All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Just yesterday, we discussed the censoring of a commentator by Twitter for merely expressing an opinion over the need for a “pause” on any federal mandates on Covid-19 as new research is studied. Now, a former New York Times science reporter, Alex Berenson, has been suspended for simply citing the results from a clinical trial by Pfizer and raising questions over any vaccine mandate. In the meantime, the White House accused both the Washington Post and New York Times of irresponsible reporting on Covid, but surprisingly Twitter has not suspended those accounts. It is the license of the censor. Twitter is unwilling to let people read or discuss viewpoints that it disagrees with as a corporation. Many on the left, however, have embraced the concept of corporate speech and censorship. It turns out that the problem with censorship for many was the failure to censor views that they opposed. With the “right” censors at work, the free speech concerns have been set aside.
I have little ability to judge the science on such questions. Moreover, I was eager to be vaccinated as was my entire family. I would get the vaccination today with equal enthusiasm. However, I welcome the debate for data. Yet, rather than answer such critics and refute their arguments, many people focus on silencing anyone with dissenting viewpoints like Berenson.
Berenson has been effectively confined to Substack by Big Tech due to his discussing dissenting views on the science surrounding Covid-19. His latest offense against Big Tech came when he posted the results published by Pfizer of its own clinical data. He claimed that the research showed little difference in mortality between those in the trial with a vaccine and those given a placebo.
In the meantime, the White House sent out an all caps condemnation for “completely irresponsible” reporting on the infliction of vaccinated people according to another study.
Ben Wakana, deputy director of strategic communications and engagement for the White House, blasted the Washington Post over its headline about a study of a COVID-19 outbreak in Provincetown, Massachusetts on July 4th. The Post tweet read “Vaccinated people made up three-quarters of those infected in a massive Massachusetts covid-19 outbreak, pivotal CDC study finds.” Wakana responded “Completely irresponsible, 3 days ago the CDC made clear that vaccinated individuals represent a VERY SMALL amount of transmission occurring around the country. Virtually all hospitalizations and deaths continue to be among the unvaccinated. Unreal to not put that in context.”
Completely irresponsible.
3 days ago the CDC made clear that vaccinated individuals represent a VERY SMALL amount of transmission occurring around the country.
Virtually all hospitalizations and deaths continue to be among the unvaccinated.
Wakana addressed the same issue with a New York Times tweet stating “Breaking News: The Delta variant is as contagious as chickenpox and may be spread by vaccinated people as easily as the unvaccinated, an internal C.D.C. report said.” That sent Wakana into all caps: “VACCINATED PEOPLE DO NOT TRANSMIT THE VIRUS AT THE SAME RATE AS UNVACCINATED PEOPLE AND IF YOU FAIL TO INCLUDE THAT CONTEXT YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG.”
VACCINATED PEOPLE DO NOT TRANSMIT THE VIRUS AT THE SAME RATE AS UNVACCINATED PEOPLE AND IF YOU FAIL TO INCLUDE THAT CONTEXT YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. https://t.co/gBkDbJ21xX
Now all three posters (Berenson, The Post, and The Times) were citing studies and accused of not putting them into context. However, only Berenson was suspended.
Obviously, none of these posters should be suspended and Twitter should not be enforcing one of the largest censorship programs in history. However, the silence of free speech supports, academics, and journalists to this hypocrisy is deafening.
The rise of corporate censors has combined with a heavily pro-Biden media to create the fear of a de facto state media that controls information due to a shared ideology rather than state coercion. That concern has been magnified by demands from Democratic leaders for increased censorship, including censoring political speech, and now word that the Biden Administration has routinely been flagging material to be censored by Facebook.
This is why I have described myself as an Internet Originalist:
The alternative is “internet originalism” — no censorship. If social media companies returned to their original roles, there would be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism; they would assume the same status as telephone companies. We do not need companies to protect us from harmful or “misleading” thoughts. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech.
If Pelosi demanded that Verizon or Sprint interrupt calls to stop people saying false or misleading things, the public would be outraged. Twitter serves the same communicative function between consenting parties; it simply allows thousands of people to participate in such digital exchanges. Those people do not sign up to exchange thoughts only to have Dorsey or some other internet overlord monitor their conversations and “protect” them from errant or harmful thoughts.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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).
I’m still trying to wrap my brain around the astonishing shift from the CDC on Tuesday, July 27, 2021. It is not just that the CDC is re-recommending masks for people indoors in many parts of the country, which could include your neighborhood or not, and this could change tomorrow. (Hint: right now, it disportionately affects red states.)
Whether and to what extent you “protect” yourself from disease with a paper strapped to your mouth and nose is now wholly contingent on data reporting and interpretation. It might feel like science but it has a better name: arbitrary power. Out with the Constitution. Out of traditions of law. Out with legislatures and the will of the people.
What’s even stranger was the rationale that the CDC cited to claim that the Delta variant renders the vaccines – the ones that have been hyped with unrelenting propaganda for many months, including stigmatization and demonization of those who refuse – substantially less effective for stopping infection than President Biden was touting just last week.
Our thinking on the subject is supposed to mutate at the same pace as the virus itself. It’s exhausting and triggers anyone’s BS detector. How in the world does the CDC expect anyone to believe anything it says in the future?
To be sure, the claim that breakthrough infections (PCR positives in vaccinated individuals) might be more common than thought could in fact be true. Indeed, I tend to think it is. It is a general principle of immunology that for viruses that mutate quickly, inoculation cannot always keep up as an infection preventive.
This is one reason that these fields have for the better part of 100 years observed that natural immunity is to be preferred if that is an option. It is safer and more globally effective for pathogens that are mild for most people, which is exactly what the science is (pointlessly) showing yet again now. Vaccines are glorious for stable viruses (measles, smallpox), but less comprehensively effective for flus and coronaviruses – which is saying nothing controversial. I should add.
For example, a study from a Houston, Texas, hospital shows that the Delta variant is more transmissible than the wild type or other mutations. “Delta variants caused a significantly higher rate of vaccine breakthrough cases (19.7% compared to 5.8% for all other variants)” and yet there are fewer hospitalizations and deaths – which is another point for traditional virus theory: as a rule of thumb, variants of these pathogens are more prevalent but less severe. We’ve long known that – or did until 2020 when we decided to scrap a century’s worth of public health wisdom.
There is a rumor out there – that’s all it is – that the CDC is relying on some other study out of India that demonstrates that the Delta variant outwits the vaccine, but the study in question pertains to a vaccine not available in the US, has not been peer-reviewed, and was even withdrawn from preprint status so there is no way to check the findings or the data behind them. There are by now more than 100,000 pieces of science out there related to Covid, and they are public. But the one on which the CDC is rumored to follow is not available.
Where it gets interesting is that when a CDC spokesman was asked for the science behind the mandate – we aren’t talking about masking here, but the basic claim that the Delta tends to make an end-run around vaccines – the person said it wasn’t published, as if that were completely normal. What does this mean? Only Anthony Fauci, Rochelle Walensky, and some other big shots at the government agency have access? The millions of other scientists in the world cannot even have access to check out to make sure that the science is sound? And from the interpretation of a small cabal inside some bureaucracy comes the law of the land?
A critical principle of science is peer review, and that at least requires sharing study results that you claim to be definitive. If you don’t do that, people have every reason to dismiss your claims. In the decades since the internet, we’ve seen an ever more intense push to get those journals from behind paywalls and make them publicly available for greater accountability and a better scientific process.
In fact, open science works. A perfect example has been shown this past year when members of the public – including this writer – have enjoyed access to all the science pouring out daily, and happened to take notice of how completely screwed up policy has been in light of the actual evidence. There is zero evidence of a relationship between lockdowns and disease mitigation, zero credible evidence that masks cause a change in the virus trajectory, zero evidence that any of this wreckage of our liberties and rights has been worth it in any case, among many other revelations thanks to open science.
But now we have the CDC making a massive change in the lives of Americans – mandating a piece of clothing around our faces – but flat-out refusing to cite the science behind the claim; either about the variant, its effects, much less the sketchy claims that masks make any difference at all either way. They could have cited the Houston study but did not. Nope. The studies “have not been published yet,” the CDC spokesperson told the Epoch Times.
And we are just supposed to sit by, take our instructions, believe what they say about the science we’ve never seen and they will not share with other scientists, and not complain about it. To be sure, it could be correct that the vaccines are less effective than we have been told all these months, and that’s fine. Just give it to us straight. And yet even the Houston study showing this admits that Delta itself is less deadly.
Isn’t the whole point of this whole Covid kabuki dance to minimize severe outcomes – not cases, not infections, not exposure but hospitalization and death? One would suppose so. But the data games have enabled the disease planners for the better part of a year and a half to keep the shell game going, manipulating data, trends, and various other factors to remix the numbers in ways that fit whatever story they want to tell at the moment. So long as it generates a headline and a policy, we are good to go.
These days, the game is out in the open, brazen, completely undisguised. The science has been reduced to the status of pure diktat. They speak, you obey. If you question it, or even if you are correct too soon, you are toast. The fact-checkers will nail you and you will be body bagged as a subversive and an enemy of the people.
The unscientific nature of this game is summed up in the following realization. The Biden administration is toying with tactics and strategies for disease control that have utterly and completely failed for the 16 months they have been tried. Everwhere in the world! The science as we know it conclusively demonstrates the failure of every bit of the lockdown agenda. And yet here we are, threatened by another round on all sides.
I was curious how our home assistants have handled this newest turn of events that is going to land the nation’s kids in masks again this fall. I asked her. I got in return a tedious rendering of the same bland messaging from 5 different news sources, each nonchalantly telling us the new instructions from some unelected bureaucracy led by people with no experience or skin in the game.
I had the sudden sense that I was playing a bit part – the powerless man in a chair – in some dystopian science fiction movie. The point of the movie is to warn us against a future that we should all work to prevent – to know that such a nightmare would be possible and to therefore guard against any trend in that direction. Such movies exist to remind us how fragile freedom really is.
