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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

This report explains the truth you’re not getting in the news about the uprising now happening in France.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Dr. David Martin was recently interviewed by Attorney Reiner Fuellmich who is seeking to bring criminal charges against crimes committed during the COVID-19 Plandemic.

The full interview is nearly 90 minutes, and I have received numerous emails from subscribers to Health Impact News alerting us to this interview.

Most of the comments I have seen in reference to this interview have been mentioning that Dr. Martin reveals that there have been patents on the Sars Coronavirus since the late 1990s, which is actually “old news” since he revealed that last year in Mikki Willis’ film, “Plandemic.”

If you have not watched that documentary yet, it is MUST viewing: PLANDEMIC: Full Feature Film Released Online Amidst Tremendous Opposition and Attempts to Censor it

Mikki Willis did the world a huge favor by releasing this film to the public, free of charge. So I like to always give him credit where credit is due, because so many people have copied clips from his work without giving him the proper credit.

I have now been able to view the interview with Dr. Martin, and of course we can always depend upon Dr. Martin to provide new and current information. Here are some of our previous articles featuring Dr. Martin’s very excellent work if you are not yet familiar with him:

• Dr. David Martin Exposes the False Foundation of Eugenics: “You Don’t Have DNA”
• Plandemic Film Stars Dr. David Martin and Dr. Judy Mikovits together in Public for the First Time Doing a Q&A Session
• Dr. David Martin on Experimental mRNA COVID Vaccines: This is NOT a Vaccine! It is a Medical Device

In this interview with Attorney Reiner Fuellmich, Dr. Martin goes into detail about how the patents for Sars coronaviruses existed before any “outbreaks,” as did the patents on “spike proteins” to produce vaccines. They precede the current COVID-19 virus by 20 years.

The original research into these vaccines was for veterinary purposes, rabbits and canines, and then was used in 2002 and later by Anthony Fauci and the U.S. National Institute of Health for AIDS vaccine research. DARPA then got involved for applications as a “bioweapon.”

When Anthony Fauci originally tried to get a patent on an mRNA vaccine for HIV, he was rejected by the patent office, because his mRNA vaccine did not meet the legal definition of a “vaccine.”

It is a biological weapon.

And as far as the current “Delta variant”?

Click on the clip below to hear Dr. Martin’s response.

This is from our Bitchute channel, and it should also be available shortly on our Rumble channel.

I don’t know where the original video was published. If anyone knows, please contact me and let me know so we can give proper credit.

The 90+ minute versions are all over the Internet. If you do a search on Bitchute, for example, you find multiple copies. The full interview is well worth watching.

*

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Sixty years ago this summer, on August 7, 1961, President John Kennedy signed the bill creating The Cape Cod National Seashore in Massachusetts.  It consists of forty miles of immaculate sandy beach, marshes, ponds, and upland along the Atlantic Ocean, with some portions stretching across the land to Cape Cod Bay in the west.  Henry Thoreau walked this wild Outer Atlantic Beach in 1849.  He said you can stand there and look out to sea and “put all America behind” you.

I am trying to do that as I stand looking at the waves breaking on a foggy early morning shore.  I am alone except for the hundreds of seals moaning on a sand bar and the gulls fishing in the tidal inlet at the far southern end of Coast Guard Light Beach.  A few laughing gulls swoop by as if to mock me with their laugh-like calls.

It is very hard to put the United States of America behind you when the fog of an endless propaganda war warps your mind and tries to crush your spirit even when you look away as far as the eye can see.

Across the ocean to the northeast, Mathew Arnold, on a far distant shore in England, wrote his famous poem “Dover Beach” at about the same time that Thoreau was walking where I stand.  Two very different men standing in different worlds, not just one at a window and the other in the blowing wind.

The former was an academically connected school inspector whose faith, vague as it was, was falling away as he described in “Dover Beach”: the turbulent ebb and flow of the breaking waves of faith that was being replaced by the sad withdrawing roar of melancholic human misery, devoid of love, light, joy, certitude, or help for pain.  It was the rhythmic sound of world weariness and declining faith in the Old World.

The latter, a child of the New World, harsh critic though he was of the resigned lives of quiet desperation most people live, was still a man of deep if unorthodox faith in the divine, telling us that most people are determined not to live by faith if they can help it, as if anyone could live without faith in something, whether that something be God, skepticism, atheism, or the then emerging new god of science. He considered people’s constant distrustful anxiety an incurable disease and he would no doubt consider the current religion of science a subject for his withering scorn and underappreciated humor.  Try imagining the government telling Thoreau that he had to be vaccinated and he needed a document to travel by stagecoach from his home in Concord to the Cape.

The young rebel Thoreau (he was in his early thirties like Arnold) still held to the conviction that if enough people gave serious attention to the transcendent nature of their natural surroundings and lived by its divine revelations, a new world was possible.  But also only if they simplified their lives and lived by principles that excluded the mad pursuit of money, slavery, and the worship of false gods.  This was eleven years before the American Civil War, which Thoreau didn’t survive.  He died on May 6, 1862.  His final words were: “Now comes good sailing.”

Arnold died at age sixty-six of a heart attack while running to catch a train.

Old and new symbols of power marked their final journeys: the iron horse and wind-filled sails.

Where Arnold saw a nightmarish illusion in the sea, Thoreau saw wonder and possibility, but not devoid of possible doom.  Although often cast as a wild dreamer, Thoreau had his feet planted solidly in plain reality.

“I sat down on the boundless level and enjoyed the solitude, drank it in, the medicine for which I had pined,” wrote Thoreau, so I followed his lead and sat on a stretch of sand with no human in sight and gazed at the glimmer of a fading moon until I lost my senses.  For a few minutes I was gone.

But nature and solitude do not necessarily quiet the mind, and when I returned from my cataleptic state the wind was blowing from the west and the USA snuck up behind my back.  America may be hard to find, but it’s also hard to lose. The wind blew my mind’s eye straight across the imaginary northern latitude line to Cannes, France and its Film Festival where Oliver Stone’s new documentary, “JFK Revisited: Through the Looking-Glass,” written by James DiEugenio, has just premiered.

It is hard here on the sands of the Cape not to think of JFK, especially since he saved these sands for posterity, a bit of the USA that remains if you ever go looking for it. He saved this land whose evil CIA forces slayed him. And the ironic thing about Stone’s documentary is that he could find no US backers for his film and had to go to Arnold’s Old-World England to get the money to tell this inherently American story, which still doesn’t have a distributor in the United States..

Thirty years ago, his movie JFK was sabotaged by the CIA-controlled media as a fictional illusion, and now the truth is still verboten here.  But Stone will win out.  For his new work tells the same story but tells it straight with facts, the same facts, and more, that supported JFK in 1991.  And the facts tell an overwhelming tale of truth, not the nonsense still proffered by disinformation specialists that JFK was a war-monger, a phony, and a cold warrior to the end.  Those accusations are either lies or ignorance, as if the CIA would want to assassinate him if they were true.

JFK was murdered because he was trying to end the Cold War, eliminate nuclear weapons through negotiations with the Soviet Union, withdraw American military advisers from Vietnam, reign in the CIA, and reduce the power of the military industrial complex.  This is why he was killed. These are among what Stone calls “conspiracy facts,” and even as I look out at the wild Atlantic and try “to put America behind” me for a short respite, the wind fills my mind with their contemporary importance.

Stone is out front where you can see and hear him, while the CIA always operates behind our backs.

As I return to myself and my contemplation of the ocean, a lone fisherman approaches and passes me with a nod and a rod.  I soon see him disappear around the strand where the inlet flows like a strong river deep into the marshes.  Memory tells me Thoreau was right to say that “many men go fishing all their lives without knowing that it is not fish that they are after.”

Thoreau knew he was always obsessively fishing for elusive truth and needed no bait, only his eyes and ears and the deep state he entered when he cast his pencil across the vastness of an empty page.

Oliver Stone, too, has spent his life chasing the light of truth to expose the crimes of another deep state, the despicable men who conspired to execute JFK, the man who many a day looked out upon these waters and saw a vision of a new country he hoped to bring to reality even at the risk of his life.  A country devoted to peace and domestic tranquility.

It is so beautiful where I sit.  The sun is breaking through the fog and blue patches stipple the heavens. Call it dreamy. Here the Nauset Indians fished these waters long before Thoreau.  Fishing for them was like the clam shells that litter the beach.  It was bifold, providing sustenance for body and soul, and their connection to the Cape eco-system was sacred. (I ask them for forgiveness for using the word eco-system.) This was long before the profane skepticism and faith in science of Arnold’s mind and times seeped in to poison land, water, and consciousness, not to mention human and animal bodies.

As I recall, “Dover Beach” was composed a few decades after the first generally accepted laboratory synthesis of a naturally occurring organic compound from inorganic materials. Only yesterday I saw many beachgoers spraying themselves with canisters of chemicals that are the offspring of that original synthetic creation that is called urea but which I call piss.  I don’t know what the Nausets called it, but I am sure they did what I did as I got up and pissed into the wind and water, hoping it wouldn’t come back to get me.  It was a relief, although my mind kept reeling backwards historically.

The white invaders – they like to be called explorers – led by Captain Thomas Hunt, arrived on the Cape in 1614 and captured seven Nausets together with twenty from the Pawtucket tribe and sold them into slavery.  There is so much US history that is hard to stomach. Thinking of the slaughter of native peoples from California to the New York island can only make a US American deeply ashamed.  When Woody Guthrie composed and sang “This Land Is Your Land,” I hope he had a double entendre in mind, for surely the shore I sit upon is soaked with the blood and tears of many an innocent soul whose land was stolen from them.

It is no exaggeration to say that from the enlarging sandbar the seals’ moans sound like restless ghosts. The wind carries their ancient calls like a Greek chorus above the crashing waves.  I feel as though I am attending a sacred rite that is both a funeral, a celebration, and a call to resist. The music haunts me.  My mind’s eye ebbs with the receding tide.  More sand bars emerge as the sun pierces the fog veiling the water and my mind.

Behind me across the narrow strip of land and Cape Cod Bay lies the city of Boston.  It was built to its current renown on the money made by its famous blue blood families through the opium trade that killed so many Chinese in the 19^th century.  They were money-obsessed, bloodthirsty killers. I don’t think they warned the Chinese that they were being sold a drug pandemic.  You have heard their “illustrious” names: Forbes, Cabot, Cushing, Weld, Delano (the grandfather of Franklin Delano Roosevelt) and Perkins.  These drug dealers laundered their massive drug profits by giving to Harvard, founding Massachusetts General Hospital, and creating Boston’s renown reputation for culture and education.

First the native Americans and then the Chinese and Vietnamese and Afghanis, et al. – it makes no difference whose blood was shed to create an elegant city upon a hill, a beacon of human benevolence – and to keep it going.  The beat goes on.  It is a war of drugs, foreign and domestic.  Follow the trail.

These “illustrious” families were also crucial in the founding of the CIA whose tentacles stretch their banking interests in black operations worldwide.  These are the criminals they like to call the Agency whose existence is sustained through drugs and blood.  Agents of death.

It is terrible to think such thoughts on this beautiful beach, but my forgettery seems to fail me when the wind is blowing from behind.

And to think the disinformation specialists doing the CIA’s bidding have for years tried to denigrate those Irish upstarts, the Kennedys, by falsely claiming Joseph Kennedy made his fortune in the illegal liquor business and in association with the Mob.  The CIA’s war on the Kennedys, and their murder of their leading men, is a multi-faceted operation, as Oliver Stone will show you.

Here on the beach the light now seems to be chasing me.  I look to my left and see a figure walking my way.  It is time for me to leave.  I turn and start walking north, back to civilization.  As the figure gets nearer, I see it’s a woman.  I gasp at the mask she is wearing.  No doubt she has taken the drug the authorities have told her was necessary to inject if she wanted to be safe and join the crowd.  The drug trade is where the money is. It runs on lies, but it brings power and glory and will anesthetize your fears until it is too late.  It’s not a new story, and it brings death.

We pass and she looks away.

I hear the laughing gulls and turn to see the seals standing on the waves howling in delight as they clap their flippers in applause.  I’m happy to laugh along.

In the distance I see a boat heading for land.

The wind off the water blows this Dylan song into my ears: “When the Ship Comes in”.

*

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

“The people have woken up – at last!” declared local Gilet Jaune rebel Michelle as she watched the vast crowds assembling on the main square of Montpellier in southern France.

She has been involved with the Yellow Vest movement since the very start of the popular revolt against the Macron regime in November 2018.

Two years ago, in April 2019, another Gilet Jaune told me on the same spot, the Place de la Comédie, that France was witnessing “a turning point in history”.

Despite the vast levels of militarised repression used against the Yellow Vests, not to speak of the relentless propaganda in the mass media, the movement never abandoned the struggle.

Only the “emergency” of the Covid crisis pushed it, more or less, off the streets.

The spirit of revolt has not been very much in evidence in France since March 2020, with the population divided and fearful, as elsewhere.

But now, with the announcement that vaccine passports will be required for cafés, restaurants, leisure centres, shopping malls and trains, something seems to have snapped.

The arguments about viruses and masks and lockdowns now seem less relevant in the face of this chilling assault on the most fundamental of human rights.

Even the jab itself is not really the issue any more, with those who have already had it joining in the protests against the totalitarian laws due to come into place on August 1.

I was impressed by the turn-out for the emergency protest in Montpellier on Wednesday July 14, but Saturday’s numbers were on a completely different scale.

Even the authorities at the Préfecture admitted that there were 5,000 on the streets on a hot Mediterranean afternoon.

The crowd represented a very wide cross-section of the local population. The Gilets Jaunes had already started this process of breaking down the old “left” and “right” political divisions in favour of a broad popular struggle against the power elite.

But the process has now clearly gone a step further, with a new mood of defiant unity that must be striking fear into the hearts of Macron and his cronies, not to speak of Klaus Schwab and the global string-pullers.

The sense of possibility has been increased by the news that the French Minister of Justice Eric Dupond-Moretti is under criminal investigation for allleged “conflicts of interest”.

“We don’t want the pass sanitaire!” chanted the thousands in Montpellier. “Macron resign!” “Résistance!” “Liberté!”

It was the same picture everywhere, with massive numbers not just in Paris, but all across France, as this compilation sets out.

The people took to the streets in Aix-en-Provence, Quimper, Annecy, Lyons, Perpignan, Nice, Metz, Lille, Dijon, Caen, Toulouse, Reims, Saint-Brieuc, Pau, Strasbourg, Rouen, La Rochelle, Brest, Mulhouse, Bayonne, Narbonne, Saint-Étienne, Albi, Nîmes and La Réunion.

They protested in Toulon, Marseilles, Bordeaux, Nantes and Rennes. Tear gas was used on protesters at Besançon and demonstrators blocked a main road at Chambéry.

The politics of division seem to be failing as the French people come together to defend the principles of liberté, égalité and fraternité on which their republic is supposed to be founded.

I bumped into a couple of anarchist friends on the protest and also took a leaflet from a group called Arme Révolutionnaire Marxiste.

This condemns the “Apartheid sanitaire” being imposed by the state: “Treated like fearful cattle, ever more controlled, divided and stripped of our freedoms, we are condemned by power to still further exploitation.

“But this time the government’s medicine is not going down, there are more and more of us all the time who understand the reality of this medical mascarade, just as we understand better and better the scam of elections”.

Insisted Gilet Jaune Michelle: “This vaccine passport just can’t happen. We can’t give up”.

Disobedience! We are not QR codes.

“Our children are not guinea pigs” “My body does not belong to medicine”

Yes to unconditional freedom

For enlightened choice

66 million men and women can still say no. Resist! You are not alone!

Down with the techno-medical dictatorship!

“Together, ‘vaccinated’ or not. No to intimidation, constraint, discrimination. Yes to free choice, equality, fraternity”

Vaccinated or not, united and in solidarity for our freedoms!

You are powerful, Act like it.

A lie repeated a thousand times becomes a truth

*

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

All images in this article are from Winter Oak

Video: Graphene Oxide: A Toxic Substance in the Vial of the Covid-19 mRNA Vaccine

By Ricardo Delgado and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 17, 2021

Graphene oxide is a toxin which triggers thrombi and blood coagulation. It also has an impact on the immune system. Read more…

Forced Vaccination and the Road to “Digital Tyranny”: Agenda ID2020 Revisited

By Peter Koenig, July 17, 2021

Imagine we are only in year 2021, there are another almost ten years left in the UN Agenda 2030 to accomplish the nefarious objectives of the Great Reset – if we, the people, don’t stop it. Read more…

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

By David Skripac, July 17, 2021

This year marks a seminal turning point in human history. For the first time since human civilization began, our species is being genetically modified. Read more…

Pakistan’s “Balancing Between Great Powers”: “The New Quad” (US- Pakistan- Afghanistan- Uzbekistan): Is Better than the Old One?

By Andrew Korybko, July 18, 2021

The newly established US-Pakistan-Afghanistan-Uzbekistan framework is the embodiment of Pakistan’s multi-alignment policy of balancing between Great Powers. Read more…

Battle of the Atlantic: Citing Nazi Germany as Model, U.S. Military Chief Hails New NATO Command

By Rick Rozoff, July 16, 2021

General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was in Norfolk, Virginia on July 15 to mark the second NATO command in America achieving full operational capability. Read more…

CDC: 10,991 Dead, 551,172 Injuries Following COVID-19 Injections

By Brian Shilhavy, July 17, 2021

You will not find a single corporate media outlet reporting these government statistics, as this has to be the MOST CENSORED information in the United States. Read more…

Ivermectin: Asia Departs from the Gates/Schwab Agenda of Vaccinating the World

By Martin Armstrong, July 18, 2021

Ivermectin, a drug used to treat parasitic infections in humans that are more commonly used on animals, is now trending and exploding in Asia. Read more…

History: Why Nazi Germany Failed to Defeat the Soviet Union? Folly of War

By Shane Quinn, July 16, 2021

As the First World War was erupting from late summer 1914, the great majority of political leaders believed it would be of short duration. Read more…

The Assassination of John F. Kennedy

By Michael Welch and James DiEugenio, July 16, 2021

March 22, 1963. The Kennedy family lost a brother. America lost a president. And the world lost a hope for a more peaceful world. Read more…

How the Rich Keep Workers Poor – Outsourcing and Sweatshops

By Rod Driver, July 18, 2021

Big brands put pressure on factories overseas. This has become worse due to the development of what is called fast fashion. Read more…

Doctors for COVID Ethics Signatories

By Doctors for COVID Ethics, July 16, 2021

Doctors for Covid Ethics has written three open letters to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 vaccine dangers. Read more…

US Targets Nicaraguan Presidential Election: Former Solidarity Activists Echo Imperial Talking Points

By Roger D. Harris, July 18, 2021

US intervention in Nicaragua and, indeed, in all of Latin America under the 1823 Monroe Doctrine has a long history continuing to the present. Read more…

Experts Warn of ‘Huge Risk’ as Moderna Launches COVID Vaccine Trials for Pregnant Women

By Megan Redshaw, July 16, 2021

Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says pregnant women can get a COVID vaccine. But the CDC also acknowledges there is limited data available about the safety of COVID vaccines for people who are pregnant. Read more…

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

“After years of IT experts telling us that we ‘can’t break the internet’ by pressing the wrong button, it turns out we can do it by updating our settings.” – Phil Coughlin, The Guardian, Jun 11, 2021

On June 8, an internet blackout was precipitated by one customer updating their settings through a “valid configuration change”.  With speed, 85% of the network of the tech infrastructure company Fastly began returning errors.  A global outage ensued.  “The downed sites,” according to Brian Barrett of Wired, “shared no obvious theme or geography; the outages were global, and they hit everything from Reddit to Spotify to The New York Times.”

Nick Rockwell, the Senior Vice President of engineering and infrastructure at the company, outlined the incident in a blog post.  “We experienced a global outage due to an undiscovered software bug that surfaced on June 8 when it was triggered by a valid customer configuration change.”  The bug had been introduced in a software deployment on May 12 “that could be triggered by a specific customer configuration under specific circumstances.”

Fastly’s role is important, since it, along with such entities as Akamai and Cloudflare, constitutes part of the content delivery network (CDN) essential to the internet’s infrastructure and the speed with which information is relayed.  Such CDN entities are physical manifestations in utilising servers to minimise download times.  They supply a service that enables websites, notably those attracting heavy traffic, to retain copies of their pages “closer” to their customers. 

Angelique Medina, director of product marketing at network monitoring firm Cisco ThousandEyes, offers an explanation of that function.  “It basically enables really high performance for content, whether that’s streaming video or a site or all the little images that pop up when you go to an ecommerce site.” Reuters similarly describes this as offering “a better experience for users, enabling pages to load quicker and sites to manage high volumes of page requests better, for example in a breaking news situation.”

The drawback of having such an intertwined system populated by so few providers is that any modest hiccup in the supply conveyed via the services of the CDN network can result in a global blackout. This stands to reason: a beast such as Akamai has 340,000 servers on its platform deployed across 4,100 locations across 130 countries.  This problem might be rectified by having websites host their own content exclusively, but that, as Paul Haskell-Dowland points out, would slow web browsing and undermine that fetish cyber cognoscenti call the “experience”.

Such incidents have become recurring features of shock in the tech landscape.  Initially, they generate a flash of discussion, but are quickly submerged by the banality of technological acceptance.  Cloudflare itself experienced problems in 2019 with an outrage that disrupted Soundcloud, Medium and Dropbox.  The explanation given then was similar to that of Fastly: the outage had resulted from a “bad software” deployment that caused a “massive spike in CPU utilization” on the company’s network.  “Once [the software was rolled back] the service returned to normal operation and all domains using Cloudflare returned to normal traffic levels.” 

A certain degree of error on the part of CDN providers tends to be tolerated, even readily exonerated.  In the week of June 12, global internet outages rose by 43%, or 481 in total.  317 of these took place in the US.  As this was happening, the stock market was busily rewarding the very agents behind such outages.  Fastly’s stock price rose through June while Akamai’s share price rallied after June 18.  Such a centralised market tends to deliver riches while ignoring, as Geoff Huston of the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre observes, “a minor inconvenient truth about the less-than-solid foundations of the technology, and incidents that impact operations that continue to happen.”

And just to cause more ripples of excitement, Akamai became the second CDN provider to suffer an outage later in June for one of its Prolexic DDoS mitigation services.  As the company mentioned in a statement, “A routing table value used by this particular service was inadvertently exceeded.  The effect was an unanticipated disruption of service.”  Outages were subsequently felt across banking services, many located in Australia, a number of airlines and the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.  The public relations departments across Akamai’s client base were scrambled to dampen any panic.

Reactions from the CDN high priests to these disruptions are rehearsals of apology followed by businesslike solutions.  They know they are the titans with few contenders.  Rockwell’s response served to mask the more critical issues of CDN concentration. “Even though there were specific conditions that triggered this outage, we should have anticipated it.”  But he emphasised the speed of detection and rectification.  The disruption was detected within one minute, “then identified and isolated the cause, and disabling the configuration.  Within 49 minutes, 95 per cent of our network was operating normal.”  The company, he promised, would “figure out why we didn’t detect the bug during our software quality assurance and testing processes.” 

The irony of such outrages is that they defy the spirit of decentralisation that was meant to underlie the web.  As David Warburton of cybersecurity company F5 Labs rightly notes, the past decade has borne witness to “the unintentional centralisation of many core services through large cloud solution providers like infrastructure vendors and CDNs.”  Economies of scale have prevailed and competition all but quashed.  The “comparative shopping list is not exactly large,” remarks the ever valuable Huston, if you wish to choose a CDN that optimises “service delivery yet leaves the customer in control of such critical aspects of the security and integrity of the service (such as private keys)”.  Till that problem is addressed, the disruptive outage will become the tolerated manifestation of an unacceptably centralised market.

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

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

***

This article was originally published in April 2021.

Charles Hoffe has been a medical doctor for 28 years in the small, rural town of Lytton in British Columbia, Canada. The town is comprised of many indigenous groups and the “First Nations.”

When Dr. Hoffe was given 900 doses of the Moderna experimental COVID-19 injections, he administered the doses through the Lytton Medical Clinic to those who wanted them.

He chose not to inject himself.

Dr. Hoffe reports that the result of injecting 900 people among the indigenous First Nations community was that 2 people went into anaphylactic shock, one person died, and several others have suffered what appear to be permanent disabilities. He relates how one of his patients is in so much pain now, that she prefers death to life.

By contrast, no one in the community died or became permanently disabled due to the COVID-19 virus for the past year.

Dr. Hoffe reported these adverse reactions by email to the medical personnel in his community who were responsible for the roll-out of the Moderna shots, which included pharmacists, nurses, and doctors in his area, a total of about 18 people he says.

His email expressed grave concern over the side effects he was seeing, and he asked if perhaps they should pause the injections for a while.

He reports that within 48 hours he received a very stern rebuke from his superiors at the Interior Health Authority accusing him of causing “vaccine hesitancy” and that they were going to report him to BC College of Physicians and Surgeons.

They forbade him from saying anything negative about the Moderna shots by issuing a gag order against him.

Dr. Hoffe explains that this is a method of intimidation that is being used against other doctors who have become too afraid to speak out, because the College of Physicians and Surgeons has great authority to shut down doctors’ careers, or heavily fine them.

As he continued to see more injuries the following week, he became very angry about his gag order. He was told that if he had any concerns about the injections that he had to contact the medical health officer in charge of the Moderna roll out.

He did, but when he did not receive a reply, he decided to write an open letter directly to Dr. Bonnie Henry, British Columbia Provincial Health Officer, in direct defiance of his gag order since he made it public.

Here is a copy of the letter.

***

Dr. Charles D. Hoffe, BSc, MB, BCh, LMCC
Lytton Medical Clinic
Lytton BC V0K 1Z0

5 April, 2021

Dr. Bonnie Henry,
British Columbia Provincial Health Officer
Ministry of Health
1515 Blanchard Street
Victoria, BC, V8W 3C9

Dear Dr. Henry,

The first dose of the Moderna vaccine has now been administered to some of my patients in the community of Lytton, BC. This began with the First Nations members of our community in mid-January, 2021. 900 doses have now been administered.

I have been quite alarmed at the high rate of serious side-effects from this novel treatment.
From this relatively small number of people vaccinated so far, we have had:

1. Numerous allergic reactions, with two cases of anaphylaxis.
2. One (presumed) vaccine induced sudden death, (in a 72 year old patient with COPD. This patient complained of being more short of breath continually after receiving the vaccine, and died very suddenly and unexpectedly on day 24, after the vaccine. He had no history of cardiovascular disease).
3. Three people with ongoing and disabling neurological deficits, with associated chronic pain, persisting for more than 10 weeks after their first vaccine. These neurological deficits include: continual and disabling dizziness, generalised or localized neuromuscular weakness, with or without sensory loss. The chronic pain in these patients is either generalised or regional, with or without headaches.

So in short, in our small community of Lytton, BC, we have one person dead, and three people who look as though they will be permanently disabled, following their first dose of the Moderna vaccine. The age of those affected ranges from 38 to 82 years of age.

So I have a couple of questions and comments:

1. Are these considered normal and acceptable long term side-effects for gene modification therapy? Judging by medical reports from around the world, our Lytton experience is not unusual.
2. Do you have any idea what disease processes may have been initiated, to be producing these ongoing neurological symptoms?
3. Do you have any suggestions as to how I should treat the vaccine induced neurological weakness, the dizziness, the sensory loss, and the chronic pain syndromes in these people, or should they be all simply referred to a neurologist? I anticipate that many more will follow, as the vaccine is rolled out. This was only phase one, and the first dose.
4. In stark contrast to the deleterious effects of this vaccine in our community, we have not had to give any medical care what-so-ever, to anyone with Covid-19. So in our limited experience, this vaccine is quite clearly more dangerous than Covid-19.
5. I realize that every medical therapy has a risk-benefit ratio, and that serious disease calls for serious medicine. But we now know that the recovery rate of Covid-19, is similar to the seasonal flu, in every age category. Furthermore, it is well known that the side effects following a second shot, are significantly worse than the first. So the worst is still to come.
6. It must be emphasised, that these people were not sick people, being treated for some devastating disease. These were previously healthy people, who were offered an experimental therapy, with unknown long-term side-effects, to protect them against an illness that has the same mortality rate as the flu. Sadly, their lives have now been ruined.
7. It is normally considered a fundamental principal of medical ethics, to discontinue a clinical trial if significant harm is demonstrated from the treatment under investigation.
8. So my last question is this: Is it medically ethical to continue this vaccine rollout, in view of the severity of these life altering side-effects, after just the first shot? In Lytton, BC, we have an incidence of 1 in 225 of severe life altering side-effects, from this experimental gene modification therapy.

I have also noticed that these vaccine induced side effects are going almost entirely unreported, by those responsible for the vaccine rollout. I am aware that this is often a problem, with vaccines in general, and that delayed side-effects after vaccines, are sometimes labelled as being “coincidences”, as causality is often hard to prove. However, in view of the fact that this is an experimental treatment, with no long-term safety data, I think that perhaps this issue should be addressed too.

Furthermore I have noticed, that the provincial vaccine injury reporting form, which was clearly designed for conventional vaccines, does not even have any place to report vaccine injuries of the nature and severity that we are seeing from this new mRNA therapy.

It is now clearly apparent with medical evidence from around the world, that the side-effect profiles of the various gene modification therapies against Covid-19, have been vastly understated by their manufacturers, who were eager to prove their safety.

Thank you for attention to this critically urgent public health matter.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Charles Hoffe

***

The IH (Interior Health) responded to his letter publicly and it was published in the Ashcroft Cache Creek Journal as they tried to do “damage control” and attack Dr. Hoffe.

***

IH says COVID-19 vaccines safe despite claims of Lytton physician

Doctor makes unsubstantiated claims about serious side effects of Moderna vaccine

by BARBARA RODEN

Interior Health (IH) is reassuring Lytton and area residents about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, after a physician in that community shared a letter in which he claimed that the death of a Lytton resident was linked to the Moderna vaccine.

In a letter to Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry dated April 5, Dr. Charles Hoffe claimed that there had been “numerous” allergic reactions — including two cases of anaphylaxis — among people in Lytton and area who had received the Moderna vaccine. He also claimed that three people were exhibiting “ongoing and disabling” neurological deficits.

Hoffe also claimed that the death of a 72-year-old patient with COPD, 24 days after the man was vaccinated, was “presumed” to be vaccine-induced. The physician did not produce any evidence to prove that any of the events resulted from the vaccine.

“It has been a challenge for us to investigate this thoroughly and take reports seriously,” says Dr. Carol Fenton, Medical Health Officer with IH. In a written statement issued on April 14, Fenton says that “There have been no deaths or lasting adverse reactions connected to the Moderna/Pfizer vaccines, or any COVID-19 vaccine, in Lytton, Interior Health, or B.C. at this time.”

The statement adds that IH knows unequivocally that the vaccines are safer than COVID-19 itself, and that the vaccines have been demonstrated to be safe and effective through all levels of clinical trials.

“There is a detailed process to review all adverse effects following immunizations, and all serious events are recorded and reported to the provincial and national level to monitor for safety signals that may be missed at the local level. With the information we have from the vaccine roll-out so far, the COVID-19 vaccines are very safe.”

Fenton tells the Journal that while there will always be some variations between medical practitioners, when it comes to the safety of vaccines it is important to look at consensus-based reports from those who are trained in the field.

“These people are the experts of the experts,” she says. “I can answer most vaccine questions, but I don’t consider myself to be an expert in vaccines. The decisions and analyses are defined by people with the skills and expertise to parse through the information we have.”

The immunization clinics being run by IH have trained vaccinators on site to monitor for and respond to allergic and anaphylactic reactions, which are rare, but can occur with any vaccine or medication.

“The safety of people in Lytton, Nlaka’pamux, and Northern St’at’imc Nations and all communities is the top priority, and our recommendation is that all individuals should get immunized when they are eligible,” says the statement. (Full article here.)

***

So basically the same as what we are seeing around the rest of the world when honest doctors come forward and report the truth.

The health authorities lie. No science, no statistics, just an appeal to authority. “We know what we are talking about, but this doctor does not.”

A local and independent talk show host in Canada, Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson, tracked down and interviewed Dr. Hoffe. The original show is an hour long and on her Facebook Page, as well as her Bitchute Channel.

We have extracted the 30 minute interview with Dr. Hoffe, and it is on our Rumble channel, and will also be on our Bitchute channel.

Dr. Hoffe has served the members of his community for 28 years, and he had a wonderful reputation among his patients, with glowing online reviews.

It is being reported now on some social media sites that his patients are being told he is no longer available to meet with them.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

OneWorld is republishing the full text that Andrew Korybko sent to The New Indian Express’ Pushkar Banakar in response to his inquiry about Korybko’s thoughts on the newly established US-Pakistan-Afghanistan-Uzbekistan framework.

The newly established US-Pakistan-Afghanistan-Uzbekistan framework is the embodiment of Pakistan’s multi-alignment policy of balancing between Great Powers. It complements the 2016 Quadrilateral Cooperation & Coordination Mechanism (QCCM) with itself, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and China, as well as its recent outreaches to Russia.

The US wants to use the Pakistan-Afghanistan-Uzbekistan (PAKAFUZ) railway that was agreed to in February to expand its economic influence into post-withdrawal Afghanistan and the Central Asian Republics (CARs), while Russia wants to use it to attain its centuries-long strategic goal of reaching the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).

Meanwhile, last month’s virtual Foreign Ministers meeting between the top Chinese, Pakistani, and Afghan diplomats saw Kabul agreeing to rely more on BRI and in particular CPEC’s Gwadar.

Beijing is also naturally in support of PAKAFUZ since it essentially functions as the northern branch of CPEC (N-CPEC+).

Through these means, Pakistan is making good on its new grand strategy of geo-economics that its political, diplomatic, and military leadership jointly unveiled during March’s inaugural Islamabad Security Dialogue. Instead of pursuing zero-sum geopolitical gains, it wants to advance win-win geo-economic ones that bring together all stakeholders.

This has serious implications for India. Firstly, it shows that Pakistan’s version of geo-economically driven multi-alignment is much more successful even in its first few months than India’s geopolitically driven version has been over the past decade.

Secondly, it makes the US a stakeholder in Pakistan’s stability, which could lead to America putting pressure on India not to destabilize its rival by proxy like Islamabad accuses it of doing despite New Delhi consistently denying this.

Thirdly, the US’ regional economic focus might shift from India to Pakistan. The US and India failed to reach a comprehensive trade pact despite years of negotiations, yet now the US is signaling that it might prefer Pakistan as its base of regional economic investments instead due to PAKAFUZ’s access to the CARs.

It should be remembered that Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan’s summer 2019 summit with Trump saw the former US leader promise to drastically scale up bilateral economic relations. It appears as though Biden is serious about following up on this important element of his predecessor’s policy.

America is interested in repairing its relations with Pakistan because Islamabad is the key to peace in Afghanistan. It also provides access to the CARs via PAKAFUZ. Moreover, the US wants to balance Chinese investments there in order to prevent Pakistan from falling too closely into Beijing’s orbit.

By contrast, the only real interest that the US has in India is to exploit it as a proxy for “containing” China through zero-sum military means. This places India at serious risk if US-encouraged tensions with China once again soar but America abandons it as part of a “backroom deal” with Beijing.

Pakistan, meanwhile, wants the US and China to engage in a friendly form of “competitive connectivity” which will only bring tangible economic benefits to its own people without any of the risks that India’s US-backed zero-sum military competition with China entail.

Faced with this growing strategic predicament, India should seriously consider recalibrating its multi-alignment away from its former and arguably failed geopolitical basis and more towards replicating the geo-economic example set by Pakistan. The first step is to comprehensively enhance economic relations with Russia.

That’s already a plan in progress as the two cooperate on the Vladivostok-Chennai Maritime Corridor (VCMC) and North-South Transport Corridor (NSTC). India must also make progress on reaching a trade deal with the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). Moreover, India should give privileged incentives to Russian investors in order to diversify economic ties away from their present dependence on arms and natural resources.

At the same time, India should also more responsibly manage its relations with China by not allowing itself to continue being influenced by the US, which it certainly can’t trust any longer after America just clinched this quadrilateral economic-political pact with Pakistan. If any third party is to influence Indian-Chinese ties, it must only be their mutual trusted Russian one which solely wants peace and stability between them, not rivalry and war like the US does.

That doesn’t mean that India should move away from the US, but just that it must take the prescribed steps in order to improve its strategic negotiating leverage so as not to be exploited by America as that country’s proxy against China at the possible expense of its own national interests.

An excerpt from this text was included in The New Indian Express’ article titled “New Quad Could Impact India’s Role In Region, Says Russia-Based American Analyst”

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

There are some parts of the US where municipal elected officials who ordinarily concern themselves with things like trash removal, parking regulations, and petty graft are occasionally expected to take passionate stances on foreign policy issues. Israel would be that issue in certain heavily Jewish enclaves around the New York City area, although recently those political dynamics have shifted somewhat. In select Hudson County, NJ towns like North Bergen, West New York, Guttenberg, and Union City — that foreign policy issue is Cuba. 

Example: Although he conceded he was “not an expert” and therefore not in a position to recommend any specific US policy action in response to protests currently underway in the island nation, North Bergen “Public Safety” commissioner Allen Pascual told me this week he longed for the days when the “Rat Pack” could run wild in Cuba. So that’s the kind of Wikipedia-level cultural nostalgia driving at least some portion of Cuba-related opinion among these low-level municipal officials. Frank Sinatra and Sammy Davis Jr. serenading succulent young ladies amidst plumes of cigar smoke and organized crime oligopolies, or something.

Pascual had been participating in an emergency “Cuban Liberation” rally and march that kicked off in his stomping grounds of North Bergen, then proceeded south down through Guttenberg, and culminated at City Hall in West New York. I would estimate there were somewhere between two and four thousand people there — but don’t hold me to that, because attempting to guess crowd sizes always leads to trouble. In any event, the participants were substantially more rabid than I would expect to see at any “pro-Israel” rally under present circumstances. And I say “rabid” not necessarily as a pejorative — just to capture how uninhibited and enthusiastically expressive these Cuban-American rally-goers were. It’s likely a function of Cuban-Americans operating within their own relatively-more-insular political/demographic subgroup than “pro-Israel” factions.

Sometimes referred to as “Havana on the Hudson,” this area is populated by the largest enclave of Cuban-Americans outside Florida. Hudson County is also a place where you can simultaneously serve as a NJ State Senator and Mayor, which is absolutely brilliant for accumulating and entrenching political cache, as well as accumulating and entrenching one’s public pension. Brian Stack has been mayor of Union City for nearly 21 years, and a simultaneous NJ State Senator for 13. (Four years of faithful NJ Assembly service before that.)

Brian Stack (center) Nicholas Sacco (left) and Hudson County Sheriff Frank Schillari (right) all declared support for US military action against Cuba

As one of the few English-speakers addressing the rally, Stack really let loose and explicitly called for a US military invasion of Cuba. “The same as we’ve liberated other countries,” he subsequently told me. “We should’ve been in Cuba many many years ago… just like we went in and liberated Kuwait.” He continued, “Cuba, no doubt about it — this should be a democracy. And we have a great opportunity now with something that’s 90 miles off the Florida Keys, to make it a democracy.”

Asked (by me) whether recent US military inventions should inspire confidence in the success of this plan he was proposing, Stack said: “Listen, I’m not here to judge the invasions around the world.”

Fortunately for those who regard a potential US invasion of Cuba as insane, Brian Stack doesn’t have direct influence over the conduct of US foreign policy. He’s an elected official in one of the few parts of the country where there is genuinely a mass constituency for US military action against Cuba, and from the standpoint of political self-interest his rabble-rousing activities are perfectly explicable. But he does have influence over Democratic Party machine politics in New Jersey. As a resident of the area, I can attest that there are currently campaign billboards all over the place emblazoned with his photo smiling alongside Gov. Phil Murphy, with both having just prevailed in uncontested Democratic state primaries. (Although, side note: Stack is one of the many New Jersey Democratic power brokers who endorsed Chris Christie.)

And he was not a mere participant at this “Cuban Liberation” extravaganza; Stack personally organized the rally on 24 hours’ notice along with fellow Democratic mayors Nicholas Sacco, Wayne Zitt, and Gabriel Rodriguez. So this was effectively a state-run and state-endorsed event, which is a curious contrast with other forms of less “official” public protest. (Avowed state-backing was also a feature of many “BLM” rallies that took place last summer.)

Sacco is another quintessentially NJ political creature. Amazingly, he’s been mayor of North Bergen since 1991 and a State Senator since 1994, thus drawing two public salaries (“double-dipping”) for a whopping 27 years. This dual office-holding practice was legislatively banned in 2008, but Sacco was “grandfathered” in, as was Stack. That frees them both up to engage in a little military intervention advocacy on the side. “If it takes the force and strength of the United States, it should be used to free those people,” the famed double-dipper Sacco declared Tuesday.

While anything could happen, it’s doubtful that Joe Biden will accede to these demands for military intervention. But in some ways, the pro-intervention advocacy on display in New Jersey could be even more influential on a Democratic administration than the pro-intervention advocacy also rabidly underway in South Florida, where Cubans are more reliably Republican. (GOP mayor of Miami Francis Suarez just called for US airstrikes.) Hudson County, NJ on the other hand is a major Democratic stronghold, and so calls for military action emanating out of it could scramble some of the expected partisan configurations surrounding the issue.

But perhaps most importantly, Union City is the political base of Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), a former Senate colleague of Biden and the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He preceded Stack as mayor of Union City. While Menendez generally takes a predictably hard line on Cuba policy, just as he does on most other foreign policy issues including Israel and Iran, as yet he’s refrained from following in the footsteps of his mayoral successor Stack to endorse outright military intervention. (Although he did just proclaim this week on MSNBC, “We Have To Challenge The Regime,” whatever that means exactly.) Here is what Juan Pachon, a spokesperson for Menendez, told me:

To answer your question, Chairman Menendez was absolutely clear at a press gaggle earlier this week in saying there will NOT be military invasion or intervention in Cuba. I’ll let you quote from him but he went through the history of how even the most anti-regime and anti-communist presidents going back to Reagan had never entertained that as a real possibility. To my boss, that is exactly the type of rhetoric and theories that the regime wants to push

So, that’s the best indicator one’s likely to get that no military intervention is in the cards. In the Biden-to-Trump transition, Menendez has supplanted Marco Rubio (R-FL) as the most influential Senator on the matter vis-a-vis Executive Branch policy. Rubio, no doubt smarting from his demotion as Trump Administration pointman for fomenting regime change across Latin America — with his fevered antics having backfired spectacularly in Venezuela — now has limited sway. He’ll have to content himself with whipping up Twitter frenzies, and sporting a brand new repurposed Communist “raised fist” logo as his profile pic.

