prove causation. They would have everyone believe that all of these deaths and injuries following the COVID-19 injections are just “coincidences.”
Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. (Source.)
However, if you search for deaths following all FDA-approved vaccines for the 30 years prior to the emergency use authorizations of the COVID-19 shots, you will see that there are now about twice as many deaths following the COVID-19 shots compared to deaths following ALL vaccines for the PAST 30 YEARS.
The COVID-19 injections were first given emergency use authorization in early December, of 2020. So the recorded deaths following these shots as of July 23, 2021 is 11,940, in less than 8 months.
But let’s round it off to 8 months, which would equate to an average of 1,492 deaths per month.
From 1/1/1991 through 11/10/2020, there were 6,068 deaths in 359 months, which equates to an average of 17 deaths per month following FDA-approved vaccines.
That’s a 8676% increase of recorded deaths following the COVID-19 shots, compared to deaths following all previous FDA-approved vaccines.
What are the statistical odds that these are all “coincidences”?
Pretty much ZERO. The CDC is lying to you. They serve the pharmaceutical companies, not the American people, and the sooner you figure that out, the better, because your life is at stake, and your life is meaningless to them.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All new members (annual basis) as well as all membership renewal (annual basis) will receive a FREE copy of 
lobal Research Monthly Membership – $9.50/month
n the party’s policies.