Sadly, the nightmare is here. It is everywhere. There is no more need for warnings. Now we have to deal with the reality of what we’ve become thanks to the people who once imagined that they could use the power of the state to outwit an enemy that neither we nor they could see or understand. Refusing to admit complete failure, they only double and triple down in a theater of the tragically absurd.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Jeffrey A. Tucker is founder and president of the Brownstone Institute and the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press and ten books in 5 languages, most recently Liberty or Lockdown. He is also the editor of The Best of Mises. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture. [email protected]
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Following the World Health Organization’s formal declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments around the world quickly mandated the use of face masks in public spaces.
This led to a massive demand shock, prompting factories to begin producing disposable masks at full capacity. The majority of these masks were produced in China, and in April 2020, the country reported a staggering daily production figure of 450 million masks.
Plastic Pollution: A Lesser Known Side Effect
In Ocean Asia’s 2020 report, Masks on the Beach, researchers developed a formula to provide reasonable estimates for the number of disposable masks entering the environment.
Given an annual production figure of 52 billion disposable masks and a loss rate of 3% (the percentage of masks that escape water management systems), Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu notes that the team concluded that nearly 1.6 billion face masks wound up in our oceans in 2020. This amounts to approximately 5,500 tons of plastic pollution.
These masks are commonly made of polypropylene, which easily breaks up into microplastics. While the effects of microplastics on human health are not yet determined, these fragments are incredibly common in our water supply – for example, 94% of U.S. tap water is deemed to be contaminated.
Disposable Doesn’t Mean They’re Gone
Despite their single-use nature, disposable masks are expected to take more than four centuries to decompose while in the ocean. Here’s how this compares to other items we use on a day-to-day basis.
The pandemic has extended well into 2021, and the number of disposable masks polluting our oceans is likely to continue growing.
With this in mind, various companies and organizations are beginning to search for a solution. One noteworthy example is Plaxtil, which is developing a method for recycling surgical masks so that the raw materials can be used for other products.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
A new open-source study concludes that Syrian insurgents carried out the Ghouta sarin chemical attack in August 2013. The explosive findings add to a growing body of public evidence that undermines US-led efforts to blame the Syrian government, which almost led to US military intervention.
Hundreds of people were killed and thousands were wounded when sarin rockets hit multiple sites in the Syria area of Ghouta on August 21, 2013. The US and its allies publicly accused the Syrian government of responsibility, and President Obama threatened to bomb Syria in purported retaliation. But Obama ultimately pulled back after reaching an agreement with Russia to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal.
Since then, a growing body of public information has raised questions about US-led claims of Syrian government guilt. The new open-source study, published by Rootclaim, adds to this evidence.
Based on their trajectories, the study traces all seven missile impact locations back to the most likely launch spot where they all intersected: a small area within insurgent-controlled territory. This location is about 2 km from any impact site — the agreed range calculated by experts for the Volcano rockets used in the Ghouta attack.
Video footage has previously surfaced of insurgents wearing gas masks, firing Volcano rockets, and identifying themselves as members of the insurgent group Liwa Al Islam. The video matches several features of a small field that is located within that insurgent-controlled area where, the study found, the rockets were launched from. That same area, matching the field, was also the source of a little-reported sarin attack by insurgents on Syrian government forces just days after the Ghouta attack.
Guests:
Michael Kobs and Adam Larson. Co-authors of a new study on the 2013 chemical attack in Ghouta.
Saar Wilf. Founder of Rootclaim, which published the Ghouta study.
The study builds on previous revelations that have cast doubt on US-led claims of Syrian government guilt, and pointed instead to Syrian insurgents.
A now widely accepted study from MIT Professor Ted Postol and ex-UN weapons inspector Richard Lloydfound that the range of the Ghouta rockets was outside of Syrian government-controlled territory – making a launch from that area impossible.
Reporting in the London Review of Books, Seymour Hersh revealed that US intelligence collected evidence pointing to Syrian insurgent responsibility for Ghouta attack. The Defense Intelligence Agency reported that al-Nusra in Syria maintained a sarin production cell, “the most advanced sarin plot since al-Qaida’s pre-9/11 effort.” Tests by the British military laboratory Porton Down had found that the sarin used in Ghouta did not match the kind known to exist in the Syrian government arsenal. And US intelligence officials raised the possibility that al-Nusra in Syria had acquired sarin from Turkey in a bid to frame the Syrian government and trigger US government military intervention.
In May 2013, more than ten al-Nusra members were arrested in Turkey, reportedly carrying at least two kilograms of sarin. Two Turkish lawmakers later revealed that a probe into the government’s role in providing sarin to insurgents was compromised.
In 2016, President Obama confirmed that his Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, (along with other U.S. officials) had warned him that allegations of Syrian government responsibility in Ghouta were not a “slam dunk” – a deliberate reference to the phony intelligence that led to the Iraq war.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Aaron Maté is a journalist and producer. He hosts Pushback with Aaron Maté on The Grayzone. In 2019, Maté was awarded the Izzy Award (named after I.F. Stone) for outstanding achievement in independent media for his coverage of Russiagate in The Nation magazine. Previously, he was a host/producer for The Real News and Democracy Now!.
Featured image is from The Grayzone
Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.
Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes the mainstream media narratives on Syria.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
In what’s becoming one of the longest running legal dramas in the global gold market, the saga of Venezuela’s ‘frozen’ gold in London continues to roll on, most recently reaching the UK Supreme Court in a 4 day court hearing between 19 – 22 July.
At the core of the legal drama is the question of who has the authority to withdraw Venezuela’s gold reserves which are stored in custody at the Bank of England. Is it the Banco Central de Venezuela (BCV) under the direction of de facto president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, or is it a team directed by self-styled interim president of Venezuela Juan Guaidó, who is backed by the US and UK governments.
Given the multiple developments in this saga over the last few years and the complexity of the matter, a recap is in order.
Between late 2011 and early 2012, the BCV conducted a famous gold repatriation operation, flying 160 tonnes of gold bars that were held abroad, back to Caracas in Venezuela to be stored in the vaults of Venezuela’s central bank. Following the completion of that gold repatriation in January 2012, this still left 4,089 of BCV’s Good Delivery gold bars stored in the Bank of England’s vaults (about 50.8 tonnes).
Sometime after 2012 and until 2018, the BCV then began entering various gold swap transactions, including those with Deutsche Bank and Citibank as counterparts, and also with the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) as a counterpart. To do this, the BCV used most of the gold that it held in the Bank of England vaults in London as collateral for the gold swaps.
Deutsche and Citibank Gold Swaps
One such transaction was a $1.7 billion gold swap with Deutsche Bank, which the BCV let lapse in 2017, thus allowing Deutsche Bank to keep the gold that had been put up as collateral. This was somewhere between 30-40 tonnes of gold.
Another was a gold swap transaction with Citibank, again with the BCV putting up gold as collateral. In April 2018, the BCV paid Citibank $172 million to recover some of that gold from Citi which had been put up as collateral. That then left the BCV, as of April 2018, with a net total of 14 tonnes of gold held at the Bank of England (about 1125 Good Delivery gold bars).
After the Citi gold swap was wound up in April 2018, the BCV then began asking for its gold back from the Bank of England. This is where it gets very interesting.
In November 2018, it became public knowledge that the Bank of England was stalling on the BCV’s request to withdraw 14 tonnes of Venezuela’s gold from London, with the Bank of England using bogus excuses such as transportation insurance costs and anti-money laundering concerns to not fulfill its withdrawal obligation on BCV’s gold custody contract.
However, the real reason for stalling the BCV’s gold withdrawal request was political – in the form of US State Department and US Treasury pressure that was put on the British Foreign office and HM Treasury to block Venezeula’s gold withdrawal and repatriation plan. This stalling was designed to allow time to roll out US sanctions against Venezuela in November 2018 and critically, to move the goalposts and change the rules of the game by allowing time for the Guaidó team (backed by the US and UK) to enter the arena so as to try to win control of the remaining 14 tonnes of BCV gold at the Bank of England.
Blocking tactics included the following. On 30 November 2018, two high profile politicians from the Venezuelan political opposition, Julio Borges and Carlos Vecchio, wrote a letter to the then Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, asking the Bank of England to refuse the gold withdrawal request by the BCV.
At the same time, UK Government officials fronted by the “Venezuela All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG)” attempted to block a meeting between the Bank of England and a Venezuelan team comprising BCV president Calixto Ortega Sánchez and Venezuelan finance minister Simón Zerpa Delgado, who had flown over from Caracas to London in early December.
Although that meeting went ahead, the Bank of England again refused the gold withdrawal request of Ortega Sánchez and Delgado. For more details, see BullionStar article dated 18 December 2018 and titled “Venezuela’s gold in limbo amid tug-of-war at the Bank of England”.
BCV Ups the Ante – 31 Tonnes in Play
December 2018 also saw Venezuela’s central bank up the stakes when it closed out another gold swap transaction with Deutsche Bank, with the BCV paying cash back to Deutsche in return for 17 tonnes of gold which the BCV had put up as loan collateral in 2015. This gold swap closeout thereby boosted the total gold holdings of the BCV at the Bank of England from 14 tonnes to 31 tonnes, more than doubling the amount of gold which the BCV now laid claim to in the Bank of England London vaults.
Gold bar storage at the Bank of England – Each group of bars marked in yellow is approximately 1 tonne (80 bars).
Note, it appears that the BCV added to its 50 tonnes of gold held at the Bank of England some time between 2012 and 2015 since the amount of gold connected to gold swaps with Deutsche Bank and Citibank appears to have at times exceeded 50 tonnes. It therefore looks like the BCV at some point flew some of the gold bars back from Venezuela to London that had been repatriated to Caracas in 2011-2012.