Yes, the woman holding this sign explicitly wanted “help” in the form of a US military intervention

It should not be under-stated how fervently these Cuban-American populations want concrete US military action. With the exception of one sole person, every rally attendee I spoke to was explicit that the “help” they were seeking from the US was a military intervention. I deliberately did not “cherry-pick” these answers — it was the clear sentiment of Cubans-Americans engaging in public activism right now.

No matter how alienated the US populace is purported to be with US interventionism after so many failed misadventures of late, the logic of interventionism always seems to resurface. Which makes sense, given that the US is one of the few countries with the capacity to overthrow foreign governments at will. As former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is reported to have once said: “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”

It’s extremely easy to posture as an “anti-interventionist” in the abstract — few would overtly brand as a committed “interventionist” these days — and then throw your skepticism out the window when it comes to specific circumstances in which you think it’d be a great idea to deploy US power to topple a foreign government.

*

After attending the rally, I asked my Twitter followers if there was anyone who could provide something resembling a “balanced” take on what’s currently happening in Cuba. While I have zero doubt that there are plenty of Cubans disillusioned with the government and their general living conditions — state officials report the economy contracted 11% in 2020 — the information being fed into the US media ecosystem right now is largely filtered by émigré populations who have deep ideological, personal, and financial investment in overthrowing the government. Their hostility to the Cuban government is understandable, but also cause for some measure of journalistic skepticism as it relates to the information flooding social media and elsewhere.

Nick Ramos supplied exactly what I was asking for with this Medium article, which I highly recommend reading. We also had a livestream discussion on Rokfin, the full version which you can watch here. An excerpt is available on YouTube here.

One thing I brought up to Ramos was an impression I got attending the rally/march this week, which ironically relates to a slightly counter-intuitive notion of “American Exceptionalism.” The protests struck me as highlighting something “exceptional” about America, in the sense that decades-long preferential treatment can be given to a particular ethnic/nationality group, and then that same group has no compunction about agitating for the US government to invade their previous country. The vast majority of Cuban immigration to the US since the Cuban Revolution of 1959 has been enabled by special provisions of US federal law. As a 2016 Congressional Research Service report noted, “US immigration policy toward Cuba is the product of a unique set of circumstances and is unlike US immigration policy toward any other nation in the world.” The Cuban Adjustment Act fast-tracks Cubans present in the US to citizenship, and they are eligible to receive federal resettlement assistance. “Unlike most other applicants for adjustment to [Lawful Permanent Resident] status, Cuban nationals do not have to be sponsored by an eligible family member or employer,” the report says.

It also seems “exceptional” that Cuban-Americans who’ve been granted these special privileges can freely agitate for invasion in their native language, as was the case at the NJ rally/march, which was conducted almost exclusively in Spanish aside from a handful of gringo politicians like Brian Stack. According to another report from the Migration Policy Institute, “Cuban immigrants are much less likely to be proficient in English and speak English at home than the overall foreign-born population. In FY 2018, about 61 percent of Cubans ages 5 and over reported limited English proficiency, compared to 47 percent of the total foreign-born population.” Ordinarily you’d think US conservatives would be especially exercised about a thing like this, but they don’t seem too worried at the moment.

Image on the right: Rally-goers “urgently” call for “humanitarian intervention”

Should no invasion materialize, the protesters can at least take solace in the policy continuity between the Trump and Biden Administrations. In June, the US under Biden continued its normal posture of opposing a UN resolution calling on the US to rescind the trade embargo against Cuba, 184 to 2, with Israel being the only country that joined the US in voting against. The émigrés can also take solace in knowing that protests often occur throughout the world — including in the Caribbean — but receive comparatively negligible US media attention when longstanding US geopolitical imperatives are not implicated.

Recognizing the distortions of these dynamics doesn’t require denying that people in Cuba have legitimate grievances. Affirmatively defending the clearly decrepit Cuban system of government, with its deprivation of individual liberty, would be ridiculous. Free expression is severely stifled in Cuba, among many other iniquities that make it a vastly less desirable place to live than the US. But what Americans have direct influence over is the policies of their own government, and the US government has been embargoing Cuba for more than six decades. Certain groups are now enjoining it to launch another invasion. So that’s all the more reason to at least look askance at specially generated hashtags like #SOSCuba, because there’s a reason these messages are being transmitted in the manner they are to US audiences: to solicit US policy action.

One of the few English speakers at the NJ march/rally exhorted the crowd to “keep posting.”  OK fine, keep posting. I think a more prudent motto would be: “post, but verify.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 author

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

For 60 years, Cuba has lived under siege from the most powerful nation on earth, denying it basics like food, medicine and building equipment – anyone who cares about economic hardship must call for it to end.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A draft of the global framework to combat biodiversity loss was released today, and it fails to call for a halt to species’ extinctions. The framework is being negotiated by parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity — 195 countries plus the European Union — and the Convention is meant to function as the premier international agreement on biodiversity conservation. The framework has been under negotiation since 2019 and is supposed to guide the parties in sustaining a healthy planet during the next decade and on to 2050.

“We’re in the midst of a gut-wrenching biodiversity crisis and stand to lose over a million species unless we change the way we do business. Yet the framework meant to address this crisis globally doesn’t even call for stopping extinctions,” said Tanya Sanerib, international legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This isn’t the transformative change that the scientific advisors on this treaty have called for. Human-induced loss of species needs to stop, and it needs to stop yesterday. So we can focus on species recovery.”

The so-called “first draft” that was released today, following the previous “zero draft,” requires greater ambition to protect biodiversity. Additionally, as the zero draft was being negotiated in 2020, the virus causing COVID-19 was quickly spreading globally. But despite the likely zoonotic origins of the virus and its probable ties to wildlife trade, the only outcome was a call for such trade to be “safe.” The version released today, in the wake of COVID-19’s catastrophic global consequences, is a call for trade, harvesting and use to be “safe for human health.”

“To truly minimize future pandemic risk, we need to rethink commercial use of wildlife. That means eliminating trade and exploitation that isn’t ecologically sustainable or legal, or poses a risk to human or animal health,” said Sanerib. “With a COVID-like event predicted every decade, we need decisive measures to reduce wildlife consumption. Otherwise we’ll all be reliving 2020 again and again.”

The framework includes a call to protect 30% of land and sea globally. While the United States is not a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity, in early 2021 President Joe Biden signed an executive order — dubbed the 30×30 Initiative — directing the Interior Department to conserve at least 30% of America’s lands and waters by the year 2030. But the executive order allows a lower standard for what counts as conservation when compared to the framework. Only 12% of U.S. land is currently protected.

The global framework is scheduled to be adopted in October at the CBD meeting in Kunming, China. But first the parties will meet virtually in August and September to negotiate the next draft.

“All hope rests on the upcoming virtual negotiations and whether nations can collectively agree to increase ambition and address the extinction crisis head-on,” said Sanerib. “Right now the road to Kunming is blocked by a lack of ambition. But I have faith we can overcome the obstacles and set our sights on saving life on Earth.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 Wikimedia Commons

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Oprah vs Noam Chomsky: Isn’t there room for both in America’s progressive culture? The idea of celebrities being involved in social issues was once met with mockery.

Oprah and Kaepernick changed that. So did SLN and Chomsky.

Who prevails as our most effective changemaker remains to be seen.

Arguably, in America, most progressive paths—highways, suburban streets, lanes– over the past two generations lead back to (or through) Oprah Winfrey. So why do liberal media bypass her? Are sociologists and progressive journalists waiting for her passing to acknowledge Oprah’s unmatched, still evolving, role as a catalyst for change? Not erudite enough for highbrow ‘alternative’ media? Too ho-hum-midday-mainstream for smart American college elites who believe that nighttime analyses offer the real fix for America’s troubles?  

(Put aside international policies where, to start, both our elites and masses support any US military action to guarantee global stability.) 

On domestic affairs Oprah has a worthy place.

Regrettably, except for climate change added to our woes, we debate the same stubbornly persistent issues: health, gender equity, abuse, violence, racial and economic inequality, censorship, voting and immigrant rights. Decades-old challenges still scream for a solution. Many are the very topics that TV talk-show host Oprah Winfrey helped propel into public consciousness. She still hasn’t abandoned them.

This lady’s no gadfly. Through her multiple media platforms she’s tackling America’s endemic problems today even more vigorously and strategically.

It seems to me that progressives could strengthen their arguments, their influence too, by at least occasionally referencing Oprah’s projects, evaluating her style and examining her statements and her strategies (even with her missteps). Why ignore her? Even if unavailable for interviews, she’s on record—anywhere.

Our progressive media seem to prefer ancient, long-winded men–personalities like the inimitable Noam Chomsky. Let’s face it, the MIT- icon adds little that’s new in his dispassionate recalls of American war crimes and injustices. I wonder: are progressives so uncertain of their agenda, so embarrassed by setbacks, that they invoke Chomsky’s composed level headedness to stifle their rage and affirm some moral superiority?

If you’re giving marks for longevity and dependability, Oprah matches Chomsky. 

America’s progressive media aren’t averse to invoking celebrity witticisms to support their positions. (Trevor Noah and John Oliver are certainly deserving.) But do liberals champion satirists because ridicule decorously reinforces their own elite views?

Oprah’s approach to culture and America’s problems couldn’t be more in contrast to those luminaries–neither the satirists nor the professors. Still, a touch of emotion along with her patriotism, her verve, her capacity to change, her personal faith– not least, her public reach—surely warrant this woman a place in our liberal political dialogues. 

Oprah’s identification of social issues precedes by decades many principles and problems which progressives are focused on. One hardly needs to recall how her TV talk show led the way– tackling painful social and medical issues, drawing celebrities into social action, launching socially relevant media projects from Dr. Oz to filmmakers Lisa Ling and Ava DuVernay.

Even if liberals bypass her, Oprah forges ahead, again innovating, again tapping new sources and resources, again a film. 

With the exception of Spike Lee, Oprah has arguably done more than anyone to advance film productions re Black history and culture onto a new plane. That began 35 years ago with her roles in feature films followed by productions she executive-produced:– series like “Queen Sugar” and exposés like “When They See Us”.

Even after some flops, with each new venture, Oprah more rigorously advances her social change goals: a) identifying, nurturing and employing Black talent; b) creating and affirming a real alternative representation of African-America, a nation and a history once  patronizingly confined to the Black victim or Black noble savage. If you haven’t seen it, check out Oprah’s “Black Love” series launched in 2017 on OWN network. You may have also missed OWN’s four masterfully produced pre-2020 election town halls across six states. Its success was not star power, but brilliant management, timeliness and grace. Oprah, hosting, gives the floor to regional activists Stacey Abrams and Reverend Barber, Black women university and college leaders, city mayors and sorority presidents, members of Congress, Women’s March organizers and Color of Change advisors. Authority is subsumed by respect, by voices of mainly women representing constituents ready to meet hundreds of thousands of voters.

All that while liberal media pundits damn Trump and his crowd.

*

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

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

Barbara is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Before Henry Kissinger became a Clinton pal, liberals condemned him for saying: “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.” The 1973 US-backed coup and bloodbath in Chile followed. Now Uncle Sam has a problem in Nicaragua, where independent polls predict a landslide victory for Daniel Ortega’s leftist Sandinista slate in the November 7^th presidential elections.

The US government and its sycophantic media are working to prevent Ortega’s reelection. On July 12, the US slapped visa restrictions on one hundred Nicaraguan elected legislative officials, members of the judiciary, and their families for “undermining democracy.” A month earlier, the Biden administration imposed sanctions on President Ortega’s daughter, along with a military general, the head of the central bank, and an elected legislator.

These and other recent illegal US sanctions on Nicaragua are designed to promote regime change and are based on the ridiculous charge that this poor and tiny nation is a “extraordinary and unusual threat to the US national security,” when the opposite is the case.

The NICA Act of 2018, under the Trump administration, imposed sanctions, including blocking loans from international financial institutions controlled by the US. In August 2020, the Responsive Assistance in Nicaragua (RAIN) plan was revealed, which is a multi-faceted coup strategy by which the US contracted corporations to overthrow the Nicaraguan government. RAIN calls for a “sudden, unanticipated transition” government to forestall what they admit would otherwise be a Sandinista victory in a free election. In a seamless handoff from the Trump to the Biden administration, the pending RENACER Act would further extended “targeted sanctions.”

US intervention in Nicaragua and, indeed, in all of Latin America under the 1823 Monroe Doctrine has a long history continuing to the present. Back in 1856, US citizen William Walker tried to impose himself as head of a slave state in Nicaragua, only to be assassinated four years later. In 1912, the US began an occupation of Nicaragua, forcing the country to become a US protectorate. The US was ousted in 1933 in a war led by national hero Augusto C. Sandino, after whom the present revolutionary party was named. In the 1980s, the US government proxies, the Contras, fought the new Sandinistas after they overthrew the US-backed Somoza dictatorship.

Problematic premises

In the past, most US progressives opposed the imperialism of their government. But more recently, as Jeremy Kuzmarov of CovertAction Magazine observed:

“United States warmakers have become so skilled at propaganda that not only can they wage a war of aggression without arousing protest; they can also compel liberals to denounce peace activists using language reminiscent of the McCarthy era.”

A recent Open Letter to the Nicaraguan Government from U.S. Solidarity Workers 1979-1990 reflects the US imperial talking points. This US open letter, dated July 1, is joined by one from Europeans, formerly active in solidarity with Nicaragua, and one from international academics, mainly in the field of Latin American studies. (Links to all three letters may be dodgy.) All three letters, likely coordinated, use similar language to make matching critiques and demands.

While other international activists from the 1980s still prioritize non-intervention and solidarity with the Sandinista government, the concerns expressed in the open letter should be respectfully evaluated. The open letter is based on the following problematic premises:

1. The open letter claims the Ortega “regime” is guilty of “crimes against humanity.”

In fact, Nicaragua is by far the most progressive country in Central America under the Sandinista government.

Unlike the Guatemalans, Hondurans, and El Salvadorians in these US client states, Nicaraguans are not fleeing to the US in search of a better life. Poverty and extreme poverty have been halved in Nicaragua, and the UN Millennium Development Goal of cutting malnutrition has been achieved. Basic healthcare and education are free, and illiteracy has been virtually eliminated, while boasting of the highest level of gender equality in the Americas. Nicaragua, which enjoys the lowest homicide rate in Central America, also has the smallest police force with the smallest budget in the region. These are not the hallmarks of a dictatorship.

2. The open letter claims the 2018 coup attempt was simply a “demonstration of self-determination.” While the open letter correctly notes that the events of 2018 reflected an element of popular discontent, it renders invisible the millions of dollars and many years of US sponsored subversion in Nicaragua.

Social media campaigns of false information orchestrated by US-sponsored groups fueled viciously violent protests. According to solidarity activist Jorge Capelán: “those who kidnapped, tortured, robbed, murdered and raped citizens here in Nicaragua in April 2018 were the coup promoters. They themselves recorded everything with their cell phones. They even set fire to murdered Sandinista comrades in the street.”

Benjamin Waddell, a signatory to the open letter, admitted “it’s becoming more and more clear that the US support has helped play a role in nurturing the current [2018] uprisings.” Dan La Botz, another Ortega-must-go partisan, provided the background: “US organizations such as USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and no doubt the CIA had for decades, of course, worked in Nicaragua as they do everywhere in the world.”

No substantive progressive alternative was offered by the opposition in 2018, according to William Robinson, another signatory to the open letter. Rather, 2018 was an attempt to achieve by violent means what could not be achieved democratically at the ballot box.

3. The open letter claims the Nicaraguan government “in no way represents the values, principles and goals of the Sandinista revolution.”This stance arrogates to foreigners the role of telling the Nicaraguan people how to evaluate their revolution. The electoral process in Nicaragua makes clear that the Nicaraguans think otherwise.=

After successfully overthrowing the US-backed dictator Somoza and fighting the counter-revolutionary war against the US-backed Contras, the Sandinista’s lost the 1990 election. Notably, outgoing President Ortega without hesitation obeyed the electoral mandate, the first time in Nicaragua’s history that governing power was passed peacefully to another political party. After 17 years of neoliberal austerity, Daniel Ortega won the presidential election of 2006 with a 38% plurality and went on to win in 2011 with 63% and 72.5% in 2016. Ortega’s ever increasing electoral margins suggest the majority of Nicaraguans support him as the legitimate leader of the Sandinista revolution.

Problematic proposals

Using the same loaded language as the US government, the open letter calls on the “Ortega-Murillo regime” to release political prisoners currently being held, including “pre-candidates,” members of the opposition, and “historic leaders” of the Sandinista revolution; rescind the national security law under which these individuals were arrested; and negotiate electoral reforms.

Nicaragua has passed two recent laws: the Foreign Agents Law and the Law to Defend the Rights of the People to Independence, Sovereignty, and Self-Determination for Peace. These laws, which the open letter wants rescinded, criminalize promoting foreign interference in Nicaragua’s internal affairs, seeking foreign military intervention, organizing acts of terrorism, and promoting coercive economic measures against their country. These are activities, it should be noted, that are similarly prohibited in the US’s FARA Act, after which the Nicaraguan laws were modeled.

The recent actions of the Nicaraguan government prosecuting people who break their laws is a normal function of governance. That some of the accused perpetrators may have political aspirations does not immunize those individuals from arrest for unlawful activities.

The letter from the aforementioned academics claims that among those detained are the “most prominent potential opposition presidential candidates.” In fact, none of the 17 political parties in Nicaragua have chosen their candidates, and “most of those currently under investigation do not belong to any legally registered party.” In fact, Stephen Sefton reports from Nicaragua that “no leading figure from Nicaragua’s opposition political parties has been affected by the recent series of arrests of people from organizations that supported the 2018 coup attempt.”

One of the most prominent of those arrested is NGO director Cristiana Chamorro, charged with money laundering for receiving millions of dollars from the USAID, other US government agencies, and allied foundations for regime-change purposes. In her defense, she incredulously claimed that the US State Department had audited her and found everything to their liking.

The “historic leaders” of the Sandinista revolution are just that; people who had broken with the revolution long ago and since 1994 had collaborated with the US-allied rightwing opposition and NGOs. More to the point, they are being charged with illegal collusion with foreign powers.

The open letter calls for “negotiating electoral reforms,” but electoral law in Nicaragua as in the US is determined by the legislative process and not by negotiations among various power blocks. Nicaragua has implemented some but not all reforms mandated by the Organization of American States. The fourth branch of government, the Supreme Electoral Council (CSE), oversees elections. A third of the current CSE is composed of representatives of parties other than the ruling party, even though the Sandinistas hold a supermajority in the legislature.

The right of the Nicaraguan revolution to defend itself

While acknowledging “the long and shameful history of US government intervention,” the open letter does not acknowledge the right of the Nicaraguan revolution to defend itself. On the contrary, their implied endorsement of the 2018 coup attempt is a call for regime change by non-democratic means and an implicit pass for US interference.

The open letter’s finding that “the crimes of the US government – past and present – are not the cause of, nor do they justify or excuse” the behavior of the current government in Nicaragua is a door that swings two ways. Whatever the alleged wrongdoings the Ortega government, that still does not justify the US government’s regime-change campaign. The open letter is thunderously silent on current US intervention, notably the punishing NICA and RENACER acts.

The Nicaraguan government has prioritized the needs of poor and working people and has made astounding progress on multiple fronts. That is why they are being targeted for regime change, and why the Nicaraguans have taken measures to thwart US intervention.

The Trump administration specifically targeted the so-called “Troika of Tyranny” – Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua – with repressive illegal sanctions aimed at regime change. That policy of US domination did not start with Trump, nor is it ending with the new US administration.

The imperialists are clear on who they target as their enemy; some elements on the left are less clear on who is their friend and whether Nicaragua has a right to defend itself. If the signers of the open letter believe, as they claim, “in the Nicaraguan people’s right to self-determination…of a sovereign people determining their own destiny,” then the November 2021 election should be protected, free from interference by the US, its international allies, and its funded NGOs.

*

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

Roger D. Harris is with the human rights organization the Task Force on the Americas, founded in 1985.

Featured image is from Pressenza

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

U.S. European Command (EUCOM) and officials from the Hungarian Defense Force met at the Kecskemét Air Base in Hungary on July 16 to sign an agreement allowing the U.S. assess to and use of two air bases in the country. The bases are the one the agreement was signed at and the Pápa Air Base.

Army Major General Charles Miller, EUCOM’s director of plans, policy, strategy and capabilities, was quoted by his command’s website as stating:

“These agreements allow U.S. forces to access and utilize these air bases in cooperation with the Hungarian Defence Force.” Indicating that securing the bases is not the final stage in bilateral military cooperation, he added, “This signing brings with it new opportunities for even greater collaboration and coordination with our Hungarian Allies.”

The agreement was reached under provisions of the 2019 Defense Cooperation Agreement between the U.S. and Hungary. Similar pacts have been signed with most former members of the long-defunct Warsaw Pact to provide air bases to the U.S. and NATO since 2004. A partial list of such bases will follow.

The American chargé d’dffaires in Budapest, Marc Dillard, affirmed:

“This signing demonstrates that the Defense Cooperation Agreement continues to deepen our already robust collective defense cooperation as NATO Allies and helps us prepare for the 21st century security challenges we face together.”

After Hungary joined the military alliance in 1999 the Pápa Air Base was declared a NATO reserve base. It was designated a Main Operating Base and hosted three NATO Strategic Airlift Capability aircraft from 2007 onward.

In 2020 the NATO Support and Procurement Agency completed a project to modernise components of the base. It has hosted C-17 Globemaster III long-range cargo jets as the Heavy Airlift Wing facet of the 12-nation multinational Strategic Airlift Capability, the world’s first multinational strategic airlift operation. Its partners at the time it achieved full operational capability in 2012 were NATO members Hungary, Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and the U.S., as well as (now) NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partners Finland and Sweden. The base and the operation were used extensively for NATO’s war in Afghanistan.

With the acquisition of the two Hungarian bases the U.S, and NATO (they’re truly indistinguishable) have now moved into several air bases in former Warsaw Pact countries since the first round of post-Cold War NATO expansion in 1999.

They include:

• Bulgaria: Bezmer Air Base and Graf Ignatievo Air Base
• Estonia: Ämari Air Base
• Hungary: Kecskemét Air Base and Pápa Air Base
• Lithuania: Šiauliai Air Base
• Poland: Łask Air Base and Malbork Air Base
• Romania: Deveselu Air Base, Mihail Kogălniceanu International Airport and Romanian Air Force 71st Air Base at Câmpia Turzii.

The Deveselu Air Base in Romania was reopened by the U.S. and NATO and now hosts Standard Missile-3 interceptor missiles directly across the Black Sea from Russia. All have been expanding and modernized.

The air force component of NATO’s military buildup along what the military alliance terms its Eastern Flank – which is Russia’s western border – is constantly advancing. Someone in Moscow should be getting the message by now.

*

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

Rick Rozoff, renowned author and geopolitical analyst, actively involved in opposing war, militarism and interventionism for over fifty years. He manages the Anti-Bellum and For peace, against war website

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

Featured image: First Boeing C-17 Globemaster III lands at the Pápa Air Base in 2009 (Source: Anti-bellum)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The U.S. Air Force says it is planning on sending roughly one-fifth of its combat-coded F-22 Raptor stealth fighters to the Western Pacific later this month as part of a major airpower exercise. The service says that the goal is to demonstrate its “strategic flexibility” in deploying significant numbers of combat aircraft to conduct operations from forward locations in the region. This is how it would expect to respond, at least in part, to any major contingency in this part of the world in the future, such as potential crises or conflict with China. 

Pacific Air Forces (PACAF), the Air Force’s top command in the Pacific, recently provided details about the upcoming Pacific Iron 2021 exercise, which, so far, it has only said is set to take place “in July.” Some of the participating aircraft have already touched down at Andersen Air Force Base on Guam. The exercise will see various aircraft fly from Andersen, as well as the adjacent Northwest field airstrip and the island’s Won Pat International Airport, along with Tinian International Airport on the island of Tinian, which is part of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Both Guam and Tinian are U.S. territories. It’s very possible that the aircraft will also make spots elsewhere in the course of this training event.

F-22 Raptors from the Hawaii Air National Guard’s 199th Fighter Squadron fly past Mount Fuji in Japan during a deployment earlier in 2021. (USAF)

Around 25 F-22s will take part in the exercise, according to an official release. These aircraft will come from the 525th Fighter Squadron, part of the 3rd Wing at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska, and the 199th Fighter Squadron, an element of the Hawaii Air National Guard’s 154th Wing. A total of 10 F-15E Strike Eagles from the 389th Fighter Squadron, part of the 366th Fighter Wing at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, along with a pair of C-130J Hercules cargo aircraft from the 374th Airlift Wing at Yokota Air Base in Japan, will also be among the participants.

F-15E Strike Eagles at Andersen Air Force Base on Guam on July 14, 2021, after having arrived for Pacific Iron 2021. (USAF)

However, the F-22s, which remain some of the Air Force’s most capable fighters, are clearly the stars of the show. “We have never had this many Raptors deployed together in the Pacific Air Forces area of operations,” Air Force General Ken Wilsbach, head of PACAF, told CNN.

A contingent of 25 F-22s may not necessarily seem like a large number, but, at present, the Air Force only has around 186 of these jets. Of those, only 125 of them are assigned to combat-coded units, with the rest being set aside for various training and test and evaluation duties. Many of the jets in the latter categories have not been upgraded to the most recent block configuration, either. All told, the 25 Raptors set to head the Pacific represent around 20 percent of the combat-coded aircraft and just over 13 percent of the total fleet.

A row of F-22 Raptors, including non-combat-coded jets. (USAF)

Beyond that, the F-22s are notoriously maintenance-intensive aircraft that have only become more difficult to sustain over the years. This is especially true when it comes to maintaining their special radar-absorbent skins, which are sensitive to environmental conditions. In 2020, only around half of the entire Raptor fleet, on average, was actually capable of performing any assigned missions, according to data that Air Force Magazine obtained earlier this year. If only half of the combat-coded jets are actually available for combat missions at any one time, 25 jets would actually represent around 40 percent of the real capacity of the Air Force’s F-22 fleet.

As such, Pacific Iron 2021 is set to be a significant demonstration of the Air Force’s ability to muster up a large number of some of its most advanced stealth fighters, in addition to showing off the service’s force projection capabilities more generally. How the Raptors actually perform will be an important reflection of the real capabilities the fleet has to offer.

This could also be doubly significant now that the service is openly talking about planning for the end of the F-22’s career and the potential replacement of these jets with a new sixth-generation fighter in development as part of the larger Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, which you can read more about in detail here. Air Force officials have separately talked about the importance of NGAD program, as well as future upgrades to its fleet of F-35A Joint Strike Fighters, to winning conflicts in the Pacific region, especially any potential future altercations with China.

Pacific Iron 2021 will notably come around a month after the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) sent 28 military aircraft into the southwestern corner of Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone, or ADIZ. This was the largest number of Chinese sorties in that area since the PLA began sending planes there on a near-daily basis back in 2020 and came after authorities in Beijing had reacted angrily to criticism of Chinese policies on various issues from the G7 group of industrialized nations, which includes the United States.

28 PLA aircraft (Y-8 ASW, H-6*4, Y-8 EW, KJ-500 AEW&C*2, J-16*14 and J-11*6) entered #Taiwan’s southwest ADIZ on June. 15, 2021. Please check our official website for more information: https://t.co/JnfN8bOwgl pic.twitter.com/MBJv2jbNMZ

— 國防部 Ministry of National Defense, R.O.C. 🇹🇼 (@MoNDefense) June 15, 2021

As already noted, Pacific Iron 2021 will also be yet another demonstration of the Air Force’s ongoing development of new concepts of operations surrounding rapid deployments and distributed operations, which the service presently refers to as Agile Combat Employment (ACE). This is all heavily tied to broader efforts to be more prepared for higher-end conflicts, particularly in the Pacific, and to rely less on established bases. Andersen Air Force Base on Guam, a key strategic American military outpost in the region, would be a primary target in any large-scale fight with a near-peer adversary in the Pacific region, such as China.

This reality has already pushed the Air Force to work on expanding the available facilities at Guam’s Northwest Field, as well as on Tinian, among other locations in the Pacific, to provide alternative basing options. Earlier this year, some of the service’s F-35As, as well as F-16C/D Viper fighter jets, deployed to Northwest Field to demonstrate that airstrip’s ability to handle more robust combat aviation operations. Before recent improvements were made, it was only able to accommodate C-130-type cargo aircraft and helicopters.

Altogether, it will be very interesting to see how Pacific Iron 2021 plays out and what conclusions the Air Force might draw about its Agile Combat Employment concept, as well as about the future of its F-22s as those jets get closer to the twilight of their careers.

*

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

The author can be contacted at [email protected]

Featured image is from The Drive

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Ivermectin, a drug used to treat parasitic infections in humans that are more commonly used on animals, is now trending and exploding in Asia. This is true in India as well. In Indonesia, pharmacies across Asia are reporting a boom in sales of the medication, and it has been sold out on e-commerce sites such as Bukalapak and Shopee. “People have been flocking to buy it,” said a pharmacist at Penang Island Pharmacy in the city of Medan in North Sumatra, who did not want to be named. Asians are not about to die to make Bill Gates boast, “I told you so.”

Dr. David Nabarro, Britain’s envoy to the World Health Organisation (WHO), contradicted the WHO and his own Boris Johnson. Nabarro condemned mass coronavirus lockdowns calling them the “ghastly global catastrophe,” which has caused the unprecedented crash of the world economy.

Nabarro appealed to world leaders, telling them to stop “using lockdowns as your primary control method” of the coronavirus. He correctly pointed out that the only thing lockdowns achieved was to increase poverty rather than potentially saving lives.

Nabarro had the courage to stand up against the WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, nicknamed Tedros the Terrible, who, as far back as April 2020, gave his full support for lockdowns and even warned against lifting them too soon, as reported back on April 10, 2020, in most mainstream media. In May, the WHO came out and justified the lockdowns saying the virus has jumped because of ending lockdowns too soon.

There has been an agenda here. The vaccine companies have most likely paid vast amounts of bribes to pull this off to prevent anyone from trying to treat COVID by saying everything else is dangerous. They are getting $19.50 per shot per person and have already said they will raise prices to $125 per shot next year. This is tearing the world apart and creating separatist movements between vaccinated and non-vaccinated.

United Airlines just lost my business. They created the United Sweepstakes Gives Vaccinated Customers a Shot to Win Free Flights, a Year of Travel. Do we need to start a non-vaccinated airline? No sheep allowed?

There has been a MAJOR effort to only vaccinate people and prevent anything that would actually treat the virus. If we had a real government that was truly on the side of the people, they would be investigating what is going on, drag the people out, and put them on trial for crimes against humanity.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 Armstrong Economics

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Undoubtedly, the Miami Cubans are happy and may have contributed to these Cuban protests. But in my view, this was an attempt – maybe the most ferocious one, in the 60+ years of Cuban revolution to “putsch” Cuba.

Why? For a number of reasons, two them:

Biden who campaigned saying he would consider the idea of renewing relations with Cuba, is under a lot of pressure from a lot of conservatives who voted for him because they hate Trump, not because they love Biden.

There will be Congressional elections next year and has an obligation towards the democrats who “elected” him. This is one way of showing that he is with the conservatives – i.e., the Miami Cubans, who voted for him.

Second, if one follows developments in Venezuela, in Caracas especially – there has been an explosion of violent gang crimes, in parallel with the Cuban protests. Fifth Columnists are well integrated in both countries.

The Biden people, or rather those behind Biden, those who direct Biden, wanted a double whammy – break the Maduro Government and take over Cuba. Especially since Trump “failed” in their eyes. With these two countries back in the US backyard, Washington thinks they are free – they have a green card – to advance in taking “back” all of Latin America. Venezuela and Cuba are indeed hindering blocks.

This will not happen.

Both countries’ leaders are well aware about what happens. Actually, President Maduro stood up and declared full solidarity with Cuba. Maduro also has the full support from Moscow and Beijing. – and of course, Cuba.

Losing this not so “soft coup” – violence and death – in both countries, may be the first big nail in Biden’s political coffin.

With Cuba’s 60-plus years of Revolution and Venezuela’s 20 years – they will not cave in to a Biden Administration, that hasn’t even managed to gather a majority of votes in the last election, but is in power because of the globalist agenda that had no space for nationalist Trump. Voter fraud is gradually emerging – first in Arizona, and we’ll see, where next. But that’s a different story.

“The Backyard” has seized being a backyard years ago, but Washington has hardly noticed, as they keep proceeding with their old, outdated “soft coup” methods, hoping these two tremendous pillars for Latin America will cave it.

Again. They will not.

*

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

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)

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

Featured image is from Zero Hedge

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Assassination of Jovenal Moise and the demonstrations against the Communist Party of Cuba are being traced to the United States’ ongoing interference in the internal affairs of Caribbean states.

Haitian President Jovenal Moise was assassinated in his private residence during the early morning hours of July 7 in Port-au-Prince.

The circumstances surrounding his death continue to unfold within various news agencies and investigative efforts inside and outside of Haiti.

Many of the links to those arrested as suspects in the killing of the former president lead right back to the United States through the Pentagon and federal law-enforcement agencies. Although the administration of President Joe Biden has said that it does not have the “deployment of troops on its agenda” in regard to Haiti, they have admitted that a team of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies have been sent to Haiti. These federal agents are now inside the Caribbean country while Marines are being dispatched ostensibly to protect the U.S. embassy.

Moise had enjoyed the monetary and diplomatic support of Washington since he was elected as president under very controversial circumstances in 2016. It would take months for Moise to be seated as president during February 2017. Almost immediately mass demonstrations and strikes erupted in response to his policies which negatively impacted the working class and poor.

Yet despite his close ties with the previous administration of President Donald Trump, it was not enough to stabilize the situation politically. Eruptions of social unrest occurred from 2018 to the present. In recent months, there has been the rise of organized criminal gangs which were in support of Moise and his Tet Kale Party (Bald Headed) as they terrorized and destroyed several communities in the capital of Port-au-Prince.

The majority of the suspected assassins come from the South American state of Colombia, a longtime close ally of the U.S. The Colombian security forces have received enormous assistance from successive administrations in Washington in an effort to stave off revolutionary movements which have broad support among the population.

A number of the Colombian suspects were trained by the Pentagon. The U.S. Defense Department often provides military training to personnel from countries throughout Latin America, Africa and Asia in order to maintain influence and even dominance within the security apparatus of oppressed nations that are aligned with Washington.

Even the Voice of America, the media outlet for the State Department, wrote on July 16 that:

“Some of the Colombian nationals detained by the Haitian National police in connection with the assassination of President Jovenel Moise took part in ‘U.S. military training and education programs,’ a Pentagon spokesperson confirmed in a statement emailed to VOA.  The information came to light during a review of training databases, Lt. Col. Ken Hoffman said, without specifying when or where the training took place.  ‘Our review is ongoing, so we do not have additional details at this time,’ Hoffman said. The development was first reported by The Washington Post. The U.S. Defense Department says it trains thousands of military people from South America, Central America and the Caribbean each year.”

Three of the Haitians who have been apprehended all have U.S. citizenship. Two of them were captured alongside the people from Colombia. They reportedly worked for a military services firm which does security for governments, wealthy individuals and corporations.

Compounding these ties to the U.S., there are reports that the armed individuals who arrived at former President Moise’s private home identified themselves as agents of the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). Some of the suspects have been quoted as saying they were at the location to serve a search and arrest warrant for Moise.

At least one person linked to the assassination has been identified as a “source”, meaning an informant or operative, with the DEA. Haiti for a number of years has been accused of being a conduit for drug trafficking into the U.S.

Cuba and the Ongoing Blockade Prompts Subversive Attempts by Washington

In the aftermath of the assassination of President Moise, on July 11, reports emanating from the corporate media in the U.S. claimed that thousands of people had taken to the streets in several Cuban cities to protest the lack of food, medicines and civil liberties. The focus of the demonstrations was said to have been directed against the ruling Cuban Communist Party.

Cuba First Secretary of the Communist Party outgoing and incoming

Nonetheless, there was no mention of the economic crisis engendered by the six decades-long blockade of Cuba by the U.S. which extends itself internationally. Over the last two decades, Cuba has relied on the growth in tourism and the opening up of the national economy to U.S. currency and forms of small and medium business enterprises.

Since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic the entire world economic system has suffered mass unemployment, impoverishment and dislocation. Healthcare systems in the most advanced capitalist countries of the U.S., Britain, France, Germany and Japan, have been overburdened with coronavirus patients.

Cuba had done well in containing the spread of the pandemic until recent months when the country began to reopen in the tourism sector. Over the last several weeks there has been an escalation in coronavirus infections just as the government is rolling out its own domestically produced vaccines. The rise in cases is not limited to Cuba. Inside the U.S., the emergence of the Delta variant and other mutations are fueling hospitalizations particularly in the southern region of the country.

Cuban solidarity groups and anti-imperialists are echoing the position of the President Miguel Diaz-Canel in saying that if the administration of President Joe Biden is so concerned about the humanitarian situation inside the socialist Caribbean state, then he should through executive order lift the restrictions placed on U.S.-Cuban relations enacted by his predecessor Donald J. Trump.

Cuba commemorates centenary of the CPC

The measures imposed by Trump limited the ability to provide remittances from Cubans living in the U.S. to their homeland. Other draconian executive orders by Trump were an attempt to undermine the path towards normalization begun by former President Barack Obama. Although Obama re-established diplomatic relations with Cuba, the blockade and sanctions will have to be eliminated by the U.S. Congress.

In an article published by the Venezuelan-based Telesur news agency, it notes:

“On Friday (July 16), Cuba’s President Miguel Diaz-Canel questioned U.S. President Joe Biden’s concern about the crisis on the Island and argued that Washington has failed to destroy the Revolution despite wasting billions of dollars in its attempts to do so. ‘If Biden had sincere humanitarian concern for the Cuban people, he could eliminate the 243 crippling sanctions imposed by former President Donald Trump as a first step towards ending the economic blockade,’ Diaz-Canel stated. The coercive measures, which have contributed to Cuba’s worst economic crisis in decades, limit the travel of U.S. citizens to the Island, restrict the sending of remittances, and sanction foreign companies doing business with Cuba. Cuban officials and many analysts charge the reactionary Cuban-American community, which has a strong political influence on Florida State, for driving the U.S. policy on Cuba.”

The Biden administration immediately spoke out in support of the July 11 anti-government protests in Cuba. Such an approach merely reinforces the economic plight of the Cuban people while stoking animosity between the revolutionary government and Washington.

Role of Anti-imperialists in the U.S.

Of course, the task of those committed to liberation and world peace within the imperialist countries in the face of attacks against the oppressed nations and socialist states, is to provide support to the people. In Cuba, the gains of the socialist revolution domestically and internationally deserve the maximum solidarity of the progressive forces in the industrialized states.

In the case of Haiti, which was founded in 1804 after a revolutionary war waged by enslaved Africans which lasted for twelve years against France, England and Spain with the backing of the U.S., Washington from its inception has strangled the capacity of Haiti to develop as an independent nation. There have been numerous blockades and direct military interventions in Haiti along with neighboring Dominican Republic which shares the island of Hispaniola. France, in exchange for the diplomatic recognition of Haiti, the Caribbean state was forced to pay “indemnity” for the destruction of the sugar plantations and other properties owned by the French colonial enslavers.

Irrespective of the political character of recent Haitian administrations, anti-imperialists must defend the sovereign rights of the masses of workers, farmers, youth and all democratic forces to the right of self-determination. Haiti cannot develop in its own interests as long as the U.S. continues to interfere in its internal affairs.

Cuba casted off the yoke of U.S domination which was consolidated after the so-called Spanish-American War which took place at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. The revolution of 1959 became radicalized through the necessity of safeguarding the genuine independence of the island-nation. The attempted invasion at the Bay of Pigs in April 1961 amid a never-ending blockade has defined relations between Washington and Havana for 62 years.

The Haitians and Cubans are not the enemies of the people within the U.S. Imperialism must not be allowed to divide the working class and oppressed of the industrialized states from their counterparts in the oppressed and socialist nations. Only the unity of the proletariat and oppressed globally can create the conditions for the building of equal relations between the peoples of the world.

*

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

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

All images in this article are from the author

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Outsourcing

Outsourcing is where company A pays company B to do work that could be done by company A. Internationally, this means that jobs which were done in rich nations are now done in poorer nations because wages are lower. Many goods are made in China, clothes come from Bangladesh, and call centres are in India. The typical earnings for workers in the clothing industry in Bangladesh are £75/month, about half the amount needed to live on.(1)

Sweatshops 

A sweatshop is the term used to describe companies where employees work excessively long hours for very little pay with few rights, often in extremely unpleasant or unsafe working conditions. This can include sewage on the floor, no toilet breaks, serious bullying (including physical violence), extreme temperatures, inadequate ventilation, fire hazards, unpaid overtime, arbitrary fines and poisonous materials. This can lead to poor health, extreme stress, and increased suicide. Sweatshops are particularly prevalent in the fashion industry. In one study in 2010 it was found that workers earned 10c for each $80 shirt that they sewed.(2) Big corporations and their PR departments would like you to believe that sweatshops are a thing of the past. This is not true.

The issue is debated occasionally in the media when something dramatic happens. In 2013, 1100 workers died in a garment factory known as Rana plaza in Bangladesh.(3) Cracks had appeared the day before, but workers were forced back to work. The building collapsed.

In another famous example, the tech company, Apple, used a subcontractor in China called Foxxconn where, in 2010, 18 workers committed suicide.(4) Each incident leads to promises from companies saying how hard they are working to solve these problems, and there have been some improvements in some places, but the general situation has not improved.

The Importance of Unions

These workers are often being exposed to pollution and emissions that have been deemed illegal in more advanced nations, and they get poisoned by all manner of toxic substances such as lead or mercury. If they suffer illness and injury, they can be fired and replaced. It is estimated that less than 10% of garment workers are in unions, so they have no-one to help them. People who attempt to create unions have been beaten, thrown in jail, blacklisted and even killed. The right to unionise might not seem important to richer people, but historically it has been extremely important in helping employees bargain with employers for better pay and working conditions. One of the main reasons why international companies want to outsource to poorer countries is that they know they can exploit people.

Companies Are Not Passive

Corporations claim that these are difficult problems to solve because they do not have control over what goes on in other countries. In reality the opposite is the case. The corporations demand ever-cheaper workers and weaker employment law. Companies are not just passively taking advantage of the system. They actively lobby their governments to reinforce the system, and they lobby foreign governments to crush unions. They take advantage of weak enforcement of regulations, and widespread corruption. Low cost factories (known as maquiladoras) were set up in Mexico, only to be subsequently relocated to China.(5) When China tried to raise standards, corporations closed their factories and moved production to countries with even lower standards.(6)

Big brands put pressure on factories overseas. This has become worse due to the development of what is called fast fashion,(7) which involves large numbers of new clothes, of very low quality, being introduced each week. Suppliers are expected to be able to increase production very quickly, putting pressure on staff. The prices that are paid by big Western companies can be so low that subcontractors cannot afford to comply with safety laws, so accidents and injuries are common. Many of these people are extremely productive, but the extra profits go to rich people in advanced nations.

The trend towards fast fashion has led to people buying five times as many clothes as they did 20 years ago.(8) Much of this is rapidly discarded and ends up in landfill. The clothing industry is one of the most polluting in the world.

Hiding Exploitation

Outsourcing overseas is not simply about being cheaper. It is also intended to make it more difficult to hold companies to account, because they can say that any problems are not their fault. They claim it is the fault of a subcontractor, or a subcontractor of a subcontractor, in another country. They are therefore able to say that they have no legal obligations to the workers.(9) They are deliberately secretive about the supply chains for their goods, so it can be impossible to know who is producing their raw material, such as cotton, and under what conditions. This is a deliberate strategy to hide exploitation.

The Big Picture

One argument that is put forward repeatedly in defense of low wages paid by big corporations is “What else would these people do? If sweatshops were not employing them, they would be unemployed or earning even less.” Some economists even argue that sweatshops help poor countries escape poverty. This is yet another theory that sounds good in a textbook, but is not true in practice.

We need to understand why these people are unable to find better jobs, and why children need to work, in their country. The explanation is the bigger picture described in other posts. Their governments are not doing the things that would end poverty, and developing better-paying alternatives, because they do not represent their people. They represent the rich in their own country, and Western corporations, either by choice because they will benefit, or because they have been threatened and/or bribed by the US. The focus of their economic policies is on working with rich countries and corporations to allow them to control resources and trade.

A country like Bangladesh, which has a terrible track record regarding sweatshops, provides an excellent case study. The US helped to overthrow the government in 1975 and replaced him with a military dictatorship. They pursued extreme economic policies intended to benefit rich people and exploit poor people. Two family dynasties have dominated politics in Bangladesh ever since, maintaining similar policies.(10) Much of the debate, among economists and in the media, about low wages paid by big corporations in poor countries, overlooks the powerful forces that manipulate the economic system.

Proper Laws Could Make a Difference

It is important to note that simplistic solutions are not the answer. Closing down sweatshops, and even banning child labour, in circumstances where those employees have no alternative income, has created problems on some occasions.(11) We should obviously strive to end child labour and sweatshops, but we need to ensure that governments put in place other policies to ensure that children can go to school, and to ensure that their families can meet their basic needs. Ultimately, solutions will involve changing many aspects of the system described in these posts.

For the people in poor countries, outsourcing might make sense if everyone was paid enough to live on, and they were employed in good conditions. There is no reason why international companies cannot be forced to ensure that all employees in their production chain (including subcontractors) have decent pay and conditions. This could easily be used as a route to a better standard of living for a large number of poor people.

Propaganda – The Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI)

Some companies are part of a system known as the Ethical Trading Initiative. Under this system, companies are supposed to ensure higher standards of pay and working conditions for suppliers overseas. However, an investigation in 2016 found that the ETI was not very effective, and most companies involved merely see it as Public Relations to give the impression that they are better than they really are.(12)

Roger and Me – Destroying Whole Towns and Cities

For the people in rich countries, outsourcing only makes sense if we can find replacement jobs at good wages for everyone. Unfortunately, the US and British governments are not interested in this. Some of the downsides of outsourcing for rich nations were described by Michael Moore in his 1989 film, ‘Roger and Me.’(13) This looked at the sequence of events that took place in Moore’s home town of Flint, Michigan between 1978 and 1992, when General Motors (GM) closed down some of the large car plants that were the biggest employers in the town. GM relocated production to Mexico, with lower wages and no unions. Tens of thousands of Flint GM workers lost their jobs. The social safety nets and opportunities for re-training were inadequate. Those local businesses that were dependent on the earnings of the GM workers went bust. This had a ripple effect, causing more and more businesses to close, until eventually Flint had almost become a ghost town with mass unemployment. Crime skyrocketed. Flint was then described by Money magazine as the worst place to live in America. The situation in Flint did not begin to improve until 2002.

General Motors will have increased its profits by relocating, but the cost to society (impossible to measure accurately) was many times greater. This is an excellent example of how a corporation can create terrible outcomes for society when it aggressively pursues profit. This pattern has been replicated throughout industrial regions of the US, and in some areas in Britain, where industries such as shipbuilding and coalmining closed down, leaving swathes of people unemployed. The average income of US citizens has not improved for 40 years, partly because of outsourcing overseas.

Workers in Britain and the US are Still Being Exploited

Sweatshops have reappeared in the UK and US in the last few years, with clothing companies paying employees well below the minimum wage.(14)

This is part of a wider pattern where companies are finding ever-more deceptive ways to exploit people. In a recent analysis, it was found that many Deliveroo drivers were earning less than the minimum wage in Britain.(15) Deliveroo, and other companies such as Uber, were able to do this by pretending that their riders and drivers were self-employed. The UK Supreme Court has now ruled against this.(16)

*

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

Rod Driver is a part-time academic who is particularly interested in de-bunking modern-day US and British propaganda, and explaining war, terrorism, economics and poverty, without the nonsense in the mainstream media. This article was first posted at medium.com/elephantsintheroom

Notes 

1) War On Want, ‘Sweatshops in Bangladesh’, at https://waronwant.org/sweatshops-bangladesh

2) Thomas J. Ryan, ‘Reebok accused of sweatshop violations in El Salvador’, SGBmedia, 17 Feb 2010, at https://sgbonline.com/reebok-accused-of-sweatshop-violations-in-el-salvador/ 

3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Dhaka_garment_factory_collapse

4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides

5) ‘The FTAA and The Scourge of Sweatshops’, at www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/ftaa/FTAAWTOSweatshops.html 

6) Paul Mason, China’s Migrant Workers, BBC Newsnight, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/video/default.stm 

www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_7310000/newsid_7315700?redirect=7315756.stm&news=1&nbram=1&bbram=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1

7) Josephine Moulds, ‘Child labour in the fashion supply chain’, Unicef, at https://labs.theguardian.com/unicef-child-labour/

8) Andrew Morgan, ‘The True Cost: Who pays the real price for your clothes’, 2015, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-0zHqYGnlo

9) Intan Suwundi, ‘Outsourcing exploitation: global labor-value chains’, openDemocracy, 20 Aug 2019, at https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/outsourcing-exploitation-global-labor-value-chains/ 

10) Michael Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty, pp.159-166

11) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop

12) Tim Conner, Annie Delaney, Sarah Rennie, ‘The Ethical Trading Initiative: Negotiated Solutions to human rights violations in global supply chains?’, Corporate Accountability Research, 2016, at https://corporateaccountabilityresearch.net/njm-report-xviii-eti 

13) Michael Moore, ‘Roger and Me’, 1989 documentary, discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_%26_Me

14) Natalie Kitroeff, ‘Fashion Nova’s Secret:Underpaid Workers in Los Angeles Factories’, New York Times, 16 Dec 2019, at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/business/fashion-nova-underpaid-workers.html?curator=FashionREDEF 

Renuka Odedra, ‘I work for half the minimum wage in a British sweatshop’, Vice, 4 Aug 2020, at https://www.vice.com/en/article/akzadz/i-work-for-half-the-minimum-wage-in-a-british-sweatshop 

15) Emiliano Melline, Charles Boutard and Gareth Davies, ‘Deliveroo riders can earn as little as £2 an hour during shifts, as boss stands to make £500 million’, Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 25 March 2021, at https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2021-03-25/deliveroo-riders-earning-as-little-as-2-pounds 

Natalie Kitroeff and Victoria Kim, ‘Behind a $13 shirt, a $6 an hour worker’, LA Times, 31 Aug 2017, at https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-forever-21-factory-workers/ 

16) Caroline Davies, ‘Uber ‘willing to change’ as drivers get minimum wage, holiday pay and pensions’, BBC, 17 March 2021, at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56412397

The U.S. CDC released more data today in their Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a U.S. Government funded database, and now admit that they have received reports of nearly 12,000 deaths during a 7-month period since the COVID-19 shots were given emergency use authorization by the FDA last December.

This includes 997 deaths among unborn children, which is separate from the 10,991 deaths recorded where the “patient” (the one getting the shot) died.

There are now 551,172 adverse reactions recorded out of 463,457 cases, including 9,274 permanent disabilities, 59,403 emergency room visits, 30,781 hospitalizations, and 8,831 life threatening injuries.

You will not find a single corporate media outlet reporting these government statistics, as this has to be the MOST CENSORED information in the United States.

Not only will you NOT find this information reported in the corporate media, you will find “fact checking” articles trying to debunk these statistics, by stating that the presence of these reports does not “prove causation.”

To put this in perspective, however, these recorded deaths during the last 7 months are now almost twice as many deaths as have been recorded by the CDC following vaccinations since they started recording such statistics back in 1990.

The Medalerts.org interface for the VAERS government database allows one to search all the way back to 1901, and from January 1, 1901 through November 30, 2020, which is the last month before the COVID-19 shots were given emergency use authorization, there are a total of 6,255 deaths recorded following ALL vaccines.

And what is the U.S. Government’s position on these 12,000 deaths and half million injuries recorded from those who chose to receive one of these experimental injections during the last 7 months?

Go door-to-door and try to convince even more people to get them, as the pharmaceutical companies producing these shots now expand their trials to include young children and pregnant women.

If you are pregnant or have children, you do not need to wait for the results of these trials. There is plenty of data here to show how deadly these shots are.

Brushing off these statistics, which represent only a fraction of what is actually happening in the public since so few health professionals report these adverse reactions to VAERS in the first place, is most certainly a criminal act leading to genocide.

This is a non-partisan issue as not a single U.S. Governor from either a Blue or Red state has taken action to stop these injections in pregnant women or children. They are ALL accomplices to mass murder, and should be arrested and tried for these crimes.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

As the First World War was erupting from late summer 1914, the great majority of political leaders believed it would be of short duration.

Only the rare far-sighted individual knew what was coming, such as Herbert Kitchener, Britain’s Secretary of War. At one of the first British Cabinet conferences at the conflict’s outset, Kitchener predicted the fighting would rumble on for three years, and that Britain would eventually be required to deploy its full resources (1). His estimation of a three-year war was shy of just one year.

Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary, recalled that Kitchener’s prediction had “seemed to most of us unlikely, if not incredible” (2). On 8 August 1914 Winston Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty, estimated that the war would last for nine months, which was longer than many thought.

Kitchener’s colleagues failed to realise, such was mankind’s advancements in technology by the early 20th century – about 150 years after the Industrial Revolution had begun in Britain around 1760 – that a war between the great powers would most likely be lengthy, and a slaughter of unprecedented proportions could only ensue. After the bloodletting finally stopped on 11 November 1918, realistic analysts like Vladimir Lenin stated that the waging of war was “a survival from the bourgeois world”; while the German commander Hans von Seeckt said “war was no longer an intelligent way to conduct a nation’s policy”. (3)

The rise to power in Italy and Germany of fervent warmongers, Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, was a near guarantee that another large-scale conflict was in the offing.

 

Both Mussolini and Hitler’s taking of power, in 1922 and 1933 respectively, was assisted massively by the social upheaval and destabilisation induced as a result of World War I.

 

Neville Chamberlain, Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini Meet in 1938

The weak-willed response of the western democracies to Nazi enlargement from the mid-1930s, particularly the timid French reaction, emboldened Hitler on the path to war. British professor Evan Mawdsley, who specialises in Russian history, wrote of the Third Reich’s position by 1941 that “invading Russia was not the fatal mistake of Nazi Germany. After all, what was Hitler’s alternative? Not to invade Russia? Inaction would have allowed Germany’s enemies to become stronger, and would have left Germany economically dependent on Russia. The lethal mistake had been made earlier, when Hitler’s adventures in Czechoslovakia and Poland led Germany into a general war”. (4)

The fighting initially went as well as the Wehrmacht could have hoped for; they routed Poland in September 1939 and then scored further routine victories in Scandinavia and across western Europe, during the spring and summer of 1940. The principal opposing force, the French Army, had been decaying ever since 1917. That year mutinies spread to no less than 54 French divisions by 9 June 1917. Even in those formations where no mutinies occurred, over 50% of French soldiers returning from leave reported back drunk (5). These amazing occurrences were hushed up as best they could by the French military command, and the silence needlessly continued long afterwards.

Canadian historian Donald J. Goodspeed explained,

“Shame and pride are bad counselors, and the causes of the catastrophe in French morale that occurred in 1917 were never brought out into full daylight, where they could have been analysed and perhaps cured. That no real cure was effected, the debacle of 1940 conclusively proved”. (6)

The Nazis now turned their attention to the main target of their imperialist foreign policy: the Soviet Union, which Hitler had envisaged conquering for many years. Hitler was given encouragement by the Soviet Army’s underwhelming performance, in the 1939-1940 Winter War against Finland, with its population of around 4 million.

Yet as the Finns’ leading commander Gustaf Mannerheim fairly concluded, the Soviets learnt lessons from their opening military shortcomings on Finnish soil, and their performance “slowly improved” as the weeks elapsed (7). The gradual uptake in Russia’s military display here was unknown to the few German military observers, who had accompanied the Red Army on their Finnish incursion. The Germans were left unimpressed by the first Soviet raids, before departing homeward early.

The Wehrmacht meanwhile enjoyed more swift triumphs, over Yugoslavia and Greece in April 1941, which only emboldened Hitler further. The German conquest of Yugoslavia and Greece compelled Hitler to postpone his invasion of the USSR by 38 days. This delay is often purported to be a crucial reason, in the Nazis’ failure to capture Moscow and overthrow the Soviet Union.

American military historian Samuel W. Mitcham, who focuses largely on the Nazi regime, revealed otherwise as “the spring rains in eastern Poland and the western sections of European Russia came late in 1941, and were much heavier than usual. Many of the Polish-Russian river valleys (including the Bug) were still flooded as late as June 1; therefore, the invasion of the Soviet Union could not have begun until after that”. (8)

The ground in the western USSR had dried out by 22 June 1941. It was ideal for the panzers, half-tracks, and so on to move with ease. In addition, for weeks Joseph Stalin had refused to believe the swell of intelligence accounts he received in person from his own agencies, and from abroad, warning of a coming German attack.

Lt. Col. Goodspeed wrote,

“The reports from Soviet intelligence were the most plausible, accurate and detailed of all; and they displayed a remarkable convergence, which should have augmented their credibility. Victor Sukolov, the head of the Rote Kopelle [Red Orchestra] in Brussels, Rudolph Rössler in Switzerland, Leopold Trepper in Paris, and Dr. Richard Sorge in Tokyo all informed Stalin of Barbarossa”. (9)

The Kremlin was clearly not expecting the German invasion to fall in the summer of 1941. Marshal Nikolay Voronov, a top level Russian commander in charge of the Red Army’s artillery forces, and a future Hero of the Soviet Union, remembered on the eve of Hitler’s attack, “I did not know in that time whether we had any kind of operative-strategic plan, in case of war. I only knew that the plan for artillery and combat artillery tactics had not yet been approved, although the first draft had been worked out in 1938”. (10)

Further evidence of the lack of Russian preparedness was seen when, in the opening phase of the invasion, large numbers of Soviet airplanes were destroyed by the Germans, much of them on the ground. Air units of the Soviet Western Military District lost 740 of its 1,540 aircraft (a 48% loss) on the first day alone of the German attack (11); its local commander, General Ivan Kopets, viewed the destruction with despair and shot himself on 23 June 1941.

The ruin of the Soviet Air Force was even worse in the Baltic Military District. During the first three days of Operation Barbarossa, 920 Soviet aircraft out of a total of 1,080 were destroyed in the Baltic region, an 85% loss (12). Furthermore, many undamaged and repairable Russian planes had to be abandoned, as the Germans and their Axis allies (mainly Romanians and Finns at first) swarmed over Soviet terrain. By the first week of July 1941, the Soviets had lost almost 4,000 aircraft, while the Luftwaffe was shorn of just 550 of its planes at that point. (13)

Stalin had been awoken by his security chief, Nikolai Vlasik, in the early hours of 22 June 1941, and he was told of heavy German shelling along the Nazi-Soviet frontier. Stalin at first refused to believe that the worst had occurred and he said, “Hitler surely doesn’t know about it” (14). Later in the morning of 22 June, Stalin ordered the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov to seek out the German ambassador to the USSR, Friedrich von Schulenburg. The latter confirmed Nazi Germany’s declaration of war on the Soviet Union.

A dismayed Molotov (image left) reported back to Stalin,

“The German government has declared war on us”. Robert Service, the British historian of Soviet history, noted that upon hearing this, “Stalin slumped in his chair and an unbearable silence followed”. When General Georgy Zhukov then suggested they put in place measures, to hold up the German advance, Service wrote “Stalin continued to stipulate that Soviet ground forces should not infringe German territorial integrity”. (15)

Contrary to what is commonly claimed, on learning that the Germans had certainly attacked with Hitler’s agreement, Stalin did not suffer a breakdown and disappear. On 23 June 1941 for example, as Service wrote in his biography of the Soviet ruler, “Stalin worked without rest in his Kremlin office. For 15 hours at a stretch from 3.20 am, he consulted with the members of the Supreme Command” (16). As the hours went by Service writes that Stalin “called generals to his office, made his enquiries about the situation to the west of Moscow, and gave his instructions. About his supremacy there was no doubt”.

Only from the early morning of 29 June 1941 did Stalin suffer a relapse, and retire to his nearby dacha in a deeply depressed condition. This was quite probably a delayed reaction brought on by his difficult visit, on 27 June, to the Soviet Ministry of Defence. When Generals Zhukov and Semyon Timoshenko showed Stalin, on operational maps, the astonishing advancements made by the German Army, Service wrote that Stalin “was shocked by the extent of the disaster for the Red Army”. (17)

General Zhukov (right)

By 27 June, units from German Army Group Centre had already reached Minsk, the capital of Soviet Belorussia, and less than 450 miles west of Moscow. Shaken and disturbed by this Stalin reportedly lamented, “Lenin founded our state and we’ve f**ked it up”. (18)

After Hitler had ordered the attack against Russia on 22 June, the authorities in Britain and America forecast another brisk German victory. Their views were influenced by the apparent invincibility of the Wehrmacht, their dislike of Bolshevism, and also Stalin’s recent purge of the Red Army. Outside observers mistakenly believed the purge had decimated Soviet fighting capacity. Mawdsley in his extensive study of the Nazi-Soviet war wrote, “Many able middle-level commanders survived the purges” while the “commanders and commissars who were shot made up a minority”. (19)

A major offensive in the modern era, perhaps in any age, constitutes a huge gamble on the part of the invader, brutal as these attacks usually are, and the Nazi invasion was the most vicious of all. Various factors can combine to result in its failure: strength of the invasion force, strategic errors, quality of the terrain, underestimation of the enemy, the weather, etc. These elements are magnified when attacking the world’s largest country (Russia), as Napoleon had discovered and soon Hitler too.

Nevertheless, there are a couple of overwhelming reasons why the German attack would fail. Firstly, Hitler did not place the German nation on a Total War footing, until February 1943, much too late. The Nazi economy in the early 1940s produced an “extraordinary degree of inefficiency and wastefulness”, the English historian Richard Overy discerned (20). It resulted in labour shortages, fewer German weapons, aircraft and panzers, and less soldiers, while German women for the most part remained at home, rather than working in the armament factories.

After the defeat of France, a full mobilisation of German manpower would have produced a Wehrmacht attacking force of about 6 million men in June 1941 (21). This is double the size of the 3 million German soldiers which invaded Russia that month. Taking into account strategic mistakes committed and heroic Russian resistance, a German invasion with 6 million troops would surely have been too much for the Soviets to contend with, and it was possible to achieve.

Albert Speer, German Minister of Armaments and Munitions from 1942-1945, wrote on 29 March 1947,

“In the middle of 1941, Hitler could easily have had an army equipped twice as powerfully as it was… We could even have mobilised approximately 3 million more men of the younger age-groups before 1942, without losses in production… 3 million additional soldiers would have added up to many divisions. These, moreover, could have been excellently equipped as a result of the increased production”. (22)

Another monumental error, on the part of the German high command and Hitler, was the strategic design for Operation Barbarossa. This consisted of splitting their forces into three large Army Groups, and ordering them to capture three different objectives simultaneously (Leningrad, Moscow and the Ukraine); rather than directing their resources towards easily the most important goal – Moscow, the communications stronghold and heartbeat of Soviet Russia, which will be discussed further here.

Lt. Col. Goodspeed, a skilled military strategist, wrote that,

“Although in operations and tactics the German Army had proved itself far and away superior to the Red Army, the same could not be said of German strategy. The fault was so simple and obvious that a child might have foreseen it. The German high command had attempted too many things at the same time”. (23)

The German attack was launched across almost the entire breadth of the western USSR. Its Schwerpunkt, that is the heavy point of the German blow, fell north of the famous Pripet Marshes in Belorussia. However, the Germans and their Axis allies were ordered to attack everywhere at once. The strategic planning for Barbarossa went beyond even the Wehrmacht’s military capabilities; it was breathtaking in its boldness, irresponsible and grotesque.

Goodspeed summarised,

“But Hitler wanted too much and, as a consequence, got nothing. This same fundamental error was repeated again and again. It recurs like a leitmotif in the Führer’s strategic thought. When the advance against Moscow might have been successfully resumed in August, and previous mistakes rectified, Hitler turned his thrust south into the Ukraine and north against Leningrad. Again, two objectives and both of them the wrong ones. When Leningrad might have been taken in September, Hitler diverted forces back from Army Group North to Moscow, and thereby captured neither Leningrad nor Moscow”. (24)

This viewpoint is supported by Mawdsley who pinpointed the “mistake that Hitler and his high command made in 1941” which was “to attack everywhere” (25). Hitler did not designate primary importance to Moscow, until it was weeks too late. The Russian capital held critical significance as the centre of Soviet communications, which was recognised by military leaders like Field Marshal Fedor von Bock, the commander of German Army Group Centre, which was supposed to capture Moscow (26). Virtually all roads and railways led to the capital, like spokes into the hub of a wheel.

This was not the case when Napoleon’s forces had occupied Moscow on 14 September 1812. Moscow at that time did not hold the same status, by comparison to its importance in the 20th century, when armies had become reliant on railways and motorised transport for supplies. The first railway line in Russia was built in 1837, a quarter of a century after Napoleon’s invasion.

Were Moscow to be captured in the autumn of 1941, the Russians would have had tremendous difficulty supplying and reinforcing their northern and southern fronts (27). This includes the Leningrad and Ukrainian sectors. The rail system of the western USSR would have been shattered, inflicting a hammer blow on the Soviet Army.

Goodspeed wrote that from Barbarossa’s outset,

“Quite conceivably, a single great thrust along the Warsaw-Smolensk-Moscow axis might have secured the Russian capital for the Germans by the end of August. Army Groups North and South could have acted as flank guards for such a thrust, and once the Russian centre had been demolished and the communications hub of Moscow taken, the Soviet northern and southern fronts would have been isolated from one another. Then a drive down the Volga in September might well have achieved a second victory, greater even than the Battle of Kiev. This done, Leningrad and the northern front could have been dealt with at leisure, and by another overwhelming concentration of force”. (28)

One major thrust towards Moscow would, also, have taken the ferocious Russian weather out of the equation. The autumn rains and snow arrived in force from early October 1941, weeks after Moscow could have been taken. As events panned out, such weather seriously slowed the German advance.

The political ramifications of Moscow’s capitulation would have been considerable too. Stalin and his entourage were headquartered there. What would Stalin have done had Moscow fallen to the Germans in August or September 1941? He may have decided to stay and thereby seal his fate, or he could have chosen to relocate to Asiatic Russia, where it would have been arduous to hold together a government.

Most importantly of all, as Germany’s generals were aware, the bulk of the Red Army was centred in front of Moscow for the defence of the capital. If these Russian divisions were to be surrounded in a vast pincers movement and forced to surrender, the war would have been practically over. (29)

Two months into the invasion, on 21 August 1941 Hitler fatefully intervened in the direction of the war, believing he would be proved right and the German generals wrong – as had been repeatedly the case on political matters. Hitler compounded Barbarossa’s early strategic mistakes by ordering on this date: “The most important objective to be taken before the coming of the winter is NOT the capture of Moscow, but the capture of the Crimea and of the industrial and coal-mining area of the Donets, and the cutting off of Russian oil supplies from the Caucasus; and to the north the investment of Leningrad and the linking up with the Finns”. (30)

Hitler’s Chief of Operations, General Alfred Jodl, defended this decision by claiming that Hitler wished to avoid the blunders of Napoleon (31). As mentioned earlier, Moscow was of much greater importance in the year 1941 as opposed to 1812. Hitler was greedy and saw too many things at once, rather than focusing on a single goal at a time (similar strategic errors were committed in July 1942, when Hitler split up his forces to capture two objectives simultaneously, Stalingrad and the Caucasus).

Hitler’s wish, to strike everywhere, could have been influenced too because of his desire to spread as much death and destruction to the Soviet Union as possible, which he believed was the homeland of “Jewish Bolshevism”.

Upon hearing the new orders of 21 August 1941, two days later General Heinz Guderian travelled west to Hitler’s headquarters, situated in the dense forests near Rastenburg, East Prussia. Guderian, commanding the 2nd Panzer Group, informed Hitler that the taking of Moscow would paralyse the Soviet transportation and communication networks; the general stressed the political significance of Moscow’s demise, and the huge lift it would provide to German morale. (32)

Moreover, Guderian insisted that the fall of the capital would make it easier to conquer other parts of the USSR, such as the Ukraine. Yet Hitler’s mind was firmly set and he told Guderian that his generals “know nothing of the economic aspects of war”. The orders were left unchanged.

Goodspeed observed,

“Thus, quietly, in a headquarters far from the sound of guns, Germany lost the war. The Führer directive of August 21, 1941, marked a great turning point in modern history. Many horrors were still to come, and mankind has by no means moved out from the darkness of these times, but at least the world was to be spared a Nazi victory”. (33)

General Franz Halder, Chief of Staff of the German Army High Command, stated that Hitler’s above directive was “decisive to the outcome of this campaign”. (34)

*

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

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

1 Peter Simkins, “Kitchener, Horatio Herbert Kitchener Earl”, 1914-1918-online, 29 March 2018

2 Paul Addison, Churchill on the Home Front, 1900-1955 (Faber and Faber; Main edition, 11 June 2013) Chapter 4, Two Faces of a Home Secretary, 1910-1911

3 Donald J. Goodspeed, The Conspirators: A Study of the Coup d’Etat (Macmillan, 1 January 1962), Intro., pp. x-xi

4 Evan Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, The Nazi-Soviet War, 1941-1945 (Hodder Arnold, 23 Feb. 2007) pp. 7-8

5 Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 April 1985) p. 235

6 Ibid.

7 Oliver Warner, Marshal Mannerheim & The Finns (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1st Edition, 1 January 1967) p. 169

8 Samuel W. Mitcham, The Rise of the Wehrmacht: The German Armed Forces and World War II (Praeger Publishers Inc., 30 June 2008) p. 402

9 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 392

10 Harrison E. Salisbury, The 900 Days: The Siege of Leningrad (Da Capo Press, 30 Sep. 1985) p. 78

11 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 58

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid., p. 59

14 Robert Service, Stalin: A Biography (Pan; Reprints edition, 16 Apr. 2010) p. 410

15 Ibid., p. 411

16 Ibid., p. 413

17 Ibid., p. 414

18 Shane Kenny, “The Man Who Really Defeated Hitler”, Irish Times, 30 April 2005

19 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 21

20 Richard Overy, Goering: The Iron Man (Bloomsbury Academic, 2nd edition, 1 Oct. 2020) p. 169

21 Albert Speer, Spandau: The Secret Diaries (Fontana, London, 1977) p. 62

22 Ibid., pp. 62-63

23 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 403

24 Ibid., p. 404

25 Mawdsley, Thunder In The East, p. 128

26 Antony Beevor, The Second World War (Phoenix Press, 2013) p. 201

27 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 395

28 Ibid., pp. 403-404

29 Ibid., p. 396

30 Ibid.

31 Beevor, The Second World War, p. 201

32 Paul Schultz, The Führer Virus: A Tale of Espionage (Strategic Book Publishing & Rights Agency, LLC, 19 Nov. 2008) p. 313

33 Goodspeed, The German Wars, pp. 396-397

34 Andrew Roberts, The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War (Allen Lane, 22 July 2009) Chapter 5, June-December 1941

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The EU Commission has rejected criticism of its report on plants and New GE (New Genetic Engineering, genome editing). In a letter to Testbiotech, the Commission stated that there were no new risks associated with plants derived from genetically engineered plants compared to conventionally bred plants, as long as no transgenes were inserted. The Commission is directly repeating claims made by industry and affiliated experts that are contrary to existing scientific evidence. Testbiotech is therefore warning against the spread of misinformation and disregarding of science.

The EU Commission refers to two methods of genetic engineering: these are targeted mutagenesis (New GE), which uses tools such as CRISPR/Cas, and cisgenesis, which involves the use of genetic engineering to transfer genes within the same or closely related species. In its letter, the Commission states: “Finally, based on EFSA scientific opinions and a significant part of scientific bodies, the study finds that plants obtained by targeted mutagenesis and cisgenesis do not pose new risks compared to conventionally bred plants.”

The statement shows that the Commission is in effect ignoring all the scientific evidence that New GE is indeed associated with new and specific risks. For example, experts from environmental authorities in Austria, Germany, Italy, Poland and Switzerland recently published a joint scientific paper showing that all plants derived from New GE should be subjected to mandatory risk assessment that considers intended and unintended effects.

The reason: Tools such as CRISPR/Cas make the genome available for changes to larger extent compared to conventional breeding. They enable genetic changes which would otherwise be unlikely to occur. In many cases, the resulting intended and unintended effects as well as risks can be clearly distinguished from those associated with conventionally bred plants.

The Commission refers in its letter to European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) opinions. However, more detailed analysis shows that the claim made by the Commission is not actually supported by the EFSA. First of all, EFSA never had a mandate to comprehensively examine the risks arising from New GE techniques. Secondly, in one of its reports on New GE, EFSA emphasises that the genetic changes arising from targeted mutagenesis can go far beyond those of any genetically engineered plants submitted for risk assessment so far.

Testbiotech has criticised the Commission for incorporating strongly biased terminology and an industry-led perspective into its report on New GE, which are clearly not sufficiently based on the science.

This all creates the impression that the Commission is actively supporting the extreme demands of industry to deregulate New GE plants. However, according to a ruling of the EU Court of Justice, these plants must be subjected to a mandatory approval process since they carry risks for health and the environment.

*

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

There are no fact-checkers for victory laps. Last week, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo summarized his experience with the Covid-19 crisis: “Speaking for myself, it was a tremendous personal benefit.” Cuomo made that declaration in a speech concluding his one-year chairmanship of the National Governors Association. Because Cuomo’s spiel sought to rewrite history to exonerate politicians who ravaged Americans’ rights and liberties, it requires a rebuttal. 

Cuomo declared that “we maximized the moment as governors. Governors have a new credibility. Governors have a new status.” Cuomo epitomized the rush to “absolute power” that occurred in governor’s mansions across the nation. After he fueled pandemic fears, the New York Times proclaimed, “Andrew Cuomo Is the Control Freak We Need Right Now.” A New Yorker profile, titled “Andrew Cuomo, King of New York,” explained that Cuomo and his aides saw the battle over Covid policy as “between people who believe government can be a force for good and those who think otherwise.” Cuomo denounced anyone who disobeyed his edicts, including condemning sheriffs as “dictators” for refusing to enforce his mask mandate inside people’s homes.

Cuomo justified placing almost 20 million people under house arrest: “If everything we do saves just one life, I’ll be happy.” Though his repressive policies failed to prevent New York from having among the nation’s highest Covid death rates, he became a superhero thanks largely to media scoring that ignored almost all of the harms he inflicted. Cuomo won an Emmy Award for his “masterful use of television” during the pandemic. Media valorization helped make Cuomo’s self-tribute book, American Crisis: Leadership Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic, a bestseller.

Cuomo had plenty of power-mad accomplices in the governors’ association.  Oregon Governor Kate Brown banned residents from leaving their homes except for essential work, buying food, and other narrow exemptions and also banned all recreational travel. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer imposed some of the most severe restrictions, prohibiting anyone from leaving their home to visit family or friends. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti even banned people from walking or bicycling outside. The CDC eventually admitted that there was almost no risk of Covid contagion from outdoors activity not amidst a throng of people. But that did not stop politicians from claiming that “science and data” justified locking people in their homes.

Some governors have acted as if their shutdown orders gave them unlimited sway to decree when normal life could resume. California Gov. Gavin Newsom decreed that Covid restrictions would be perpetuated in California counties based on voter turnout, alcohol availability, and other non-health factors. California assemblyman Kevin Kiley groused, “An entire county can be kept shut down because certain areas are judged to be lacking in ‘equity,’ even if the whole county has relatively few cases of Covid.” The end of Covid restrictions turned into hostage release negotiations with domineering rulers clinging to all their new prerogatives.

Cuomo was proud that, when he visits a school, he is no longer asked “‘What does a governor do?” because “people know what governors do and how important governors are.” Governors can wreck kids’ futures by shutting down schools and placing children under indefinite home detention, costing millions of children almost an entire year of learning. In some areas, private schools remained open and took precautions that kept children safe in the classroom. As Washington Examiner editor Tim Carney noted, students in Catholic schools in Montgomery County, Maryland continued attending school and were kept safer than public school students: “Kids learning remotely got Covid at 3 times the rate as kids learning in person.” Unreliable “distance learning” produced a more than 500 percent increase in the number of black and Hispanic students failing classes in Montgomery County government schools.

A Journal of the American Medical Association analysis concluded that shutting down the schools would reduce the current crop of students’ collective years of life by more than five million, based on “lower income, reduced educational attainment, and worse health outcomes.” School shutdowns blighted the lives of millions of children in part because the Centers for Disease Control proclaimed that six feet of “social distancing” was necessary to avoid contagion – an arbitrary standard pulled out of thin air that was denounced by former Food and Drug Administration commissioner Scott Gottlieb.

The lockdowns that governors imposed also pointlessly ravaged many Americans’ mental health. The Centers for Disease Control last month reported a 51% increase in emergency room visits for suspected suicide attempts by teenage girls in early 2021. A Kaiser Family Foundation survey found a 300% increase in the percentage of adults reporting symptoms of anxiety disorder and/or depressive disorder (41% of adults in January 2021). The CDC also reported a record number of drug overdose deaths last year, due in part to the lockdowns and other government-imposed disruptions.

Cuomo boasted that the Covid-19 responses “were probably the most consequential decisions that governors had made in generations. They were literally about life and death. You make the wrong decision, people could die.” Thousands of New Yorkers died because of Cuomo’s mistakes and cover-ups. New York state initially reported barely half of the total of more than 12,000 New York nursing home patients who died of Covid – one out of eight nursing home residents in the state that occurred after Cuomo ordered nursing homes to admit Covid patients. Early in the pandemic, Cuomo pushed to include a legislative provision written by the Greater New York Hospital Association to give a waiver of liability to nursing homes and hospitals whose patients died of Covid. A report earlier this year by the New York Attorney General warned, “The immunity laws could be wrongly used to protect any individual or entity from liability, even if those decisions were not made in good faith or motivated by financial incentives.” As the Guardian noted, “Cuomo’s political machine received more than $2 million from the Greater New York Hospital Association, its executives and its lobbying firms.”

Any politician who recited the magic words “science and data” became entitled to outlaw any activity he chose. Cuomo and other governors acted as if they had discovered a “good intentions” exemption to all limits on their power. Federal judge William Stickman IV condemned Pennsylvania’s Covid restrictions: “Broad population-wide lockdowns are such a dramatic inversion of the concept of liberty in a free society as to be nearly presumptively unconstitutional.” But Cuomo and other governors presumed that proclaiming emergencies nullified the constitutional rights of any citizen under their sway. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Cuomo’s restrictions on limited religious gatherings because they were “far more restrictive than any Covid-related regulations that have previously come before the Court… and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus.”

Cuomo’s spiel to the governors included Washington’s most revered banality: “We spoke truth to power.” But Cuomo’s own appointees suppressed the data on nursing home deaths while he was negotiating a $5 million advance for his book on pandemic leadership lessons. Last August, the Justice Department announced an investigation into state nursing home policies that boosted Covid death tolls in New York, New Jersey, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Cuomo is probably confident that Biden’s Justice Department will throttle any such investigation that could tarnish Democratic governors. But will other investigations or Freedom of Information Act disclosures eventually obliterate the bragging rights of the Covid lockdowners?

Governors’ response to Covid was supposedly a glorious triumph because not every nursing home patient died, not every small business was bankrupted, and not every teenager attempted suicide from isolation and despair. Despite the severe repression of everyday life, more than 620,000 Americans reportedly died of Covid and more than 114 million were infected. According to the CDC more than ten million jobs were lost thanks to lockdowns, a major reason why life expectancy in the United States last year had its sharpest plunge since World War Two. CNN reported last month that “New York’s economy is America’s worst,” with economic activity at only 83% of pre-pandemic levels.

In reality, Cuomo’s speech relied on what Hegel called “the truth which lies in power.” As long as politicians are exalted, the actual details of their decrees are irrelevant: they have been coronated as saviors. Cuomo assured his fellow Covid-profiteering governors that “this will happen again.” This is why Americans must recognize the catastrophic failure of political iron fists during the Covid-19 pandemic.

*

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

James Bovard is the author of ten books, including Public Policy Hooligan, Attention Deficit Democracy, The Bush Betrayal, and Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty. He has written for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Playboy, Washington Post, New Republic, Reader’s Digest, and many other publications. He is a member of the USA Today Board of Contributors, a frequent contributor to The Hill, and a contributing editor for American Conservative

Featured image is from AIER

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The United States government says it is going to help Central America fight corruption, combat the “root causes” of migration in Mexico and Central America and help the Cuban people with freedom too.

But the US’s domestic and foreign track record demonstrates that it isn’t qualified to teach anyone about democracy, combating poverty, ending corruption, or anything related to human rights. Instead, its recent discourse regarding Latin American countries is aimed at dressing itself — the bully — as the saviour.

By manufacturing problems (i.e. by directly causing hunger and medicine shortages), as well as by magnifying or distorting existing problems and combining those with real hardships, the US has been framing its intervention and dominance in certain countries as help that no one can reasonably oppose. The help discourse makes it hard for many people to perceive the US’s real agenda and political interests, and it makes it very easy for the mainstream media to cover up the US’s desire to increase it’s exploitation of Latin America.

In US “help speak”, financial support for anti-government (read pro-US agenda) groups is spun as aid, particularly through USAID. Bringing a pro-US leader to power is framed as toppling a cruel dictator. Building towns where US corporations and manufacturing plants can do whatever they want — such as the Zones for Employment and Economic Development (ZEDEs) in Honduras or industrial parks in Mexico. Imposing privatisation policies on poor countries is called “freedom”, “democracy”, “investment” or “economic support”.

While the US’s blockade of Cuba for the past six decades has caused more than US$144 billion in losses to the country’s economy, US President Joe Biden sided with protests there, and called for “relief from the tragic grip of the pandemic … and economic suffering”. The blockade is what is causing severe shortages in Cuba, an oil crisis, and making it hard for the country to manufacture enough vaccines.

Daniel Monterro, an independent journalist in Havana who was arrested during the protests, told Democracy Now! the media had skipped over the fact that most people arrested were released the same day, and that there was violence by both police and protesters. He said the sanctions were the main cause of economic hardships, and Cubans in Florida calling for a military intervention in Cuba was “some of the most colonial behaviour I’ve seen in my life”.

Biden called on the Cuban government to “refrain from violence” — a hypocritical stance given the police murders and repression in his own country. “We are assessing how we can be helpful to the people of Cuba,” said White House spokesperson Jen Psaki, using the saviour discourse, but not considering repealing the sanctions.

Meanwhile, US Vice-President Kamala Harris has been making a show of helping Central America and Mexico by ostensibly addressing corruption and the “root causes” of migration in the region. Seven months into the year and no actual help has arrived, but she did tell migrants fleeing for their lives not to come to the US, and the US has kept its border closed — in stark violation of human rights and its own asylum seeker laws.

The White House declared a “fight against corruption” in Central America in June, and made it a US national security interest. In general, a security interest is code for war, intervention and attacks on countries that don’t conform to US interests.

Further, the State Department was involved in the Car Wash anti-corruption operation in Brazil which saw pro-poor president Luiz Inacio Lula arrested. “A gift from the CIA,” said one US prosecutor of Lula’s imprisonment. The main liaison for the FBI at the time, Leslie Backschies, boasted that it had “toppled presidents in Brazil.”

During a press conference in May, Harris hinted at the US’s real intentions with the latest so-called fight against corruption, “In the Northern Triangle, we also know that corruption prevents us from creating the conditions on the ground to best attract investment.” Even the White House statement admits the anti-corruption efforts are about securing “a critical advantage for the United States”.

The US government recently released its list of powerful corrupt figures in Central America who will be denied US visas. The list includes former Honduran president Jose Lobo, whom the US helped bring to power by supporting a coup in 2009, and a current legal advisor to the Salvadoran president. But it doesn’t include proven criminal and current Honduran president Juan Hernández — suggesting that political interests underlie the chosen figures.

The US also wants to raise the financing, resource support and “political assistance” to actors in foreign countries who “exhibit the desire to reduce corruption” (conveniently vague phrasing) and promote “partnerships with the private sector”. An Anticorruption Task Force will provide “training” to Central American authorities and US law enforcement experts will be deployed to “provide mentoring”. Here, it is worth noting the US’s long record in training coup leaders, repressive military leaders, and counter-revolutionaries.

A frequently used strategy to ensure compliance

For at least a century, the US has had an abusive relationship with Latin America, using it as a source of cheap labour, gutting its land for minerals, pillaging its resources, and demanding in an authoritarian way — ironic, given its overtures to “freedom” — total compliance with its self-benefiting trade policies.

When countries refuse to obey, when they assert their identity, strive for dignity, and combat poverty — and, therefore, reduce that cheap supply of labour — the US reacts. It supported the counter-revolution in Nicaragua with money and training, the CIA carried out a coup to remove Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz and end the revolution there, the US sided with the coup plotters recently in Bolivia, it repeatedly supported anti-democratic movements to overthrow Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez, and time and again it has tried to kill or remove the Cuban president.

It systematically supports repressive, conservative governments because they are the ones that protect its business interests. And despite its current discourse on the “root causes of migration”, the US consistently and violently opposes movements and governments that side with the poor and could actually lower inequality and prevent forced migration.

The US, and the US-centric mainstream media, have two sets of standards: one for rebellious countries, and another for pro-US countries. That’s why the US and the media are speaking out about arrests in Cuba, while staying silent about disappearing activists and journalists in Mexico. It’s why the US State Department recently talked about the “violence and vandalism” of the protesters in Colombia instead of criticising the brutal repression. Biden has publicly supported Plan Colombia (currently called Peace Colombia), which makes the country one of the largest buyers of US military equipment.