The stalling by the Bank of England also bought time before Maduro’s new presidential term began on 10 January 2019, after which the US political rhetoric was upped against Maduro and little-known Juan Guaidó (the then national assembly leader in Venezuela’s parliament), was claimed to be interim Venezuelan president by a US-UK led group of countries.
By January 2019, it also became clear who in the US Government had been lobbying the UK government when Bloomberg published an article which revealed that “The Bank of England’s decision to deny Maduro officials’ withdrawal request comes after top U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Michael Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton, lobbied their U.K. counterparts to help cut off the regime from its overseas assets”.
Once Guaidó entered the picture, he too began writing letters to the then British prime minister Theresa May and the then Bank of England governor Mark Carney. In his letters, Guaidó claimed that Venezuela’s Maduro aimed to sell the BCV gold. – “I am writing to ask you to stop this illegitimate transaction” said the Guaidó letters, according to Reuters.
Remarkably, Guaido’s letter to Thersea May was his first letter ever to a foreign head of government, which shows the desperation of the US-UK states in attempting to block access to the 31 tonnes of BCV gold in London.
The UK Strategy – Recognition of Guaidó
As part of undermining Maduro and the BCV, the UK Government (Her Majesty’s Government) through it’s Foreign Office, then released a statement on 4 February 2019 saying that it recognised Juan Guaidó as interim President of Venezuela. This then gave the Bank of England the excuse to refuse the BCV’s gold withdrawal request saying that the BCV had not provided sufficient evidence of the authority of the BCV to issue instructions to the Bank of England, and also that the representatives of Guaidó (as claimed interim President of Venezuela and recognised by the UK Government) had also given gold withdrawal instructions.
By late January 2019, Bloomberg reported that communications between the BCV and the Bank of England had broken down:
“talks were unsuccessful, and communications between the two sides have broken down since. Central bank officials in Caracas have been ordered to no longer try contacting the Bank of England. These central bankers have been told that Bank of England staffers will not respond to them, citing compliance reasons, said a Venezuelan official…”
Fast forward to May 2020, and on 14 May 2020 in the High Court of England and Wales, lawyers for the Banco Central de Venezuela (BCV), as claimant, filed a claim against the Governor And Company Of The Bank Of England as defendant, to secure the release of its gold, or alternatively to be paid the sum of Euro 930 million (about US$ 1 billion).
In it’s claim, the BCV stated that by refusing the gold withdrawal request of the BCV, the Bank of England had breached its contractual obligations and that the refusal was a breach of a bailment contract by the Bank of England.
BCV gold accounts at the Bank of England – Accounts 217 & 571. Source
The claim also revealed that since 12 August 2008, the Bank of England had maintained a “gold set-aside account” in BCV’s name, and that as of 14 May 2020, the BCV had two gold accounts with the Bank of England, “namely (i) account 217 Banco Central de Venezuela and (ii) account 571 Banco Central de Venezuela number 2 (together, the “Accounts”).”
When this High Court case was heard over 22 – 25 June 2020, the hearing hinged on deciding who had authority to give instructions to the Bank of England to withdraw the Venezuelan gold, a) the Board of the BCV which had been appointed by Maduro (the Maduro Board), or b) a competing Ad Hoc Administrative Board of the BCV which had been appointed by Guaidó (the Guaidó Board). The case also included a sum of $120 million which Deutsche Bank was required to pay to the BCV on one of the gold swaps, and which was held by Receivers, with Deutsche also claiming that it did not know which ‘Board’ of the BCV to take instruction from.
On 2 July 2020 in his judgement, the judge in the High Court case, Sir Nigel Teare, said that the UK Government had, through it’s 4 February 2019 statement, legally recognised Guaidó as constitutional interim president of Venezuela. This would then have allowed the Guaidó Board to initiate a gold withdrawal request from the Bank of England.
After the judgement was provided in draft form to the lawyers of the two sides, the Maduro Board lawyers asked the Court (judge) to state “explicitly” whether the recognition by Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) of Guaidó was ‘de jure’ (legally recognised regardless of whether it exists in reality) or ‘de facto’ (describing a situation which exists in reality), or both.
Teare replied that while HMG had recognised Guaidó as constitutional interim President of Venezuela, which was consistent with a de jure recognition, that irrespective of the basis for the recognition, HMG had “unequivocally recognised Guaidó as President of Venezuela”, meaning that HM Government no longer recognised Maduro as President of Venezuela.
However, lawyers for the BCV Maduro Board immediately then said that they were going to appeal the judgement in the Court of Appeal, which they promptly did.
From the High Court to the Court of Appeal
In August 2020, the Court of Appeal granted the Maduro Board permission to appeal on the recognition issue (i.e, who is recognised to have authority to give the Bank of England and Deutsche Bank instructions), and in September 2020, the appeal hearing took place in the Court of Appeal between 22 and 24 September 2020 in front of three law lords, namely, Lord Justice Lewison, Lord Justice Males and Lord Justice Phillips.
The Court of Appeal then published its judgement on 5 October 2020. In it’s judgement, the Court of Appeal overturned the judgment of the High Court which had “unequivocally recognised Guaidó as President of Venezuela”, with Lord Justice Males of the Appeal Court saying that the UK’s recognition of Guaidó “is to my mind ambiguous, or at any rate less than unequivocal“.
This Appeal Court ruling then sent the Maduro vs Guaidó case back to the High Court.
However, the Guaidó Board then went to the Supreme Court asking for permission to appeal the Court of Appeal judgement.
Court 1 of the Supreme Court, London
From the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court
On 9 December 2020, the Supreme Court granted the Guaidó Board permission to appeal. The High Court then ordered that it’s proceedings involving the BCV gold should be stayed (suspended) pending the outcome of the Guaidó Board appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court hearing was then scheduled for July 2021,
In early January 2021, the European Union (EU) announced that it did would not continue to recognise Guaidó as Venezuela’s president because Guaidó had lost his position as head of the Venezuelan National Assembly during December 2020 elections, when Maduro regained control of the Venezuelan Parliament.
Five Lords A-Leaping
The Supreme Court appeal hearing began in London on 19 July 2021 and ran for 3 days until 21 July (with 22 July held in reserve if needed), the appelant being the “Guaidó Board” of the Central Bank of Venezuela”, and the respondent being the “Maduro Board” of the Central Bank of Venezuela.
There were no less than five justices (judges) overseeing the hearing, namely, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Hamblen, and Lord Leggatt. The hearing heard the appeal from Guaidó’s side, as well as a cross-appeal from the BCV’s Board.
Like clockwork, the UK Government continued its intervention, coming out with a statement on 19 July through its UK Foreign Office, reiterating that the UK Government (HM Government) recognises Guaidó as president of Venezuela. In fact, a UK Foreign Office representative also made submissions to the Court during the Supreme Court hearing.
The basic goal of the Supreme Court hearing was to examine the nature, scope and effect of the UK Government having recognised Guaidó as interim president, and to determine was it justifiable based on the reality on the ground in Venezuela (with Maduro still in power), and whether there any valid challenge in legal terms that could be made about the recognition of Guaidó by the HM Government.
Anyone interested in viewing the proceedings which took place in the Supreme Court hearing between 19 July and 21 July can actually do so, as there are six videos of the proceedings at this link, i.e. a video of each of the morning and afternoon sessions over 19 – 21 July.
This Supreme Court hearing is now awaiting judgment. As soon as the judgment is handed down by the judges, it will appear on the future judgements page of the Supreme Court website here. It will also appear on the BAILII legal judgements database here. While Supreme Court judgments in the UK can come out anywhere between 3 and 9 months after an appeal hearing, the high profile nature of the BCV – Bank of England – Maduro – Guaidó case means that the judgement is sure to be handed down sooner rather than later and maybe as soon as September or October.
21st Century Piracy?
On 21 July, Maduro commented on the Venezuelan gold in London, saying that the situation of the BCV gold being blocked by the Bank of England amounts to a case of “piracy of the 21st century because that money is from Venezuela.” He continued:
“They are stealing Venezuela’s gold reserves, which belong to the Central Bank of Venezuela, they do not belong to the Government, they belong to an autonomous institute [the BCV] … more than US$ 2 billion in gold, the gold bars deposited in the Bank of England”
On the US / UK claims backing Guaidó, Maduro said that:
“they invent a government of Narnia, a government of fantasy, to steal companies, money, accounts and to steal gold from Venezuela.“
Conclusion
While the Supreme Court judgment will determine who has the authority to withdraw and use 31 tonnes of BCV gold stored under custody at the Bank of England, this case will also have far reaching international implications for all sovereign assets held in the United Kingdom, and particularly monetary gold.
A ruling in favour of Guaidó will mean that the UK Government can at will seize control over state assets of foreign governments held at the Bank of England and elsewhere, and such a ruling would send shockwaves internationally about the notion of sovereign property rights, and how they are treated in the City of London, and wider England and the UK.
A ruling in favour of Guaidó also creates a worrying situation where a government executive (HM Government) can intervene and interfere into the judiciary using claims which have no basis in reality – i.e. Guaidó has no control over the Venezuelan central bank, nor it’s employees, nor is he even recognised by the EU as president of Venezuela, nor is he recognised as president by a vast list of countries including China and Russia, nor is he even leader of the Venezuelan national assembly anymore.
Over 70 sovereign nations hold gold in storage at the Bank of England including many nations in South and Central America and across the Middle East and Asia. If the Supreme Court rules against the BCV and in favour of Guaidó, and creates this precedent that sovereign gold reserves are not safe in London, expect the sound of many phones ringing at the Bank of England from central banks around the world trying to line up their gold withdrawal and repatriation requests. That in itself would be a sight to behold.
While you might think that the five lords a-leaping in the Supreme Court in their judgement will take these critical sovereign property right concerns into account, don’t underestimate the connections between the various strands of the British Establishment across politics, judiciary and the City of London, where the ‘fraternities’ and undisclosed connections between the ‘brothers’ will nearly always be more important than what how an outsider would view the situation.