The two sets of standards are also why US Secretary of State Antony Blinken talked about Cubans being allowed to “determine their own future” — something he would never call for in most other countries of the world where the majority are excluded from economic and political decision-making.

What we’re seeing at the moment regarding the US’s attitude towards Cuba is nothing new. I witnessed very similar tactics being employed in Venezuela. It was #SOSVenezuela placards and tweets when I was there, then #SOSEcuador was used against Correa while I was working in Ecuador, and now it’s #SOSCuba.

The formula also includes versions of the following: causing or worsening food and medicine scarcity through blockades and hoarding; a media campaign portraying the government as a dictatorial regime; marches by mostly white and upper-class people; media and social media coverage of anti-government marches that exaggerate their size with selective visuals or even photos from other countries (or in the recent case of Cuba, using pro-government rallies as photos of opposition rallies); and a total media boycott of any pro-government marches. There is a focus on “freedom” and an absence of any context, historical causes of problems, or any real solutions, while everything is blamed on the government the US seeks to change.

The #SOSCuba social media campaign began just a week before the marches. The first tweets came from an account in Spain (with more than a thousand tweets in a few days and automated retweets), which was then supported by other bots and recently-created accounts. The tweets coincided with a rise in COVID-19 cases in Cuba, though the figures (about 40 deaths a day) are well below the US’s current death rate.

Any help or aid from the US always comes with conditions and ulterior motives. No matter how intricate his manipulations are, the bully isn’t actually going to help anyone.

*

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

Tamara Pearson is a journalist, activist, and author of The Butterfly Prison. She is based in Mexico, and her writing can be found at her blog resistancewords.com.

Featured image: This Associated Press photo of a pro-government protest in Havana was used to illustrate articles on anti-government protests in The Guardian and other mainstream media. Image: @AlanRMacLeod/Twitter

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was in Norfolk, Virginia on July 15 to mark the second NATO command in America achieving full operational capability. NATO’s Joint Force Command – Norfolk (JFC-Norfolk ) joined NATO’s Allied Command Transformation (ACT) in the same city as the only NATO commands outside Europe.

ACT, whose website is titled Allied Command Transformation: NATO’s Warfare Development Command, was inaugurated in 2003.

The new command was initially launched shortly after NATO’s Joint Support and Enabling Command was in Ulm, Germany in late 2019. Both commands at that time achieved initial operational capability (or initial operating capability). Joint Force Command – Norfolk is designed to expedite the deployment of troops and armor across the Atlantic; Joint Support and Enabling Command’s mission is to “speed up, coordinate and safeguard the movement of allied armour and infantry across European borders.” The two are thus integrally connected.

Their joint purpose is to move military personnel and equipment from the U.S. across the Atlantic Ocean, then from European ports across the continent to the Russian border. The recent DEFENDER Europe-21, the largest since the Cold Warwith 31,000 troops from 27 nations, activated the new system to expedite the transit of large military, including armored, units from the U.S. to the Russian border.

On July 15 General Milley addressed what the Defense Department described as assembled dignitaries on board the USS Kearsarge amphibious assault ship and was accompanied by the new Joint Force Command – Norfolk commander Vice Admiral Andrew Lewis. Lewis is also the commander of the U.S. Second Fleet. As with other NATO commands, its commander is simultaneously in charge of a U.S. command as well, as with U.S. European Command/Supreme Allied Commander Europe, U.S. Navy Sixth Fleet/Naval Striking and Support Forces NATO and U.S. Air Forces in Europe – Air Forces Africa/NATO’s Allied Air Command.

As the Pentagon story on the event states at the beginning and without equivocation, “If deterrence fails, the mission of the command is to fight and win the Battle of the Atlantic.”

In language that evokes the epochal if not the apocalyptic, Milley said:

“In my view, the world is entering a period of potential instability as some nations…and clearly terrorist groups and perhaps some rogue actors, are seeking to undermine and challenge the existing international order. They seek to weaken the system of cooperation and collective security that has been in existence for some time. The dynamic nature of today’s current environment is counterbalanced by an order that was put in place 76 years ago, at the end of World War II.”

The activities of terrorist groups are hardly capable of upsetting the entire post-World War II global order. The nations he alluded to are Russia and China. They can be no others. Every American unified combatant command has recently identified those two nations as the main focus of the Pentagon’s attention, in every part of the world, with Iran and North Korea branded second-tier regional threats.

He further frightened his listeners with the figure of 150 million lives lost between 1914 and 1945, that is from the beginning of World War I to the end of World War II, then issued this brutal assessment: “That is the butcher’s bill of great power war. That’s what this international order that’s been in existence for seven and a half decades, is designed to prevent. That’s what JFC-Norfolk is all about. It’s to prevent that outcome.”

No modesty there; no sense of perspective or proportion; no subtlety, nuance or intricacy; surely no attempt at statesmanship. Accept NATO’s role in dominating the international military and security realm or horrors unimaginable will be unleashed on humanity. But at the bottom of that Pandora’s box there isn’t hope.

He further stated that the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949 was the “brainchild” of the Western leaders who waged and won World War II and established the post-war order. He intoned: “Without question, NATO has been the most successful military alliance in human history. And NATO is still very much a vital and critical part of our regional security framework, and indeed, our global security framework. In fact, in my view, it’s the linchpin that holds together the period of great power peace that we are now enjoying.”

Without NATO, he communicated, the world would have been plunged into another Second World War, magnified by nuclear devastation. And now the international order, recently rechristened the rules-based international order, is under attack.

Another factor that is of grave concern is the change in the character of war, the general said. Milley defined that bedrock of warfighting as “how we fight, the organizations we fight with and the technologies that we use.” The last time such a qualitative transformation in warmaking capabilities occurred was between the two world wars with the introduction (in World War I) and improvement of aviation, tanks and other armored vehicles, new naval technologies and other technological advancements – “radio, radar and more ” – to integrate the above.

He then elaborated further by stating that although the former belligerents in the First World War all possessed the same technology, only one – Germany – successfully developed, integrated and applied technological innovations: “Germany, combined those technologies, and the German way of war, and combine them to organizations and leader development in such a way that Nazi Germany was able to overrun Western Europe in 18 months. Other countries combined it in different ways. And they didn’t have success.”

That clearly appears to be citing the German model of the Third Reich as an exemplary one to be emulated. To leave no doubt, he added: “And I would tell you that the same thing is happening right this minute. There’s a whole set of technologies that are driving fundamental change.”

Notwithstanding his liberal use of the word peace in his address – as in armies with their weapons developed to kill people and destroy property and soldiers trained to kill only exist to bring peace to the world – he belied his own duplicity in the following statement:

“I would argue that the country that masters those technologies, combines them with their doctrine, develops their leadership to take maximum advantage of them, is likely going to have significant and perhaps even decisive advantage at the beginning of the next war.“

If more naked and brazen threats have been made in modern times by the top military commander of a major nation – and of the world’s military superpower at that – they’re unfamiliar to this writer.

Milley’s peroration included touting NATO as the most powerful military alliance in the world (his precise words) and the U.S. as wielder of “the most powerful and capable military in the world,” and ended with this hardly-disguised throwing down of the gauntlet to Russia, China and the world:

“We have to maintain the readiness of the present, we have to modernize for the future. We are ready right now. Those who think we are not are mistaken. And any adversary that seeks to challenge the United States military resolve will do well to respect this military, and our alliances and NATO.”

With that language, why not dispense altogether with diplomacy, with the State Department, with embassies, with the United Nations, with international law? The world is a jungle and the savage with the most lethal, the most technologically-sophisticated weapons dominates it. That is the message and no other.

*

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

Rick Rozoff, renowned author and geopolitical analyst, actively involved in opposing war, militarism and interventionism for over fifty years. He manages the Anti-Bellum and For peace, against war website

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

Featured image: General Milley with the Italian Chief of Army Staff Lieutenant General Danilo Errico at the Pentagon (Public Domain)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Spain’s top court has ruled that the country’s national COVID-19 lockdown was unconstitutional following a lawsuit filed by the populist Vox party.

“While leaving intact most of the state of emergency’s terms, the court said that the key articles ordering the population off the streets except for shorts trips for shopping and unavoidable commutes for work and other official business were unconstitutional,” reports the Associated Press.

“According to TVE, the ruling said that the limitations on movement violated citizens´ basic rights and therefore the state of emergency was insufficient to give them constitutional backing. The six magistrates said that a state of exception, which does allow the government to suspend basic rights, would have been necessary.”

During the first six weeks of the lockdown, stay at home measures were so strict that Spaniards weren’t even allowed to go outside to exercise or walk their dogs.

In one case, police were called after a neighbor spotted two brothers playing soccer in their own back yard.

As we previously highlighted, Spain’s lockdown laws were so draconian that at one point authorities briefly told citizens that wearing masks while swimming in the sea was mandatory.

For many months during hot weather, wearing masks in every outdoor setting, even on beaches, was compulsory.

People were also issued fines of €2,000 euros for “disrespecting” a police officer during lockdown.

Numerous instances of police beating people for not wearing masks also emerged, while protesters at one point freed a woman from police arrest while cops were trying to handcuff her for not wearing a face covering.

Early on during the first lockdown, police helicopters fitted with loudspeakers were also used to aggressively order beachgoers to go home.

The Spanish government many now face multiple lawsuits as a result of the lockdown being declared unlawful.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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: Anti-racist campaign launched by Attorney Antonio Liu Yang in Spain to combat misinformation about coronavirus. | Photo: @antonioliuyang

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Thousands of people protested against mandatory vaccinations and other measures imposed by the Greek government to  tackle the pandemic in Athens, Thessaloniki and other cities around Greece on Wednesday.

Alongside the around 4,000 that turned out in front of the Greek Parliament in Athens, police said several hundred people also took to the streets in the cities of Thessaloniki, Ioannina and Heraklion for the same reason.

Source: Greek Reporter

These were the largest demonstrations in Greece against mandatory vaccination, state radio reported.

The demonstrations followed the Greek government’s announcement recently that only vaccinated people would be allowed to eat inside at restaurants and to enter cultural institutions.

Immune-only venues and spaces in Greece will be only for those who have been fully vaccinated or have immunity through having had the virus in the last six months.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The battle in central Yemen remains as volatile as ever, with Saudi-led coalition and Ansar Allah clashing for Marib city, but also for Baydha.

In Baydha, the Houthis (as Ansar Allah movement is known) are on the defensive, as the Saudi-led coalition began an offensive to recapture the area earlier in July.

Fighting raged between Yemen’s government forces and Houthi rebels, killing 320 fighters from both sides in the central province on July 12^th and 13^th.

Fighting in Bayda came as the Houthis attempted to break through government defenses in the strategic city of Marib, also located in central Yemen. The rebels have been trying to capture it from the Saudi-led coalition since February.

The government has been sending reinforcements to Bayda since losing to the Houthis some of the districts.

The Houthis, alongside defending from the Saudi-led coalition are also reportedly fighting ISIS and Al-Qaeda elements from Baydha, announcing recently the clearing of terrorists in Al-Soma’a and Al-Zahir.

Houthi spokesman Yahya Saree claimed that the group would stop the Saudi-led coalition’s advance in Baydha and push them back in “three days” from July 13^th.

This comes as Ansar Allah have stopped their almost daily drone and rocket attacks on various positions in Saudi Arabia.

Still, on July 14, a series of explosions rocked the outskirts of the central Saudi city of al-Kharaj to the south of the Kingdom’s capital Riyadh.

Local activists shared videos on social media showing large explosions near al-Kharaj, where ammunition depots and military bases are known to be located.

A spokesman for the Saudi Ministry of Defense, Brigadier General Turki al-Malki, claimed in a brief statement that an “accident” was behind the explosions.

Despite the statement, some sources suppose that the al-Kharaj explosions were the result of an attack by the Houthis. The group is yet to make any claims in regard to the explosions.

Saudi Arabia continues its daily airstrikes, in addition to hundreds of ceasefire violations in al-Hudaydah, despite claiming that it has stopped. It only hasn’t targeted the capital Sana’a for a while.

Meanwhile, any form of peace appears out of reach. The Yemen puppet government in Aden urged the Saudi-backed coalition to shift its way of dealing with the Iranian-backed Houthi militias’ inflexibility in peace efforts.

Still, the government speaks against the Houthis and says that they need to back down, as well. Apart from condemning the Houthis for their aggressions, the Yemen government praised the Saudi-led Arab Coalition for backing pro-government forces in their fight against the militias and their efforts to restore security, peace and stability to Yemen.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Profligate, vain and utterly pleased with himself, British billionaire Sir Richard Branson could boast about his latest adventure of megalomania.   Unlike others of the stinking rich set, he is incapable of keeping quiet.  He pretends to be the people’s tycoon.  His wealthy adventurism is as much for himself as it is for us.  “The pitch,” wrote the late Jenny Diski of this type, “is to demand to be seen as ordinary, just like you and me, only richer and more glamorous, of course, because it does the populace a power of good to see heightened images of what they might have been, kitted out in fine frocks and indulging in dangerous sports no one else can afford.”

Such demand was evident in spades on July 11.  Branson made his way in his Virgin Galactic rocket plane for a 1.5-hour mission to the edge of space, a mission he promised to embark upon as far back as 2004.  Then, he told the BBC that some 3,000 people “would want to do this.”  Were he to develop a successful program, he envisaged “orbital flights and then, possibly, even get a hotel up there.”

The effort was plagued with delays and difficulties, a tendency not alien to the Virgin brand.  In 2014, Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo space tourism craft succumbed to what the company described as “a serious anomaly”.  The crash in the Mojave Desert killed a pilot and injured another.  “Space is hard – but worth it,” a regretful Branson said at the time.  “We will persevere and move forward together.” 

On this occasion, there was no flop or anomaly.  The VSS Unity reached the appropriate height to achieve weightlessness.  Branson and his crew swooned and clucked at the panoramic views of Earth.  Using a feathering system, the craft then made its gliding way back.

On his blog, Branson referred to those childhood memories filled with thoughts of space travel.  “I have dreamt about this moment since I was a child, but nothing could have prepared me for the view of Earth from space.  It was magical.”  On Twitter, he did his man of the people act, with a note of encouragement.  “To the next generation of dreamers: if we can do this, just imagine what you can do.” 

This first official salvo of space tourism on the VSS Unity prompted much chatter as to what Branson had actually done.  Had the Briton’s brief journey really qualified as space travel?  One line of authority accepts that the boundary of space lies at the point aerodynamics ends and aeronautics begins, otherwise known as the Kármán Line and recognised by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale.  The US government designation of the edge of space is 80 km above sea level, 20 km less than the Kármán Line. 

In a correcting mood, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson told CNN that Branson had not actually journeyed in space. “First of all, it was suborbital.  NASA did it 60 years ago with Alan Shepard, took off from Cape Canaveral and landed in the ocean.  If you don’t go fast enough to reach orbit you will fall and return to Earth.”  For all that, he was delighted about this “new tourist attraction” which “should have happened decades ago”.

There was also another reason for the Briton to be smug.  Branson had pipped another of the megalomaniacal fraternity wishing to cash in on suborbital space tourism to the post.  On July 20, Amazon magnate Jeff Bezos, along with his brother Mark and aviator Wally Funk, are scheduled to make a journey on Blue Origin’s New Shepard suborbital rocket.  And just to make things worthwhile for Branson, the individual who won a ticket through a charity auction valued at $28 million for the pleasure of keeping Bezos company had a change of heart due to “scheduling conflicts”.  The winner has been replaced by recent high school graduate, the 18-year-old Oliver Daemen, a move which did not lack Bransonian overtones.  “Oliver,” Blue Origin stated, “represents a new generation of people who will help us build a road to space.

Branson is not ignorant to the fact that his project is a vanity of vanities.  According to David Runciman, he is playing the same game as many a Russian oligarch but through the looking-glass.  The wealthy will do what they always do, and projects dealing with climate change, the pandemic and economic inequality, while important, should not prevent the pursuit of play.  “I 100% agree that people who are in positions of wealth should spend most of their money, 90% or more of their money, trying to tackle these issues,” Branson explained, “but we should also create new industries that can create 800 engineers, and scientists who can create wonderful things that can make space accessible at a fraction of the environmental cost that it’s been in the past.” 

Branson’s message, along with those of other space adventurers, has its willing consumers and advocates.  Rick Tumlinson, founder of the venture capital firm SpaceFund, sees the egos as only distractingly problematic.  “These are not the robber barons of the 1800s.”  They were, instead, Apollo’s children.  The last space race “was between nations that wanted to blow us up and take the planet with them.”  Taxpayer dollars go towards developing weapons of mass death and destruction.  By focusing on the ills of state-based competition, Tumlinson praises the commercial instinct, ignoring its defects.  The likes of Branson, Bezos and Elon Musk are, all too conveniently, let off the hook.

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image: Branson in April 2009 at the launch of Virgin America in Orange County, California (CC BY 3.0)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The drive toward a cashless society has been in progress for some time, but the COVID-19 pandemic has been used as a pretext to accelerate the process

In the documentary “Cash or Card — Will COVID-19 Kill Cash?” producer Kersten Schüssler asks some important questions, like what’s at stake if society truly goes cashless? The answer is both your privacy and your freedom

The digital footprints or financial data trails that you leave every time you pay by card or mobile app are being watched closely and form an important part of surveillance capitalism

Information like how much alcohol you drink or how much you spend on vacation can all be tracked and “sold to the highest bidder”

As a result of this data, you and your neighbor might end up paying different prices for things like flights and hotels, or you might be refused insurance or be passed over for a job offer

Electronic payments are extremely lucrative for banks and payment service providers, while the data broker industry is also making huge revenues

*

Cash has long been king, but an increasing number of people have ditched cash in favor of credit cards and other contactless, digital payment options. The drive toward a cashless society has been in progress for some time, but the COVID-19 pandemic has been used as a pretext to accelerate the process.

With infectious disease at the top of everyone’s mind, bills and coins suddenly seemed especially filthy, even though they haven’t been linked to disease transmission, while electronic payment was clean, convenient and fast.

But, in the DW documentary “Cash or Card — Will COVID-19 Kill Cash?”¹ producer Kersten Schüssler asks some important questions, like what’s at stake if society truly goes cashless? The answer is both your privacy and your freedom.

You Pay for Cashless Payments With Your Privacy

The World Economic Forum (WEF) has been vocal about its agenda of moving away from cash and to a digital currency, including in the U.S., for years.² But in the last year, the pandemic has led to a drastic acceleration. In Germany, where people have been famously reluctant to embrace payment by card or app, the number of people paying by card increased by 26% since the start of the pandemic.³

Cash is still being widely used there and is even the only currency accepted in many markets and bakeries. This isn’t the case in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, however, where cash has practically become a thing of the past. You won’t find ATMs very often and if you go to a convenience store, you’re likely to be told you have to pay by card.

In Sweden, your cash may be no good at a bakery, and shop employees view this as a good thing. One young bakery clerk interviewed in the film said it’s much safer to not have any cash at the store because it cuts down on robberies.

Till Grune-Yanoff, a professor of philosophy at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, also states that payment apps let him monitor exactly what his two children are buying. And this is a key tenet of the cashless system. While cash is anonymous, paying by card or app leaves a digital trail.

Already in Sweden, most banks no longer give out cash because it’s too much of a hassle, and payment using cellphone apps is booming. You can transfer money from one cellphone to another as easily and quickly as you can send a text message.

“Here, money has become merely digital information,” Schüssler said. But there’s a downside for the convenience. “This also means that Swedish electronic payment systems can track most people’s financial transactions. Big Brother is watching you.”

Is This the End of Cash?

The film questions whether Sweden is the shape of things to come, “a future in which cash is a thing of the past — and every payment for everything we buy can be traced and tracked.”⁴ Marion Laboure, a Harvard lecturer and research analyst at Deutsche Bank, has stated that COVID-19 could be the catalyst to bring digital payments into the mainstream.⁵ She told Schüssler:⁶

“It’s not the end of cash yet. But what we have noticed since the beginning of this year, and especially since the start of the corona crisis, the amount of cash in circulation has definitely increased because it’s considered as safe in terms of holding its value.

However, if we consider cash as a means of payment, it has definitely decreased. Fewer and fewer people are paying by cash. In December, 30% of people made contactless payments in Germany. And today, it’s almost 50%.”

Laboure described even more striking advances in other countries, such as South Korea and China, which quarantined and destroyed bank notes. In the U.S., “the Fed decided to quarantine banknotes coming from Asia to make sure they were safe,” she said. When asked whether this was a reasonable response to the pandemic, Laboure said, “The risk is very low. But they felt it was necessary.”⁷

Throughout the pandemic, it’s been implied that contactless, cashless payments are the preferred “safer” choice, allowing you to keep your distance and eliminating the need to pass “dirty” cash back and forth. But are you really at greater risk of catching COVID if you pay with cash?

Johannes Beermann, an executive board member of Bundesbank in Berlin, doesn’t think so, and he also doesn’t believe cash will be replaced by apps or cards anytime soon. “I would say that’s been sufficiently disproven,” he said. “If you look at the bank notes, like the five-euro or 10-euro bills here — which are in particularly heavy circulation — they have a special coating. We know from research that bills and coins don’t play any role in the spread of infections.”⁸

Corruption and money laundering concerns were also cited when banks stopped issuing 500-euro bills in 2019, while the Better Than Cash Alliance, an initiative with 77 members, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Visa and Mastercard,⁹ that is “committed to digitizing payments,” has also called for cash to be abolished due to “slush funds, dirty money, money laundering and big sums not declared to tax authorities or the state.”¹⁰

“Of course, we have to combat money laundering, tax evasion and the financing of terrorism, and I think cash has to be monitored, as should other payment methods,” Beermann said. “We have to ensure that. But I don’t think that this [digitized payments] will vanquish the underground economy.”

Leaving a Digital Footprint With Every Payment

The digital footprints or financial data trails that you leave every time you pay by card or mobile app are being watched closely. Sarah Spiekermann, professor for information systems and society at Vienna’s University of Economics and Business, researches how this data is observed and analyzed, and states that credit card information and electronic payment data are feeding an industry of data brokers:¹¹

“We know that credit card companies pass on this data. In the meantime, they can observe everyone in real time via all the digital media that they use to create large-scale profiles. It’s almost become normal to have 30,000 to 40,000 pieces of data on each person. And with this high-resolution history, they know what you do, the routes you take, what you buy, what you pay for, where you go on vacation, how much you pay. They know it all.”

Information like how much alcohol you drink or how much you spend on vacation can all be tracked and “sold to the highest bidder.” We’re at a point where once fledgling startups have morphed into immense information empires, in control of our information and our privacy is in their hands.

The COVID-19 pandemic has made it clear how valuable digital technologies are in acting as a safety net to allow many activities to continue, but because governments haven’t dealt with fundamental issues to protect privacy and digital rights, these information empires continue to own and operate the Internet and global means of communication.

These monopolies lead to uncontrolled power that, in turn, leads people to be even more constrained and living in a society based increasingly on surveillance, and digital payments are a necessary part of this plan and further surveillance capitalism. Spiekermann explained:¹²

“We’ve analyzed, for example, how Oracle Blue Kai has described collecting 30,000 user attributes from 200 data vendors, which would allow them to create the profiles of 700 million people. That’s probably the entire western world.

And if we look to see who’s providing that data: Visa, Mastercard or Acxiom, Google, Facebook, Twitter interfaces. That’s surveillance capitalism. Surveillance capitalism involves hundreds and thousands of companies with data exchange agreements working together behind the scenes.”

As a result of this data, you and your neighbor might end up paying different prices for things like flights and hotels, or you might be refused insurance or be passed over for a job offer. You might think these things are just bad luck or fate, she said, “when in reality, it’s the result of databases making some sort of prediction about them. And people behind the scenes are earning money to create these profiles of people. It’s disgraceful.”¹³

There are no laws in place to curtail this brand-new type of surveillance capitalism, and the only reason it has been able to flourish over the past 20 years is because there’s been an absence of laws against it, primarily because it has never previously existed. Surveillance has become the biggest for-profit industry on the planet, and your entire existence is now being targeted for profit.

Payment Technologies Are Rapidly Developing

You’ve probably used one or more types of contactless, digital payments, but this is only the beginning of the payment technologies to come. In China, Chinese and U.S. companies are testing “smile to pay” facial recognition technology, which ties your ability to pay for goods and services with your smile.

But it doesn’t end there. Ultimately, the plan is to use facial scans when you enter a store, which employ artificial intelligence to recognize the person and their credit rating. AI also detects emotions, social affiliations and whether you’re under stress or getting sick.

All of this personal information is the cost of relying on this digitized system, and it could have significant ramifications for both psychology and security. Spiekermann, who wants cash to be retained, said in the film:¹⁴

“If I pay with a smile and I start to connect smiling to economic transactions, then this habit will also leave its imprint in my real world. I don’t think we really want those kinds of associations to develop. Our society and social interactions would become subtly commercialized … [also] power can be rapidly knocked out, as can IT systems. It’s a matter of security. We need a concrete backup. We still need cash — for security reasons.”

While all-digital mobile banks are already up and running, alternative options are also emerging. Berlin company Barzahlen.de offers a modern digital-analogue hybrid payment system that uses encrypted barcodes to get money or make a payment.

The barcode stipulates how much is paid in or out. No transfer of account or credit card data is needed, and each transaction gets a new barcode, allowing you to use cash in a digital context but without leaving behind data trails.

In addition, while U.S. federal law does not require businesses to accept cash as payment, cities and states can enact local laws to do so. At least 21 cities and states, including Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey, have passed or are considering laws that prohibit retailers from refusing cash payments.

It’s unclear how strictly such laws are being enforced, but in New York City, for example, businesses can face steep fines for refusing cash or charging higher prices to customers paying cash.¹⁵

Former Interpol President Opposes Cash-Free Society

Bjorn Eriksson, former Interpol president, was also interviewed for the film. He’s familiar with cyberattacks and money laundering, and states that cash should be available as an option for people, including those who aren’t tech savvy — a population he estimates to be about 1 million people in Sweden alone.

“They are looked on as unprofitable. Just leave them,” he said. “I don’t like that type of society.” Security is another major concern to leaving cash behind. “What happens if the Russians, Putin or somebody, switches off the system? We have no defense. How do you then defend yourself if you just have this card that doesn’t function? Cash is a perfect option.”¹⁶

The interference with your freedom and privacy, however, is what he believes will drive young people to push for cash to be preserved:¹⁷

“[What] … attracts a lot of young people is what they see in China and some other nations where you use these to control your citizens. Because if you have a system with card, you’ll have a technology with cameras, you have a technology with artificial intelligence, you’re really going to be checked. Young people don’t like that.”

He also believes the pandemic is being used as pretext to switch to a cashless society even though “there is no proof whatsoever that cash is carrying that type of threat from corona.”

The push to eliminate cash is going to continue, especially since electronic payments are extremely lucrative for banks and payment service providers, while the data broker industry is also making huge revenues, Schüssler said.¹⁸ Still, cash represents a form of freedom, one that should be passed on to the next generation to preserve as much autonomy and privacy as possible.

*

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

Notes

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In less than six months in office President Joe Biden has already developed a national security policy that appears to lean strongly towards proactive use of military force in questionable circumstances, as if war is the answer to every problem. Biden should nevertheless be applauded for his persistence in withdrawing from Afghanistan after twenty years of ill-considered nation building, but even the departure from that country appears to be characterized by a lack of coordination, rather reminiscent of helicopters taking off from the embassy roof in Saigon in 1975.

For the second time the president has ordered a US bombing raid on two targets in Syria, and for the first time, he also attacked a site inside Iraq. According to one report possibly as many as seven Iraqis died in the attacks which targeted alleged weapons storage facilities along the Syria-Iraq border belonging to Kata’ib Hezbollah and Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada militias. The US claims that the two Iraqi militias have ties to Iran, which may be more than usually true because the Iraqis and Iranians have cooperated regularly in the fight against the Islamic State in Syria (ISIS). The Pentagon also claims that the militias were behind recent attacks on American targets, see more below.

After the attacks carried out by US fighter-bombers, the excuse provided was the same one employed after Biden’s first air attack in February, namely that the US, as described by Pentagon spokesman John Kirby, “conducted defensive precision airstrikes against facilities used by Iran-backed militia groups in the Iraq-Syria border region.” He added verbiage what has now become a regular feature of all US military actions, that “the United States acted pursuant to its right of self-defense.” For those who are intrigued by Pentagon newspeak the expression “defensive precision airstrikes” must be considered as a new entry in the crowded field of phrases that largely have no meaning.

The strikes were framed as being retaliatory, but the most interesting aspect of this latest bombing is that the initial US government justifications for the action were on somewhat tentative. Reportedly, someone had used drones with explosives attached for mostly night-time attacks directed “against places where Americans were located in Iraq,” which were further described as including diplomatic, intelligence and military facilities. The Pentagon refers to the drones as “unmanned aerial vehicles” or UAVs. No Americans were killed in the alleged attacks and there were no reports of any substantial damage, though the Pentagon is apparently collecting information and preparing a comprehensive report which the public undoubtedly will not be allowed to see.

Oddly, the initial media reporting on what had occurred and who had been blamed for it included a weasel word, “suspected.” In government-speak that frequently means there was little or no evidence that the militias that had been targeted were actually the perpetrators, but it is convenient to assume that they are responsible, making them “suspects.” After all, it is relatively easy to transport a number of drones on the bed of a pickup truck, drive with it to a location where one is unlikely to be observed and then release them at a fixed target. Even if you don’t hit anything, you will spread fear and trigger a response that might well be exploited to vilify the occupying forces. You will also provide justification for your own retaliation.

The Iraqi government, which was not informed in advance of the US bombings, not surprisingly reacted strongly, registering its opposition to such activity on the part of its so-called ally, though occupier has been suggested as a more appropriate description. Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi’s office called the airstrikes a “blatant and unacceptable violation of Iraqi sovereignty and Iraqi national security.” After the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani at Baghdad Airport in January 2020, the Iraqi Parliament had called for the departure of all US forces, but the Trump Administration ignored the demand, claiming that it was in Iraq to help the Iraqis in their fight against ISIS and other terrorist groups.

The US currently has a claimed 2,500 soldiers in Iraq who, it asserts, are in country advising and training their local counterparts. Meanwhile, “Fighting terrorists and training friendly forces” is roughly the same excuse that has been used to justify remaining in neighboring Syria, where the US has deployed roughly 500 soldiers who have been taking possession of the production of the country’s oil fields, which it then provides to Israel. The US is also, by the way, trying to overthrow the legitimate Syrian government in Damascus, using some of the very terrorists it claims to be fighting to do the job, but that is of course another story.

If the United States government is beginning to sound a bit like the Israeli government that should surprise no one, as Israel is clearly heavily involved in whatever on goes vis-à-vis Syria and Iran directly and in Iraq by proxy. One almost expects new Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett to provide an endorsement, parroting the Pentagon line as well as his own country’s rhetoric, saying “the US has a right to defend itself.” Of course, the unasked question then becomes “to defend itself against what?” Israel was at least able to pretend that there was some kind of threat coming from Gaza since the two share a border, but the United States would be hard pressed to explain why it has soldiers in Syria and Iraq at all, particularly since the Iraqi government has called upon them to depart.

A neocon journalist supportive of a global crusade to spread “democracy” once quipped that the nice thing about having an empire is never having to say you are sorry, but that has not meant that mindless acts of violence inflicted throughout the Middle East are have been consequence free. One has to suspect in this case that the use of force to include a target within the borders of a nominal ally was also mostly intended to send a signal to Iran. A Pentagon spokesman ironically boasted afterwards that “This action should send a message to Iran that it cannot hide behind its proxy forces to attack the United States and our Iraqi partners.” The spokesman appears to be oblivious to the fact that it was Iraqi militiamen tied to the government that had been killed, not Iranians. And his assumption that it would reduce the level of violence also proved wrong as there have been a number of new drone, rocket and mortar attacks against American targets in Iraq since Biden’s “defensive precision airstrikes” were launched. One of the militias that lost fighters to the US airstrikes, said it would “avenge the blood of our righteous martyrs.”  Another Iranian supported group, the Popular Mobilization Forces went further, threatening to “enter an open war with the American occupation.” In short, all the attacks really accomplished was to anger the Iraqi people over the continued US presence and to guarantee more incidents.

Biden’s “sending a message to Iran” would undoubtedly be intended to do the same to the Iraqi government, telling them that drawing any closer to the Iranians is too close as far as the Pentagon and White House are concerned. In terms of the timing of the airstrikes, it is also important to note that the US has been working closely with the new Israeli government to establish a unified policy on Iranian “regional aggression” and its nuclear program. Biden met recently with retiring Israeli President Reuven Rivlin at the White House and Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken has been having discussions with Israel’s foreign minister, Yair Lapid. Iran was the focus of both meetings.

So, Joe Biden and whoever is advising him are continuing down the path that began with George W. Bush, with military action used as a substitute for any real foreign policy. The problem with the meddling in the Middle East is primarily that it permits no exit strategy. It will end ignominiously when it ends as is happening in Afghanistan, without any remorse and little to show for all the expense and the deaths. Given that reality, rather than concoct largely fabricated reasons to keep US troops in Iraq and Syria the Administration should be looking for ways to end the torment for everyone involved.

*

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

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] 

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

---

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

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Doctors for Covid Ethics has written three open letters to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 vaccine dangers. In those letters we have insisted upon evidence that risks of clotting, bleeding and platelet abnormalities were appropriately ruled out in legitimate empirical trials prior to human use. We foresaw deaths and harm from clotting, warning of these dangers before blood clots led to vaccine suspensions around the world.

The first letter, emailed February 28 and hand-delivered March 1st, can be found here. The EMA’s reply of March 23rd can be found here, and our rebuttal letter, of April 1st, here, all summarised in a press release here. Our most recent letter, warning that “cardinal symptoms of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) dominate the list of adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines” is here.

Doctors, scientists and colleagues in allied disciplines related to health, ethics, law and human rights can sign the open letters by sending their name, qualifications, areas of expertise and country of practice to: [email protected], with web verification (eg workplace or registration link, not for publication).

Signatories across the three letters are as follows:

Founding signatories

Professsor Sucharit Bhakdi MD, Professor Emeritus of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Former Chair, Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz (Medical Doctor and Scientist) (Germany and Thailand)

Dr Marco Chiesa MD FRCPsych, Consultant Psychiatrist and Visiting Professor, University College London (Medical Doctor) (United Kingdom and Italy)

Dr C Stephen Frost BSc MBChB, Specialist in Diagnostic Radiology, Stockholm, Sweden (Medical Doctor) (United Kingdom and Sweden)

Dr Margareta Griesz-Brisson MD PhD, Consultant Neurologist and Neurophysiologist (studied Medicine in Freiburg, Germany, speciality training for Neurology at New York University, Fellowship in Neurophysiology at Mount Sinai Medical Centre, New York City; PhD in Pharmacology with special interest in chronic low level neurotoxicology and effects of environmental factors on brain health), Medical Director, The London Neurology and Pain Clinic (Medical Doctor and Scientist) (Germany and United Kingdom)

Professor Martin Haditsch MD PhD, Specialist (Austria) in Hygiene and Microbiology, Specialist (Germany) in Microbiology, Virology, Epidemiology/Infectious Diseases, Specialist (Austria) in Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Medical Director, TravelMedCenter, Leonding, Austria, Medical Director, Labor Hannover MVZ GmbH (Medical Doctor and Scientist) (Austria and Germany)

Professor Stefan Hockertz, Professor of Toxicology and Pharmacology, European registered Toxicologist, Specialist in Immunology and Immunotoxicology, CEO tpi consult GmbH. (Scientist) (Germany)

Dr Lissa Johnson, BSc BA(Media) MPsych(Clin) PhD, Clinical Psychologist and Behavioural Scientist, Expertise in the social psychology of atrocity, torture, collective violence and propaganda, former professional body Public Interest Advisory Group member (Psychologist) (Australia)

Professor Ulrike Kämmerer PhD, Associate Professor of Experimental Reproductive Immunology and Tumor Biology at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital of Würzburg, Germany, Trained molecular virologist (Diploma, PhD-Thesis) and Immunologist (Habilitation), Remains engaged in active laboratory research (Molecular Biology, Cell Biology) (Scientist) (Germany)

Associate Professor Michael Palmer MD, Department of Chemistry (studied Medicine and Medical Microbiology in Germany, has taught Biochemistry since 2001 in present university in Canada); focus on Pharmacology, metabolism, biological membranes, computer programming; experimental research focus on bacterial toxins and antibiotics (Daptomycin); has written a textbook on Biochemical Pharmacology, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (Medical Doctor and Scientist) (Canada and Germany)

Professor Karina Reiss PhD, Professor of Biochemistry, Christian Albrecht University of Kiel, Expertise in Cell Biology, Biochemistry (Scientist) (Germany)

Professor Andreas Sönnichsen MD, Professor of General Practice and Family Medicine, Department of General Practice and Family Medicine, Center of Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna (Medical Doctor) (Austria)

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, Specialist in Pulmonary and Bronchial Internal Medicine, Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Epidemiology, and Public Health; Honorary Member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and former Head of the Health Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe; former Member of Parliament, German Bundestag; Initiator and Spokesman for the study commission ‘Ethics and Law in Modern Medicine’; Author and University Lecturer (Medical Doctor) (Germany)

Dr Michael Yeadon BSc (Joint Honours in Biochemistry and Toxicology) PhD (Pharmacology), Formerly Vice President & Chief Scientific Officer Allergy & Respiratory, Pfizer Global R&D; Co-founder & CEO, Ziarco Pharma Ltd.; Independent Consultant (Scientist) (United Kingdom)

Endorsing signatories

Dr Reem Abu-Sbaih, DO, Doctor of Osteopathy, Associate Professor Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine/ Neuromusculoskeletal Medicine (Medical Doctor) (USA)

Dr Adriana Reyes Agudelo, MD, Surgeon (Medical Doctor) (Spain)

Dr Véronique Ahari, General Practitioner (Medical Doctor) (France)

Dr Maria José Martínez Albarracín, Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, Physician and Professor of Clinical Diagnostic Processes, Specialized in Clinical Analysis (Medical Doctor) (Spain)

Dr Alicja Alda, General Practitioner and Ear Nose and Throat specialist (Medical Doctor) (Norway)

Dr Fernando Ania, ND, Naturopathic Doctor (Canada)

Dr Carmen Soler Arnedo, Surgeon, General Medicine (Medical Doctor) (Spain)

Dr Lenn-Adolph D. Arre, PhD, FNIU, Former Associate Professor of Molecular Biology and Microbiology, San Beda University, Manila (Scientist) (Philippines)

Dr Mario Cabrera Avivar, MD, Specialist in Public Health, former Consultant to the Pan American Health Organisation, the World Health Organisation Regional Office for the Americas (OPS/OMS) (Medical Doctor) (Uruguay)

Rena Bartolettti, Pharmacist, previously of the General Pharmacy Inspectorate, Registration Service Medicines, Federal Public Health and Safety Authority (Pharmacist) (Belgium)

Dr Gabriela Bachmann, General Medicine, Specialising in children and young people (Medical Doctor) (Austria)

Dr. Elizabeth Bastian, BSc (Genetics and Microbiology), MDCM, Family Medicine, General Practitioner in Oncology, sub specialty trained in Palliative Care (Medical Doctor) (Canada)

Dr Pedro López Bastido, Stomatologist (Medical Doctor) (Spain)

Dr Professor Mila Aleckovic Bataille, Specialising in Psychiatry, Psychology and Anthropology (Medical Doctor and Social Scientist) (France, Serbia)

Dr Michael D Bell, MB, ChB (1978 Edinburgh) MRCGP (1989), General Practitioner (Medical Doctor) (United Kingdom)

Rev. Reuben P. Bell, DO, MS, MDiv, PhD, Osteopathic family physician since 1982, Bachelors and Masters degrees in Zoology, formerly Professor of Biology (including Molecular Genetics and Developmental Biology), M.Div. and Ph.D. in theological studies, with attention to issues of science and religion (Medical Doctor and Scientist) (USA)

Dr Francisco Lacruz Bescos, MD, PhD, Consultant Neurologist with special training and dedication to Neuroimmunology and Multiple Sclerosis (Retired) (Medical Doctor) (Spain)

Dr Thomas Binder, MD, specialised in Cardiology and Internal Medicine, thesis in Immunology and Virology, with 32 years experience in diagnosis and treatment of Acute Respiratory Illness (Medical Doctor) (Switzerland)

Sarah Binns, MA VetMB, MS, MRCVS, MSc, PhD, DipLSHTM, Former Veterinary Infectious Disease Epidemiologist (United Kingdom)

Dr Rainer Bliefert, Dentist (Switzerland)

Dr Michael Brandner, Dr. Med. (Medical Doctor) (Germay)

Dr Rachel Brown, MBChB, LLM (Medical Law & Ethics), MRCPsych CFMP, Consultant Psychiatrist (Medical Doctor) (United Kingdom)

Dr Roxana Bruno, PhD in Immunology, Researcher in Biochemistry, Immunology, Neuroinmunology and Genetics (Scientist) (Argentina)

Dr Elizabeth Burton, MBChB, General Medical Practitioner (Retired)(Medical Doctor) (United Kingdom)

Dr Natalia Prego Cancelo, MD, Community and Family Medicine Specialist, founder of “Médicos por la Verdad” (Doctors for the Truth) worldwide, platform of doctors in more than 17 countries (Medical Doctor) (Spain)

Professor David P. Capper, MD, Internal Medicine, Hospice & Palliative Medicine, Professor and Chair, Department of Clinical Sciences, Director of Palliative Care (Medical Doctor) (USA)

Dr Ronald S. Carlson, AB Chem/Bio, DDS, Dentist (USA)

Dr Rafael Reinoso Casado, Family and Community Medicine (Medical Doctor) (Spain)

Dr Alexandra Henrion Caude, Researcher, PhD in Molecular Biology and Genetics, Focus in Epigenetics and non-coding RNA and mitochondria, Focus on simple, durable ethical, low-cost solutions for Health and One Health, CEO of SimplissimA Research Institute, Former Director of Research at the French NIH (Retired), Member of the Circle for Innovation Galien (France), Member of the IDF Ethical Space Committee, Eisenhower Fellow from the Multination Program (Scientist) (France and Mauritius)

Dr Volker Christoffel, PhD in Biochemistry, Specialist in preclinical development (Scientist) (Germany)

Dr Vernon Coleman, MB, ChB, General Practice Principal (Retired) (Medical Doctor) (United Kingdom)

Isabella Cooper, BSc (Hons) Biochemistry, AFHEA, AMRSB, AfENDO, Doctoral Researcher, Areas of expertise: hyperinsulinaemia, disseminated intravascular coagulability, mitochondrial molecular biology and cancer metabolism (Scientist) (United Kingdom)

Dr Johan Corthouts, General Practitioner (Medical Doctor) (Belgium)

Jonathan Jay Couey, Assistant Professor of Research, Pitt School of Medicine Research Faculty, Department of Neurobiology, examining cortical and subcortical microcircuits using promotor/enhancer driven gene expression (Scientist) (USA)

Dr David Critchley, BSc, PhD, Clinical Research Scientist with more than 30 years experience, including projects in Virology and Immunology (Scientist) (United Kingdom)

Professor Barbara A Crothers, DO, Associate Professor, Pathology, Gynecologic, Breast and Cytopathology (USA)

Dr Rita Darby, General Practitioner (Medical Doctor) (Wales)

Dr. Daniel de la Torre Llorente, Biology Professor, Biotechnology-Plant Biology Department, Agronomic, Food and Biosystems Engineering School (ETSIAAB) Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (Scientist) (Spain)

Dr John Day, MD, Family Medicine (Board certified since 1990) (Medical Doctor) (USA)

Dr Hilde De Smet, General Practitioner (Medical Doctor) (Belgium)

Dr Johan Denis, General Practitioner (Medical Doctor) (Belgium)

Dr Steven Depicker, General Practitioner (Medical Doctor) (Belgium)

Dr Cindy de Villiers, MBChB, General Practitioner (Medical Doctor) (New Zealand)

Dr M. Doesburg-van Kleffens, MSc, PhD, Specialist in Laboratory Medicine (Clinical Chemistry), of Stichting Artsen Covid Collectief, an independent Dutch Collective of Medical Professionals (Scientist) (The Netherlands)

Dr Geanina Dragnea, Obstetrician-Gynecologist (Medical Doctor) (Romania)

Dr Doris Draehne, Specialist in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Medical Doctor) (Germany)

Dr Nyjon Eccles, BSc, MBBS, MRCP, PhD, Specialist in Functional & Environmental Medicine (Medical Doctor) (United Kingdom)

Dr Karin Eisfeld, Molecular Biologist, Senior Regulatory Affairs Manager in the approval of new drugs and medical devices (Scientist) (Germany)

Dr Blanca Assumption Lario Elboj, Specialsit in Ophthalmology (Medical Doctor) (Spain)

Dr Kjetil H. Elvevold, Senior Scientist, worked as Senior Scientist in a Contract Research Organization (CRO) in Norway that performed pre-clinical experiments for the pharmaceutical industry (Scientist) (Norway)

Dr Andreas Emmert, Specialist in Microbiology, Head Physician at Østfold Regional Hospital, Norway (Medical Doctor) (Norway)

Merit Enckell, Civ. Ing, PhD, Independent researcher, Structural Health Monitoring and Emerging Technologies, Formerly of KTH Royal Institute of Technology (Scientist) (Sweden)

Dr Sonia Andrés Espallardo, Psychiatrist (Medical Doctor) (Spain)

Dr Radimé Farhumand, Specialist in Anesthesia (Medical Doctor) (Germany)

Dr Thomas Faulkner, MChiro, DC, Managing Director and Chiropractor (United Kingdom)

Dr Susan Flett, Specialist in Psychiatry, Child Psychiatry and Psychotherapy (Semi-retired) (Medical Doctor) (United Kingdom)

Dr Konstantinos Fountzoulas, MD, PGDiP Orth Eng., FEBOT, FRCS (Tr & Orth), Consultant Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgeon (Medical Doctor) (England and Italy)

Dr Paul Christian Friedl, Ophthalmologist (Medical Doctor) (Austria)

Dr Carrie Ganek, MD, Adult Psychiatry (Medical Doctor) (USA)

Dr Martin E Ganek, MD, Board Certified Paediatrician (Medical Doctor) (USA)

Dr Emanuel E. Garcia, MD (University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 1986), Psychiatrist (Medical Doctor) (USA)

Dr Parisi Giovanni, Specialist in Ophthalmology and Sports Medicine (Medical Doctor) (Italy)

Dr Hartmut Glossmann, Professor Emeritus, Doctor of Medicine and Specialist in Pharmacology / Clinical Pharmacology, Institute for Biochemical Pharmacology, Innsbruck (Medical Doctor and Scientist) (Germany)

Amparo de Luque González, Dentist (Spain)

Dr Alexandra Efthimiadou Griva, MD, Physician, practicing natural medicine for over 40 years (Medical Doctor) (Greece)

Dr Maria-Myrto Griva, MD, Physician, with a special focus on natural medicine (Medical Doctor) (Greece)

Dr Kleanthis Grivas, MD, PhD, Neurologist — Psychiatrist, author of books and articles, writer on Totalitarian Therapeutic State (Medical Doctor) (Greece)

Dr Céline Guérin, PhD in Neurosciences, Master in Microbiology and Genetics (Scientist-Practitioner) (France)

Dr Nicholas James Guntobon, MBBCh, BAO, LRCP, SI, General Practitioner (Medical Doctor) (Malaysia)

Dr. Olga Petrovna Guzova, Pediatrician, Dermatologist and Dermatopathologist (Medical Doctor) (Panama)

Dr Hans-Michael Hackenberg, Family Doctor and Sports Medicine Specialist (Retired) (Medical Doctor) (Germany)

Dr Roman Häussler, General Medicine (Austria)

Dr Jutta Heinrich-Nols, Doctor and Clinical Pharmacologist (Medical Doctor and Scientist) (Germany)

Julie Henrotte, Quality System Expert, 12+ years in GSK Pharma (Scientist) (Belgium)

Dr Angel Ruiz-Valdepeñas Herreros, Bachelor of Medicine, Licenciado en Medicina por la Universidad de Murcia, Specialist in Family and Community Medicine, co-founder of “Médicos por la Verdad” (Doctors for the Truth) worldwide, platform of doctors in more than 17 countries (Medical Doctor) (Spain)

Dr Birgit Hörger, Resident Doctor, Specialist in General Medicine (Medical Doctor) (Germany)

Dr Mignon Hugues, MD, General Practitioner (Medical Doctor) (Belgium)

Dr April M. Hurley, MD, Family Physician for 35 years (Medical Doctor) (USA)

William Ip, BSc. MIBMS, Former NHS Biomedical Scientist (Specialist in Microbiology), for over 30 years (Sicentist) (United Kingdom)

Prof. Dr Ciro Isidoro, Doctor of Science and Medical Doctor, Full Professor of Pathology, School of Medicine, Department of Health Sciences, Università del Piemonte Orientale, Novara (Medical Doctor and Scientist) (Italy)

Dr Hervé Janecek, Veterinarian (France)

Hannah Januszczyk, Psychiatric Pharmacist (England)

Jerzy Jaskowski, MD, PhD, MS, Specialties in General Surgery, Environmental Medicine, Physics and Biophysics (Retired)(Medical Doctor and Scientist) (Poland)

Dr. Elisabeth Jenik, General Medicine, Occupational Medicine and Psychosomatic Medicine (Medical Doctor) (Austria)

Dr Alain Joseph, General Medicine Specialist (Retired) (Medical Doctor) (France)

Dr Konstantinos Kakleas, MD, MRCPCH, MSc, PhD, Paediatric Allergy Consultant, Leicester Royal Infirmary Hospital (Medical Doctor) (United Kingdom)

Dr George Katsonis, Homeopathic Doctor (Medical Doctor)(Cyprus)

Dr Hootan Kazemi, BDS Dental Surgeon, MSc(Distinc.) Clinical Biochemistry, BSc(Hons) Physiology (General Dental Practitioner) (United Kingdom)

Dr Richard Kent MB BS, Retired General Practitioner (Medical Doctor) (United Kingdom)

Dr Ingrid Kiesel, Specialist in Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and General Medicine (Medical Doctor) (Germany)

Dr Alina Kislich, General Practitioner, Graduated from the Medical University of Vienna (Medical Doctor) (Austria)

Dr Wiltrud Kling, Specialist in General Medicine (Medical Doctor) (Germany)

Dr Ewa Konik, MD, Heart Transplant Cardiologist (Medical Doctor) (USA)

Dr Doris Krien, Assistant Doctor, Günzburg District Hospital (Medical Doctor) (Germany)

Brigitte Lacroix, clinical PKPD and PBPK modeler (Pharma industry), PhD in Pharmacy (Paris XI University), PhD in Pharmacometrics (Uppsala University) (Scientist) (France, Sweden)

Dr Andreas Lang, MD (Medical Doctor) (Germany)

Dr Paul Laursen, PhD, Adjunct Professor, AUT University (Scientist) (New Zealand and Canada)

Dr Michael S Lavender, Consultant Anaesthetist (Medical Doctor) (Australia)

Dr Tess Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD, Guideline methodologist and evidence synthesis expert, Director of The Evidence Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd, Bath UK. Honorary Researcher at the Royal United Hospital, Bath UK (Medical Doctor and Scientist) (United Kingdom)

Dr Bronia Lee, MBBCh, MRCGP, Retired General Practitioner (Medical Doctor) (United Kingdom)

Dr Katrina Lewis, MD, BSc in Immunology and Physiological Chemistry, triple Board certified ( USA) in Anesthesiology, Pain Medicine and Functional Medicine (Medical Doctor) (South Africa, USA)

Dr Derek Lohan, Consultant Radiologist and Director, Helix Radiology (Medical doctor) (Ireland)

Dr Ricardo Arriola López, General Medicine, (Medical Doctor) (Spain)

Dr. Adele Lorigan, BSC (Chiro), Chiropractor (Australia)

Dr Antje Lueg, Specialist in Ophthalmology (Medical Doctor) (Germany)

Dr. Thomas Ly, MD, Infectologist and Paediatrician, Specialized in Tropical Medicine, Head of MedicalQM, a think tank on medical quality management and patient safety, Founder of the upcoming International Institute for Human Pathogenic Infectious Diseases “InfectCore” (Medical Doctor) (Germany and Thailand)

Dr Kulvinder S. Manik, MBChB, MA, LLM, MRCGP, GP (Medical Doctor) (England)

Dr. Rosemarie Mayr, Specialist in Psychiatry and Psychotherapeutic Medicine and Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, ÖÄK Diploma for Homeopathy (Retired) (Medical Doctor) (Germany)

Dr Nathi Mdladla, Associate Professor and Chief of ICU, Dr George Mukhari Academic Hospital and Sefako Makgatho University (Medical Doctor) (South Africa)

Dr Janet Menage, MA, MB, ChB, General Medical Practitioner (Retired) Qualified Psychological Counsellor (Medical Doctor) (United Kingdom)

Dr Niall McCrae, PhD, MSc, RMN, Mental health researcher, Psychiatric Nurse (United Kingdom)

Professor Nathalie McDonell, MD, PhD (human genetics), Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology (Medical Doctor and Scientist) (France)

Dr Ciaran Montague, MVB, MRCVS, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons certified veterinary dermatologist with 25 years general and referral practice (Veterinarian) (N. Ireland)

Dr Alistair J Montgomery, MB.ChB., MRCGP, DRCOG, NHS General Practitioner (Retired) (Medical Doctor) (UK)

Dr Sabine de Monvallier, General Practitoner (Medical Doctor) (France)

Dr Ines Mörbitz, Specialist in General Medicine (Medical Doctor) (Germany)

Dr Amir Mortasawi, Physician and author (Germany)

Dr Jens Münch, Neurologist, Psychoanalyst and Specialist in Psychosomatic Medicine and Trauma (Medical Doctor) (France)

Dr. Graeme Munro-Hall, BDS, Dentist (retired), pioneered the use of glutathione with vitamin C, awarded a Fellowship of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology in 1996 (Dentist) (United Kingdom)

Dr Souha Nasreddine, MD, Ob/Gyn, Graduated from the Free University of Brussels Belgium, Holistic Gynecology (Lebanon)

Dr Meryl Nass, MD, BS Biology (M.I.T.), Specialist in Internal Medicine, with a focus on fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, Gulf War illnesses, and anthrax vaccine injuries. First person to demonstrate that an epidemic resulted from biowarfare. Helped lead a coalition to fight anthrax vaccine mandates and revoke the vaccine license (Medical Doctor) (USA)

Dr Anthousa Nicolaidou, MD, General Practitioner and Holistic Doctor (Medical Doctor) (Cyprus)

Akhmetzhanova Tamara Nikolaevna, Therapist and Cardiologist, the Republican Medical Genetic Center, Ufa (Medical Doctor) (Russia)

Dr Terezia Novotna, General Practitioner, Emergency Doctor, and Anesthesiologist in Training (Medical Doctor) (Austria)

Ole C G Olesen, Double specialist in General Surgery, as well as Orthopedic Surgery and Trauma (Medical Doctor) (Denmark, Norway, Sweden and United Kingdom)

Dr Carlos Muñoz-Caravaca Ortega, Graduate in Surgery, Specialist in Emergency Medicine (Medical Doctor) (Spain)

Dr Fatma Özguler, Specialist in Internal Medicine, General Medicine and Emergency Medicine (Medical Doctor) (Germany)

Dr Waltraud Parta-Kehry, Biologist and Doctor for Gynaecology and Reproductive Medicine (Medical Doctor) (Germany)

Dr Arun Kumar Patel, MBBS, MPH, MRCPH, FFPH, Medical Public Health Specialist (Retired), NHS (Medical Doctor) (United Kingdom)

Dr E. Peeters, MD, Internal Medicine Specialist, Endocrinology, of Stichting Artsen Covid Collectief, an independent Dutch Collective of Medical Professionals (Medical Doctor) (The Netherlands)

Dr Berber Pieksma, General Practitioner (Medical Doctor) (The Netherlands)

Dr. Cristina Pinho, MD, Gastroenterologist (Medical Doctor) (Portugal)

Dr Hélène Potrich, General Practitioner (Medical Doctor) (France)

Panagiotis Papaspyrou, Specialist in Orthopedics (Germany)

Dr Fabio Quirici, Swiss Medical Association (Medical Doctor) (Switzerland)

Professor Denis Rancourt, PhD, Researcher, Ontario Civil Liberties Association, Member scientist, PANDA (Pandemics Data & Analysis), Retired former Full Professor of Physics, University of Ottawa, with expertise in environmental nanoparticles, molecular science, molecular dynamics, statistical analysis methods and mathematical and epidemiological modelling (Scientist) (Canada)’

Dr Sabine Rauch, General Practitioner, Specialist in General Medicine (Medical Doctor) (Germany)

Dr Rafael Reinoso, Family and Community Medicine (Medical Doctor) (Spain)

Dr Nicola Reiser, Anaesthetist and Intensive Care Physician, Senior Physician at the University Clinic UMEÅ (Medical Doctor) (Sweden)

Claudia Riempp, Psychologist and psychotherapist, expert in health education (Germany)

Dr Tred J Rissacher, DC, Chiropractor specialising in obesity and diabetes (USA)

Pablo Enrique Palomo Robles, Pharmaceutical Chemist, Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance (Scientist) (Guatemala)

Rhys Rogers, BSc, Physiotherapy, 12 years experience as a frontline Physiotherapist (United Kingdom)

Dr Tamara Roycroft, BMBS, BSc (Hons) Nutrition, AIT RCGP, Doctor, Nutritionist and Former Research Scientist/Research Physician in the pharmaceutical industry, and Co-Investigator on vaccine trials (Medical Doctor and Scientist) (United Kingdom)

Professor Simon Ruijsenaars, Professor in Mathematical Physics, School of Mathematics, University of Leeds (Scientist) (United Kingdom)

Dr Claudio Sacilotto, MD, Otolaryngologist and Audiologist, former Professor at the University of Udine and former Doctor at the Udine University Hospital, former Professor at the Music Conservatory of Udine (Medical Doctor) (Italy)

Dr Sam Saidi, MB, ChB, BSc, FRCOG, PhD, University of Sydney (Medical Doctor and Scientist) (Australia)

Dr. Vanessa Schmidt-Krüger, Cell Biologist with over 20 years’ experience in molecular medicine, Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine (Scientist) (Germany)

Dr Claudia Schoene,Veterinarian with specialisation in Veterinary Epidemiology and Tropical Veterinary Medicine, Animal Health Management and Wildlife management, Formerly Scientific Researcher at the Institute for Epidemiology of the German Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, and the Information Centre for Biological Security of the Robert-Koch Institute (Veterinarian and Scientist) (Germany)

Dr Eva-Maria Schottdorf, MD, MSc, Master of Science in Drug Research and Management, Emergency Physician, Board Certified Specialist in Radiation Oncology (Medical Doctor) (Germany)

Dr Ullrich Schubert, (Medical Doctor) (Germany)

Dr Pamela Shervanick, DO, Medical doctor and Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, with specialization in Psychiatry (Medical Doctor) (USA)

Dr Guido Spanoghe, Gastroenterologist (Medical Doctor) (Belgium)

Dr Dietmar Spengler, Paediatrician and Neonatologist (Medical Doctor) (Germany)

Dr. Jutta Steinacker-Palden, General Practitioner (Medical Doctor) (Austria)

Dr Paul Steven Spradbery, Forensic and Research Biologist, Foundation for Science and Technology, Lisbon, Intertek Life Sciences, London (Scientist) (United Kingdom)

Dr Duncan Syme, MBBS, FRACGP, Dip Prac Derm University of Cardiff, Graduate Monash University 1987, General Practitioner (Medical Doctor) (Australia)

Dr Carol Taccetta, MD, FCAP (Fellow of the College of American Pathologists), Pharmaceutical Physician for over 25 years, specializing in drug safety (Medical Doctor) (USA)

Dr Noel Thomas, MA, MB, ChB, DCH, DObsRCOG, DTM&H, MFHom. Semi retired NHS GP and homeopath (Medical Doctor) (United Kingdom)

Dr Corinne Tilloy, General Practitioner, (Medical Doctor) (France)

Dr Gilbert Tominez, General Practitioner (Retired) (Medical Doctor) (France)

Dr M. Tóth, MD, Psychiatrist, of Stichting Artsen Covid Collectief, an independent Dutch Collective of Medical Professionals (Medical Doctor) (The Netherlands)

Dr Julio Trindade, Masters in Epidemiology, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, Masters in Strategy (Veterinarian & Epidemiologist) (Uruguay)

Dr Georgy Urushadze, Naturopathic Doctor, Paediatrician (Pirogov Russian National Medical University), Emergency Doctor, Physiotherapist, Researcher (Russia)

Dr Francisco J. Llull Vera, Dental Medicine Doctor, graduated from the Dental Medicine School (University of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico), Postdoctoral Studies in Infectious Diseases (Harvard University, MA), Postdoctoral Studies in Dental Implantology and Oral Surgery (NYU Dental Medicine School, NY), Former President Puerto Rico College of Surgeons Dentists, South Region (Dentist) (Puerto Rico)

Dr H. Visser, MD, Internal Medicine Specialist and Infectologist, of Stichting Artsen Covid Collectief, an independent Dutch Collective of Medical Professionals (Medical Doctor) (The Netherlands)

Dr Jasmina Vucic-Peev, PhD, studied in Freiburg, Germany, training in Psychiatry in Switzerland (Medical Doctor) (Germany, Switzerland, Portugal)

Dr William H. Warrick III, MD, Family Practice Doctor (Retired) (Medical Doctor) (USA)

Dr Jo Waller, UK State registered Biomedical Scientist since 1990 (Scientist) (United Kingdom)

Dr Maja Waibel, Dermatologist with specialty in Melanoma prevention (Medical Doctor) (Germany)

Dr Gerard A Waters, Mb, Bch, BAO, MICGP, General Practitioner (Medical Doctor) (Ireland)

Dr Craig M. Wax, DO, Family Physician, Founder of Independent Physicians for Patient Independence, Host of Your Health Matters (Medical Doctor) (USA)

Dr Markus Wegscheider, General Practitioner (Austrla)

Dr Ronald Weikl, Gynecologist and General Practitioner (Medical Doctor) (Germany)

Dr Helen Westwood MBChB (Hons), MRCGP, DCH, DRCOG, GP (Medical Doctor) (United Kingdom)

Dr R Matison White, MD, Family Practice Physician of 49 years (Medical Doctor) (USA)

Dr Madhu Wickremaratchi, MBChB, MRCP, Acute and General Medicine (United Kingdom)

Dr Anna Maria Wiedemann, General Practitioner, Specialist in General Medicine (Medical Doctor) (Sweden and Germany)

Dr Clive Wilder-Smith, FRCP, AGAF, MD, Consultant Gastroenterologst, Director of Research (Medical Doctor) (Switzerland)

Thomas Robin Wilks, MA, BSc(Hons) FHEA, CPhys, MInstP, University Science Lecturer, Maths, Mathematical Modelling and Physics, Open University (Scientist) (United Kingdom)

Dr Christopher Wood, MBBS, Retired General Practitioner (Medical Doctor) (United Kingdom)

Dr Olga Sergeevna Yakimanskaya, General Practitioner, Polyclinic Physician (Medical doctor) (Russia)

Dr Reinhild Zenklusen, MD, Pathologist and Cytopathologist (Medical Doctor) (Switzerland)

Signatures of Colleagues in Allied Disciplines relating to Ethics, Health and Human Rights

Reece Francis Allawatt, Registered Nurse, Specialty in Psychiatry and Mental Health (USA)

Sue Cook, BSc (Hons) Lic LCCH, Neurodevelopment Specialist (United Kingdom)

Joseph Dassas, LLB, LLM, LPC, Solicitor and Advocate (Greece, Israel, United Kingdom)

Professor Peter Gichure, Associate Professor of Theology and Peace Studies, Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Director of Graduate Studies, with special interest in ethics (Kenya)

Nuria Iturralde, LL.M, MBA, Human Rights Lawyer (Luxembourg)

Dr Chris Lavers, BSc Hons (Exon), PhD, FHEA, M Inst P, C Phys, C Sci, ILTM, RUT, PGCE(LTHE), Academic Programme Manager DipHE in Marine Studies, Subject Matter Expert (Sensors), Dartmouth Centre for Sea Power and Strategy, Plymouth University at Britannia Royal Naval College, Visiting Research Fellow, Changing Character of War Centre, Pembroke, Oxford (UK)

Dr. Reinhard Lindner, MBA, Economist (Austria)

Shabnam Palesa Mohamed, Journalist, Activist and Mediator (South Africa)

John O’Sullivan, CEO of Principia Scientific International, an independent international scientific body defending the traditional scientific method, incorporated for charitable purposes as a Community Interest Company (United Kingdom)

Matthieu Smyth, Anthropologist, University of Strasbourg (France)

Dr Violeta Sotirova, MPhil, PhD, Lecturer in English (United Kingdom)

United People’s Front (EPAM) Health Committee, Independent political party (Greece)

*

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Moderna will begin studying its COVID vaccine in pregnant women, according to a posting on ClinicalTrials.gov. The observational study, expected to begin July 22, will enroll about 1,000 females over age 18 who will be studied over a 21-month period.

Women who received a Moderna vaccine during the 28 days prior to their last menstrual period, or at any time during pregnancy, are eligible.

The brief summary of the trial states the main goal is “to evaluate the outcomes of pregnancy in females exposed to the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (mRNA-1273) during pregnancy.”

The study will measure the number of participants who have infants with suspected major and minor congenital malformations, the number of participants with any pregnancy complications, the number of participants with any pregnancy outcomes and the number of participants with infant outcomes, Fox Business reported.

Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says pregnant women can get a COVID vaccine. But the CDC also acknowledges there is limited data available about the safety of COVID vaccines for people who are pregnant.

The CDC website states:

“No evidence exists of risk to the fetus from vaccinating pregnant people with non-replicating vaccines in general. However, the potential risks of COVID-19 vaccines to the pregnant person and the fetus are unknown, because these vaccines have not been extensively studied in pregnant people.”

According to the CDC’s website, as of June 29, data collected from the CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) safety monitoring systems had not identified “any safety concerns for pregnant people who were vaccinated or their babies,” but the agencies stressed findings are preliminary.

Experts urge caution

“Pregnant women are taking what may be a huge risk with the COVID vaccine,” said Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D., author of “Your Baby, Your Way.”

Margulis told The Defender in an email:

“We have no long-term studies showing it’s safe. We made this mistake with diethylstilbestrol— a synthetic estrogen thought to be safe during pregnancy that was later found to cause aggressive (and sometimes lethal) cancer in the genitals of young teenagers whose moms had been prescribed it.”

Margulis believes it is irresponsible, and even unethical, to assert that we know the Moderna vaccine is safe for pregnancy.

She said:

“It’s imperative to use the precautionary principle when it comes to this highly experimental technology. The burden of proof must be on the intervention. We have no evidence that this is safe. But ample evidence shows that it is dangerous to expose pregnant women and unborn babies to drugs and interventions that can disrupt immunity.”

The most recent data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) — one of the safety monitoring systems co-managed by the FDA and CDC — has received 2,678 reports of adverse events related to COVID vaccines in pregnant women, including 994 reports of miscarriage or premature birth between Dec. 14, 2020 and July 2, 2021.

Data assessing safety of COVID vaccines in pregnant women is lacking

Since the FDA in December 2020 granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for COVID vaccines, the CDC has recommended pregnant women be offered the vaccine — despite the fact that pregnant women were excluded from preauthorization clinical trials, and despite the limited data on safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines during pregnancy.

In January, the World Health Organization said pregnant women should not receive a COVID vaccine. A week later, the agency changed its guidance and advised everyone to take the shot, including pregnant women.

According to a March 1 safety update by the CDC’s vaccine safety panel on the COVID vaccine and pregnancy, post-authorization safety monitoring and research are the primary ways the CDC obtains safety data on COVID vaccination during pregnancy.

In other words, the vaccine is given to pregnant women before studies determine whether the vaccine is safe for that population. The CDC’s website states that 133,466 pregnant women have already received a COVID vaccine as of July 12.

“It seems bass-ackwards to release the vaccine to pregnant women before doing a clinical trial or proper animal studies,” said Lyn Redwood, RN, MSN and president emerita of Children’s Health Defense.

Redwood said:

“Does the vaccine lipid nanoparticle cross through the placenta? If so, what is the effect on the offspring with regard to morbidity or mortality? These are questions we need to be asking. Pregnancy used to be a time where we were to protect the mother and baby from any potential harms, especially during the first trimester.”

In April, the CDC started actively recommending all pregnant women get vaccinated for COVIDbased off of one retrospective study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The retrospective study, “Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons,” relied on multiple vaccine surveillance systems from December 2020 to February to assess the safety of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines in more than 35,000 pregnant women who had chosen to get vaccinated after the vaccines were approved for emergency use.

A Utah teen remains hospitalized with three blood clots in and near his brain that developed after he received the first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. #TheDefender

SUBSCRIBE #TheDefender: https://t.co/zL66Edfiw5https://t.co/Nzm7NrGoBl

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) May 11, 2021

The authors of the study stated they found no increased risks during pregnancy, or birth complications or identifiable risks to the fetus among those who received the vaccine.

Shortly after, the CDC updated its official recommendations that pregnant women receive a COVID vaccine based on the study’s data compiled over the course of two months.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky highlighted the findings at an April 23 briefing where she stated the “CDC recommends that pregnant people receive the COVID-19 vaccine.”

According to Dr. Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., Children’s Health Defense chief scientific officer and professor of biology at Simpson University, the results regarding pregnancy loss were highly skewed.

Hooker told The Defender:

“The majority of the denominator received their vaccine in the third trimester where pregnancy loss would be much less. Most of the pregnancy losses were in the first trimester and there are no data on the outcomes of the other women who received their vaccine in the first trimester (i.e., whether they carried to term), or data on the temporal relationship between receipt of the vaccine and miscarriage which is suspect.

“There is also no data regarding any incidence of clotting disorders reported or any type of blood malady that may occur (e.g., spotting or bleeding during pregnancy), and very limited treatment of neonatal outcomes (no APGAR score, etc.) due to the very limited duration of the study.

“This is typical ‘nothing to see here’ CDC propaganda and the paper is essentially meaningless regarding pregnancy outcomes. In order to adequately assess these outcomes, pregnancies need to be followed to term.”

Although Moderna’s clinical trial is expected to begin July 22, Pfizer and J&J already are conducting clinical trials testing the safety and efficacy of their vaccine in pregnant women.

*

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

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

Featured image is from CHD

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In a 20-page report, three doctors who are all founding members of Doctors for COVID Ethics outline in detail the compelling argument for why COVID vaccines are not only unnecessary and ineffective, but also dangerous for children and adolescents.

For months, Doctors for COVID Ethics, a Europe-based international alliance of hundreds of concerned doctors and scientists, has been issuing urgent warnings about the short- and long-term risks of COVID vaccines, particularly for children.

In May, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) extended Pfizer’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) — previously granted for ages 16 and up — to 12- to 15-year-olds.

Pfizer was the first company to test experimental COVID vaccines in children, and is the only manufacturer thus far to have been granted EUA for vaccine recipients under age 18.

In addition to submitting three admonitory letters to the EMA — on March 10, April 1 and April 20— Doctors for COVID Ethics on May 18 served Notices of Liability to all members of the European Parliament for COVID-vaccine-related harms and deaths to children.

Now, three of the group’s founding signatories — Dr. Michael Palmer (Canada), Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, (Germany) and Stefan Hockertz, Ph.D. (Germany) — have assembled in one document powerful expert evidence showing COVID vaccines are not only unnecessary and ineffective but also dangerous for children and adolescents.

On July 3, Italian lawyer Renate Holzeisen submitted the expert document to the European General Court as part of a lawsuit challenging the EMA’s late-May decision to extend emergency use of Pfizer’s vaccine for 12- to 15-year-olds.

The 20-page report’s value stems not just from the three authors’ impeccable professional credentials but from their meticulous aggregation and analysis of manufacturer data, regulatory agency assessments and published science.

As the medical/scientific trio compellingly argues, the evidence allows only one possible conclusion: Not only should Pfizer’s vaccine not be given to adolescents, but its use needs to stop immediately in all age groups.

Not necessary

The report begins by demolishing the argument that adolescents need to be vaccinated against COVID. The three experts emphasize the “particularly low” COVID-19 prevalence in adolescents and the utter absence of severe cases in children and teens 10 to 17 years old obviates any rationale for vaccinating young people — particularly given the availability of effective treatmentsfor the tiny proportion who experience anything other than mild illness.

Recent studies confirm this crucial point, showing that “the risks of severe illness or death from SARS-CoV-2 are extremely low in children and young people.”

The expert summary also highlights other factors negating the case for teen vaccination. For example:

• A “large proportion of individuals in all age groups, including adolescents, already have specific, reliable immunity to COVID-19” and are also protected from severe disease by robust cross-immunity, which, the European experts point out, “will be particularly effective in healthy adolescents and young adults.”
• According to Doctors for COVID Ethics, large-scale studies have “unambiguously” refuted the notion of “asymptomatic transmission” (used to support the claim that kids pose a risk to others). These studies show that no illness has been traced to individuals who tested “positive” but did not exhibit signs of illness.
• From the beginning, the COVID infection fatality rate (IFR) — the number of deaths divided by the number of infections — has been strongly biased toward the elderly. In addition, a recent study, which revised “biased inflated estimates” of the IFR downward to an average of 0.15%, “reassuringly” makes the IFR for COVID comparable to that of influenza.

The three authors mention, in passing, that few European countries view childhood vaccination against influenza as either “urgent or necessary.” In fact, European infectious disease experts have stated they do not want the pediatric vaccine schedule to be “too busy,” while also acknowledging the “mixed” evidence on flu shot effectiveness and the unknown “long-term effect of repeated annual vaccination from an early age.”

These notes of caution could apply equally well to COVID shots that are threatening to morph into an annual (or even more frequent) requirement. Disturbingly, France is preparing to administermillions of booster shots in September, barely seven to eight months since experimental COVID vaccination began.

Not effective

The second section of the expert report digs into Pfizer’s claims of 95%–100% effectiveness for its COVID vaccine — representations, the report’s authors assert, that “cannot be trusted.”

The three scientists first note (as Children’s Health Defense and others have done as well) that the manufacturers’ figures represent relative rather than absolute efficacy. In absolute terms, Pfizer vaccine efficacy is “very modest,” protecting (at best) less than 1% of clinical trial participants who took the jab.

According to the three experts, however, even this dubious achievement “cannot be accepted at face value.” Their scrutiny of assessments prepared by the FDA and EMA shows Pfizer’s data are rife with “unlikely claims and contradictions,” including the intimation that after the first dose of vaccine, immunity sets in “very suddenly and uniformly on day 12 exactly.”

Given that immunity typically develops more slowly and gradually, the authors of the report state, the day 12 effect is “not at all a biologically plausible outcome.”

An additional puzzling finding concerns two contradictory sets of data about COVID-19 incidence in the vaccine and placebo groups — results that “cannot possibly be reconciled.” The experts’ conclusion? One of the two data sets was, in all likelihood, “fabricated.”

Dissecting a Pfizer study conducted with adolescents, the three scientists conclude the injections produced a net negative due to their impact on overall morbidity. Whereas none of the participating adolescents experienced severe COVID, vaccine side effects were “exceedingly common,” with 55% to 65% experiencing headaches, among other undesirable reactions.

The expert trio points out that severe headaches are sometimes associated with blood clots — a serious adverse event associated with all four COVID vaccines currently authorized in Europe and/or the U.S.

Taking side effects into account makes it plain that “overall morbidity was far greater in the vaccinated than in the placebo group,” the authors write.

As the three scientists understatedly comment, “That neither the FDA nor the EMA picked up on any of these inconsistencies does not instill confidence in the thoroughness and integrity of their review processes.”

They conclude:

“The clinical trials carried out by Pfizer contain no proof of any benefit conferred by the vaccine with respect to any clinically relevant endpoints. This applies to all tested age groups, and in particular also to adolescents.”

Not safe

The most alarming section of the report is Palmer’s, Bhakdi’s and Hockertz’s discussion of the Pfizer vaccine’s “catastrophically bad” safety profile in both adults and adolescents.

The Pfizer injection’s destructive impact is readily discernible by anyone with the patience to pore through the vaccine injury reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System(VAERS) in the U.S. or the EudraVigilance database in Europe.

For 12- to 17-year-old Americans receiving a COVID shot, VAERS received more than 13,000reports of adverse events by July 2, including more than 1,909 reports (Pfizer alone) of anaphylaxis, 343 reports (Pfizer alone) of heart problems, 56 reports (Pfizer alone) of blood clotting disorders and 14 deaths,  of which 13 were reported after a Pfizer vaccine.

This is not to absolve the other COVID vaccines being administered to those 18 and up — for example, the Johnson & Johnson injection now comes with warnings about increased risks of blood clots and Guillain-Barré syndrome.

As for the two messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines — Pfizer’s and Moderna’s — the European experts express concerns about the toxicity of the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) that deliver the injections’ payload of mRNA and the spike protein expressed by that mRNA.

Ordinarily, the capillary barrier is supposed to keep large molecules out of the blood. In preclinical studies of the mRNA vaccines, however, researchers found the LNPs circulated in the bloodstreamand concentrated in vital organs such as the ovaries, liver and spleen.

Other research shows that following intravenous injection, LNPs can penetrate the most highly “fortified” capillary barrier of all — the blood-brain barrier.

The “upshot,” in the opinion of the European scientists, is “the vaccine will appear in the bloodstream, in large amounts and on short order” [emphasis in original]. Unfortunately, more blood clotting complications are the likely result.

In addition, high levels of spike protein expression in places like the ovaries, placenta and lactating mammary glands raise the prospect of disturbing reproductive and neonatal outcomes, including female infertility, miscarriages and, as has been anecdotally reported, deaths in breastfeeding newborns.

Stop the ‘systematic negligence’ and fraud

In 2020, Pfizer was the second-largest pharmaceutical company by revenue, manufacturing not just COVID vaccines but more than 350 pharmaceutical products, many of which are household names.

But it is important not to lose sight of Pfizer’s criminal track record — a pattern of “habitual” fraud and dishonesty so pervasive and longstanding that it can only be understood as an intentional business model.

Describing prosecutors’ refusal to hold Pfizer executives personally liable for criminal actions, a health policy analyst concluded in 2010, “both criminal and civil penalties appear to be, to Pfizer at least, a business expense worth incurring.”

Despite this troubling record, analysts celebrate Pfizer as a solid market presence, stating that “People know and trust [the company’s] brands.” Widely used Pfizer products include Advil, Ativan, Centrum multivitamins, Chapstick, the contraceptive Depo Provera, Emergen-C, EpiPen, Flagyl, Lipitor, Lyrica, Neosporin, Premarin, Preparation H, the best-selling childhood vaccine Prevnar, Robitussin cough syrup, Viagra, Xanax, Zithromax and Zoloft.

For consumers distressed by the carnage that seems to follow Pfizer’s COVID injections — and by the company’s recurrent lawsuits, recalls and problems with quality control — it may be time to stop buying Pfizer’s many “instantly identifiable” products and also shun the more than 96,000 worldwide employees who make the company’s wanton harms possible.

Buttressed by the evidence carefully assembled by the Doctors for COVID Ethics, it also goes without saying that we need to push back in every conceivable way against COVID vaccine mandates for children.

*

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

Featured image is from CHD

“Why should the United States and the Soviet Union, in preparing for such expeditions, become involved in immense duplications of research, construction, and expenditure? Surely we should explore whether the scientists and astronauts of our two countries–indeed of all the world–cannot work together in the conquest of space, sending someday in this decade to the moon not the representatives of a single nation, but the representatives of all of our countries….” – President John F. Kennedy (September 20, 1963)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

November 22, 1963. The Kennedy family lost a brother. America lost a president. And the world lost a hope for a more peaceful world.

This incident, perhaps the most famous ‘conspiracy theory’ of them all, is once again being memorialized in film as Hollywood’s challenger of official government narratives releases yet another epic blast of controversy in the Cannes film festival. It’s called JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass.

Oliver Stone directed this movie. It takes place 30 years after the release of his previous blockbuster JFK which focused on the work of the Louisiana District Attorney Jim Garrison the only person to challenge the narrative in relation to the U.S. president. This sequel is less a re-enactment of a past event than a documentary. It updates us with information that has become available thanks to the files that had been de-classified since the last Kennedy movie mesmerized eyeballs in theatres across the country.

The fact is that in this special case, certain people cannot quite let go of facts surrounding the case. How did Lee Harvey Oswald, assuming he was even in the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository at the time, fire as many shots as were discovered at the scene of the crime? Why was the evidence of so many witnesses of a second gunman ignored? Why did the Zapruder film of the execution showing his head moving backward when the killer was shooting from behind him? Why was President Kennedy’s autopsy conducted in Maryland as opposed to Dallas where the murder happened?

The Global Research News Hour has possibly the best expert available to address these questions and more. James DiEugenio not only has conducted multiple extensive written works on the subject, he is also the screenwriter for the very film Oliver Stone has just directed!

Over the course of an hour, DiEugenio provides his assessment of the feedback he has so far gotten on the recent movie, details of the problems with the official story surviving the 1978 House Selections Committee on Assassinations, the motive behind his murder and the role of media in assisting the cover-up.

The Global Research News Hour also provides a brief overview of some of the press attention to the JFK Revisited movie.

James DiEugenio has an MA in Contemporary American History from California State University Northridge. He authored the book Destiny Betrayed, probing the Garrison investigation of the JFK assassination, expanded in 2012. He also wrote Reclaiming Parkland in 2013 expanded again in 2016 and then re-issued again with additional material in the 2018 book The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today. He co-authored the book The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X.

Mr DiEugenio also has a website: kennedysandking.com with materials related to one or more of the assassination targets.

(Global Research News Hour Summer 2021 Series)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

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

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.

Notes:

1. Address Before the 18th General Assembly of the United Nations, 20 September 1963 | JFK Library (credit to Mark Robiowitz); www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/JFKWHA/1963/JFKWHA-218/JFKWHA-218

Space Odyssey 2021: The Big Failure

By South Front, July 15, 2021

On July 11, an outstanding news shook the world. The space race between two notorious millionaires Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson, was allegedly won by the latter. Branson went up into space nine days before Bezos. In response, Blue Origin refused to recognize Virgin Galactic’s voyage as a space flight.

MH17 Trial Judge Reveals US Intelligence Switch — From Satellite Images Which Don’t Exist in Washington to Tapes and Videos Fabricated in Kiev

By John Helmer, July 15, 2021

In a new ruling read out in a Dutch courtroom yesterday, the judge presiding in the trial of allegations against the Russian state, military command and four named soldiers for shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 revealed new details of the US evidence allegedly proving that a Russian missile caused the crash.

Red Alert in Iraq… Time for the U.S. to Decide

By Amro Allan, July 15, 2021

No American soldiers have been killed in these recent intense activities in Iraq and Syria. However, Michael Knights, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, explains ‘It’s already very intense. The strikes aren’t killing people, but they could, easily, if they want them to’, and he adds ‘The missile defences are quietly working quite well. But what we haven’t seen is determined efforts to kill Americans’.

Canadian Doctor: 62% of Patients Vaccinated for COVID Have Permanent Heart Damage

By Brian Shilhavy, July 15, 2021

We have previously covered the story of Dr. Charles Hoffe, the brave doctor who has been practicing medicine for 28 years in the small, rural town of Lytton in British Columbia, Canada. After he had administered about 900 doses of the Moderna experimental mRNA COVID-19 injections, he sounded the alarm over the severe reactions he was observing in his patients who chose to get the shot (he chose NOT to get it himself), which included death.

To the People of Cuba: Is Washington Preparing a “Soft Coup”? The Co-optation of Cuban Intellectuals

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 15, 2021

The Cuban Revolution constitutes a fundamental landmark in the history of humanity, which challenges the legitimacy of global capitalism. In all major regions of the World, the Cuban revolution has been a source of inspiration in the relentless struggle against neo-colonial domination and US imperialism.

Ukraine Reprised: Victoria Nuland Discusses Belarus with Ukrainian Official

By Rick Rozoff, July 15, 2021

Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland held a phone conversation with the Head of the Ukrainian President’s Office Andriy Yermak to discuss what the National News Agency of Ukraine reported was the situation in Belarus. The two were described as having “expressed concern” over developments in Ukraine’s northern neighbor. A nation doesn’t want Nuland to be concerned, much less gravely concerned over its internal affairs given her political track record.

Graphene Meets RNA Technology, for Cancer Vaccines

By Jon Rappoport, July 15, 2021

As soon as Operation Warp Speed was announced, I made it clear that one of the prime goals was: winning approval for experimental RNA technology. RNA tech had never gotten a green light prior to the COVID vaccine. Why? Because it was highly dangerous. Generally speaking, massive inflammatory response was the issue: the body attacks itself.

The Nuclear Race Accelerates

By Manlio Dinucci, July 15, 2021

At the Redzikowo base in Poland, work has begun on the installation of the Aegis Ashore system, at a cost of more than $180 million. It will be the second U.S. missile base in Europe, after that of Deveselu in Romania became operational in 2015. The official function of these bases is to protect, with the “shield” of SM-3 interceptor missiles, the U.S. forces in Europe and those of European NATO allies from “current and emerging ballistic missile threats from outside the Euro-Atlantic area”.