It would therefore not be surprising if the law lords of the Supreme Court side with the Foreign Office, the Bank of England, and the US State Department, who are all working on the same side to prevent the BCV getting its hands on 31 tonnes of the BCV’s gold bars (worth approximately US $ 1.8 billion at current spot price).
Moral of the story for central banks – Don’t hold gold at the Bank of England if you actually ever want to withdraw 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: Headquarters of the Venezuelan central bank (BCV) in Caracas, Venezuela (Source: Bullion Star)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Today with the height of imperial arrogance and hubris, the US State Department issued a joint statement to further its plans to destroy Cuba and all the gains it has made in health, education and welfare. Lining up 20 spineless, neo liberal countries beholden to them and led by right wing governments including; Austria, Brazil, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Guatemala, Greece, Honduras, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Republic of Korea, and Ukraine to sign on to the statement that read in part, “we condemn the mass arrests and detentions of protestors in Cuba and call on the government to respect the universal rights and freedoms of the Cuban people, including the free flow of information to all Cubans….. On July 11, tens of thousands of Cuban citizens participated in peaceful demonstrations across the country to protest deteriorating living conditions and to demand change. They exercised universal freedoms of expression and assembly, rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…”
That is rich coming from the country that holds the biggest responsibility for the shortages and hardships in Cuba with its draconian economic blockade on a people that never threatened or attacked them for over 60 years. Exaggeration of the number of people protesting against the Cuban government on July 11 seems to grow by the day in social media along with nonexistent deaths with zero proof like providing names. If you wondered where those millions of dollars in grants that USAID and NED gives out with the sole purpose of undermining the Cuban government went to, well here is a good example; bombarding social media to sew confusion and creating twitter accounts of people that don’t exist, all to fan discontent around the difficult austerity that Cuba has been forced to endure through little fault of their own.
The US is in no position to preach to any country about human rights or deteriorating living conditions. All you have to do is go to just any US city and look in the streets and under the highways where there are millions living in their cars or in tents or in nothing at all, epidemic here nonexistent in Cuba and as the federal moratorium on evictions comes to an end at the US this month there will be tens of thousands more thrown out scrambling to find some help in the few, underfunded, disconnected patchwork of social programs. Millions in the US have no medical coverage while in Cuba health care is free for everyone no matter how costly the procedure.
Violations of human rights? Consider the violence that peaceful protestors regularly meet in the streets of the US facing the latest military grade weapons, police attacks with tear gas, rubber bullets and much more. The protestors in Cuba faced nothing even close to that on June 11. What about the human rights abuses in US war prisons from Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo? And aren’t the drone bombings of thousands of civilian deaths in countries in the Middle East and Africa, accelerated by Obama, don’t they constitute supreme human rights violations?
Every country has laws and Cuba does too and they have every right to apply their laws to people who break them as they see fit. According to Cuban media many of those arrested on July 11 have been released and others will stand trial. Who is the US to talk about incarceration when they have more people locked up (disproportionately people of color) per capita than any country in the world? This is the kind of thing that the US excels at. Being a member in good standing in the community of nations, helping each other out, it is 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.
Bill Hackwell and Alicia Jrapko are members of the US chapter of the Network in Defense of Humanity.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota is set to introduce legislation on Friday that would establish a guaranteed income program and postal banking services to provide most U.S. adults, including undocumented taxpayers, with a $1,200 monthly check.
The SUPPORT Act is co-sponsored by Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) as well as Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Dwight Evans (D-Pa.), and Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), all members of the CPC.
HuffPost, which first reported the details of Omar’s new bill, noted that the SUPPORT Act “would first create a $2.5 billion grant program to fund local pilots in guaranteed income. These would run in hundreds of communities across the country from 2023 to 2027 and provide findings for a national program.”
According to the news outlet:
The national guaranteed income program would start in 2028, sending $1,200 per month to adults making up to $75,000 per year, or heads of household making up to $112,500 per year, as well as providing $600 monthly per child. The payments would phase out for higher incomes.
Importantly, undocumented people who file taxes with an ITIN number would be eligible. The legislation would also establish a banking system through the postal service for “unbanked, underbanked, and individuals experiencing housing instability” to receive payments.
A 2018 report from the Federal Reserve Board showed that nearly 40% of U.S. adults could not cover a $400 emergency expense.
Because the U.S. has more than enough resources to abolish poverty, Omar argued, allowing it to continue is a “choice” that legislators make.
The lawmaker’s guaranteed income bill comes just days after a new Urban Institute report projected that federal economic relief programs enacted throughout the course of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic—including enhanced unemployment insurance, three rounds of one-time direct stimulus payments, the expanded child tax credit, boosts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and other benefits—will result in a roughly 45% decline in poverty in 2021.
In response to the new findings on the substantial anti-poverty impacts of pandemic-related aid, historian Rutger Bregman said that “this is what basic income advocates have been saying for years: simply giving people money works.”
Whoa check out these graphs. This is what basic income advocates have been saying for years: simply giving people money works. Eradicating poverty is not a utopian fantasy, it's a policy option.https://t.co/lKvWVNl51Qpic.twitter.com/ZEsrVkp1VC
Although 20 million fewer people are expected to be living in poverty at the end of this year compared with 2018 thanks to the increased provision of financial assistance amid the coronavirus crisis, the Urban Institute warned that progress will be reversed if Congress fails to make permanent the initiatives that led to a reduction in economic hardship.
Omar’s bill represents one effort to transform the federal government’s emergency allocation of direct cash support into a long-term policy.
“For too long we have prioritized endless growth while millions are homeless, hungry, or without healthcare,” the lawmaker said in a statement. “We as a nation have the ability to make sure everyone has their basic needs like food, housing, and healthcare met.”
From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Before the rise of Cuba’s Communist party, there was a US-backed fascist government under the leadership of Fulgencio Batista who ruled Cuba with an iron fist. Batista was elected in 1940 serving a 4-year term. Then Batista’s reign of terror effectively began when he decided to run for re-election in 1952, but when his political party found itself practically in last place during the election with Roberto Agramonte of the Orthodox Party who was in the lead followed by Carlos Hevia of the Authentic Party, he decided to lead a military coup and cancel the elections. The current president at the time, President Carlos Prio Socarras went into exile as a result. So what did Washington do? They immediately recognized Batista’s government and gave him financial and military support among other benefits.
In the meantime, Batista suspended the 1940 Constitution that he originally supported and then made a radical move by cancelling whatever civil liberties the Cuban people had left. Batista had total control over the Cuban economy that was once on equal grounds with Italy in terms of economic growth. One of Batista’s first moves as a typical dictator in Latin America when he gave his full-support to wealthy landowners who owned basically almost all of the sugar plantations on the island.
Image on the right: Fulgencio Batista (Public Domain)
Under Batista, the divide between rich and poor grew although wages rose to keep the Cuban people somewhat temporarily satisfied at least for the time-being. However, government corruption was out of control while the American mafia (both Italian and Jewish) were in control of drugs, gambling and prostitution allowing these criminal enterprises to become profitable industries in Cuba.
Cuba’s situation became so dire that the people began to get angry. So Batista made the decision to take over the media by way of censorship and he even created an anti-communist secret police force that was authorized to use torture and was even given permission to conduct public executions to install fear among the Cuban people.
It is estimated that there were between 10,000 to 20,000 Cubans who were actually murdered with Washington’s full-knowledge of the situation, but hey, to the US establishment that was American-style democracy in action.
Then the birth of TheJuly 26 Movement led by Fidel Castro took place against the US-backed dictatorship with an attack on the Moncada army barracks in Santiago, but was defeated by Batista’s military. As university students and anti-Batista activists continued protests against Batista’s social policies, the secret police forces increased repressive tactics to crush the protests.
It was just a matter of time before the people rose up against the Batista’s tyrannical regime as his actions paved the way for the Cuban revolution of 1959 and that was the consequences of the US government interfering in the politics and economy of a foreign country. It was inevitable.
However, relations between the new Castro government and Dwight D. Eisenhower administration were at first a bit friendly, but when Cuba’s new Agricultural Reform law confiscated lands that were owned and operated by US businesses while sponsoring anti-US revolutionary movements in the Caribbean, the relationship quickly turned sour. An arms embargo was imposed on Cuba on March 14, 1958 which was towards the end of an armed struggle between the fascists led by Fulgencio Batista and the rebels led by Fidel Castro which was the start of a series of embargos that eventual led to today’s protests erupting in Cuba.
The US government has been trying to overthrow Cuba’s communist system since Fidel Castro seized power in 1959, so the Eisenhower administration made a move against Cuba a year later.
So in the summer of 1960, the US started an economic war so they imported less brown sugar from Cuba under the Sugar Act of 1948 allowing Cuba to rely on the Soviet Union who agreed to purchase the sugar.
During that same time period, the US refused to export oil to Cuba making it reliant on crude oil from the Soviet Union, it was a move that prompted US companies to refuse refining Cuba’s oil. Cuba responded to the actions imposed by the US by nationalizing three US-owned refineries that became the Union Cuba-Petroleo. The Eisenhower administration imposed Cuba’s first trade embargo that restricted selling Cuba various products with the exception of food and medicine.
Then in the month of October, tensions rose between Washington and Havana when Castro decided to nationalize all US businesses without compensation. US diplomats were also expelled from Cuba that prompted Eisenhower to cut all diplomatic channels with Cuba on January 1961 allowing the US trade embargo to continue under the Trading with the Enemy Act 1917. Then in April of 1961, President John F. Kennedy gave the green light for the CIA-backed Bay of Pigs Invasion which failed when Cuban forces quickly defeated a covert plan involving Cuban exiles that began under the Eisenhower administration. What was the consequence of those actions by the US government? It led the Cuban government to declare itself socialist aligning itself with the USSR.