China’s Lead in Artificial Intelligence (AI) Technology and Quantum Computers

By Karsten Riise, July 15, 2021

China is no longer in a position of technological inferiority but instead sees itself as close to catching up with and overtaking the United States in AI. The USA still trots on its idea of yesterday as if it were still the new thing – something called “ informatized” (信息化) warfare. China is conceptually already beyond the US. China now implements “intelligentized” (智能化) warfare.

The SCO’s New Great Game in Central Asia: China’s Economic Corridor into Afghanistan

By Pepe Escobar, July 15, 2021

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi is on a Central Asian loop all through the week. He’s visiting Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. The last two are full members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, founded 20 years ago.

Nota del autor

En octubre de 2010, fue invitado a la casa de Fidel Castro  en las afueras de La Habana para discutir la política exterior de Estados Unidos, los peligros de la guerra nuclear, la crisis económica global y el desarrollo del Nuevo Orden Mundial.

Estos encuentros, que se prolongaron durante varios días, dieron como resultado una amplia y fructífera conversación que fue publicada por Global Research y Cuba Debate.

Debo mencionar que  Fidel Castro era un ávido lector de Global Research. Sus escritos también aparecieron en  nuestro sitio web. 

Si bien Fidel comprendió completamente el papel insidioso de las ONG y las fundaciones filantrópicas en el apoyo a las operaciones encubiertas de injerencia de Washington dentro de Cuba, expresó su esperanza de que hubiera un cambio de rumbo con Obama, a quien tenía gran estima.

Cuando iniciamos nuestras discusiones un martes por la tarde, Fidel ya había leído por completo el libro de Bob Woodward titulado Obama’s Wars, que fue lanzado unos días antes en Washington (expedidos a La Habana en la valija diplomática). 

Cinco años después, en octubre de 2015, regresé a Cuba por invitación del  Centro de Investigaciones de Política Internacional (CIPI ), un centro de investigación y grupo de expertos afiliado al Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores.

Había una sensación de optimismo en el apogeo del segundo mandato de Obama. El tema de la conferencia fue analizar el proceso de transición geopolítica abierto por la reanudación de las relaciones diplomáticas entre Cuba y Estados Unidos.

Durante esa visita, me reuní con varios amigos y colegas (académicos, miembros del parlamento) que estaban muy conscientes del papel encubierto de Washington en la cooptación política. Expresaron su preocupación (octubre de 2015) porque se estaba gestando un llamado Golpe Blando , a saber, “Golpe suave”.

Las sanciones unilaterales nunca se abandonaron. En 2019, Donald Trump instauró el Título III de la Ley Helms Burton de 1996, que desató las sanciones económicas más severas contra Cuba desde que se introdujo el bloqueo por primera vez en 1962.

Tras el acceso de Biden a la Casa Blanca, el bloqueo se mantuvo a pesar del voto de la Asamblea General de la ONU  (184 a favor 3 en contra) exigiendo el fin del bloqueo económico de 60 años de Estados Unidos a Cuba.

La crisis del Covid-19

Pero hay otra cuestión importante que se ha pasado por alto en gran medida. La narrativa del covid-19, así como sus diversas políticas (incluyendo la vacuna) se han convertido en una parte integral de la política exterior de Estados Unidos bajo la administración de Biden.

La crisis de Covid tiene obvias implicaciones geopolíticas. Constituye un medio para desestabilizar países que no se ajustan a los dictados del capitalismo global. En toda América Latina es fuente de caos económico y social. También es un medio para desestabilizar a los gobiernos progresistas en todo el continente, incluidos Venezuela, Cuba y México.

En este sentido, el encierre del Covid-19 (confinamiento) de marzo de 2020 ordenado por las altas esferas del establecimiento financiero ha destruido literalmente la economía cubana, específicamente la industria turística, que es la principal fuente de divisas del país.

El “confinamiento”  y la vacuna Covid-19 se presentan a la opinión pública como un medio para proteger la vida de la población. Eso es una mentira descarada. 

El llamado  “confinamiento” covid-19 en fecha del 11 de marzo de 2020 que condujo al “cierre” simultáneo de 190 economías nacionales fue un acto deliberado de sabotaje económico, social y político.

Con respecto a Cuba, la crisis del Covid-19 ha causado estragos. Lo abarca todo. Se extiende más allá del régimen de sanciones de Estados Unidos que el gobierno cubano ha manejado de manera efectiva durante los últimos 59 años.

El  confinamiento Covid-19 ha debilitado las instituciones del país, ha creado divisiones sociales, ha empobrecido a la población de Cuba. También ha creado condiciones para una posible “revolución del color” (operación encubierta llevado por EEUU).

Sin embargo, al mismo tiempo, la legitimidad de la narrativa de Covid-19, que emana de Washington y Wall Street, ha sido aceptada y respaldada por el pueblo cubano y su gobierno.

Desafortunadamente, a pesar del fraude y las falsedades científicas ampliamente documentadas, la narrativa de Covid-19  ha sido respaldada por “progresistas” en toda América Latina. Esto, a su vez, ha llevado a declaraciones erróneas por parte de la Izquierda sobre las causas del movimiento de protesta en Cuba. El enfoque subyacente se centra únicamente en el bloqueo y el regimen de sanciones impuestos por EEUU como causa de la escasez de alimentos, la pobreza y el desempleo. Los devastadores impactos sociales y económicos del “confinamiento covid” que está socavando los logros de la Revolución Cubana no son motivo de análisis.

 

Michel Chossudovsky , Día de la Bastilla, 14 de julio de 2021

***

A la luz de los desarrollos recientes, incluida la erupción de movimientos de protesta, Global Research está volviendo a publicar mi artículo publicado en noviembre de 2016.

 

 

Michel Chossudovsky , Día de la Bastilla, 14 de julio de 2021

***

Al pueblo de Cuba: ¿Está Washington orquestando un “golpe blando”? La cooptación de los intelectuales cubanos

por Michel Chossudovsky

Noviembre de 2016

Al pueblo de Cuba:

La Revolución cubana representa un hito fundamental en la historia de la Humanidad, pues cuestiona la legitimidad del capitalismo mundial. En las principales regiones del mundo, la Revolución cubana ha sido fuente de inspiración en la lucha implacable contra la dominación neo-colonial y el imperialismo estadounidense.

Hoy el mundo se encuentra en una encrucijada crítica. En este momento de nuestra historia, la mayoría de los movimientos progresistas “auténticamente” comprometidos con el socialismo han sido destruidos y derrotados por Estados Unidos y la Organización del Tratado de Atlántico Norte (OTAN) a través de guerras, intervenciones militares, campañas de desestabilización, cambios de régimen, golpes de Estado, “golpes “blandos”.

Los movimientos progresistas así como “la Izquierda” en Europa Occidental y Estados Unidos, en gran medida han sido cooptados, financiados regularmente por fundaciones empresariales de élite.

El proyecto socialista en Cuba, sin embargo, prevalece a pesar del bloqueo económico impuesto por Estados Unidos, las operaciones de espionaje de la Agencia Central de Inteligencia (CIA, por sus siglas en inglés) y las triquiñuelas políticas.

Mientras el legado de Fidel Castro viva, no nos hagamos ilusiones, la intención de Washington no se restringirá solamente a la destrucción de la Revolución cubana, sino también buscará borrar la historia del socialismo.

Diseño diabólico elaborado en Washington

Actualmente hay indicios de que los políticos de Washington contemplan un “cambio de régimen” en Cuba. La administración Trump ha sido contundente en este sentido. Las repercusiones se harán sentir en toda América Latina.

Durante la campaña electoral, Trump “se comprometió a revertir la orden ejecutiva del presidente Obama presentada como “La normalización Estados Unidos-Cuba” (una misiva conformada por 12 páginas oficialmente conocida como “PPD-43”). (The Nation, Octubre 2017). Sin declaración alguna sobre el tema tras su inauguración presidencial, Trump aún no lleva a cabo la medida.

Es importante destacar la decisión de Trump de colocar a la doctora Judy Shelton al frente de la Fundación Nacional para la Democracia (NED, por sus siglas en inglés), un ‘think-tank’ financiado y encaminado a incentivar cambios de régimen. Como ex vicepresidente de la NED, Shelton estuvo “directamente involucrada en legitimar el otorgamiento de préstamos respaldados por Estados Unidos para la subversión en Cuba como parte de un plan que durante décadas ha buscado derrocar al gobierno de La Habana y ampliar la hegemonía estadounidense en la región caribeña”.

En cuanto a “La normalización Estados Unidos-Cuba” pensada por la administración de Trump, no cabe duda de que se trata de un intento de restauración del capitalismo a través de actos de sedición, infiltración, etc., combinados a su vez con la imposición de reformas económicas de tipo neoliberal, incluyendo una “poderosa medicina económica” que sería administrada por el Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI). El aspecto crucial es cómo es que Cuba y el pueblo cubano, en el contexto actual, van a responder a estas amenazas.

¿Cómo planea Washington llevar a cabo este plan? Fundamentalmente a través de:

1) Medidas que contribuyan a desestabilizar la economía cubana y su sistema monetario.

2) Procedimientos que conduzcan a una eventual incrustación de la economía cubana en el entramado del FMI, el Banco Mundial y la Organización Mundial de Comercio (OMC), incluida una serie de condicionamientos políticos que desmantelen los programas sociales en Cuba, el racionamiento de los bienes de consumo esenciales, etc.

3) Para alcanzar sus objetivos, Washington y sus aliados europeos han concebido durante años diversos mecanismos encubiertos de infiltración y cooptación con el fin de influir en los responsables políticos en el gobierno, los directivos de las empresas del sector público, así como en los intelectuales. En este sentido, Washington depende también de sus socios europeos que mantienen relaciones bilaterales con Cuba.

 

Fidel Castro Ruz y Michel Chossudovsky, Octubre de 2010

Este artículo se va a concentrar, fundamentalmente, en las actividades del ala derecha europea a través de fundaciones implicadas en el financiamiento de grupos de expertos y centros de investigación de origen cubano.

El objetivo es la cooptación de investigadores, académicos e intelectuales. El plan consiste en construir una “nueva normalidad” que abonará el camino para la incrustación del socialismo cubano en la lógica del capitalismo mundial. Mientras se mantiene la narrativa socialista, este proceso pretende en último término socavar la Revolución cubana, abriendo la puerta a la desregulación económica, la inversión extranjera y la privatización. El “visto bueno” de esta “nueva normalidad” entre los intelectuales cubanos es crucial para alcanzar el objetivo de la restauración capitalista.

Antecedentes: El intervencionismo de Estados Unidos

En los últimos años, las modalidades de intervencionismo de Estados Unidos han cambiado radicalmente: El impulso de la política exterior de Estados Unidos consiste en buena medida en la desestabilización de países soberanos a través de un proceso de “cambio de régimen” (también conocido como “revolución de color”). Este último consiste en la desestabilización de la economía local, la manipulación de las elecciones nacionales, la cooptación de intelectuales de izquierda, el soborno de líderes políticos, el financiamiento de los partidos de la oposición, violencia y apuntalamiento de los movimientos de protesta.

En América Latina, las dictaduras militares pro-estadounidenses han sido sustituidas por “democracias” pro-estadounidenses. A su vez, las reformas económicas neoliberales, bajo la dirección del Banco Mundial y el FMI, han servido para empobrecer a la población, produciendo así condiciones que favorecen la protesta, así como las luchas sociales y políticas.

Además del fraude en las elecciones en América Latina y el apuntalamiento de los movimientos de protesta, la cooptación de intelectuales de izquierda es financiada tanto por Estados Unidos, fundaciones europeas y Organizaciones No Gubernamentales (ONG), con fuertes vínculos con los aparatos de inteligencia estadounidense.

La Fundación Nacional para la Democracia (NED) creada en 1983 junto con otras fundaciones con sede en Estados Unidos ha tomado la batuta. Oficialmente, el mandato de la NED consiste en promover la democracia y los derechos humanos en los países en desarrollo.

Pero en realidad, la NED es un brazo no oficial de la CIA. Según el ex presidente de la NED, Carl Gershman:

“Sería terrible para los grupos democráticos de todo el mundo ser vistos como entes subvencionados por la CIA… no hemos tenido la capacidad de hacer esto, y es por eso que se ha creado la Fundación”.

En palabras del primer presidente de la NED, Alan Weinstein: “Mucho de lo que hacemos hoy ya se hacía hace 25 años por la CIA pero de forma encubierta” (The Washington Post, 22 de septiembre de 1991).

El Proyecto NED en Cuba: Intromisión a través de la “puerta trasera”

Mientras que la NED está prohibida en Cuba, no obstante realiza operaciones de financiamiento de modo indirecto -a través de fundaciones y diversas ONG ubicadas en Florida- en un gran número de los denominados “proyectos de la democracia”. Muchos de estos socios (localizados en Estados Unidos), que incluyen la Dirección Democrática Cubana (Directorio), el Instituto Cubano por la Libertad de Expresión y Prensa, y el Observatorio Cubano de Derechos Humanos, tienen vínculos con los servicios de inteligencia estadounidense. Históricamente, la NED ha funcionado a través de socios de la Unión Europea con vínculos bilaterales formales con Cuba.

En relación a Alemania, la Fundación Friedrich Ebert (vinculada al Partido Socialdemócrata), el Hans Böll Stiftung (Partido Verde) y la Hanns Seidel Stiftung (vinculada al ala derecha del Partido Demócrata Cristiano de Baviera (CSU)) mantienen acuerdos con Cuba.

Agente de Estados Unidos: La Fundación Hanns Seidel es un instrumento del ala derecha del partido CSU de Baviera

Este ensayo se centrará principalmente en el papel de la Fundación Hanns Seidel, haciendo referencia específicamente al papel que ha desempeñado en Cuba y Venezuela.

La Hanns Seidel Stiftung (HSS), a través de la derecha Baviera CSU, tiene una relación directa con el gobierno de Angela Merkel que, en muchos aspectos, es considerada un agente al servicio de Estados Unidos Históricamente, las actividades de la HSS han abarcado el apoyo a las políticas intervencionistas puestas en marcha por el ala derecha europea.

Muchas de las actividades de la HSS en los países en desarrollo así como en Europa del Este, se efectúan en colaboración con fundaciones estadounidenses, incluyendo la NED y la Fundación Open Society. La HSS también tiene vínculos con una gran variedad de grupos de pensamiento, incluyendo Chatham House (Instituto Real de Asuntos Internacionales) y el American Enterprise Institute. Es organizadora de conferencias, así como de programas de capacitación en colaboración con la OTAN, la Unión Europea y el gobierno alemán.

La Hanns Seidel Stiftung (HSS) ha intervenido en muchos países, de forma regular lo hace en colaboración con la NED y el Departamento de Estado de Estados Unidos. A principios de la década de 1990 participó en la llamada “revolución naranja” en Ucrania, provocando pobreza masiva y desestabilización de la economía ucraniana.

Más recientemente, la Hanns Seidel (HSS) ha construido fuertes vínculos con el régimen actual de Kiev, en gran parte con el fin de hacer frente a Moscú y llevar adelante la desestabilización de Donbass.

La HSS a través de su oficina de Washington realiza consultas de forma recurrente con el gobierno de Estados Unidos, el Congreso, grupos de expertos, incluidas las principales fundaciones asociadas.

HSS sigue manteniendo estrechos vínculos con el régimen de Kiev el cual, hay que decirlo, está integrado por dos bloques neonazis. La CSU y el HSS tienen vínculos informales con el servicio de inteligencia alemán, la Bundes Nachrichtendienst (BND).

Una de las principales actividades de la Fundación Hanns Seidel ha sido la cooptación de intelectuales de izquierda y académicos. Esto se ha llevado a cabo a través del financiamiento de grupos de pensamiento que están detrás de la toma de decisiones políticas clave así como de los institutos de investigación.

La Fundación Hanns Seidel en Venezuela

Es importante destacar que la Fundación Hanns Seidel (HSS) participó activamente en el financiamiento del candidato opositor Henrique Capriles Radonski en las elecciones de Venezuela el año 2012. Sus actividades se extienden mucho más allá de su apoyo a la candidatura de Capriles. En su informe trimestral, la HSS reconoce abiertamente su inconformidad con el proceso bolivariano. En este sentido, el HSS participó en la organización de una serie de conferencias en contra del gobierno [venezolano], en buena medida con el objetivo de defender el capitalismo de libre mercado (neoliberalismo) y desprestigiar al gobierno de Chávez. La HSS se utilizó también para crear vínculos con los partidos de derecha, incluyendo Copei y Primero Justicia.

Vale la pena señalar que hace más de 40 años, los partidos CDU y CSU (a la que la Fundación Hanns Seidel está afiliada) estaban involucrados en el otorgamiento de apoyos financieros a los protagonistas del golpe militar contra el presidente [de Chile] Salvador Allende. Y como consecuencia del golpe, luego proporcionaron ayuda económica al gobierno militar de Augusto Pinochet.

La HSS aún está involucrada en Venezuela, financiando una serie de proyectos. Su objetivo declarado es la desestabilización del gobierno bolivariano.

La Hanns Seidel, en representación de la CSU de Baviera, está metida además en el escenario político de varios países latinoamericanos como Ecuador, Colombia, Argentina y Bolivia. En Ecuador, la CSU a través la Hanns Seidel está cooperando con la Corporación Autogobierno y Democracia, la Fundación Acción y Desarrollo Comunitario (ACDECOM) y otras organizaciones de este tipo.

La Fundación Hanns Seidel en Cuba

Ahora voy a colocar el foco de atención en Cuba, centrándome en una actividad específica de la Fundación Hanns Seidel en la que yo estuve involucrado personalmente.

En octubre de 2015, fui invitado a participar en un evento internacional del Centro de Investigaciones de Política Internacional (CIPI), un centro de investigación y ‘think-tank’ que está afiliado al Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores. El tema de la conferencia fue analizar el proceso de transición geopolítica de cara a la normalización de las relaciones diplomáticas entre Cuba y Estados Unidos.

El evento llevaba el título: Transición geopolítica del poder global: Entre la cooperación y el conflicto

El evento fue financiado por la Hanns Seidel Stiftung. Se invitó a estudiosos de Europa Occidental, América Latina, África, Estados Unidos y Canadá.

Pocas semanas después de que acepté participar en el evento organizado por el CIPI, recibí un mensaje de la Fundación Hanns Seidel Stiftung informándome que el evento estaba siendo auspiciado por ellos y que estaban dispuestos a financiar la totalidad de mis gastos, incluyendo honorarios. El mensaje señalaba que iban a estar en contacto conmigo para tratar todos los asuntos relacionados con el contrato. También me pidieron que presentara una “propuesta de servicios” (oferta por mis servicios profesionales).

Yo estaba plenamente consciente de la historia detrás de la HSS, especialmente tenía conocimiento de la forma en que habían intervenido en las elecciones presidenciales de Venezuela de 2012 a favor de Capriles Radonski, con el fin de socavar en último término, a Hugo Chávez.

Me quedé muy sorprendido por el hecho de que la CIPI había solicitado fondos de la HSS. La intención de la HSS (actuando en nombre de la CSU de Baviera, un partido de derecha), en colaboración con sus organizaciones asociadas en Washington no era otro sino borrar del mapa el socialismo de Cuba. Todo esto a través de la cooptación de académicos e intelectuales cubanos para, después, dar paso a un proceso de transformación política de gran calado.

Respondí a la invitación HSS señalando tanto a ellos como a los organizadores del CIPI que yo mismo iba a ocuparme del financiamiento de mis gastos de viaje y alojamiento y que no veía ninguna necesidad de recibir financiamiento de parte de la HSS. Esta decisión generó confusión a lo largo de mi participación en la conferencia.

La conferencia de octubre en el año 2015

Lo que ocurrió: Hubieron muy buenas intervenciones de parte de destacados académicos y científicos cubanos y latinoamericanos sobre una gran variedad de temas de relevancia. Pero había varios hoyos negros en el programa [del evento], relacionados sin lugar a dudas con el hecho de que la HSS, vinculada a la CSU de Baviera, era quien estaba financiando el encuentro y, con ello, conseguido imponer sus propias condiciones.

1. Uno de los paneles de discusión tremendamente importante durante la conferencia fue el que abordó la realidad venezolana, centrándose en el futuro del gobierno bolivariano y su relación histórica con Cuba.

Sorprendentemente, ni un solo participante de Venezuela había sido invitado a la conferencia, con lo cual, se saboteó todo diálogo y debate entre los intelectuales de Cuba y Venezuela.

Todas las ponencias sobre Venezuela fueron de estudiosos de origen cubano.

Sin duda, la HSS había bloqueado la invitación de los intelectuales progresistas venezolanos comprometidos con la revolución bolivariana. El tema de la conferencia (es decir, la transición y la normalización con Estados Unidos) es de importancia crucial tanto para Cuba como para Venezuela.

Debe entenderse que, en el contexto actual, el futuro del socialismo cubano depende en gran medida del mantenimiento y la construcción de [buenas] relaciones entre Cuba y Venezuela en el marco de la revolución bolivariana. Así, la HSS se empeñó en negar diálogo político y debate entre los intelectuales de Cuba y Venezuela. El objetivo de la HSS era torpedear y debilitar la larga relación entre Cuba y el gobierno bolivariano de Venezuela. Irónicamente, nadie entre los organizadores y los participantes cubanos estaba al tanto de las triquiñuelas políticas que la Fundación Hanns Seidel había cometido en Venezuela.

En contraste, el panel de discusión sobre México incluyó cuatro distinguidos académicos de México. Había una delegación numerosa de mexicanos, así como de otros países de América Latina. Pero no se invitó a un solo venezolano.

2. En la sesión de la política exterior de Estados Unidos se incluyó al académico israelí Yossi Mekelberg, asociado con Chatham House, Instituto Real de Asuntos Internacionales (Reino Unido), un grupo de pensamiento de origen británico súper reaccionario, vinculado con el Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores (CFR, por sus siglas en inglés) con sede en Washington.

La ponencia del académico israelí puso de relieve una interpretación sesgada de lo que estaba ocurriendo en Siria y Palestina. La insurgencia terrorista comandada por Estados Unidos en Siria se presentó casualmente como una “guerra civil”, los palestinos fueron tachados de terroristas, y el presidente Bashar al Assad fue acusado de matar a su propia gente, de la misma forma que lo han venido acusando los medios de comunicación corporativos de Estados Unidos y el Reino Unido.

De acuerdo con Mekelberg, citado por la revista Newsweek, el ISIS “se parece” a los palestinos:

http://europe.newsweek.com/netanyahu-ramming-atttacks-isis-palestinians-inspired-541097?rm=eu

Los académicos cubanos que participaban en este panel de discusión no se tomaron ni siquiera la molestia de responder o expresar su desacuerdo.

La pregunta es ¿Por qué este individuo (afiliado a la Chatham House, de apoyo del régimen sionista de Tel Aviv) es invitado a la Cuba socialista por un centro de investigación asociado con el Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores de Cuba?

Históricamente, Cuba ha hecho patente su solidaridad con Palestina, lo mismo con las luchas de los pueblos de Siria e Irak, que actualmente son blancos de actos de agresión militar de parte de Estados Unidos y la OTAN.

¿Por qué no invitar a un experto socialista comprometido de origen palestino a debatir la política exterior de Estados Unidos? ¿O es que haberlo hecho contravenía las condiciones impuestas por el ala derecha de CSU de Baviera a través de la Fundación Hanns Seidel (HSS)?

3. Otro panel de discusión se centró en el tema de Ucrania. Entre los participantes se encontraba el presidente del Instituto Internacional para la Paz con sede en Viena, el profesor Hannes Swoboda, un (ex) miembro del Parlamento Europeo. Swoboda esbozó su apoyo a las operaciones de Estados Unidos y la OTAN en Europa del Este dirigidas en contra de Rusia, así como su respaldo al actual régimen de Kiev (integrado por dos bloques neonazis). Tampoco hubo reacción de parte de los intelectuales cubanos que participaron en esta discusión.

No lo olvidemos, el gobierno cubano ha expresado su solidaridad con el pueblo de Donbass y Crimea. A su vez, la gente de Donbass hizo expresa su solidaridad con Cuba y las enseñanzas de Fidel Castro (Véase más adelante). Pero nada de esto fue uno de los temas a discutir dentro de la conferencia organizada por el CIPI.

En palabras de Fidel Castro:

Cuba, que siempre ha destacado su solidaridad con el pueblo de Ucrania, y en los días difíciles de la tragedia de Chernóbil proporcionado atención médica a muchos niños afectados por la radiación nociva producto del accidente, siempre dispuesta a seguirlo haciendo, no puede dejar de expresar su repudio a la acción del gobierno anti-ruso, anti-ucraniano y pro-imperialista [Kiev]. (14 de julio de 2014)

Hannes Swoboda, invitado a Cuba por el CIPI es, ni más ni menos, un “anti-ruso, anti-ucraniano y pro-imperialista”. Como eurodiputado, inició (junto con otros diputados) las gestiones en el Parlamento Europeo para avalar las incursiones de la OTAN en contra de  Rusia, solicitando apoyo para el régimen ilegítimo Kiev. (Véase abajo)

Reflexiones finales: El legado de Fidel Castro                

Deseo sinceramente que los argumentos esgrimidos en el presente artículo sean puestos a discusión en Cuba. El gobierno cubano tiene por misión proteger los logros de la Revolución. En el contexto actual, esta no es una tarea sencilla. Como se ha señalado en la introducción, Washington tiene la intención no solamente de destruir la Revolución cubana, sino de borrar toda la historia del socialismo.

La intención de las fundaciones occidentales -operando directa o indirectamente, en nombre de Washington- no es otra sino la de producir grietas al interior de la sociedad cubana, a través de la infiltración y la cooptación, cuyo objetivo último es la restauración del capitalismo.

Estos mecanismos también se ven facilitados por el sistema de doble moneda en Cuba, situación que ha permitido a la Hanns Seidel y otras fundaciones europeas realizar pagos a grupos de pensamiento e institutos de investigación de origen cubano en moneda convertible (CUC).

El incremento de la “dolarización” entre los precios de consumo al por menor (expresado en CUC) propicia el empobrecimiento y las desigualdades sociales.

Los cubanos están muy conscientes de la escalada de esta crisis: las personas que obtienen ingresos en pesos convertibles CUC han ganado poder adquisitivo. Por el contrario, aquellos cuyos ingresos están denominados en pesos cubanos no convertibles, se han visto marginados de la economía de consumo en CUC.

La estrategia de amplio espectro ejecutada por Washington es la de poner en marcha medidas que contribuyan a desestabilizar la economía cubana y su sistema monetario, es decir, cualquier acción orientada a reintegrar a Cuba en una economía dolarizada mundial.

Las medidas de Washington contemplan además reintegrar a la economía cubana a la larga en el entramado del FMI, el Banco Mundial y la OMC, incluida la imposición de condicionalidades como parte de las políticas dirigidas hacia el desmantelamiento de los programas sociales de Cuba, el racionamiento de los bienes de consumo esenciales, etc.

Es decisivo poner un alto a todas estas iniciativas. El debate y la discusión sobre los mecanismos de la “normalización capitalista” son cruciales, tanto en Cuba como en el plano internacional.

Es que una narrativa revolucionaria en sí misma no puede soportar el legado de Fidel, a menos que esté respaldada por acciones concretas y políticas diseñadas cuidadosamente.

Los mecanismos de la restauración capitalista así como los distintos modos de interferencia política y de ingeniería social deben abordarse con firmeza y seriedad.

La batalla contra la guerra y el neoliberalismo sigue en pie.

Por la erradicación del neoliberalismo y la militarización que destruye las vidas de las personas,

Por la penalización absoluta de las guerras imperiales impulsadas por Estados Unidos,

Por un mundo de justicia social con una auténtica “responsabilidad de proteger” a los demás seres humanos,

Larga vida a Fidel Castro Ruz

Michel Chossudovsky

Artículo original en inglés:

To the People of Cuba: Is Washington Preparing a “Soft Coup”? The Co-optation of Cuban Intellectuals, publicado el 6 de marzo de 2017.

Traducido por Ariel Noyola Rodríguez para el Centro de Investigación sobre la Globalización (Global Research).

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

On July 11, an outstanding news shook the world. The space race between two notorious millionaires Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson, was allegedly won by the latter. Branson went up into space nine days before Bezos. In response, Blue Origin refused to recognize Virgin Galactic’s voyage as a space flight.

From the beginning, New Shepard was designed to fly above the Kármán line so none of our astronauts have an asterisk next to their name. For 96% of the world’s population, space begins 100 km up at the internationally recognized Kármán line. pic.twitter.com/QRoufBIrUJ

— Blue Origin (@blueorigin) July 9, 2021

Unfortunately, a closer look at such incredible news should make readers more disappointed than impressed. In fact, even despite the wide popularization in recent years, nothing has happened in the field of space exploration for decades, nothing other than large PR campaigns.

Today is July 12th, 2021. The end of the first quarter of the 21st century is approaching. The first satellite was launched more than 60 years ago, back in 1957. The first man went into space in 1961. Americans landed on the Moon in 1969.  A major breakthrough was made in 1977, when a space probe U.S. Voyager 2 was launched to study the outer planets and interstellar space beyond the Sun’s heliosphere. It reached Uranus back in 1986 and Neptune in 1989.

This series of revolutionary discoveries ended with decades of fiasco. What happened next? A small US satellite called New Horizon, which is almost twice as light as Voyager 2, was launched directly to Pluto only 25 years later, and reached it in 2015.

The real aim of this “historical mission” can be seen in the stuff that the probe was filled with. A place that could be used to install more scientific equipment on board of the New Horizon was used for displacement of:

• a capsule with ashes of astronomer Clyde Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto,
• a CD with 434,738 names of people who participated in the NASA campaign “Send Your Name to Pluto”,
• two coins,
• two US flags,
• a fragment of the first inhabited private spacecraft Space Ship One,
• a CD with photos of the device and its developers,
• a US stamp of 1990 “Pluto: Not Yet Explored”.

What did those who sent this stuff into outer space think about? Did they expect that the American coin, flags and some ash would impress a potential outer space civilization, which might collide with this half-ton piece of metal somewhere beyond our galaxy? Obviously not. There are much less dummies in NASA than in the White House. Unfortunately, NASA reports to the White House, and not vice versa.

Sending trash to the outer space by the New Horizon was a large PR campaign, designed to shake up the information net on Earth. Indeed, the Voyager 2 was sent for scientific purposes. The New Horizon launched had two main goals:

• money laundering;
• shaking the global MSM.

Thus, today, there is nothing more than another campaign aimed at shaking of the global net, which serves as a bouncy castle for two representatives of the global oligarchy, Bezos and Branson, accompanied by Musk.

Branson, who published his famous book “Loosing My Virginity” back in 1998, finally built a super rocket and managed to rise it to an altitude of less then 100 km, making the second acrobat Bezos pitching a fit. What a sensational news in 2021!

Let’s remember the legendary epic “2001: a Space Odyssey”, filmed back in 1968 by Stanley Kubrick, such geniuses of science fiction as Arthur Clarke, Azik Azimov, Robert Heinlein, Stanislav Lem, Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, Ivan Efremov and others. All of them, who evaluated the potential directions of intensive mankind evolution in the second half of the 20th century, could not imagine that in 2021 Bezos&Branson PR would replace all really important achievements in the outer space exploration.

The social processes we are facing today are not an organic way of evolution, but they are deliberately moderated, since harnessing the energy of the solar system would dramatically change our reality. Overcoming of the closed system we are living in is the only way to achieve the real implementation of the ideal of universal equality, which socialists dreamed of in the second half of the 19th century.

The ability to go up into space not at someone’s own whim, but to achieve the common good, available to those who deserve it because of their knowledge, desires and physical capabilities and not because of their wallets, is what human progress is missing, while following the elite’s child play.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Featured image is from South Front

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In a new ruling read out in a Dutch courtroom yesterday, the judge presiding in the trial of allegations against the Russian state, military command and four named soldiers for shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 revealed new details of the US evidence allegedly proving that a Russian missile caused the crash. The judge, Hendrik Steenhuis, then refused to allow the lawyers representing the Russian defence to cross-examine the man from the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) who, Steenhuis now says,  signed his name to the evidence and has been sought for questioning. According to Steenhuis, questioning him would be “pointless”.

The allegation that a US satellite recorded the launch of a Russian-made BUK missile and then tracked it to detonation against MH17 on July 17, 2014, began in Washington not long after the incident. It originated with then-Secretary of State John Kerry. Kerry has subsequently refused to substantiate his allegation. The US government has repeatedly refused to provide Dutch investigators of the crash with the satellite images. For the full story, read the book.

Left: Secretary of State John Kerry announced his claim to have seen US satellite images of the BUK attack on MH17 in Washington on July 20, 2014; he repeated the allegation in Australia on August 12, 2014. Centre:  the book refuting Kerry’s claim; it was published on October 1, 2020, and is available in Kindle and paperback.  Right: Dutch General Onno Eichelsheim whose military intelligence reports have contradicted Kerry’s allegations. In January of this year Eichelsheim was promoted to become chief of the Dutch Armed Forces.

There is explicit Dutch intelligence evidence available in the book that the US has been lying about what the satellite records show, and reason to believe they do not exist at all. This is because the classified US images have never been provided to the Dutch military intelligence agency MIVD which has requested them, nor to the Dutch police and prosecutors who have been trying to convict the Russians of premeditated murder in the shoot-down.

According to the MH17 trial record to date, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) in Washington sent a memorandum to MIVD in The Hague, dated August 23, 2016; this claimed to prove that a Russian-made and Russian-fired BUK (also known as SA-11A) missile destroyed the MH17 in flight above eastern Ukraine.  However, since that date in mid-2016, US officials have refused to allow the evidence of the satellite images, or the details of the secret memorandum from being repeated, tested, and verified by the Dutch investigators and judges who have been requesting the evidence for several years. Read more on Steenhuis’s court statement on this issue last month here.

*

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

All images in this article are from Dances with Bears

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

‘President Joe Biden may be nearly done with America’s two-decade military involvement in Afghanistan, but another nearby war zone, where U.S. troops have been based for almost as long, is threatening to become a major thorn in the White House’s side: Iraq’, says Foreign Policy in its Situation Report on July 8, 2021, entitled ‘Red Alert in Iraq’. This comes after two fairly heated weeks in Iraq and Syria, where an escalation in the resistance groups operations against American troops was noticeable, both in frequency and in nature.

For instance, on Wednesday, July 7, 14 rockets hit Ain al-Assad Air Base, the largest military installation in Iraq housing U.S. troops, wounding at least two American soldiers. Another suicide drone attack, a day before, targeted U.S. forces based in Erbil airport, not far from where the U.S. consulate is located. Also, there were multiple improvised explosive device (IED) attacks against convoys transporting U.S. military logistic supplies, that took place in various Iraqi towns and cities in recent weeks.

Meanwhile, in Eastern Syria, U.S. occupation forces were busy fending off suicide drone and rocket attacks targeting al-Omar oilfield and nearby areas. Al-Omar oilfield is the largest in the country, and It is invested with both the U.S. forces and their collaborators  the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

No American soldiers have been killed in these recent intense activities in Iraq and Syria. However, Michael Knights, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, explains ‘It’s already very intense. The strikes aren’t killing people, but they could, easily, if they want them to’, and he adds ‘The missile defences are quietly working quite well. But what we haven’t seen is determined efforts to kill Americans’.

Many analysts consider this escalation a retaliation for the second round of U.S. airstrikes under Biden’s administration on June 27. Those airstrikes used the pretext ‘Iran-backed militia’, although in reality, they targeted a static Iraqi-Syrian border position of the Iraqi security forces (Popular Mobilisation Forces) under Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi, killing four members of brigade 14 of the PMF.

While agreeing with this analysis in principle, I believe widening the scope would put the latest events in the broader context they deserve.

It is quite clear that Biden’s administration’s main foreign policy strategy, and indeed the U.S. establishment’s attitude in general of late, is to concentrate its overseas efforts on opposing the rise of China and Russia:  what Biden dubbed defending and strengthening democracy. This focus shift first took shape during Obama’s days in 2012 with his (unsuccessful) ‘Pivot to Asia’ policy and it has remained in principal a U.S. foreign policy objective since. But this shift naturally requires an improved allocation of U.S. resources.

Thus, when Biden came to power, he followed in the steps of his two predecessors in aiming to disengage from the ‘Middle East’ and West Asia in general as much as possible.

As the QUINCY Paper No. 7 entitled ‘Nothing Much to Do: Why America Can Bring All Troops Home From the Middle East’, published on June 24, 2021, poses the question ‘Three successive American Presidents — Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden — have pledged to end the post 9/11 wars and reunite U.S. soldiers with their families.

Yet, fulfilling that pledge has proven tougher than expected. Do U.S. interests in the region require so much of the U.S. military that full-scale withdrawals are not feasible?’. The paper argued that ‘the United States has no compelling military need to keep a permanent troop presence in the Middle East.

The two core U.S. interests in the region — preventing a hostile hegemony and ensuring the free flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz — can be achieved without a permanent military presence. There are no plausible paths for an adversary, regional or extra-regional, to achieve a situation that would harm these core U.S. interests. No country can plausibly establish hegemony in the Middle East, nor can a regional power close the Strait of Hormuz and strangle the flow of oil. To the extent that the United States might need to intervene militarily, it would not need a permanent military presence in the region to do so’.

The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, to be presumably fully completed by September 2021, was the first manifestation of Biden’s drawdown policy from West Asia. However, when it came to Iraq and Syria, the equations were quite different.

Despite Biden’s pledge to return to the JCPOA in his election campaign, there was an assessment that was widely spread between Iranian officials which says that the Biden administration would capitalise on Trump’s ‘maximum pressure’ policy to extract concessions from Iran, before re-joining the JCPOA. Those concessions are related to two aspects:

• Change in Iran’s foreign policy, especially its support for resistance groups in the region. This is to  the benefit of the Zionist entity, which remains a core influence on U.S. foreign policy.
• Imposing restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missiles programme.

This American approach became apparent after Biden took office, and during the latest Vienna talks to salvage the nuclear deal. However, contrary to Biden’s false assumptions, the Americans found out that Iran will not give them any concessions, and that it meant what it said when Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei stated back in 2015 ‘We negotiated with the U.S. on the nuclear issue for specific reasons. The Americans performed well in the talks, but we didn’t and we won’t allow negotiation with the Americans on other issues’.

This has put the Americans in a quandary. Biden found that he could not withdraw from Iraq and Syria without getting guarantees from Iran and the Axis of Resistance related to the security of the Zionist entity, as the Axis of Resistance will never offer any guarantees at the expense of the Palestinians’ inalienable rights. Nor could Biden maintain the same level of American involvement in the ‘Middle East’ indefinitely. As this would be at the expense of the main U.S. foreign policy strategy, “Facing the Chinese challenge”, according to the terminology the  U.S. uses.

Furthermore, this American quandary has deepened after the battle of the ‘Sword of Jerusalem’ exposed many of the Zionist Entity’s [Israel]  weaknesses tactically and strategically in the face of the Axis of Resistance.

Based on this overview, we can expect a fairly heated summer for the U.S. occupation forces in the region, as from the Axis of Resistance point of view, the negotiations for the American withdrawal from the ‘Middle East’ and West Asia in general are not open-ended.

And it seems that the U.S. needs a nudge to decide whether: to start a meaningful and peaceful drawdown, with minimal losses; or risk a new ‘Middle East’ all-out war by trying to impose its sovereign will on the whole region.

And I believe, based on the Americans’ experience of the past two decades, that the consensus within the U.S. institutes is that the latter option would be highly costly. Not to mention that based on the current balance of powers in the region, as we read them, the outcome is not guaranteed to be in the favour of the U.S., nor in the favour of  “Israel” its closest ally.

*

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

Amro Allan ( [email protected]), is an independent Palestinian writer and Political researcher. He writes for various Arabic news outlets, some of which are Al-Akhbar newspaper, Al-Mayadeen Satellite News Channel, Arabi 21, and Rai Al-Youm.

Featured image: U.S. transfers an airfield to Iraqi government forces in 2020. Credit: public domain

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Dr. Leana Wen, CNN analyst and Distinguished Fellow at the Fitzhugh Mullan Institute of Health Workforce Equity at George Washington University, has caused a stir due to her recent declaration on CNN that “it needs to be hard for people to remain unvaccinated.” With France implementing a mandatory “health pass” and private companies like Morgan Stanley requiring vaccinations for employees to return to work, we can expect more protests and challenges around the world. Those cases are likely to focus on whether mandatory requirements are based on medical or political imperatives. Wen’s comment is likely to be repeated in many filings as another case of “saying the quiet part out loud.” She appears to advocate measures defined to coerce people to take vaccinations due to the continuing refusal of a sizable number of people.

Wen is a well-known medical analyst and the former head of Planned Parenthood. She is a visiting professor at George Washington University.

Wen made clear that health measures should be used to make life hard for people who refuse the vaccine so that they yield to public demands: “[b]asically, we need to make getting vaccinated the easy choice.” In the Washington Post, Wen also called for “Biden to make the case for vaccine requirements.”

There is already open pressure from the White House on private companies to require vaccinations. Morgan Stanley responded by doing just that this week. They can likely do so. The most serious challenges could come from those with religious objections. However, even if they are allowed to work remotely, Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman stated in July that “If you want to get paid New York rates, you work in New York. None of this, ‘I’m in Colorado…and getting paid like I’m sitting in New York City. Sorry, that doesn’t work.” The message could not be clearer that working remotely will come at a penalty.

The Biden White House is clearly concerned that making vaccines mandatory will cause not just court challenges but a public backlash. However, such mandatory programs have been upheld. As I discussed in a column last year, there is a 1905 case where the Supreme Court upheld a state mandatory vaccination program of school children for small pox in Massachusetts. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), the Court found that such programs are the quintessential state power rather than a federal power. It also held that “every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.” States are allowed to subject citizens to restraints to protect “general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State.”

The fear is that, as with social media companies carrying out censorship of political and social viewpoints, companies will now serve as surrogates for the state on vaccinations. The Administration would prefer to do precisely what Wen advocated: ratchet up the private penalties and difficulties for anyone who wants to remain unvaccinated.

The problem is when you have leading analysts arguing for such measures as coercive devices. While there is considerable deference on such matters, the courts could take note of such demands to make life hard on those who are not “getting with the program.”

As of July 11, a total of 159,266,536 Americans have been fully vaccinated. That is 48 percent of the country’s population. When you consider the extremely high rate of vaccination for those over 65, the percentage of adults under 65 is even smaller. Despite all of the press and bizarre reward systems, the government is clearly hitting a wall with many people declining the vaccines.  (For the record, I took the vaccine and all of my family has been vaccinated).

That is a sizable number of voters and the Democrats are leery of openly forcing vaccines before the 2022 election. That is why the push is to make life more difficult through private companies. However, if these measures are viewed as designed to coerce, courts may be more scrutinizing of the public health necessity for the measures.

*

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

Featured image is a Facebook screenshot via Jonathan Turley

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

We have previously covered the story of Dr. Charles Hoffe, the brave doctor who has been practicing medicine for 28 years in the small, rural town of Lytton in British Columbia, Canada.

After he had administered about 900 doses of the Moderna experimental mRNA COVID-19 injections, he sounded the alarm over the severe reactions he was observing in his patients who chose to get the shot (he chose NOT to get it himself), which included death.

The result of him sounding the alarm was a gag order issued against him by the medical authorities in his community. He defied this gag order and was interviewed by Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson on her show where he sounded the alarm. See: Canadian Doctor Defies Gag Order and Tells the Public How the Moderna COVID Injections Killed and Permanently Disabled Indigenous People in His Community

His punishment for going public to warn others on the dangers of these experimental shots was that he was relieved from hospital duty and lost half of his income: Canadian Doctor Removed from Hospital Duty after Speaking out about COVID “Vaccine” Side Effects

Last week, Dr. Hoffe was interviewed again by Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson, and he continues to share his findings with the public regarding the experimental COVID-19 shots.

Dr. Hoffe is truly a hero today, risking not only his reputation, but probably his very life to bring important information regarding the COVID-19 shots that the Globalists who control the corporate media and social media are trying very hard to censor.

In this latest interview, Dr. Hoffe states that the blood clots that are being reported in the corporate media as being “rare” are anything but rare, based on his own testing of his own patients who had recently received one of the shots.

The blood clots we hear about which the media claim are very rare are the big blood clots which are the ones that cause strokes and show up on CT scans, MRI, etc. The clots I’m talking about are microscopic and too small to find on any scan. They can thus only be detected using the D-dimer test.

Using this test with his own patients, Dr. Hoffe claims that he has found evidence of small blood clots in 62% of his patients who have been injected with an mRNA shot.

He states that these people are now permanently disabled, and they will no longer “be able to do what they used to do.”

These people have no idea they are even having these microscopic blood clots. The most alarming part of this is that there are some parts of the body like the brain, spinal cord, heart and lungs which cannot re-generate. When those tissues are damaged by blood clots they are permanently damaged.

His warning is very dire: “These shots are causing huge damage and the worst is yet to come.”

This is an 8 minute clip from the original interview, and we have posted it on our Bitchute channel and Rumble channel.

Is Canada Finally Starting to Pay Attention to these Dissenting Doctors Sounding the Alarm?

Dr. Hoffe is not the only doctor to sound the alarm over serious side effects from the COVID-19 shots.

Last month we covered the press conference given in Ontario at Parliament Hill that was arranged by MP Derek Sloan and featured four other Canadian doctors who were also being censored over what they are seeing and reporting regarding the COVID-19 shots. See: Canadian Politician Derek Sloan Uses Parliament Hill to Give Voices to Censored Doctors and Scientists Blowing the Whistle on COVID-19 Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity

Are these public testimonies from doctors who dare to question the official narrative in the face of tremendous censorship, ridicule, and even threats starting to make a difference in Canada?

Maybe.

Yesterday there was a Press Release from the COVID-19 Immunity Task Force in Canada. This group is comprised of:

experts from across Canada in matters related to serologic surveillance, immunology, virology, infectious diseases, public health, and clinical medicine. It also includes ex-officio members representing agencies of the Government of Canada, including the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and the office of the Chief Scientific Advisor to the Prime Minister, as well as representatives of Provincial-Territorial Ministries of Health, and McGill University (host of the Secretariat). (Source.)

This is the first time I have ever seen in any country a group with ties to government health agencies admit that there are seriously injured individuals from the COVID-19 shots, and that strategies need to be developed to deal with their injuries.

Some injuries have been acknowledged in the U.S. by the FDA, but the only action they have taken is to add warnings to the shots – nothing about how to treat the victims and their injuries.

To be sure, this group in Canada keeps stating the official narrative that “the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccination continue to outweigh the risks” while supplying no underlying data or studies to prove this statement, but the fact that they are even admitting that there are people injured by the shots that need help, is huge.

The Government of Canada, through its COVID-19 Immunity Task Force (CITF) and Vaccine Surveillance Reference Group (VSRG), is investing approximately $800,000 for a study that aims to further improve Canada’s identification and response to adverse events people may experience following COVID-19 vaccination across 10 provinces. This study is an extension of an existing vaccine safety program that provides important public health information about adverse events following immunization (AEFI) for all vaccines authorized for use in adults and children.

Let’s hope this is not just another excuse to spend money with no results, but that something substantive could come out of such a study, that quite possibly was motivated by the honest physicians in Canada who risked their careers and lives to bring the truth to the public.

*

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

Featured image is from Health Impact News

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Brianne Dressen, who accumulated more than $250,000 in medical bills after participating in AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine clinical trial, is collaborating with two U.S. Senators to get help for others injured by COVID vaccines.

A Utah woman and two U.S. senators are teaming up to get answers from federal health agencies about life-altering injuries people have experienced after receiving a COVID vaccine.

Brianne Dressen is a preschool teacher from Utah who was injured after participating in AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine clinical trial in November 2020. She has accumulated more than $250,000 in medical bills as a result of injuries she believes were caused by the vaccine.

Dressen said within one hour of being vaccinated she had tingling down her arm. By the time she got home her vision was blurry and doubled. Her sensitivity became so severe that she had to wear earmuffs and sunglasses all the time.

That’s when things took a turn for the worse. “Things progressed quickly,” Dressen said. She experienced neurological decline, but no one could explain why. After a neurological scan, doctors said it looked as if she had multiple sclerosis (MS).

According to Mayo Clinic, MS is a potentially disabling disease of the brain and spinal cord where the immune system attacks the protective sheath (myelin) that covers nerve fibers and causes communication problems between the brain and the rest of the body.

Dressen lost the use of her legs, as her symptoms worsened. After running several MRI’s, CT scans and lumbar punctures, doctors still had no answers, ABC4 News reported.

Dressen said she spent months teaching herself how to walk, eat and form sentences again — all while she traveled in search of answers.

“The hospital didn’t know what was going on … none of the neurologists that I saw knew what was going on,” Dressen said. “I called the test clinic several times and they had no idea what was going on.”

Dressen spoke with others who are dealing with the same symptoms after getting vaccinated, and she wants people injured by COVID vaccines to get help.

“I want the CDC to do the right thing and communicate with the medical community so these people can get help,” Dressen said. “I want the public to be able to have the full picture so they can make an informed decision.”

Senators demand answers from CDC, FDA and vaccine makers

Dressen, along with other people who said they were injured by vaccines but “repeatedly ignored” by the medical community, participated late last month in a news conference held by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).

.@SenRonJohnson + former Green Bay Packers Ken Ruettgers held press conference with families who want to "be seen, heard + believed by medical community" after suffering adverse reactions to COVID vaccines.

SUBSCRIBE #TheDefender: https://t.co/zL66Edfiw5https://t.co/RIOEvNJ4uj

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) June 29, 2021

Following the news conference, Johnson and Utah Sen. Mike Lee wrote a letter to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stating the agencies had ignored requests for assistance and answers from families injured by COVID vaccines.

The Senators wrote:

“The very existence of these infirmities is financially, physically and emotionally debilitating for the afflicted individuals and their families. These individuals have previously expressed to both CDC Director Walensky and Food and Drug Administration Acting Commissioner Woodcock that they desire answers and assistance. Thus far, their requests have been ignored or gone without a substantive response.”

Lee and Johnson said widespread lack of acknowledgement of adverse events following receipt of a COVID vaccine has made it nearly impossible for some individuals to obtain the medical treatment they need, and that risks must be disclosed to the medical community and general public.

“If any of the COVID-19 vaccines truly cause adverse events of the severity noted above, even in a small percentage of cases, these risks must be disclosed, particularly to the medical community so that healthcare professionals are properly informed and may provide necessary treatment, care, and information to the general public as they weigh the risks and benefits of being vaccinated,” the Senators wrote.

In the letter, Lee and Johnson asked the FDA and CDC about the adverse events suffered during clinical trials, disclosed in the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization Memorandum for the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines, as well as reported injuries from the U.S. AstraZeneca trial.

Lee and Johnson asked whether the CDC is working with physicians and researchers at the FDA, National Institutes of Health or other medical research bodies to provide the various individuals who experienced adverse effects vaccine treatment and care.

According to the most recent VAERS data, between Dec. 14, 2020, and July 2, 2021, a total of 438,441 total adverse events were reported to VAERS, including 9,048 deaths and 41,015 serious injuries.

Obtaining federal compensation for COVID vaccine injuries is rare

As The Defender reported July 8, people facing huge medical bills after being injured by a COVID vaccine have few options beyond what their own health insurance covers, because a federal law shields vaccine makers from liability.

People injured by COVID vaccines are asking for help on GoFundMe as the U.S. government shields vaccine makers from liability.

SUBSCRIBE #TheDefender: https://t.co/zL66Edfiw5https://t.co/361lGVhZJv

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) July 8, 2021

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 and U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Russell Bruesewitz et al v. Wyeth et al, guaranteed vaccine manufacturers, doctors and other vaccine administrators have almost no legal accountability or financial liability in civil court when a government recommends or mandates a vaccine that causes permanent injury or death.

In 2005, Congress passed the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP), which authorizes the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to issue a declaration providing immunity from tort liability for claims of loss caused by medical countermeasures (e.g., vaccines, drugs, products) against diseases or other threats of public health emergencies.

On Feb. 4, 2020, HHS invoked the PREP Act when it declared COVID-19 to be a public health emergency. On Jan. 21, HHS amended the act, extending the liability shield to include additional categories of qualified persons authorized to prescribe, dispense and administer COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In exchange for immunity for vaccine makers, under the PREP Act, the federal government pledged compensation for adverse reactions to COVID treatments and vaccines through a program called the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), run by HHS.

As The Defender reported July 1, since the CICP program’s inception in 2010, only 29 claims have been paid, with an average payout of around $200,000. The other 452 claims (91.4%) were denied. Ten claims won approval but were deemed ineligible for compensation.

Only about 8% of people who applied to the CICP with vaccine injuries in the past received payouts, and there are no protections from the U.S. legal system.

Prominent vaccine injury law firm says it can’t help people injured by COVID vaccines because COVID vaccines are not covered under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, forcing many to raise funds for their injuries online.https://t.co/pob7n5TZiw

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) July 2, 2021

HHS forced to post data related to the CICP

HHS last month agreed to post data related to the CICP, thanks to an investigation by Atlanta television news station, 11Alive, an affiliate of WXIA-TV.

For nine months, 11Alive’s investigative team reported on the lack of transparency within the CICP. Last month, the government released data on the CICP requested by 11Alive and agreed to make the data available to the public.

As of July 1, the CICP reported 1,165 claims filed. According to its website, the CICP has not compensated any COVID-19 claims. Two COVID-related claims were denied because the applicant couldn’t prove the countermeasure caused their injury. One claim was associated with intubation, the other the vaccine. Almost all of the claims are still waiting to be medically reviewed.

“I think people sometimes have a distrust in government and people think that the government is hiding things from them when they’re not being transparent,” said Melissa Wasser with Project on Government Oversight. “The public has a right to know this information, especially with all of the government resources being used.”

The CICP website outlines the parameters of the program, which provides compensation for medical expenses, lost employment income and survivor death benefits as “the payer of last resort,” covering only what remains unpaid or unpayable by other third parties, such as health insurance.

Under the CICP program, attorney fees are not covered. There is no court, judge or right to appeal. Those who believe they’ve suffered an injury from a COVID vaccine only have one year from the date of injury to file a claim.

*

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

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

Featured image is from CHD

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi is on a Central Asian loop all through the week. He’s visiting Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. The last two are full members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, founded 20 years ago.

The SCO heavyweights are of course China and Russia. They are joined by four Central Asian “stans” (all but Turkmenistan), India and Pakistan. Crucially, Afghanistan and Iran are observers, alongside Belarus and Mongolia.

And that leads us to what’s happening this Wednesday in Dushanbe, the Tajik capital. The SCO will hold a 3 in 1: meetings of the Council of Foreign Ministers, the SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group, and a conference titled “Central and South Asia: Regional Connectivity, Challenges and Opportunities.”

At the same table, then, we will have Wang Yi, his very close strategic partner Sergey Lavrov and, most importantly, Afghan Foreign Minister Mohammad Haneef Atmar. They’ll be debating trials and tribulations after the hegemon’s withdrawal and the miserable collapse of the myth of NATO “stabilizing” Afghanistan.

Let’s game a possible scenario: Wang Yi and Lavrov tell Atmar, in no uncertain terms, that there’s got to be a national reconciliation deal with the Taliban, brokered by Russia-China, with no American interference, including the end of the opium-heroin ratline.

Russia-China extract from the Taliban a firm promise that jihadism won’t be allowed to fester. The endgame: loads of productive investment, Afghanistan is incorporated to Belt and Road and – later on – to the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU).

The SCO’s joint statement on Wednesday will be particularly enlightening, perhaps detailing how the organization plans to coordinate a de facto Afghan peace process farther down the road.

In this scenario, the SCO now has the chance to implement what it has been actively discussing for years: that only an Asian solution to the Afghan drama applies.

Sun Zhuangzhi, executive director of the Chinese Research Center of the SCO, sums it all up: the organization is capable of coming up with a plan mixing political stability, economic and security development and a road map for infrastructure development projects.

The Taliban agree. Spokesman Suhail Shaheen has stressed, “China is a friendly country that we welcome for reconstruction and developing Afghanistan.”

On the Silk Road again

After economic connectivity, another SCO motto encouraged by Beijing since the early 2000s is the necessity to fight the “three evils”: terrorism, separatism and extremism. All SCO members are very much aware of jihadi metastases threatening Central Asia – from ISIS-Khorasan to shady Uighur factions currently fighting in Idlib in Syria, as well as the (fading) Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU).

The Taliban is a way more complex case. It’s still branded as a terrorist organization by Moscow. Yet on the new, fast-evolving chessboard, both Moscow and Beijing know the importance of engaging the Taliban in high-stakes diplomacy.

Wang Yi has already impressed upon Islamabad – Pakistan is a SCO member – the need to set up a trilateral mechanism, with Beijing and Kabul, to advance a feasible political solution to Afghanistan while managing the security front.

Here, from China’s point of view, it’s all about the multi-layered China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), to which Beijing plans to incorporate Kabul. Here is a detailed CPEC progress update.

Building blocks include the deal struck between China Telecom and Afghan Telecom already in 2017 to build a Kashgar-Faizabad fiber optic cable system and then expand it toward a China-Kyrgyzstan-Tajikistan-Afghanistan Silk Road system.

Directly connected is the deal signed in February among Islamabad, Kabul and Tashkent to build a railway that in fact may establish Afghanistan as a key crossroads between Central and South Asia. Call it the SCO corridor.

All of the above was solidified by a crucial trilateral meeting last month among China-Pakistan-Afghanistan Foreign Ministers. Team Ghani in Kabul renewed its interest in being connected to Belt and Road – which translates in practice into an expanded CPEC. The Taliban said exactly the same thing last week.

Wang Yi knows very well that jihadism is bound to target CPEC. Not Afghanistan’s Taliban, though. And not the Pakistani Taliban (TTP), as quite a few CPEC projects (fiber optics, for instance) will improve infrastructure in Peshawar and environs.

Afghanistan in trade connectivity with CPEC and a key node of the New Silk Roads could not make more sense – even historically, as Afghanistan was always embedded in the ancient Silk Roads. Crossroads Afghanistan is the missing link in the connectivity equation between China and Central Asia. The devil, of course, will be in the details.

The Iranian equation

Then, to the West, there’s the Iranian equation. The recently solidified Iran-China strategic partnership may eventually lead to closer integration, with CPEC expanded to Afghanistan. The Taliban are keenly aware of it. As part of their current diplomatic offensive, they have been to Tehran and made all the right noises towards a political solution.

A map shows the route of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. Photo: Wikimedia Commons/ Wanishahrukh

Their joint statement with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif privileges negotiations with Kabul. The Taliban commit to refrain from attacking civilians, schools, mosques, hospitals and NGOs.

Tehran – an observer at the SCO and on the way to becoming a full member – is actively talking to all Afghan actors. No fewer than four delegations were visiting last week. The head of Kabul’s team was former Afghan Vice President Yunus Qanooni (a former warlord, as well), while the Taliban were led by Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai, who commands their political office in Doha. This all implies serious business.

There are already 780,000 registered Afghan refugees in Iran, living in refugee villages along the border and not allowed to settle in major cities. But there are also at least 2.5 million illegals. No wonder Tehran needs to pay attention. Zarif once again is in total synch with Lavrov – and with Wang Yi, for that matter: a non-stop war of attrition between the Kabul government and the Taliban could lead only to “unfavorable” consequences.

The question, for Tehran, revolves around the ideal framework for negotiations. That would point to the SCO. After all, Iran has not participated in the snail-paced Doha mechanism for over two years now.

A debate is raging in Tehran on how to deal practically with the new Afghan equation. As I saw for myself in Mashhad less than three years ago, migration from Afghanistan – this time from skilled workers fleeing the Taliban advance – may actually help the Iranian economy.

Aerial view of Mashhad. Photo: Wikipedia

The director general of the West Asia desk at Iran’s Foreign Ministry, Rasoul Mousavi, goes straight to the point:  “The Taliban yield” to the Afghan people. “They are not separated from Afghanistan’s traditional society, and they have always been part of it. Moreover, they have military power.”

On the ground in western Afghanistan, in Herat – linked by a very busy highway corridor across the border to Mashhad – things are more complicated. The Taliban now control most of Herat province, apart from two districts.

Legendary local warlord Ismail Khan, now in his mid-70s, and carrying an overloaded history of fighting the Taliban, has deployed militias to guard the city, the airport and its outskirts.

Yet the Taliban have already vowed, in diplomatic talks with China, Russia and Iran, that they are not planning to “invade” anyone – be it Iran or the Central Asian “stans.” Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen has been adamant that cross-border trade in different latitudes, from Islam Quilla (in Iran) to Torghundi (in Turkmenistan) and across northern Tajikistan will “remain open and functional.”

That non-withdrawal withdrawal

In a fast-evolving situation, the Taliban now control at least half of Afghanistan’s 400 districts and are “contesting” dozens of others. They are policing some key highways (you can’t go on the road from Kabul to Kandahar, for instance, and avoid Taliban checkpoints). They do not hold any major city, yet. At least 15 of 34 regional capitals – including strategic Mazar-i-Sharif – are encircled.

Afghan news media, always very lively, have started to ask some tough questions. Such as: ISIS/Daesh did not exist in Iraq before the 2003 US invasion and occupation. So how come ISIS-Khorasan emerged right under NATO’s noses?

Within the SCO, as diplomats told me, there’s ample suspicion that the US deep state agenda is to fuel the flames of imminent civil war in Afghanistan and then extend it to the Central Asian “stans,” complete with shady jihadi commandos mixed with Uighurs also destabilizing Xinjiang.

This being the case, the non-withdrawal withdrawal – what with all those remaining 18,000 Pentagon contractors/mercenaries, plus special forces and CIA black op types – would be a cover, allowing Washington a new narrative spin: the Kabul government has invited us to fight a “terrorist” re-emergence and prevent a spiral towards civil war.

The protracted endgame would read like win-win hybrid war for the deep state and its NATO arm.

Well, not so fast. The Taliban have warned all the “stans” in no uncertain terms about hosting US military bases. And even Hamid Karzai is on the record: enough with American interference.

All these scenarios will be discussed in detail this Wednesday in Dushanbe. As well as the bright part: the – now very feasible – future incorporation of Afghanistan to the New Silk Roads.

Back to the basics: Afghanistan returns, in style, to the heart of the 21^st Century New Great Game.

*

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

This article was originally published on Asia Times.

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: The Great Game: This lithograph by British Lieutenant James Rattray shows Shah Shuja in 1839 after his enthronement as Emir of Afghanistan in the Bala Hissar (fort) of Kabul. Rattray wrote: ‘A year later the sanctity of the scene was bloodily violated: Shah Shuja was murdered.’ Photo: Wikipedia

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The following commentary reflects on how China is slowly catching up to the USA in terms of AI technology and moving away from informatized warfare to intelligentized warfare. China is no longer in a position of technological inferiority and is slowly making its presence felt in the world.

China is no longer in a position of technological inferiority but instead sees itself as close to catching up with and overtaking the United States in AI. The USA still trots on its idea of yesterday as if it were still the new thing – something called “ informatized” (信息化) warfare. China is conceptually already beyond the US. China now implements “intelligentized” (智能化) warfare.

1. Quantum Computing

Quantum computing can solve combinations. Let’s say that a code-key has 1 trillion possibilities and only one solution. A supercomputer spending 1 microsecond to check each possibility will spend about one week to find the one solution on average. A quantum computer can do it in about 1 second. Quantum computing will create unbreakable codes and communication. Even against other quantum computers. And quantum-seals will prove if a message (for example, sensor data or an electronic combat order) has been tampered with. Quantum computing will make it possible to crack all codes and messages in existence today within the realm of non-quantum technologies. A quantum superpower can protect its networks – and overtake or deceive combat platforms, sensors (including in space, air, and oceans), combat units, nodes, and the combat-HQ of the opponent. In addition, quantum computing will revolutionize other sciences, including chemistry and material sciences relevant for militaries. Quantum computing will also revolutionize power management and logistics – including the military.

In military conceptualization, C4ISR stands for Command, Control, Communications, Computers (C4) Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR). Quantum computing code technologies can overtake the opponents’ C4ISR and civilian infrastructure, disturb it, disable it, destroy it, or turn the opponent’s forces against him. Without firing a shot. Quantum computing will bring encryption, AI, and everything else computing up to a level so high that it is still incomprehensible by human imagination.

China, in May 2021, announced that the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) had developed the World’s most advanced quantum computer. When we compare the measurements of the three P’s – People, Products, and Processes – in quantum computing, it is clear that China comes out number one. The USA is in second place.  

2. Artificial Intelligence

China is also already the World-leader in AI. This year, China announced Wu Dao 2.0 – by far the most advanced AI system in the World – ever. China is also by far the World’s leader in the production of AI research papers. The USA is number two, and India stands third. Patents are essential but a problematic measure because a lot of AI depends upon how you apply it. China will also be wary of disclosing all its tech secrets through patent filing. The USA has a law to secretly confiscate all foreign patents and give them to its own US military industry. At the same time as the USA secretly appropriates patents and Intellectual Property (IP), the USA shouts up about others “copying” and “spying” on the USA. The USA, through the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 (Publ. L. 82-256) also prevents own military relevant patents from being filed.

According to the China AI Development Report, July 2018 (CAIDR), China is the global leader in AI investments, with 60% of total AI investments 2013-Q12018 (the USA less than 30%). The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) was by 2018 the research institution with the World’s highest concentration of AI talent, with 1,244 researchers. Number two was NASA with 103 (CAIDR fig. 2-35). Having AI talent concentrated is a considerable advantage, which does not preclude intense competition between teams. China is betting big by opening high profile AI research institutions. For instance, in 2018, China established the Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence (BAAI). Outside China, the most significant private companies represent a spread-out of AI talent on IBM (538), Microsoft (341), Google (256), Tata of India (189), and Siemens (176) (CAIDR fig. 2-37). China is now on its way to becoming the first global superpower for Artificial Intelligence. 

3. Intelligentized warfare

No doubt, with quantum computing and AI, China is excellently positioned to become a World leader in using computing science, also for military purposes. And China reveals advanced conceptual thinking beyond what the USA can do by developing frontier-breaking new military concepts like “intelligentized” warfare. So, what is “intelligentized” warfare? It is an open-ended idea – an idea with enormous power. This idea will develop so fast that we might as well ourselves start to build on it. So let me, therefore, present my perspective on it.

For example, wide beyond “autonomous” systems, “intelligentized “warfare also includes:

Intelligence-enhanced sensor-networks. AI is already needed to map changes in satellite images. Add to this the challenge of data-fusion, creating and interpreting a full real-time map of events across the electromagnetic spectrum, across space, air, land, and sea assets – plus other sources like media, political and popular events etc. For instance, Google’s “Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone” (GDELT 2.0) monitors media in 65 languages in the whole World, translates it, categorizes all events, counts, quotes, people, organizations, social media posts, locations, themes, analyze images, videos, and 2,300 emotions, and places this in a global context – within 15 minutes. Such AI-supported analyses of the World of politics, public units, ethnic and social units can then be further analyzed for strengths or weaknesses on a specific issue for a country like BRI and China.

Add the above capability to analyze global speech, topics, and tones and sender-receiver in all languages when secretly tapping into the totality of all global electronic communication (like the USA does, ref. Edward Snowden).

AI can then analyze and manipulate social and political events and decisions at all levels, including distortion of messages or inserting fake messages. AI systems can simulate the voicing, text style, and even video of any person pretending to be that person. Sender- receiver believe they communicate with each other – but in reality, both communicate with a CIA controlled AI system, which changes their communication without any of them knowing. That can bring down governments, either through fracture or by engineered “color revolution”. This is only a small beginning. 

Cyber-security will real-time be mapped onto the same situational picture. And keep in mind that several threats today move so fast and in such complex ways that they will not be perceptible to the human mind (at least not before it is too late). 

To understand this complexity, we must have two dimensions in mind: First is speed. At hypersonic speed, there will be little or no time for the human mind to react. The second is complexity and cognition. Some political, media, economic, and military developments do not move that fast. But they are so complex that the human mind, limits of education, and imagination (!) result in immense problems combining such diverse fields to a comprehensive picture – and hence simply understand it and act constructively.

This drives a need for AI and automatization of the whole battle-understanding, which becomes ever more challenging to comprehend fully on ALL levels. From the individual fighters to units, groups, divisions, armies, to the top-most grand strategic level across combat, economy, culture, information, propaganda, counter-propaganda on own and opposite populations and units. 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 USANAS Foundation.

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

Featured image is from Gerd Altmann via USANAS Foundation

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

As winter turned to spring, many in the United States breathed a sigh of relief because the pandemic picture seemed to be getting better. People flooded social media with vaccination pics as case counts trended down and news outlets mused about just how great summer would be—reunions, restaurant dinners, and travel finally made safer. But with the remnants of Fourth of July barbecue still baked onto America’s patio grills, Pfizer and BioNTech, the makers of one of the most powerful COVID-19 vaccines, decided to bring a big, sopping wet blanket to the social reopening that news outlets have started to call “hot vax summer.”

Pfizer’s chief scientific officer Mikael Dolsten told Reuters that six months after getting the Pfizer shot, “there likely is the risk of reinfection as antibodies, as predicted, wane.” The company planned to ask the US government to authorize a third shot of its near-miraculous vaccine and even test a new vaccine specifically tailored to the new highly contagious delta variant of the coronavirus causing the pandemic.

White House officials worried the announcement would drive vaccine skepticism if people thought the shots were good only for six months. World Health Organization officials lashed out at Pfizer for recommending boosters when health care workers and others in much of the world couldn’t even get a first shot, much less a controversial third shot of the vaccine. And scientists questioned whether the boosters were even necessary.

With less than 50 percent of the United States fully vaccinated, and the low-hanging fruit of the country’s vaccine drive (e.g., everyone who posted a picture of their vaccine card on social media) mostly vaccinated, the Biden administration and state and local officials are struggling to boost coverage, including in areas where vaccine hesitancy can run high.

Despite lotteries and scholarship giveaways, and even as cases start to tick up in many states, vaccination trend lines are creeping down.

“You know what would really help?” Ashish K. Jha, dean of Brown School of Public Health, tweeted. “Ensuring the 25M who have 1 shot get their 2^nd. And [e]nsuring the 100M eligible who have zero shots get their first. That would help keep everyone safe”

Other experts question whether boosters are even necessary. “At this point I see no evidence to support recommending them,” Emory University expert Carlos del Rio tweeted.

As part of its push for booster shots, Pfizer cited Israeli data showing that after six months, its vaccine was less effective at preventing both infection and symptomatic disease. On July 5, the government reported vaccine’s effectiveness at preventing infection and symptomatic disease had fallen to 64 percent, while in May, the government reported the Pfizer vaccine was 95 percent effective at preventing infection, hospitalization, and severe disease, according to Reuters. Some scientists questioned the Israeli data’s limitations, but the government there has already started giving Pfizer booster shots to patients with compromised immune systems.

Pfizer has suggested a reduction in antibodies to the coronavirus as a reason a booster shot is needed, but the immune system has more than one trick up its sleeve. In addition to antibodies that help the body identify pathogens, the body also produces memory B cells, for example, which exist in bone marrow and bodily organs and can produce new antibodies after an exposure. These cells can persist for years. “Antibody response is not the only measure of immune protection,” Leana S. Wen, a former health commissioner for Baltimore, told The New York Times.

If the US government changes course and recommends boosters, the move would likely put even more wind in Pfizer’s already billowing financial sails. The company reported a more than $1 billion increase in net income in the first three months of the year as compared to 2020 and has projected it would sell $26 billion of COVID-19 vaccination doses in 2021. John P. Moore, an immunologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, told The Washington Post he worried that Pfizer was making an opportunistic pitch. Boosters may be necessary, he said, “but to say we need it now and give the public the impression the vaccines are failing and something needs to be done as a matter of urgency. … The time isn’t now,” he said.

With booster shots representing a potential market of somewhere between $11 and $37 billion for Pfizer, according to a Bloomberg Intelligence analysis, and hints that the company’s discounted pandemic pricing may come to end (currently shots cost the US government $19.50, but the company has said a more typical price might be as high as $175), Pfizer clearly has a financial incentive to push boosters.

Pfizer didn’t answer a question about whether the profit motive was driving its push for boosters, instead telling the Bulletin in a statement that the company has  “a sense of urgency in staying ahead of the virus.” It’s a sentiment, the statement said, that the US government also shared. For now, at least, the federal government is keeping its excitement over boosters in check. “Americans who have been fully vaccinated do not need a booster shot at this time,” the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration said in joint statement. So for now, in the United States at least, the hot vax summer goes on.

*

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

Matt Field is an associate editor at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Before joining the Bulletin, he covered the White House, Congress, and presidential campaigns as a news producer for Japanese public television. He has also reported for print outlets in the Midwest and on the East Coast. He holds a master’s degree in journalism from Northwestern University.

Featured image is from Pixabay

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland held a phone conversation with the Head of the Ukrainian President’s Office Andriy Yermak to discuss what the National News Agency of Ukraine reported was the situation in Belarus. The two were described as having “expressed concern” over developments in Ukraine’s northern neighbor. A nation doesn’t want Nuland to be concerned, much less gravely concerned over its internal affairs given her political track record.

Unlike her telephone conversation with then U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt in 2014 in which she dictated the composition of a post-coup government in that nation weeks before the event, the above conversation has not been recorded and placed on YouTube yet, so its exact contents remain unknown.

It is to be hoped that Yermak was duly deferential to the highest-ranking member of the U.S. Foreign Service, as he would never have been granted the position he currently holds by his personal friend President Volodymyr Zelensky but for Nuland’s deft coup plotting of seven years ago. Before nepotism gained him his current position, he had been appointed Presidential Aide for Foreign Policy Issues shortly after Zelensky took office. Yermak, also an attorney, had been a film producer when he met Zelensky, at the time general producer of the TV channel Inter. Somehow one imagines the prospect of a Ukrainian television miniseries with a title like “The Battle for the Soul of Belarus” or “Free at Last, Released from the Bonds of Despotism” or, better yet, “Rock ‘n Roll Revolution” with a soundtrack by U2, Rage Against the Machine and Nicki Minaj.

What is known of his conversation with Nuland, the pastry peddlar of Maidan Square and patron saint of the seven-year war in the Donbass, is a brief account of it related by Ukraine’s presidential press secretary, Serhiy Nykyforov:

“Andriy Yermak and Ms. Victoria Nuland discussed the situation in Belarus and expressed concern about what is happening there now. They also discussed some security issues related to Russia’s West-2021 exercises and moved on to the topic of Ukraine.”

The joint Belrusian-Russian exercise (Zapad in Russian) is a routine one and Ukraine has no reason to fear anything from it; but Ukrainian officials, including Zelensky, for months have been prophesying, like a blind Greek soothsayer of the time of Sophocles, a threat to the very existence of Ukraine emanating from Belarus. Ukraine has a population almost five times the size of Belarus’ and armed forces trained to meet NATO standards in addition to military equipment provided by the U.S. and other alliance members.

The government of Belarus recently closed its border with Ukraine, accusing the latter of allowing arms to be smuggled into the country for Western-backed “protesters.” The sort of peaceful protesters that set over a hundred Ukrainian policemen on fire with gas bombs in Kiev in 2014, burning several to death. Their efforts were noted, appreciated and rewarded by Nuland and John McCain, who dispensed snacks to the CANVAS-trained perpetrators between bouts of hurling Molotov cocktails at unarmed law enforcement personnel.

By the way, the government of President Viktor Yanukoych was overthrown only thirteen months before a scheduled presidential election. Surely Nuland, McCain and their friends in the National Endowment for Democracy and other “democracy enhancement” organizations could have delivered the desired result short of setting much of the Ukrainian capital on fire, overthrowing an internationally-recognized head of state and plunging the nation into endless war; with the indispensable assistance of bomb-wielding “youth activists” as in 2004 and 2014, of course.

But a standard color revolution would have had disadvantages. Campaign slogans from approved candidates like Vote for Me and Join NATO or Support Us or We’ll Burn Your Country to the Ground don’t always appeal to targeted demographics. At least not sufficiently to motivate them to walk to the polling station on a rainy afternoon. Besides, rigging an election in 2015 might not have guaranteed a festering war with ethnic Russians in the Donbass and an excuse for further NATO buildup in the Black Sea – much less the opportunity of war with Belarus.

For the likes of Nuland with her Bachelor of Arts in Something or Other (BASOO), film producer Yermak and his boss, comedian Zelensky (Did you hear the one about the hooker and the mushroom cloud?), politics and war are just so, like, boring without a little panache. A little flair. Éclat. Some fireworks. Taunting a neighbor with the world’s second-largest nuclear arsenal by overthrowing the government of its only ally in Europe would do the trick. Now you’re talking. F*ck the world!

*

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

Rick Rozoff, renowned author and geopolitical analyst, actively involved in opposing war, militarism and interventionism for over fifty years. He manages the Anti-Bellum and For peace, against war website

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Southern African Development Community (SADC) with support from the Addis Ababa based African Union Commission (AUC) have together set July 15 the beginning of the deployment of the joint regional military troops in Mozambique.

According to the statement released by SADC, the mission has as its objective, to support the Republic of Mozambique in the fight against acts of terrorism and extremist violence, in addition to supporting the country in restoring the rule of law in the affected areas of Cabo Delgado province.

Rwanda, at the official request from the Government of Mozambique, is contributing a 1,000-person force contingent from its National Defence Force (RDF) and Rwanda National Police (RNP).

Major General Innocent Kabandana is heading the Joint Force made up of 700 soldiers from the Rwanda Defence Force (RDF) and 300 officers from the Rwanda National Police (RNP). Kabundana, a former commander of Rwandan Special Forces, with experience in fighting rebel groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In 2020, he was appointed commander of the Rwanda Military Academy at Gako.

Rwanda and Mozambique are neighbors with a common border and members of the regional bloc. Rwandan troops to Mozambique primarily aim to help the country combat the escalating insurgency. According to the Rwandan government, the troops will join forces with Mozambique and the standby force from the SADC region.

The deployment is based on the good bilateral relations between Rwanda and Mozambique, following the signing of several agreements between the two countries in 2018. The deployment is also grounded in Rwanda’s commitment to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine and the 2015 Kigali Principles on the Protection of Civilians, according to the statement by the Government of Rwanda.

It is not yet clear who will lead the SADC Standby Force, and the force needs to have its legal status signed. The South African Defence Minister, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, has vehemently expressed absolute dissatisfaction that Rwanda had deployed its troops into Mozambique before SADC forces arrived, because it was expected that Rwanda would have gone in under a SADC mandate.

“It is regrettable that this dispatch takes place before the deployment of Sadc troops, because whatever the bilateral relations between Rwanda and Mozambique, one would expect Rwanda to go to Mozambique in the context of a mandate given by heads of state in the SADC region,” Mapisa-Nqakula said, added “a situation over which we have no control.”

Mozambique’s Minister of Defence, Jaime Neto, denies the move was meant to undercut SADC’s intervention efforts.

“At the ministerial level, we may not always have concrete information on what has been dealt with but Cabo Delgado is a privileged subject for heads of state at the level of SADC region and obviously at our level it’s up to us to take decisions from consultations that occurred out at the level of the heads of state.”

But the controversy about the operation has not ended there. The president of the Mozambican National Resistance (Renamo – the main opposition party in Mozambique) criticized the deployment of Rwandan military personnel in Mozambique, further describing it as “illegal” and that the Mozambican parliament and other countries in the SADC region should have been told in advance, it implies the unilateral decision taken the president on Rwandan force.

“The Rwandan military are in the country illegally, given the fact that the Assembly of the Republic was not informed and that other countries that are part of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) were themselves taken by surprise,” Ossufo Momade told a local media at the end of a visit to Cabo Delgado province, northern Mozambique.

Several official reports indicated that the Rwandan military and police are going to work closely with Mozambique Armed Defence Forces (FADM) and with the regional force from the Southern African Development Community (SADC) in designated sectors of responsibility, support efforts to restore security by conducting combat and security operations, as well as stabilization and security-sector reform (SSR). The forces will only return home once its mission is accomplished.

Moussa Faki Mahamat, the Chairperson of the African Union Commission (AUC), highly commended and described it “as a strong and concrete act of African solidarity” on the part of the Rwandan Government and the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

The forces are to be based in Cabo Delgado Province, Mozambique. That region has suffered from what is, always referred to as acts of terrorism. Beginning in October 2017, armed extremists linked to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) launched an insurgency in the Cabo Delgado region of Mozambique. On March 24, the militants again seized Palma in northern Mozambique.

The European Union has also adopted a decision setting up an EU military training mission in Mozambique (EUTM Mozambique). The EUTM Mozambique mission will last 28 months and be headed by the Portuguese Army Brigadier-General Nuno Lemos Pires. The aim of the mission is to train and support the Mozambican armed forces in protecting the civilian population and restoring safety and security in the Cabo Delgado province.

According to the media release of the European Council, the EU’s Integrated Approach to the crisis in Cabo Delgado, in conjunction with support for peacebuilding, conflict prevention and dialogue support, humanitarian assistance and development cooperation, and the promotion of the Women, Peace and Security Agenda.

In his letter of 3 June 2021, the President of Mozambique, Filipe Nyusi, welcomed the deployment of an EU military training non-executive Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) mission in the country. The mandate of the mission will initially last two years.

SADC (Southern African Development Community) has authorized Mozambique to seek support from other friends, said Nyusi, according to Radio Mozambique.

“We took a long time to think, to organize and to plan. The foreign contingents will be under Mozambican command.”

Nyusi has historically been resistant to foreign boots on his grounds. Defending Mozambique is the exclusive responsibility of Mozambicans, he insisted. Friends can help, but sooner or later, they would return to their own countries, and it would be up to Mozambicans to guarantee security.

Nyusi, himself a former defence minister, had for long shied away from asking for foreign military intervention to fight the armed militants, instead relying on private military companies. He strongly believes that the violence is linked to the mineral wealth discovered in Cabo Delgado, particularly in Palma district, where there are enormous offshore deposits of natural gas. Those behind the terrorism are arranging the war in order to control the wealth.

The first large-scale insurgency broke out in Mozambique’s northeast in 2017. Since then, the rebels have stepped up attacks. The latest March 24 heinous attack left more than 2,800 deaths, according to several reports, and about 714,000 people displaced, according to government sources. According to the United Nations, more than 900,000 people are under severe food insecurity in Cabo Delgado, and host communities are in urgent need of shelter, protection and other services.

With an approximate population of 30 million, Mozambique is endowed with rich and extensive natural resources but remains one of the poorest and most underdeveloped countries in the world. It is one of the 16 countries, with a collective responsibility to promote socio-economic and political and security cooperation, within the Southern African Development Community (SADC) created in 1980.

*

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

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

Featured image is from the author

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The UN Security Council’s unanimous decision to extend the organisation’s use of the Bab Al Hawa crossing on the Syrian-Turkish border by six months, with another six-month extension if approved by the secretary general, has renewed a lifeline for the hapless civilians living in Syria’s Idlib province. The UN will continue to ferry food and medical supplies across that frontier, and coordinate and fund the flow of supplies provided by relief agencies. It is estimated that 1,000 loaded lorries cross every month into Syria. Three-quarters of the 3-plus million people residing in north-west Syria depend on foreign aid, 85 per cent of which, reportedly, enters through this crossing.

Russia and the US were at loggerheads over Bab Al Hawa. Moscow sought to close this crossing, arguing that all aid should be channelled through government-held crossings since maintaining Bab Al Hawa violates Syrian state sovereignty. Russia is correct. Most countries, including the US, would reject the imposition by the UN or another external agency of an entry point that would allow the free flow of goods into their territory outside government control. Particularly, if the goods were destined for an area held by an inveterate enemy.

After all, Hay’at Tahrir Al Shamm the takfiri group  which holds north-west Idlib province, has tried to overthrow the Syrian government, is crushing rival factions and is trying to set up a separate state in Idlib and adjacent tracts of territory.

Washington wanted to open another two crossings, one into the north-west and the other into the north-east which would supply the US-backed Kurdish held area, comprising 25 per cent of Syria. There had, originally, been four crossings, three of which the Russians had insisted on closing down. Russia compromised by holding back its veto on Bab Al Hawa.

This has, of course, angered humanitarian agencies which had called for the opening of all four, making their job easier. US President Joe Biden, reportedly, raised this issue when he met his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Geneva last month.

While the humanitarian significance of Bab al-Hawa is all too obvious. The majority of the 3.5 million Syrians who live in Idlib and other northern areas depend on it for food, medical supplies and shelter. But donors think of the politico-military importance of this crossing. By providing for the population of Idlib, UN and the Western donors stabilising the reign of Hay’at Tahrir Al Sham, which is an off-shoot of Al Qaeda and has established its base in Idlib, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean. This could expose the backyard of Europe to takfiri infiltration and should pose a dilemma for Western politicians but does not.

Perhaps, the intention of the Western powers is to use leverage provided by Tahrir Al Sham to exert pressure on the Syrian government to capitulate to Western demands. So far this has failed. Western powers adopted such a policy earlier when they refused to tackle Daesh while it campaigned in western Iraq, capturing major Sunni cities before conquering the Syrian city of Raqqa in 2014 and sweeping across the border to occupy Iraq’s second city, Mosul, and 40 per cent of that country.