The US Congress then passed the Foreign Assistance Act on September 4, 1961 that was part of the Cold War Act that strictly prohibited any form of aid to Cuba and allowed the US President to impose a trade embargo against Cuba. Then on January 21, 1962 fourteen members of the Organization of American States (OAS) voted against Cuba while six member states abstained. Sanctions were followed-up by the OAS on July 26, 1964 but a decade later the sanctions were “rescinded.” Over the years, OAS and Cuban relations eased on the tensions that was inspired by Washington and the suspension of membership for Cuba was finally lifted on June 2009.
Kennedy went as far as to extend extreme measures by executive order by imposing trade restrictions that expanded the embargo to include all imports of Cuban-made products even if the products were made or assembled outside of Cuba. The newly amended Foreign Assistance Act of August 1962 strictly prohibited any country to provide Cuba with humanitarian assistance.
On September 7, 1962 the Cuban embargo was tightened so that all trade with Cuba was restricted except food and medicine. In October 1962, after the scare of the Cuban missile crisis, travel was restricted between the US and Cuba with the Cuban Assets Control Regulations under the Trading with the Enemy Act as a response to the Cuban government hosting Soviet nuclear weapons as Cuban assets in the U.S. were frozen. Since then, Cuba has been struggling to get basic products and other desperately needed necessities.
An article from October 2020 in the Business Standard ‘US trade embargo causes $144 billion losses for Cuban economy’:
The US trade embargo against Cubahas caused more than $144 billion in losses for the island nation’s economy in the past six decades, Foreign Affairs Minister Bruno Rodriguez said.
The burden of mounting financial, economic and trade sanctions, “for a small economy like Cuba’s, is an overwhelming burden” Xinhua news agency quoted Rodriguez as saying at a press conference while presenting the government’s latest tally of the losses
Former US President Donald Trump imposed his “maximum pressure” strategy against Cuba by slapping on more than 240 plus new sanctions and to make matters worse, he added Cuba to the list of “state sponsors of terrorism” again to keep his voter base in the Cuban-American community intact. Trump also imposed a travel ban for American tourists which hurt Cuba’s tourism industry. Trump also banned Cuba from buying important medicines and imposed sanctions on oil imports to Cuba from Venezuela.
As much as I did not like Barack Obama, he did loosen some restrictions on US citizens who wanted to visit Cuba. Obama also removed Cuba from the list of “state sponsors of terrorism” although it was the US government who committed acts of terrorism against Cuba. In fact, anti-Castro terrorist groups such as Alpha-66 was responsible for several hotel bombings in Cuba in the mid-90’s that even killed an Italian tourist and injuring many others.
There were and still are other Anti-Castro terrorist groups operating mostly in South Florida such as Brothers to the Rescue (BTTR), Cuban American National Foundation(CANF) and several others involved in assassination attempts against Fidel Castro and advocated for regime change of the Cuban government.
If you remember one famous terrorist who lived in Miami by the name of Luis Posada Carriles (who actually died a free man in 2018) was apprehended in 2005 as reported by SFGATE.com (formally the San Francisco Chronicle) ‘Arrest of Cuban ex-CIA figure puts Bush in tough political spot’ said that “Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles, a former CIA operative who is wanted in Venezuela for the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner that killed 73 people, was seized by U.S. authorities in Miami on Tuesday.” The report laid out the facts on Posada’s crimes against Cuba:
A strident anti-communist, Posada long has been regarded as a terrorist by Cuba, Venezuela and other nations. But he is a hero to many in Florida’s politically powerful anti-Castro Cuban community, who tend to support Republicans. “He is a fighter, a true believer who has fought for the freedom of his country,” said Jose Hernandez, president of the Cuban American National Foundation in Miami, responding to news of Posada’s arrest.
Posada is accused of masterminding the bombing of a Cubana jetliner over Barbados that killed many members of Cuba’s Pan American Games team on Oct. 6, 1976. Venezuelan authorities arrested Posada after tracing the bomb to two Venezuelans who had worked for Posada’s private security agency in Venezuela
In an interview conducted by the Miami Herald“Posada denied any role in the bombing.”Peter Kornbluh, the director of the Cuba Documentation Project at the National Security Archive at the time claimed that declassified documents from the CIA and FBI link Posada to prior meetings and had planned to place a bomb on the Cubana jetliner, “Posada was involved in an unprecedented crime at the time for the Western Hemisphere,” Kornbluh continued, “President Bush should implement the principles of the war against terror that he espouses — that no nation should harbor terrorists.” The article clearly explained what Posada was involved in:
Posada has had a long history of planning assassinations and planting bombs in Cuban government offices since the early 1960s, when he was trained in demolition and guerrilla warfare by the CIA. The declassified information said the CIA paid him $300 a month in the 1960s and that he worked for the CIA at least from 1965 until June 1976. Over the years, FBI reports associated him with plans to blow up Soviet and Cuban freighters in Mexico, a plot to overthrow the Guatemalan government, and involvement in anti-Castro activities in the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico. In the 1980s, he worked with the CIA in El Salvador to ferry weapons to the U.S.-backed Contra Army in its fight against Nicaragua’s Sandinista government.
In 1997, Posada allegedly orchestrated a dozen bombings in Cuba intended to deter the growing tourism trade. An Italian businessman was killed and 11 people wounded as a result. In a taped interview with the New York Times, he said: “It is sad that someone is dead, but we can’t stop”
After Posada was found not guilty and was acquitted in 2011 on charges of lying to immigration officials on how he entered the US and his involvement of terrorism against Cuba in 1997. Cuba called the verdict a “farce” while Venezuela accused the US of harboring a well-known terrorist.
One other episode of US imperialism’s thirst for war against Cuba occurred in 1962 called ‘Operation Northwoods’ which was a false-flag operation proposed by the US Department of Defense (DOD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff that called for the CIA and other clandestine organizations within the US government to carry-out acts of terrorism against the military and civilian targets on US soil to justify a war against Cuba.
The idea was to blame Cuba for the terrorist attacks that also included hijacking planes so that they will be shot down or blowing up a US ship or even orchestrating random terrorist attacks within U.S. cities. They also detailed the possibility of assassinating or sinking boats filled with Cuban refugees, but the plan was flatly rejected by President John F. Kennedy. In 1981, Washington’s endless war on Cuba led to biological warfare with help from the CIA and the US military who had launched an operation by unleashing ‘Dengue Fever’ which is also known as ‘Hemorrhagic fever’ on Cuba effecting more than 273,000 people killing 158 including men, women and children.
On September 6, 1981, The New York Times reported what Fidel Castro had said regarding the US government’s role in biological warfare against Cuba:
”we urge the United States Government to define its policy in this field, to say whether the C.I.A. will or will not be authorized again- or has already been authorized – to organize attacks against leaders of the revolution and to use plagues against our plants, our animals and our people.”
US President Ronald Reagan and his State Department’s response was the following, “Mr. Castro’s charges of possible United States involvement in the epidemic were ”totally without foundation.” The State department blamed Castro’s revolution as the cause of the outbreak
“The Cuban Government has always tried to blame the United States for its failures and its internal problems” continued ”The Cuban revolution is a failure, and it is obviously easier to blame external forces like the United States than to admit those failures.”
Then an all-out assault on the Cuban economy took place years later as the US congress passed the Helms–Burton Act or The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 that strengthened the embargo against Cuba. The law meant to expand the embargo’s jurisdiction where it can apply its “territorial application” that basically penalized foreign companies who do any sort of business with Cuba. US president Bill Clinton finalized the Helms-Burton Act by signing it into law on March 12th, 1996. The passage of the Helms-Burton Act was a response to an incident that occurred on February 24, 1996 when Cuba’s territorial claims had been compromised. Cuba dispatched two fighter jets who shot down two private planes operated by ‘Brothers to the Rescue’ which they describe as a “Miami-based humanitarian international Search and Rescue support group” (codename for terrorists!) which was supposedly on a search mission on international waters.
One important fact on the effects of the US embargo was that it did allow Cuba to resist any US interference in its domestic affairs as the support of the Cuban people grew stronger over time. In other words, if the US would have kept its hands out of Cuba, who knows what kind of government it would have developed without foreign interference, but the world will never know what Cuba could have turned into on its own. Washington’s political establishment, the Military-Industrial Complex, multi-national bankers and corporations and the mainstream media along with Cuban-American community in Miami, New Jersey and elsewhere are continuing to criticize Cuba, some are even calling for a US intervention. Whatever actions Biden takes against Cuba, it will be along the lines of whatever past administrations have done and that is to tighten the screws on Cuba until the people scream uncle, for Uncle Sam that is.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Silent Crow News.
Timothy Alexander Guzman 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).
Hemp fuel and other biofuels could reduce carbon emissions while saving the electric grid, but they’re often overlooked for more expensive, high-tech climate solutions.
On July 14, the European Union unveiled sweeping climate change and emissions targets that would, according to Gulf News, mean “the end of the internal combustion engine”:
The commission’s draft would reduce permitted emissions from new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles to zero from 2035 – effectively obliging the industry to move on to battery-electric models.
While biofuels are a less high-tech, cheaper and in many ways more effective solution to our dependence on petroleum, the United States and other countries are discussing similar plans to the EU’s and California is already on board. But in a recent article in the Los Angeles Times and related video, Evan Halper argues that we may be trading one environmental crisis for another:
The sprint to supply automakers with heavy-duty lithium batteries is propelled by climate-conscious countries like the United States that aspire to abandon gas-powered cars and SUVs. They are racing to secure the materials needed to go electric, and the Biden administration is under pressure to fast-track mammoth extraction projects that threaten to unleash their own environmental fallout.
Extraction proposals include vacuuming the ocean floor, disturbing marine ecosystems; and mining Native American ancestral sites and pristine federal lands. Proponents of these proposals argue that China controls most of the market for the raw material refining needed for the batteries, posing economic and security threats. But opponents say the negative environmental impact will be worse than the oil fracking that electric vehicles are projected to replace.