Founded as Jabhat al-Nusra in December 2012, by Abu Mohammad Al Julani, Tahrir Al Sham is a sibling of Daesh and no less ambitious. The two are the most successful of the takfiri groups which were born in Iraq after the US occupation and crossed the border into Syria to wage war on the Damascus government. The Jabhat was meant to the Syrian branch of Daesh. But once Daesh itself entered the Syrian conflict, it attempted to dominate the Jabhat which declared independence and became Al Qaeda’s official arm in Syria.

Like Daesh, the Jabhat attacked minority religious groups in Syria — Christians, Druze and Alawites, as well as Sunnis who did not subscribe to its beliefs or submit to its rule. Unlike Daesh which not only fights the Syrian government but also has a mission to strike at the West, Julani’s objective has been confined to overthrowing the Syrian government. Julani was ordered by Al Qaeda chief Ayman al- Zawahiri not to mount attacks in the West. Nevertheless, the Jabhat has been designated a “terrorist” group since 2012.

Although Julani allegedly severed ties with Al Qaeda, Zawahiri dispatched key aides to join the Jabhat’s leadership. His priority was for the group to capture enough strategic Syrian territory to establish a permanent Al Qaeda power base. This is precisely what it has done.

In 2017, the Jabhat, which had undergone multiple name changes, rebranded itself as Hay’at Tahrir Al Sham and since then has asserted control of most of Idlib. The group seeks to turn Idlib into a separate entity governed exclusively by Tahrir Al Sham, which has ordered rival factions to dissolve and their fighters to join its ranks or leave Idlib. Al though pledged not to mount operations in the West, Tahrir Al Sham has celebrated such attacks by Daesh and other takfiri factions . Tahrir Al Sham is, after all, the child of Al Qaeda and sibling of Daesh. Perhaps Tahrir Al Sham has adopted the practice of Takiyya, dissimulation as a means of self-protection, until the group is powerful enough to export both adherents and ideology from its base in northwest Syria.

*

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Very bad news for those who still care about freedom of the press and what the fate of Julian Assange means for the artifact-First Amendment added to the U.S. Constitution 240 years ago. The UK High Court just announced it will hear the US appeal of a lower court decision against extraditing Julian Assange.

Godot is likely to arrive before the US/UK finish the legal pantomime denying Assange his freedom.

The High Court decision solidifies Britain’s status as a US vassal state – the 800-year legacy of the Magna Carta be damned. Giving obsequious hypocrisy a bad name, the High Court’s announcement comes a week and half after the prime witness for the latest indictment of Assange recanted his testimony.

It should come as no surprise that British “Justice” officials are following the detailed “Washington Playbook” approach that was exposed by WikiLeaks itself in Feb. 2012.

Some readers may recall that WikiLeaks-revealed confidential emails from the US private intelligence firm Stratfor mentioned that the US already had a secret indictment against the WikiLeaks founder. Bad enough.

Inspector Javert

What also showed up in the Stratfor emails was the unrelenting, Inspector-Javert-type approach taken by one Fred Burton, Stratfor’s Vice-President for Counterterrorism and Corporate Security. (Burton had been Deputy Chief of the Department of State’s counterterrorism division for the Diplomatic Security Service.)

Here’s Javert – I mean Burton:

“Move him [Assange] from country to country to face charges for the next 25 years. But seize everything he and his family own, to include every person linked to Wiki.” [my comment: “country to country”, or – equally effective – court to court]

“Pursue conspiracy and political terrorism charges and declassify the death of a source, someone which could link to Wiki.”

“Assange is a peacenik. He needs his head dunked in a full toilet bowl at Gitmo.”

“Take down the money. Go after his infrastructure. The tools we are using to nail and de-construct Wiki are the same tools used to dismantle and track al-Qaeda.”

“Bankrupt the arsehole first; ruin his life. Give him 7-12 years for conspiracy.”

“Assange is going to make a nice bride in prison. Screw the terrorist. He’ll be eating cat food forever … extradition to the US is more and more likely.”

Nice people – once sworn under oath “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic”. Since comparisons are invidious, apologies to “Javert” and Victor Hugo.

Meanwhile Back at Belmarsh

It is not clear whether the likes of Fred Burton have been able to dictate the menu for Julian Assange (but who would be surprised?). What is clear is that, unless a major grassroots campaign can gather more steam, and soon, Julian is likely to be moved from court to court, prison to prison – all under color of law – until they destroy what is left of him. It is a sad pantomime, a mockery of justice. Talk about Les Miserables!

As UN Rapporteur for Torture Nils Melzer has pointed out, Julian Assange is being subjected to psychological torture – in full view of the rest of the world. And, as reprehensible as this crime is – still more is at stake for democracies, which cannot exist without a free media.

Last Saturday Julian Assange “celebrated” his 50th birthday in London’s high-security Belmarsh Prison. I was asked to record a message to be loud-speakered at the demonstration in support of Julian before the prison that day. Here is the recording. For those lacking appreciation for my singing, the 8-minute talk is transcribed here.

*

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

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President’s Daily Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Featured image: Julian Assange court sketch, October 21, 2019, supplied by Julia Quenzler.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

As soon as Operation Warp Speed was announced, I made it clear that one of the prime goals was: winning approval for experimental RNA technology.

RNA tech had never gotten a green light prior to the COVID vaccine. Why? Because it was highly dangerous. Generally speaking, massive inflammatory response was the issue: the body attacks itself.

But RNA tech allows new vaccines to be developed faster, easier, and cheaper. Therefore, researchers could claim to discover new viruses at the drop of a hat (without authentic proof), and pharma companies could develop new vaccines (aka genetic RNA treatments) overnight.

It became Bill Gates’ and Tony Fauci’s mission to drag an RNA COVID vaccine across the finish line to emergency-use approval, come hell or high water. They were determined to crack open the marketplace for a flood of RNA medical products.

In yesterday’s, article, I highlighted the arrival of a “miracle” substance, graphene, trumpeted as the core of a whole new frontier in medicine.

For example, Merck is using it to research the creation of IMPOSED nerve responses in the body, in order to knock out a whole host of “disease conditions.”

Of course, the acknowledged toxicity of graphene nanoparticles is underplayed; in particular, their tendency to cause lung infections.

And now graphene and RNA tech meet, in new research into cancer vaccines. As they say, what could possible go wrong?

The reference is “In Situ Transforming RNA Nanovaccines from Polyethylenimine Functionalized Graphene Oxide Hydrogel for Durable Cancer Immunotherapy,” 2/17/21, ACS Publications.

Here is an excerpt from the optimistic abstract: “Messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine is a promising candidate in cancer immunotherapy…Here, we report an injectable hydrogel formed with graphene oxide (GO) and polyethylenimine (PEI). The released nanovaccines can protect the mRNA from degradation and confer targeted delivering capacity to lymph nodes…”

The scramble is now underway to deploy both RNA genetic tech and graphene in all sorts of medical “innovations.”

You don’t get just one danger; you get two.

And here is a third wrinkle. According to conventional vaccine theory, the injected RNA would cause cells of the body to produce a protein unique to cancer tumors. The immune system would attack this protein and, up the road, be prepared to destroy cancer before it could gain a foothold.

It’s possible that researchers from the old failed US viral cancer project of the 1960s and 70s could now rewrite history, get in line, and say, “We never failed. Robert Gallo DID discover two cancer viruses, which also have unique proteins. Let’s develop an RNA-graphene injection that empowers the immune system to attack these viruses…”

I mention this because those failed cancer researchers went on to claim a new virus called HIV caused a condition called AIDS. And like COVID, the “causative virus” was never isolated, never proved to exist.

HIV and SARS-CoV-2 are both phantom fantasies. And in both cases, the drug/vaccine treatments are massively destructive.

The medical cartel at 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.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Recent attention has focussed on the detrimental health impacts of graphene nanoparticles contained in the face mask as well as in the mRNA vaccine as documented in a scientific study by a groups of Spanish researchers.

This study was originally published in 2016.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Former Obama administration Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Tuesday on CNN’s “OutFront” that Americans who have not received a coronavirus vaccine should not be allowed to work or have access to children and be limited on where they are allowed to go.

Sebelius said,

“We’re in a situation where we have a wildly effective vaccine, multiple choices, lots available, free of charge, and we have folks who are just saying I won’t do it. I think that it’s time to say to those folks, it’s fine if you don’t choose to get vaccinated. You may not come to work. You may not have access to a situation where you’re going to put my grandchildren in jeopardy. Where you might kill them, or you might put them in a situation where they’re going to carry the virus to someone in a high-risk position.”

She continued,

“That’s, I think the point where we are, is freedom is one thing, but freedom when you harm others like secondhand smoke and issues that we’ve dealt with very clearly in the past you can’t drive drunk. You can drink, but you can’t drive drunk because you can injure other people. You can’t smoke inside of a public place where you can give cancer to someone else in spite of their never having been a smoker.”

Sebelius added,

“So I think we’re reaching that point in the United States where those of us who are vaccinated, I want to take off my mask. I want to be able to live my life with vaccination, and right now, I’m being impinged on by people who say I don’t want to get vaccinated. It’s fine. I want them to maybe have a limitation on where they can go and who they can possibly infect.”

*

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

Featured image is by Ali Raza from PxHere.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

During times of instability in Haiti, progressives both in the Caribbean nation and abroad often fear impending US military intervention. This makes sense, given Washington’s long history of deploying soldiers to shape Haitian affairs.

Since President Jovenel Moïse was assassinated Wednesday the Haiti Information Project has reported that combat vessel USS Billings is in Santo Domingo on the other side of the island. They also published photos of two US C-20 military aircraft unloading passengers and gear at the Toussaint Louverture Airport in Port-au-Prince. A video appears to show plainclothes men, reportedly Special Forces, being met by US embassy representatives.

But, what about Canadian Forces? While I have yet to find evidence of any Canadian deployment, it’s important for progressives to be vigilant considering this country’s history of using or threatening to use force to influence Haitian politics.

Amidst a February 2019 general strike that nearly toppled Moïse, heavily-armed Canadian special forces were videoed patrolling the Port-au-Prince airport. The Haiti Information Project suggested that they helped family members of Moïse’s corrupt, repressive and unpopular government flee the country.

On February 29, 2004, JTF2 commandos took control of the airport from which Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide was bundled (“kidnapped” in his words) onto a plane by US Marines and deposited in the Central African Republic. According to AFP, “about 30 Canadian special forces soldiers secured the airport on Sunday [Feb. 29, 2004] and two sharpshooters positioned themselves on the top of the control tower.” Reportedly, the elite fighting force entered Port-au-Prince five days earlier ostensibly to protect the embassy. The JTF2 deployment was part of the Canada/France/US campaign to destabilize and overthrow Haiti’s elected government. According to the military’s account of Operation PRINCIPAL, “more than 100 CF personnel and four CC-130 Hercules aircraft … assisted with emergency contingency plans and security measures” during the week before the coup.

For the five months after Aristide was ousted five hundred Canadian soldiers joined US and French forces in protecting Haiti’s foreign installed regime. A resident of Florida during the preceding 15 years, Gerard Latortue was responsible for substantial human rights violations. There is evidence Canadian troops participated directly in repressing the pro-democracy movement. A researcher who published a report on post-coup violence in Haiti with the Lancet medical journal recounted an interview with one family in the Delmas district of Port- au-Prince: “Canadian troops came to their house, and they said they were looking for Lavalas [Aristide’s party] chimeres, and threatened to kill the head of household, who was the father, if he didn’t name names of people in their neighbourhood who were Lavalas chimeres or Lavalas supporters.” Haiti and Afghanistan were the only foreign countries cited in the Canadian Force’s 2007 draft counterinsurgency manual as places where Canadian troops participated in counterinsurgency warfare. According to the manual, the CF had been “conducting COIN [counter-insurgency] operations against the criminally-based insurgency in Haiti since early 2004.”

After a deadly earthquake rocked Haiti in 2010 two thousand Canadian troops were deployed while several Heavy Urban Search Rescue Teams were readied but never sent. According to an internal file, Canadian officials worried that “political fragility has increased the risks of a popular uprising, and has fed the rumor that ex-president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, currently in exile in South Africa, wants to organize a return to power.” The government documents also explain the importance of strengthening the Haitian authorities’ ability “to contain the risks of a popular uprising.” To police Haiti’s traumatized and suffering population 2,050 Canadian troops were deployed alongside 12,000 US soldiers and 1,500 UN troops (8,000 UN soldiers were already there). Even though there was no war, for a period there were more foreign troops in Haiti per square kilometer than in Afghanistan or Iraq (and about as many per capita).

Canadian soldiers were part of the UN mission in the country between 2004 and 2017. A handful of Canadian military officials filled senior positions in the MINUSTAH command structure, including Chief of Staff. 34 Canadian soldiers were quietly dispatched to Haiti during the final six months of 2013.

Canada’ military involvement in Haiti dates to the previous century. Canadian troops joined the US led operation immediately after 20,000 troops descended on the country in 1994. Afterwards Canada took command of the UN force and about 750 Canadian soldiers were on the ground. At a 1996 NATO summit Prime Minister Jean Chrétien was caught on an open microphone saying, “he [US President Bill Clinton] goes to Haiti with soldiers. The next year, Congress doesn’t allow him to go back. So he phones me. Okay, I send my soldiers, and then afterward I ask for something in return.”

According to the 2000 book Canadian Gunboat Diplomacy, Canadian vessels have been sent to Haiti on multiple occasions. In response to upheaval in the years after Jean Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier fled Haiti warships were deployed in 1988 and 1987. Another vessel was deployed in 1974. This time, reports military historian Sean Maloney, “Canadian naval vessels carried out humanitarian aid operations to generate goodwill with the Haitian government so that Haiti would support Canadian initiatives in la Francophonie designed to limit French interference in Canadian affairs.”

As Francois ‘Papa Doc’ Duvalier’s first mandate came to an end in May 1963, the country was gripped with upheaval.When Haitian military officers accused of plotting against Duvalier fled into the Dominican Embassy in Port-au-Prince there was a major diplomatic incident between Duvalier and Dominican President Juan Bosch. Fearing forces sympathetic to Cuba may take advantage of the instability to grab power, HMCS Saskatchewan, a British vessel and seven US warships approached Haiti’s coast (three other Canadian ships stood by). The next year HMCS Saskatchewanwas again sent to Haiti to ensure Duvalier did not move towards Cuba.

‘Canada’ intervened militarily in previous centuries as well. In November 1865 HMS Galatea bombed Cap-Haitien in support of a Haitian political leader battling an opponent. Based in Halifax and Bermuda, the British frigate was part of the Empire’s North America and West Indies Station. Two decades later Halifax based HMS Canada was dispatched to Haiti on two occasions over six-months.

British/Canadian forces also sought to crush the Haitian slave revolution. Britain’s primary naval base in North America, Halifax played its part in London’s efforts to capture one of the world’s richest colonies (for the slave owners). Much of the Halifax-based squadron arrived on the shores of the West Indies in 1793 and a dozen Nova Scotia privateers captured at least 57 enemy vessels in the West Indies between 1793 and 1805. A number of prominent Canadian-born (or based) individuals fought to capture and re-establish slavery in Saint Domingue (Haiti). First Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, John Graves Simcoe, led the British invasion of Saint Domingue in 1796. As Governor, Simcoe re-instated slavery in areas he controlled.

Canada has a long history of intervening militarily in Haiti. Amidst the current instability, we should seek to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

*

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

Featured image is from Yves Engler

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

“No person … shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” — Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Abdulsalam al-Hela is a 53-year-old Yemeni cleric who has been incarcerated by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station in Cuba since 2004. He has not been charged with any crime. His case has a long and complex legal history, but it is instructive to all who believe that the Constitution means what it says.

Hela is represented by competent counsel who have filed numerous petitions in his behalf asking the courts to compel the government to comply with the Constitution and justify his confinement. The underlying constitutional principles here are due process and habeas corpus. The obligations of complying with both are imposed upon the federal government by the Constitution.

Due process — which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment — means that every person confined or charged by the government is absolutely entitled to a notice of the charges against him, a fair hearing on those charges before a neutral judge and jury, and the right to appeal any adverse decision to other fair and neutral judges. Hela is also entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. It permits all confined persons to ask a judge to compel the government to justify the confinement.

When Hela asked for due process and habeas corpus relief in federal district court in Washington, D.C. — the judicial venue for all Guantanamo Bay detainees — a district court judge denied his petition because the government has called Hela an enemy combatant and the president, the court ruled, has the lawful power to confine him for the duration of whatever hostilities he and the U.S. were engaged in.

But the government acknowledges that Hela was not engaged in any hostilities. Moreover, the United States itself is no longer engaged in hostilities in the Middle East, though presidents Donald Trump and Joseph Biden have, from time to time, sent missiles into that scorched-earth part of the world just to remind the folks there who still claims to be king of the hill.

Hela appealed the district court’s denial of habeas corpus and due process relief to the federal appellate court in Washington, D.C. A panel of three judges from that court chose not to address due process directly and instead denied Hela’s application for habeas. It did so not because the president — Trump, at the time — claims the power to confine foreign supporters of foreign groups violently at odds with the U.S., but for the historically novel reason that Hela has no property in the U.S. and is not confined here.

This is not only an absurd rationale, as the Constitution imposes no property requirement as a precondition to the use of habeas corpus, but it also defies several Supreme Court opinions that hold that wherever the government goes lawfully and permanently, the Constitution goes with it. Stated differently, the court has ruled that the government must uphold basic human and constitutional rights for all those it confines for more than a passing period, including those at Guantanamo Bay.

Why is this case important?

Hela is obviously an unsympathetic figure. The government says that as a cleric, he used words — which, if used in the United States, would have been protected by the First Amendment — to encourage young people to join militias that either did or could have attacked American troops. But the courts have never upheld confinement without charge for the mere use of words. Nor have they condoned a 17-year confinement without so much as the filing of any charges.

One can conclude that the government lacks evidence with which to charge and prosecute Hela. If that is so, it must let him go. This is basic constitutional law. But you would not know that from the position taken by the Biden Department of Justice.

According to The New York Times, DOJ lawyers debated privately for weeks over whether Hela has due process rights. The deadline for the DOJ’s response to Hela’s appeal was last Friday. No surprise, the DOJ filed its brief to the court under seal but then leaked certain parts to the press.

The leaks revealed that lawyers at the DOJ could not agree if the word “person” in the Fifth Amendment means “every person” or “every American person.” And so, in this monumental case, in which a federal appellate court negated long-recognized constitutional rights based on a novel and unconstitutional theory, the Biden Department of Justice remained mute. The Times also reported that Attorney General Merrick Garland recused himself from the case entirely because he once sat on the federal appeals court in Washington, though not on the panel that rejected Hela’s appeal.

What’s going on here? We have another political Department of Justice. But this one is afraid to take an unpopular stance — even though such a stance is dictated by the Constitution and the plain meaning of its words.

The DOJ’s failure to attack the made-up-out-of-thin-air property or physical presence requirement is not just a failure of nerve or a cover for the White House; it is a failure of the DOJ’s obligation to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, no matter how obscure or unpopular the object of that defense may be.

The whole idea that rights can be turned off like a light switch and those in whose hands we have reposed the Constitution for safekeeping can get away with doing nothing when this happens is sadly consistent with the lack of fidelity to the Constitution so regularly displayed by those in government today.

I have asked this question before, without answer: Why do we repose the Constitution for safekeeping into the hands of those who subvert it?

*

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

Featured image is by Ichigo121212 at Pixabay

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

One of the worst racial pogroms in U.S. history might have been prevented if city and state leaders had done their jobs responsibly

The parallels to our own time unfortunately resonate—as government leaders continue to provide a cover for criminal activity and grant impunity to the perpetrators of atrocities

For years, the story of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre was suppressed, left out of history books and school curricula and ignored in the media. Many people who grew up in Tulsa said that they had never heard about the massacre, even though it took place in their own backyard.

As living witnesses and participants died off, the horrific events were belatedly rediscovered—and due to pressure from local Black leaders like Vanessa Hall Harper, the City of Tulsa allowed for the excavation of grave sites to try to determine precisely how many people had been killed.

Then on the 100^th anniversary, the President of the United States visited Tulsa, and major media featured stories about the massacre and television networks aired films about it.

The Tulsa Race Massacre is now thought of by many people as a parable about America’s dark racial history, and the need to transcend it—a goal that appears uncertain in the era of Charlottesville and Donald J. Trump.

There is another moral to the story of the Tulsa Race Massacre, though, that is equally resonant today but has not been widely recognized.

A probe into the events of 1921 reveals the miserable failure of public officials tasked with the responsibility of protecting the public and upholding the rule of law in society.

Instead of trying to protect the Black community, Tulsa law enforcement and city officials, along with state authorities and the U.S. Army, gave carte blanche to, and even assisted, white vigilantes as they attacked and destroyed Black Tulsa.

The perpetrators of the mob violence were subsequently granted impunity: not one white person was ever prosecuted for murder, torture, looting or arson, even though those crimes were amply documented.

Blacks were also not allowed to return to their community, as the city took over their land and insurance companies deprived them of compensation.

While it is easy to attribute the failure of government officials at that time to the racism of the Jim Crow era, the parallels to today unfortunately are salient.

A new generation of leaders still protects the powerful when they violate the law while refusing to afford protection for their constituents from predation.

In just the last few years, government officials have helped cover up for rogue law enforcement agents who killed innocent citizens, such as Breonna Taylor and Laquan McDonald, and enacted laws that oppress minority groups and help further marginalize the poor. They also failed to hold powerful corporations and public officials accountable for massive war crimes on the international stage along with offenses like perjury.

The Obama administration tellingly refused to prosecute Bush administration officials for torture, Wall Street executives for financial fraud that helped crash the economy, and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper for lying to Congress about the extent of U.S. government surveillance—which was itself illegal.

The implications of the failure of government officials—whether liberal or conservative—to serve as arbiters of justice is ultimately as significant today as it was in 1921.

In both cases, the victims of major crimes were never afforded restitution, and impunity of the perpetrators ensured that they or their heirs could act again.

Overview of the Tulsa Race Massacre 

On the last weekend of May 1921, a white mob burned down the Greenwood District where African-Americans had achieved some prosperity and established a Black Wall Street despite living under segregation.

Tulsa at the time was a new city that had sprung up because of an oil boom.

A large Black population had come to the Oklahoma territory beginning in the 1830s as the slaves of Native Americans who had been relocated there under Andrew Jackson’s Indian removal policy, and because of the offer of land allotments to freed slaves after the Civil War.

Guthrie Oklahoma during land rush. [Source: Britannica.com]

The white community was resentful of the success of Black Wall Street and fact that Blacks who worked for whites were spending their money in Black-owned businesses.

At least 300 Blacks were killed in the pogrom, and 1,000 Black homes, businesses and churches were razed and plundered by some 15,000 white citizens, law enforcement officials, and military personnel.

The massacre began because of an allegation of sexual assault of a young white woman by a Black man, Dick Rowland.

On the morning of May 30, 1921, Sarah Page, 18, a white elevator operator, was alone in an elevator with Rowland, aged 19, in a downtown building. There is much speculation but little evidence as to why they were alone or what transpired in that closed intimate space, but we do know that Page screamed and then Rowland fled the scene.

Downtown building where Page-Rowland encounter took place. [Source: tulsaworld.com]

Oral accounts of the incident circulated among the city’s white community and became more exaggerated with each telling. Tulsa police arrested Rowland the following day, a Tuesday, and began an investigation.

The Tulsa Tribune, the city’s afternoon daily newspaper, reported that Rowland had attempted to rape Page and published a now-lost editorial about the incident titled “To Lynch Negro Tonight.”

When a white lynch mob formed to get Rowland, a Black rescue party, made up mostly of Black World War I veterans, mobilized to try to protect him.

Image on the right: Inflammatory article in Tulsa Tribune. [Source: tulsaworld.com]

The sensational reporting of the Tulsa Tribune spurred a confrontation between the Black rescue party and the white lynch mob around the courthouse.

Both groups were heavily armed.

When a white man attempted to disarm a Black veteran, shots were fired and people on both sides of the racial divide died immediately.

The outnumbered Blacks began retreating to the Greenwood Avenue business district. Many Black Tulsans fled for safety, but some with military experience stayed, opting to stand their ground and defend their community from an oncoming angry mob.

Fighting erupted along the Frisco railroad tracks, but Black defenders were eventually overpowered by superior numbers and firepower as angry whites descended on the Black enclave in Greenwood.

One eyewitness wrote: “All night long they could be heard firing from both sides, while the Whites were marshalling more than 5,000 men who had surrounded the Negro section to make an early attack in the morning on more than 8,000 Negroes.

As daylight approached, the Whites were given a signal by a whistle, and the dirty, cowardly outrage took place. All of this happened while innocent Negroes were slumbering and did not have the least idea that they would fall victims of such brutality.

At the signal of the whistle, more than a dozen airplanes went up and began to drop turpentine bombs upon the Negro residences, while the 5,000 Whites, with machine guns and other deadly weapons began firing in all directions.”^[1]

The Greenwood District was pillaged and burned to the ground. Crop duster airplanes were used to drop makeshift bombs onto buildings. Torchlights were used with gasoline to raze the Black settlement. The National Guard—under the direction of J. Patrick Hurley, who was later appointed as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ambassador to China—carried a cutting edge, high caliber machine gun through the streets of North Tulsa.

Greenwood District on fire during the massacre. [Source: history.com]

Black Tulsans made haste to flee the city to safety, but many Black men, women, and children were killed by the mob. Women dragged their children while running for their lives. Whites, who had gathered overnight from all over the region, fired at them as they ran. Black hospitals, with the sick and injured inside, were burned as many Blacks died in the flames.

Photo of one of many victims of the massacre. [Source: wikipedia.org]

Several Black Tulsans were tied to the backs of automobiles and dragged through the streets while bullets were being fired into their bodies. As the fighting progressed, the remaining Blacks were captured and rounded up by the National Guard to be placed in an internment camp in a downtown convention hall.

Most Blacks were taken prisoner. After more than 400 homes had been cleared of their Black owners, the burning and looting continued.

The Greenwood District, also derogatorily referred to as Little Africa, was pillaged, and burned to the ground. Hundreds of innocent and defenseless citizens were slaughtered. Not only was Tulsa’s legacy tarnished, but a huge volume of Black life, liberty, and property was lost that day.

Police Complicity and Terrorism

The Tulsa Race Massacre was a state-sponsored massacre.

Tulsa’s law enforcement, local, and state government employed intimidation, coercion, and violence to instill terror in Black Tulsans to the ends of political and economic exploitation. Black Tulsans tried to take up arms and defend themselves against their own government, but to no avail.

Oklahoma Assistant Attorney General Kathryn Van Leuven—the first female in her position in the country—launched an investigation into Tulsa law enforcement just months before the massacre and reported that the police department suffered from corruption, incompetence and a gross lack of resources. Poor local law enforcement made mob rule inevitable.

The police chief at the time of the Tulsa Race Massacre, John Gustafson, had worked as a spy for private detective agencies that infiltrated labor and leftist groups, and had a reputation for condoning lynching under his jurisdiction.

Tulsa County Sheriff Willard McCullough warned that Gustafson had been connected with the criminal underworld—snitches and crooks—and that he would “have no other kind of men on his force, and that such a police force would be a menace to the City of Tulsa.”

These words proved to be prophetic.

Neither the sheriff nor Chief Gustafson made a serious effort to disperse the white crowd that gathered to witness or participate in the lynching of Dick Rowland.

The arrival of approximately 200 armed Blacks, including World War I veterans in the midst of an angry white lynch mob 2,000-strong proved too much for the ill-trained and ill-prepared peacekeepers of Tulsa County.

The entire Tulsa police force was never called to the scene, and the few present were ill-equipped for the pending threat of mob violence. While the sheriff made a diligent effort to protect the life of Dick Rowland, no law enforcement agency made any effort to disarm or disperse the white rioters.

Once the violence erupted, Captain George H. Blaine of the Tulsa Police Department broke into McGee’s Hardware Store (Black-owned) and dealt out guns to white rioters. Gustafson deputized the same whites from the mob to help murder and inter the city’s Black populace.

On June 2, 1921, Adjutant General Charles Barrett of the Oklahoma National Guard declared that these special officers were chiefly instrumental in inciting the outbreak and did most of the shooting. Twenty years later, Barrett wrote that “they became as deputies the most dangerous part of the mob” and were the heart of Greenwood’s incendiaries.

Tulsa police congregate outside main police headquarters on the eve of the massacre. [Source: tulsaworld.com]

Mayor T.D. Evans—a Failed Umpire

Tulsa’s Mayor at the time of the massacre, T.D. Evans (1920-1922), had been a Judge who, in November 1917, convicted 17 members of the anarcho-syndicalist Industrial Workers of the World (IWW, aka “Wobblies”) of not owning a war bond—a conviction that smacked of political and ideological retaliation.

Because the war effort consumed so much oil, Tulsa stood to gain economically from it and any opposition to it was viewed as a threat to prosperity and success. Oil industry executives also hated the Wobblies because of the threat of strikes that might dampen their profits.

After the trial, the “Wobblies” were placed in police cars and delivered into the custody of the Black Robes of Liberty, a vigilante group affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), which drove the Wobblies outside of town, tied them to trees, and horse-whipped them and poured boiling tar on their backs.

Newspaper headline detailing torture of Wobblies and founding of Tulsa’s Klan out of the incident. [Source: thislandpress.com]

An investigation by the National Civil Liberties Bureau determined that one of the main perpetrators of the torture was Tulsa’s police chief, Ed Lucas.

A Republican lawyer and wealthy real estate investor, Evans won the mayoralty on a platform of building a pipeline to bring fresh water to Tulsa. He was also sympathetic to the local KKK.

After the violence, Mayor Evans publicly blamed North Tulsa for the destruction, charging 55 Black Tulsans with inciting a riot.

He further disbanded the Executive Welfare Department in charge of post-riot “humanitarian” efforts—accusing it of challenging his authority—and replaced it with friends, cronies, and real estate business partners—among them members of the KKK—who made up the Reconstruction Committee or Real Estate Exchange.

No Black Tulsans sat on the exchange, which decided not to raise any funds to aid the rebuilding of Black Wall Street and to relocate survivors of the massacre further north.

The exchange in turn schemed to transfer Black lands, resources, and wealth into the coffers of some of the wealthiest white Tulsans through a plan to rezone the burned district into an industrial zone and by constructing a profitable railroad station on the smoldering remains of “Little Africa.”

Local real estate groups saw the destroyed district as lucrative for future industrial use and Blacks as an obstacle to the economic development of the city.

After a low-ball attempt by Evans’s committee of speculators to purchase the land from the massacre victims backfired, a maneuver was made to rezone the district as part of city fire limits.

This ordinance made it financially impossible for most Black Tulsans to rebuild their homes. Mayor Evans rejected the Chamber of Commerce’s suggestion to help Blacks rebuild on their own land and actively worked to relocate Black Tulsans to temporary shacks that could be easily condemned when railroad plans were ready.

Evans showed undeniable hostility toward Blacks as he tried to prevent the Red Cross from distributing emergency tents for Black families during the winter of 1921 and halted all incoming donations for rebuilding the Black district.

His overtly predatory business tactics against some of his most vulnerable constituents classify his actions as nothing less than a betrayal of his office.

In the end, Mayor Evans’s and his cronies’ plan to rezone Black Wall Street was thwarted thanks to the efforts of Black attorney Buck Colbert Franklin (1897-1960), whose son John Hope Franklin became a pioneering Black historian.

Franklin’s successful lawsuit against the city won the votes of three Oklahoma Supreme Court justices who agreed that the fire ordinance supported by Evans was unconstitutional and took private property without due process.

Land-grab efforts persist today as gentrification and eminent domain efforts continue to relocate poor, Black, and Brown families from profitable areas in North Tulsa.

White Supremacy and the Breakdown of Law and Order

The KKK operated in the open at the time of the Tulsa Race Massacre and counted some of the most prominent Tulsans as its members.

Members of the Ku Klux Klan ride through Tulsa in 1923. [Source: wpr.org]

Foremost among these was Wyatt Tate Brady, a pioneer Tulsa developer and Oklahoma’s first Democratic Party national committeeman, who served as a guiding member of Evans’s real estate exchange.

According to descendants of survivors of the Tulsa Race Massacre, Brady helped coordinate the attack on Greenwood from his mansion in downtown Tulsa, setting up a war room in his house replete with maps.

At one point, he reported for “Guard duty” and oversaw the killing of five Blacks, including one who had been dragged from a car with a rope around his neck.

Just three years before the massacre, Tulsa had hosted the largest reunion of Confederate veterans after city leaders raised $100,000 to cover the cost of the event.

W. Tate Brady—whose father had fought with the Confederacy—was the primary organizer of the reunion. Its committee members included judges, ministers, and influential names that are still widely recognized in Tulsa.

[Source: thislandpress.com]

Alfred L. Brophy, Professor of Law at the University of Alabama and author of Rebuilding the Dreamland, argues that the massacre represents a complete breakdown of law in early Oklahoma. “City and state law officials are largely to blame for the destruction of the Greenwood community,” he said, because of their endorsement of the violence by the white mob and failure to hold any of the perpetrators accountable for their actions.

According to Brophy, two separate understandings of the definition of law existed prior to these events: Whites interpreted the law to subjugate Blacks, while Blacks interpreted the law as the most prudent avenue to equal treatment.

As mayors and sheriffs participated in the lynching of Black men, however, Blacks’ confidence in the law weakened, and they were prompted to arm themselves in self-defense—something the white community could never accept.

James S. Hirsch, in his book Riot and Remembrance, argues that Tulsa’s reputation as a haven for bandits—along with white supremacists—contributed to the aura of lawlessness that lay behind the race massacre.

According to Hirsch, Tulsa’s lawless nature was so beneficial to its economy that local law enforcement was encouraged not to uphold the law and therefore chaos thrived. Citizens were assaulted and lynched without a single arrest or prosecution, as “whites established racism as a custom and wrote it into law.” When Tulsa Blacks tried to assert their rights, they were put back into their place, which is what the race massacre was all about.

Long Pattern of Racist Terrorism

The Tulsa Race Massacre followed a long pattern throughout the southern U.S. of racist terrorism and vigilantism that was abetted by state authorities and law enforcement officials.

Two years earlier in Elaine, Arkansas, the governor had called in local troops to assist a white mob that had attacked Black sharecroppers who tried to organize a union. The troops were “under order to shoot to kill any negro who refused to surrender immediately”; they killed at least 200.

[Source: ualr.edu]

Steve Green was a Black field hand in Arkansas at the turn of the 20^th century. In 1910, Green and his employer, William Sidle, had a labor dispute of an unclear nature. Steve quit his position on Sidle’s farm and moved his family to work on another farm just a few miles away.

Steve’s former employer promptly alerted his prospective employer that Green was not permitted to work for anyone else, only Sidle.

When Sidle showed up to physically collect Green, a scuffle ensued. Steve’s former employer shot him three times. Green was somehow still able to reach a firearm and return fire, killing his former boss.

Despite clear evidence of self-defense, white-owned newspapers claimed it was senseless murder. Green’s character was publicly trashed. A white lynch mob began forming.

Fearing overwhelming threats of violence from white vigilantes in his small Arkansas community, Green fled to Chicago where he was later apprehended by local authorities there.

Facing extradition from Chicago back to Arkansas, Green attempted suicide while in custody but failed. He later begged law enforcement authorities for the means to take his own life so that he would not have to go home and face the horrors of being ritualistically tortured and lynched by a white mob of vigilantes.

Famous Chicago anti-lynching crusader, Ida B Wells caught wind of Green’s plight and invested in his physical and legal defense. She hired a team of Black lawyers to protect his legal rights, and relied on a tight-lipped network of anti-lynching activists to physically protect him.

Ultimately, Green was exonerated of all charges. This was a rare victory that encouraged Blacks to become more assertive with their legal defense on behalf of groups such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and in defending their communities from white intimidation and terrorism.

Lynching 

Though not a sectional crime per say, the great majority of lynchings in the United States took place in the southern and border states, Oklahoma included.

Until the late 1800s, lynching was used to punish alleged criminals by both Black and white lynch mobs. Following the end of the Civil War and the birth of the KKK, lynching became racialized.

In 1918, the NAACP began lobbying Congress to legislate against lynching on the federal level, but their efforts failed in the U.S. Senate in 1922.

Lynchings of Laura Nelson and her son, Okemah, Oklahoma. [Source: wikipedia.org]

Lynchings involved public spectacle, ritualistic torture and, in the case of Laura Nelson’s lynching in Okemah, Oklahoma, rape. Black bodies were often beaten by multiple members of the mob. Burning at the stake was common. Black men accused of any transgression, especially against white women, would often have their genitals cut off while still alive.

Lynchings were sometimes family events where lucky participants could walk away with a piece of mutilated Black body (finger, ear, or other appendage) as a souvenir. Steve Green would have rather taken his own life than experience this.

Many of the lynchings took place with the help of or due to the negligence of local law enforcement agencies and individuals. White vigilantes often removed their victims from jail cells with little to no resistance from officials.

Mobs carried out inhumane torture rituals on helpless Blacks. White law enforcement officers had an unfortunate history of either refusing or being unable to help. Knowing that the law offered little to no security, some Blacks saw fit to protect their own lives, sometimes with lethal force.

Tulsans Decide to Defend Themselves

Black Tulsans were very familiar with the story of Steve Green due to both Black and white media coverage.

Black Tulsans were not only reading white newspapers, but also Black papers, The Tulsa Star and Black Dispatch out of Oklahoma City.

Non-violence versus self-defense in the face of mob violence became a popular news topic. More stories of Black courage when faced with white lynch mobs flooded the media.

Blacks were also reading stories of Black self-defense closer to home. An increase in the number of local and national news stories of resistance to the culture of lynching led Black Tulsans to rush to the aid of Dick Rowland in June 1921.

They thought they could save Rowland as they had Jim Adkinson, who had been accused of sexually assaulting a white woman in Okmulgee, Oklahoma, in October 1920. In his case, the sheriff was forced to intervene and vowed to protect Adkinson’s right to a fair trial after more than 1,000 African-Americans armed themselves and protected him from a white lynch mob.

Thanks to the vigilance of the Black community, Adkinson survived to see his trial and was found not guilty.

Perhaps the most influential display of Black self-defense leading up to the burning of Greenwood was John McShane’s escape from police custody in April 1921.

Less than two months before the Tulsa Race Massacre. John McShane had been arrested in Muskogee, Oklahoma, after winning a fistfight with a white man. Upon learning of rumors of the Klan coming for McShane, a group of armed Black men executed a sensational rescue.

A deputy was shot in the process of freeing McShane, but many Black Oklahomans saw this sensational escape as empowering in the fight against racial terror. This event was still very fresh in the minds of Black Tulsans when things came to a head on Black Wall Street.

When the threat of Dick Rowland’s lynching became imminent in June 1921, Black men, mostly World War I veterans in the Greenwood community, saw it as their noble masculine duty to protect the young man from mob violence. Rowland had also been accused of sexually assaulting a white woman and a white lynch mob was demanding that the sheriff hand him to the crowd.

The group of Black men who chose to defend Rowland’s life had also been motivated and inspired by the local and national trend of self-defense in the face of white racialized violence and the breakdown of local law enforcement. The impunity accorded to white vigilantes was a feature of the Jim Crow era that led to catastrophes like the Tulsa Race Massacre.

Failure to Overcome Its Demons

As strong an effort as there has been to commemorate the victims of those horrible events long ago, the City of Tulsa has as of yet refused to provide reparations to Tulsa’s Black community—a situation which is now in litigation.

Black Tulsans demand reparations in front of Tulsa City Hall in March 2021. [Source: tulsaworld.com] 

The city has also refused to rename the Brady district—a flourishing commercial area replete with nightclubs, restaurants, and a ballpark built directly on the ruins of Black Wall Street.^[2]

As the centennial commemorations were being prepared this year, Oklahoma’s Republican-dominated state legislature passed House Bill 1775, which outlaws public school teachers from teaching how racism played a role in shaping American society.

The chair of the Oklahoma City Public Schools Board of Education, Paula Lewis, characterized HB 1775 as “an outright racist and oppressive piece of legislation.”

Former State Senator Anastasia Pittman (D) stated that “the suppression of education is oppression. Every student has a right to know their historical experience and contributions and HB 1775 took that away.”

The absurdity of the new law was explained by Devin J. Veney, a Black history teacher at Carver Middle School in Tulsa, who said that it would restrict him from teaching students what happened on Greenwood Avenue—the very street where his school is situated.

Neither the city of Tulsa nor the state and country where it rests has changed as much as people would like to think since the dark weekend 100 years ago when Black Wall Street was destroyed.

Not only do racial divisions linger, but so do deep class divisions and the “good ol’ boys club” mentality of government leaders, which prevents our society from overcoming its demons and evolving into a more humane place.

*

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

Anthony Cherry is a James Madison Fellow and received his Master’s degree in History at the University of Tulsa. He teaches history at Holland Hall School in Tulsa. Before that he taught at Booker T. Washington High-School. Anthony can be reached at [email protected].

Notes

1. Mary E. Jones Parrish, Events of the Tulsa Disaster (Tulsa: John Hope Franklin Center for Reconciliation, 1923, 2009), 48.

2. In 2013, after activists had raised an outcry that the Brady district was named after W. Tate Brady, the City Council decided to rename Brady Street to M.B Brady Street after Mathew Brady, a famous civil war photographer who had no connection to Tulsa. Many felt this was a way to avoid renaming the street and district.

Featured image: Ruins of the Greenwood District, known as Black Wall Street, following the Tulsa Race Massacre. Whites refused to allow its reconstruction. [Source: publicintegrity.org]

Purchase six e-books from Global Research Publisher’s PDF collection at a discounted price. Download your order as a zipped folder straight to your computer and avoid shipping and handling costs.

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

Product Type: PDF

List Price: $53.85

Special Price: $39.00

CLICK HERE TO ORDER

 

 

The Global Research PDF Collection includes:

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity (PDF) (Click title to order individual PDF)

Author: Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN Number: 978-0-9879389-0-9

Year: 2015

Product Type: PDF File

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.

This “Long War against Humanity” is carried out at the height of the most serious economic crisis in modern history.

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 (PDF) (Click title to order individual PDF)

Author: Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN Number: 978-0973714708

Year: 2003

Product Type: PDF File

In this new and 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 new 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.

The Dirty War on Syria: Washington, Regime Change and Resistance (PDF) (Click title to order individual PDF)

Author: Tim Anderson

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-7-7

Year: 2016

Product Type: PDF File

The Dirty War on Syria has relied on a level of mass disinformation not seen in living memory. In seeking ‘regime change’ the big powers sought to hide their hand, using proxy armies of ‘Islamists’, demonising the Syrian Government and constantly accusing it of atrocities. In this way Syrian President Bashar al Assad, a mild-mannered eye doctor, became the new evil in the world.

As western peoples we have been particularly deceived by this dirty war, reverting to our worst traditions of intervention, racial prejudice and poor reflection on our own histories. This book tries to tell its story while rescuing some of the better western traditions: the use of reason, ethical principle and the search for independent evidence.