Not just the batteries but the electricity needed to run electric vehicles (EVs) poses environmental concerns. Currently, generating electric fuel depends heavily on non-renewable sources. And according to a March 2021 report from the Government Accountability Office, electric vehicles are making the electrical grid more vulnerable to cyber attacks, threatening the portions of the grid that deliver electricity to homes and businesses. If that is true at current use levels, the grid could clearly not sustain the load if all the cars on the road were EVs.
Not just tribal land residents but poor households everywhere will bear the cost if the proposed emissions targets and EV mandates are implemented. According to one European think tank, “average expenses of the poorest households could increase by 44 percent for transport and by 50 percent for residential heating.” As noted in Agence France-Presse, “The recent ‘yellow vest’ protests in France demonstrated the kind of populist fury that environmental controls on motoring can provoke.”
People who can barely make ends meet cannot afford new electric vehicles (EVs), and buying a used EV is risky. If the lithium battery fails, replacing it could cost as much as the car itself; and repairs must be done by pricey dealers. No more doing it yourself with instructions off the Internet, and even your friendly auto repair shop probably won’t have the tools. Except for the high-end Tesla, auto manufacturers themselves are largely losing money on EVs, due to the high cost of the batteries and low consumer demand.
Off the Electric Grid with Clean Biofuel
Whether carbon dioxide emissions are the cause of climate change is still debated, but gasoline-fueled vehicles do pose environmental hazards. There is an alternative to gasoline that does not require sending all our combustion engine vehicles to the junkyard. This is alcohol fuel (bioethanol). Not only are greenhouse gas emissions from ethanol substantially lower than from gasoline, but as detailed in a biofuel “explainer” on the website of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
As we search for fuels that won’t contribute to the greenhouse effect and climate change, biofuels are a promising option because the carbon dioxide (CO2) they emit is recycled through the atmosphere. When the plants used to make biofuels grow, they absorb CO2 from the air, and it’s that same CO2 that goes back into the atmosphere when the fuels are burned. In theory, biofuels can be a “carbon neutral” or even “carbon negative” way to power cars, trucks and planes, meaning they take at least as much CO2 out of the atmosphere as they put back in.
A major promise of biofuels is that they can lower overall CO2 emissions without changing a lot of our infrastructure. They can work with existing vehicles, and they can be mass-produced from biomass in the same way as other biotechnology products, like chemicals and pharmaceuticals, which are already made on a large scale.… Most gasoline sold in the U.S. is mixed with 10% ethanol.
Biofuels can be created from any sort of organic commercial waste that is high in carbohydrates, which can be fermented into alcohol locally. Unlike the waste fryer oil and grease used to generate biodiesel, carbohydrates are supplied by plants in abundance. Methanol, the simplest form of alcohol, can be made from any biomass – anything that is or once was a plant (wood chips, agricultural waste of all kinds, animal waste, etc.). In the US, 160 million tons of trash ends up in landfills annually. Estimates are that this landfill waste could be converted to 15-16 million gallons of methanol.
In the third in a series of national assessments calculating the potential supply of biomass in the United States, the US Energy Department concluded in 2016 that the country has the future potential to produce at least one billion dry tons of biomass resources annually without adversely affecting the environment. This amount of biomass could be used to produce enough biofuel, biopower, and will bioproducts to displace approximately 30% of 2005 U.S. petroleum consumption, said the report, without negatively affecting the production of food or other agricultural products.
Energy Independence
A documentary film called Pumptells the tale of the monopolization of the auto fuel industry by the petroleum cartel, and how that monopoly can be ended with a choice of biofuels at the pump.
Henry Ford’s first car, built in 1896, ran 100% on alcohol fuel, produced by farmers using using beets, apples, corn and other starchy crops in their own stills. He envisioned the family piling into the car and driving through the countryside, fueling up along the road at independent farms. But alcohol was burdened with a liquor tax, and John D. Rockefeller saw a use for the gasoline fuel that was being discarded as a toxic waste product of the kerosene market he had cornered. In 1908, Ford accommodated Rockefeller’s gasoline fuel by building America’s first “flex-fuel” car, the Model T or “Tin Lizzie.” It could be made to run on either gasoline or ethanol by adjusting the ignition timing and air fuel mixture. Rockefeller then blocked competition from Ford’s ethanol fuel by using his power and influence to help pass Prohibition, a Constitutional amendment banning the sale and transport of alcohol.
The petroleum monopoly was first broken in Brazil, where most cars are adapted to run on bioethanol made from sugar cane. Existing combustion engines can be converted to use this “flex fuel” with simple, inexpensive kits. The Brazilian biofuel market dates back to the oil crisis of the 1970s, when gas had to be imported and was quite expensive. With the conversion to biofuels, Pres. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva achieved national energy independence, giving a major boost to the struggling Brazilian economy.
The U.S. push for biofuels was begun in California in the 1980s, when Ford Motor Company was enlisted to design a flex fuel car to help reduce the state’s smog problem. But again the oil industry lobbied against it. They argued that bioethanol, which in the U.S. is chiefly made from corn, was competing for corn as a foodstuff at a time when food shortages were a major concern.
David Blume counters that it is not a question of “food or fuel” but “food and fuel.” Most U.S. corn is grown as livestock feed, and the “distillers grains” left after the alcohol is removed are more easily digested by cows than unprocessed grain. Distillers grains have another advantage over hay as a livestock feed: its easier digestion reduces the noxious cow emissions said to be a significant source of greenhouse gases.
Fuel from a Weed: The Wide-ranging Virtues of Hemp
Opponents, however, continue to raise the “food versus fuel” objection, and they claim that biofuels from corn are not “carbon neutral” when the steps used to create them are factored in. Even the fertilizers needed to grow them may emit CO2 and other greenhouse gases. But corn is not the only biofuel option. There are plants that can grow like weeds on poor soil without fertilizers.
Industrial hemp – the non-intoxicating form of cannabis grown for fiber, cloth, oil, and many other purposes – is a prime candidate not just for fuel but to help save the environment. Hemp has been proven to absorb more CO2 per hectare than any forest or commercial crop, making it the ideal carbon sink. It can be grown on a wide scale on nutrient poor soils; it grows remarkably fast with almost no fertilizer or irrigation; and it returns around 70% of the nutrients used in the growth cycle back to the soil. Biofuels usually require substantially more water than fossil fuels, but hemp needs roughly half the amount needed for corn. Hemp can also be used for “bioremediation” – the restoration of soil from toxic pollution. It helps remove toxins and has been used by farmers to “cure” their fields, even from radioactive agents, metals, pesticides, crude oil, and toxins in landfills.
An analysis published in the journal Science in 2019 concluded that a worldwide tree planting program could remove two-thirds of all the CO2 emissions that have been pumped into the atmosphere by human activities. As reported in The Guardian in 2019, one trillion trees could be restored for as little as $300 billion – “by far the cheapest solution that has ever been proposed.” The chief drawback to that solution is that trees grow slowly, requiring 50 to 100 years to reach their full carbon sequestering potential. Hemp, on the other hand, is one of the fastest CO2-to-biomass conversion tools available, growing to 13 feet in 100 days. It also requires much less space per plant than trees, and it can be grown on nearly any type of soil without fertilizers.
In a 2015 book titled “Cannabis Vs. Climate Change,” Paul von Hartmann notes that hemp is also one of the richest available sources of aromatic terpenes, which are known to slow climate change. When emitted by pine forests, terpenes help to cool the planet by bouncing energy from the sun back into space. In a mature hemp field, the temperature on a hot day can be 20 degrees cooler than in surrounding areas.
Reviving an American Staple
Hemp has many uses besides fuel. Long an American staple, its cultivation was mandated in colonial America. It has been used for centuries in pharmaceuticals, clothing and textiles; it is an excellent construction material; its fiber can be used to make paper, saving the forests; and hemp seeds are , providing protein equivalent by weight to beef or lamb.
The value of industrial hemp has long been known by the U.S. government, which produced an informational film in 1942 called “Hemp for Victory” to encourage farmers to grow it for the war effort. Besides its many industrial uses, including for cloth and cordage, the film detailed the history of the plant’s use and best growing practices.
Henry Ford used hemp as a construction material for his Model T, and Porsche is now using hemp-based material in the body of its 718 Cayman GT4 Clubsport track car to reduce its weight while maintaining rigidity and safety. “Hempcrete” (concrete made from hemp mixed with lime) is a “green” building material used for construction and insulation, including for building “tiny homes.”
[O]ur dependency on petrochemicals has proven hard to overcome, largely because these materials are as versatile as they are volatile. From fuel to plastics to textiles to paper to packaging to construction materials to cleaning supplies, petroleum-based products are critical to our industrial infrastructure and way of life.
… Interestingly, however, there is a naturally-occurring and increasingly-popular material that can be used to manufacture many of the same products we now make from petroleum-derived materials …. That material is hemp.
… The crop can be used to make everything from biodegradable plastic to construction materials like flooring, siding, drywall and insulation to paper to clothing to soap to biofuels made from hemp seeds and stalks.
The authors note that while hemp was widely grown until a century ago, the knowledge, facilities and equipment required to produce it efficiently are no longer commonly available, since hemp farming was banned for decades due to its association with the psychoactive version of the plant.
Fueling a Rural Renaissance
In an effort to fill that vacuum, a recent initiative in California is exploring different hemp varieties and growing techniques, in the first extensive growing trials for hemp fiber and grain in the state since the 1990s. The project is a joint effort among the World Cannabis Foundation, hemp wholesaler Hemp Traders, and Oklahoma-based processor Western Fiber. The Pennsylvania-based Rodale Institute, a nonprofit that supports research into organic farming, has also partnered on a USDA-supported research project on the use of hemp in the development of biochar (charcoal produced by firing biomass in the absence of oxygen). On July 31, the World Cannabis Foundation will host a field day and factory tour in Riverdale, California, where an old cotton gin has been converted to hemp textile manufacture. The event will also feature presentations by a panel of hemp experts.
How to decarbonize 51 billion tons of greenhouse gases annually with hemp technology and regenerative farming will also be the focus of a COP26 “fringe festival” called “Beyond the Green,” to be held in Glasgow, Scotland, in November along with COP26, the 2021 UN Climate Change Conference.
A 2018 article summarizing research from the University of Connecticut concluded that hemp farming could “set a great example of a self-sustainable mini ‘ecosystem’ with minimal environmental footprint.” Henry Ford’s vision was to decentralize industry, with “small [factory] plants … on every stream,” a rural renaissance fueled not with oil but with alcohol. Hemp fuel and other forms of bioethanol are renewable energy sources that can be produced anywhere, contributing to energy independence not just for families but for local communities and even for the country. And it doesn’t place the burden of addressing climate change on the middle or working classes.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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).
Lawyer Dipali Ojha details the complaint’s long list of charges detailing “offences against entire humanity which are genocide (Mass Murders) of the citizens” related to the covid pandemic and committed by the “Vaccine Syndicate Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation” as well as “bio terrorists,” “Pharma Syndicates,” “Tech Syndicates,” “Tech Bullies” and others.
Video
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
“Post-Pandemic” for many countries, especially western countries, is a dream. The west will have to wake up fast, if it doesn’t want to fall prey to a destructive plan of chaos, unemployment, bankruptcies, and, yes, famine – shifting of capital from the bottom and the middle to the top – and leaving misery at the bottom.
Not so for China. For China, the post-pandemic era is well under way.
When SARS-CoV-2 hit Wuhan in January 2020, China was prepared. Chinese authorities proceeded with warp-speed to prevent the spread of this new corona disease, by a radical lockdown of Wuhan and extending it to Hubei Province. Later, other areas of risk were locked down, including about 80% of China’s production and manufacturing apparatus. The result was astounding. Within a few months, by about mid-2020, China was in control of Covid, and gradually started opening up crucial areas, including the production process. All the while maintaining strict protection measures.
By the end of 2020 China’s economy was practically working at full speed – and achieving, according to IMF’s – very conservative account – a 2.6% growth for the year. Chinese own and perhaps more realistic projections were closer to 3.5%. IMF growth projections for China in in 2021 stand at 8.4%. China’s economic expansion in 2022 is projected at 5.6%. This is way above any other country in the world.
Compare this with 2020 economic declines way into the red for the US and Europe, of 25% to 35%, and 10% to 15%, respectively. These are real figures. Not necessarily the published ones.
Future expansion in China takes into account that much of the projected growth over the coming years will be internal “horizontal” growth – helping China’s interior and western provinces catching up with infrastructure, research and development, as well as education facilities – increasing the overall level of well-being to reduce the gap with the highly-developed eastern areas.
China’s economic recovery and her industrial apparatus working at full speed, is good for China and good for the world, because China had become in the past four decades or so, the western principal supply chain, mainly the US and Europe. We are talking crucial supplies, such as medical equipment, medication and ingredients for medication – about 80% – 90% used in the west comes from China.
China’s rapid economic growth may be mostly attributed to two main factors: large-scale investments – financed by predominantly domestic savings and foreign capital – and rapid productivity growth. These two features appear to have gone hand in hand.
China remains attractive for investors. In addition to medical equipment, China supplies the west and the world with electronic equipment and is meant to become one of the key developers and exporter of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to accelerate and facilitate research and manufacturing processes, while minimizing negative environmental impacts.
China’s outlook for the future is bright. However, a number of anormal factors have to be considered, like
(i) The unresolved covid issues in the west, which may be reducing demand naturally or by force – possibly import restrictions for goods from China as a way of constant pressure on China;
(ii) Continuation of a direct and indirect trade and currency war on China. To the detriment of the US-dollar, China’s currency, the yuan – and soon the digital yuan as an international payment currency, independent from western controlled monetary transfer modes, is gaining rapidly in status as an international reserve money. According to some estimates, in five years the yuan may account for up to 30% of all world reserves. As a parenthesis, the US-dollar in the early 1990s amounted to more than 90% of worldwide reserve denominations; today that proportion has shrunk to less than 60%; and
(iii) The west, led by Washington, is intent to harm China in whatever way they can. It will not succeed. Washington knows it. But it is a typical characteristic of a dying beast to lash around itself to destroy as much as possible in its surroundings, before it collapses.
Just as an example which the world at large is probably unaware of, China is presently surrounded by about 1,400 US military bases, or bases of other countries which host US military equipment and personnel. About 60% of the US navy fleet is currently stationed in the South China Sea.
Just imagine what would happen, if China or any other super-power, would be surrounding the US with military bases and an aggressive Navy fleet!
China is constantly harassed, sanctioned and slandered with outright lies. One of the prevalent examples of defamations, is her alleged inhuman treatment of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang province. Total population of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in Northwestern China is about 26 million, of which some 12 million are Uyghurs, mostly of Muslim belief.
Uyghur Muslims are regularly recruited by US secret services from across the border with Afghanistan, sent to fight the Jihad in the Middle East, and when some of them return, China makes an effort to re-school and re-integrate them into society.
Could the real reason for this western aggression be, that Xinjiang province, the largest and western-most province of China, is also a principal hub for the two or more main routes of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – trans-Asia Routes, by rail through Pakistan to the Gwadar Port in the Persian Gulf, and possibly by road through the newly to become autonomous Afghanistan, connecting China with Iran?
China is perceived as a threat to western hegemonic thinking – to western-style globalization, which is the concept of a One World Order over a borderless western corporate and banking-controlled world – and because China is well positioned to become the world’s number one economy in absolute terms within a few years.
These are challenges to be kept in mind – in planning China’s future economic development.
In fact, already today China is number one in PPP-terms (purchasing power parity), which is the only indicator that counts, namely how much of goods and services may be acquired with a unit of currency.
Taking these challenges into account, and following her non-aggressive and non-expansive moving-forward style, China may be embarking on a three-pronged development approach. Overarching this tactic may include China’s 2025 Plan and 2035 / 2050 vision: A strong emphasis on economic and defense autonomy.
(i) Outreach and connecting with the rest of the world through President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative, also called One Belt One Road (OBOR) which is patterned according to the ancient Silk Road, more than 2,100 years ago, a peaceful trade route connecting Eastern China, through Asia, Europe and the Middle East.
On a global scale, embraces currently more than 130 countries and over 30 international organizations, including 18 countries of the European Union. OBOR offers their partners participation – no coercion. The attraction and philosophy behind OBOR, is shared benefits – the concept of win-win. OBOR may be the road to socioeconomic recovery from covid consequences and cross-border cooperation for participating countries.
OBOR is also aiming at a multi-polar world – where partner countries would equally benefit through infrastructure, industrial joint ventures, cultural exchange – exploration of new renewable sources of energy – research and education projects – working towards a joint future with prosperity for all.
Here is the distinction between the western and Chinese meaning of “globalization”. In the west, it means a unipolar world controlled by one hegemon, the US of A, with one army called NATO which forcibly holds the west, mainly Europe, together. NATO, with its 2.5 billion-dollars official budget – unofficially a multiple of this amount, reaching into the trillions – spreads already with its tentacles into South America, Colombia.
Together the west, or Global North, is a conglomerate of NATO-vassal-countries with little autonomy, as compared to Chinese globalization – meaning a multi-polar connection of countries, all the while OBOR-linked countries maintain their sovereignty. This is “globalization” with Chinese characteristics.
(ii) In a precautionary detachment from western dependence, China is focusing trade development and cooperation with her ASEAN partners. In November 2020, after 8 years of negotiations, China signed a free trade agreement with the ten ASEAN nations, plus Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, altogether 15 countries, including China.
The so-called Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, or RCEP, covers some 2.2 billion people, commanding about 30% of the world’s GDP. This is a never before reached agreement in size, value and tenor.
China and Russia have a longstanding strategic partnership, containing bilateral agreements that also enter into this new trade fold. The countries of the Central Asia Economic Union (CAEU), consisting mostly of former Soviet Republics, as well as members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), are likewise integrated into the eastern trade block.
The RCEP’s trade deals will be carried out in local currencies and in yuan – no US dollars. The RCEP is, therefore, also an instrument for dedollarizing, primarily in the Asia-Pacific Region, and gradually moving across the globe; and
(iii) China will focus much of her future development on her internal and western regions – increase the standard of wellbeing of populations, infrastructure, research and development – industrial development, joint ventures, including with foreign capital. To achieve a better equilibrium between eastern and western China is crucial for socioeconomic sustainability.
This dual development approach, on the one hand, external trade with close ASEAN associates, as well as with OBOR partners; and on the other, achieving internal equilibrium and wellbeing, is a circular development, feeding on each other, minimizing risks and impacts of western adversary aggressions.
China’s achievements in her 71 years of revolution speak for themselves. They are unmatched by any nation in recent history. From a country largely ruined by western-influenced colonization and conflicts, China rose from the ashes, by not only lifting 800 million people out of poverty, but also by becoming food, health and education self-sufficient.
Coinciding with the 4 March 2021, opening of the Chinese People’s political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), Robert F. Kennedy Jr., late President John F. Kennedy’s nephew, asked the pertinent question, “Can We Forge a New Era of Humanity Before It’s Too Late?” – His answer is simple but lucid: “Unless we move from a civilization based on wealth accumulation to a life-affirming, ecological civilization, we will continue accelerating towards global catastrophe.”
This understanding is also at the forefront of China’s vision for the next 15 to 20 years – and beyond. A China-internal objective is an equitable development to well-being for all; and on a world-scale, a community with shared benefits for all.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO). 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 non-resident Sr. Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing and a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization, Canada.
Featured image: China’s Belt and Road Initiative will be given new momentum with new RCEP trade pact. Photo: iStock
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
“If you were wondering why Ivermectin was suppressed, it is because the agreement that countries had with Pfizer does not allow them to escape their contract, which states that even if a drug will be found to treat COVID-19, the contract cannot be voided.”
Unredacted contracts for the experimental biological agent known as the “COVID-19 vaccine” between the Pfizer corporation and various governments continue to be revealed.
Information security expert Ehden Biber told America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) Frontline News that the first document to recently emerge was discovered by Albanian newspaper Gogo.al. Biber then was able to locate the digitally-signed Brazilian contract, and at least two others, one with the European Commission, and the other with the Dominican Republic.
AFLDS Chief Science OfficerDr. Michael Yeadon responded to the revelations after perusing the Albania contract, saying it “looks genuine.” He continued: “I know the basic anatomy of these agreements and nothing is missing that I’d expect to be present, and I’ve seen no clues that suggests it’s fake.”
Yeadon noted what he found “the most stunning revelation,” citing the clause that stipulates “if there are any laws or regulations in your country under which Pfizer could be prosecuted, you agree to CHANGE THE LAW OR REGULATION to close that off.” (emphasis his)
In a Twitter thread that has since been removed except the first tweet in the thread, Biber explained the significance of the revealed agreements: “Because the cost of developing contracts is very high and time consuming (legal review cycles), Pfizer, like all corporations, develop a standardized agreement template and use these agreements with relatively minor adjustments in different countries.
“These agreements are confidential, but luckily one country did not protect the contract document well enough, so I managed to get a hold of a copy.
“As you are about to see, there is a good reason why Pfizer was fighting to hide the details of these contracts.”
“First,” Biber continues, “let’s talk about the product: The agreement not only covers manufacturing of vaccines for COVID-19 and its mutations, but also for ‘any device, technology, or product used in the administration of or to enhance the use or effect of, such vaccine.’
“If you were wondering why Ivermectin was suppressed, it is because the agreement that countries had with Pfizer does not allow them to escape their contract, which states that even if a drug will be found to treat COVID-19, the contract cannot be voided”
“Supplying the product: ‘Pfizer shall have no liability for any failure to deliver doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates… nor shall any such failure give Purchaser any right to cancel orders for any quantities of Product.’
“‘Pfizer shall decide on necessary adjustments to the number of Contracted Doses and Delivery Schedule due to the Purchaser … based on principles to be determined by Pfizer … Purchaser shall be deemed to agree to any revision.’
“Just to make it clear: ‘Purchaser hereby waives all rights and remedies that it may have at Law, in equity or otherwise, arising from or relating to:.. any failure by Pfizer to deliver the Contracted Doses in accordance with the Delivery Schedule.
“Once again: ‘Under no circumstances will Pfizer be subject to or liable for any late delivery penalties.’
“You can’t return the product, no matter what: ‘Pfizer will not, in any circumstances, accept any returns of Product (or any dose)…no Product returns may take place under any circumstances.’
“Now for the BIG SECRET: $12 per dosage for about 250K units. Funny that this is the price for a small amount of dosages when Pfizer was charging the U.S. $19.50 per dose.
“U.S. taxpayers got screwed by Pfizer, probably also Israel.
“About payment, the country has no right ‘to withhold, offset, recoup or debit any amounts owed to Pfizer, whether under this Agreement or otherwise, against any other amount owed (or to become due and owing) to it by Pfizer or a Pfizer Affiliate.’
“Damaged goods: THE ONLY WAY to get a recall is if you can prove cGMP fault.
“‘For clarity, Purchaser shall not be entitled to reject any Product based on service complaints unless a Product does not materially conform to Specifications or cGMP.’
“This agreement is above any local law of the state.
“Long-term effects and efficacy: ‘Purchaser acknowledges…the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known.’
“Termination for cause: There are clauses about termination possibility, but in fact, as you saw so far, the buyer has almost nothing that can be considered a material breach, while Pfizer can easily do so if they don’t get their money or if they deem so.
“You must pay Pfizer for the dosages you ordered, no matter how much you consumed, regardless if Pfizer got it approved (it was a pre-EU approval) or if they delivered the Contracted Doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates set forth herein.
“‘Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS Pfizer, BioNTech (and) their Affiliates…from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses…’
“The state must defend Pfizer: ‘(Pfizer) shall notify Purchaser of Losses for which it is seeking indemnification… Upon such notification, Purchaser shall promptly assume conduct and control of the defense of such Indemnified Claims on behalf of (Pfizer)’:
“However, ‘Pfizer shall have the right to assume control of such defense… and Purchaser shall pay all Losses, including, without limitation, the reasonable attorneys’ fees and other expenses incurred.’
“Pfizer is making sure the country will pay for everything: ‘Costs and expenses, including… fees and disbursements of counsel, incurred by the Indemnitee(s) in connection with any Indemnified Claim shall be reimbursed on a quarterly basis by Purchaser’:
“Liability: ‘This shall not include, nor constitute, product liability insurance to cover any third party/patients claims and such general liability insurance shall be without prejudice to Purchaser’s indemnification obligation as set out in this Agreement.’
“There is no limit to the liability of the country in case of ‘the indemnity given by it under Section 8 (Indemnification)’ or if the Purchaser failed to pay Pfizer:
“The Purchaser waives any right for immunity, it give up any law that might cap the obligation to pay damages to Pfizer. Comment: The court in New York has the capacity to hold international assets of a country if the country failed the contract.
“Condition to supply: Purchaser must provide Pfizer protection from liability for claims and all Losses, must implement it via statutory or regulatory requirements, and the sufficiency of such efforts shall be in Pfizer’s sole discretion.
“Confidentiality, part 1: ‘Each Recipient shall safeguard the confidential and proprietary nature of the Disclosing Party’s Confidential Information with at least the same degree of care as it holds its own confidential or proprietary information of like kind’:
“Confidentiality, part 2: ‘Recipient shall disclose Confidential Information only to such of its Representatives who have a need to know such Confidential Information to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement’:
“Confidentiality, part 3: The contract must be kept confidential for 10 years. Why 30 years in Israel?
“‘The provisions of this Section 10 (Confidential Information) shall survive the termination or expiration of the this Agreement for a period of ten (10) years’:
“Arbitration and governing laws: Arbitration must be done in New York, in according to Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, governed by the laws of the State of New York, USA:
“If a specific ministry was assigned to safeguard the contract, they must continue to so: ‘…attempted assignment of rights or delegation or subcontracting of duties without the required prior written consent of the other Parties shall be void and ineffective.’
“I first stumbled upon a document, called KONTRATEN-E-PLOTE which translates to ‘read the full contract’.
“Only later I discovered it was Albanian website that has published it on January 2021. They deserve ALL the credit for the leakage of the document, and journalists around the world deserves the shame for not discovering and reporting it.
“Countries might claim they negotiated a better deal, but based on the evidence we have received from South America it seems this contract is real, and that it’s similar to what was used worldwide.
“‘One Health Ministry official, Yaron Niv, said in a separate Kan interview that each dose cost Israel $62.’ Netanyahu is indeed a magician – he got Israel to pay 5 times more than Albania and made people worship him for this BAD deal.
“This contract is actually worse than it seems.
“Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) is regulated by the FDA. cGMP will tell you NOTHING about mRNA, because we never had cGMP of mRNA vaccine, so you cannot prove cGMP malpractice.
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥MUST READ.
Explains IVM and more. Ha! And the only way to get out of the contract is to prove breaches in GMPs….but we don’t have predetermined standards for these (at least in Jan 2021….still looking for updates) https://t.co/iVRYEhIMow
“Addendum: Former president of Pfizer in Brazil and CEO for Latin America testified to the Brazilian committee that Pfizer demanded the same condition for vaccine purchase from all countries:
“Former president of Pfizer in Brazil and CEO for Latin America Carlos Murillo today said in testimony to the COVID CPI that the clauses proposed by the pharmaceutical company for the offer of vaccines to Brazil are not ‘preeminent’, as stated by the former minister of Eduardo Pazuello Health.
“According to Murillo, Pfizer demanded from all countries the same conditions for the purchase of vaccines against COVID-19. In addition, he said that claims that the drug maker would have demanded state assets such as embassies and military bases as collateral are not correct. ‘It’s distorted information,’ he declared.”
Biber concluded: “To those [who] think it is a fake: My university law professor said laws are like computer code. They use legal functions, and variables, and processes. I worked in Big Pharma, I reviewed many contracts in my career, and this document seems to me as real as can be.
“I wrote this on the 13th of July: ‘Israel has turned into a pharmaceutical Banana Republic, where the priorities of a multinational supersedes the priorities of its citizens. It is no longer the Jewish motherland, it is Pfizerland.”
Israel has turned into a pharmaceutical #BananaRepublic, where the priorities of a multinational supercedes the priorities of its citizens. It is no longer the Jewish motherland, it is #Pfizerland.
Israel's national anthem should include the words:
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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).
On June 28, a 22-hour recount was completed due to a legal procedure in an election invalidity lawsuit in YeonSu-Gu, Incheon, South Korea. It has been 14 months since the general elections ended on April 15, 2021. In South Korea, a total of 139 lawsuits have been filed in connection with the last April general elections, starting on April 17, 2020. Many Korean national assembly candidates and civic groups have consensus with the fact 2020 April general election was rigged. Solid evidence was submitted to the court one after another, unfortunately, the Supreme Court has delayed the date of hearing on such proceedings.
Article 225 of Korea’s ‘Public Official Election Act’ stipulates that election lawsuits should be promptly tried, and that the court should handle them within 180 days (six months) from the date when the lawsuit was filed. However, the Supreme Court justices have abandoned the execution of their duties because they did not hold a court hearing on their respective claims, let alone a recount, despite 126 pending cases in the Court. It’s been criticized.
Before re-count on June 28th ‘CCAN: Clean election Citizens’ Action Network’, a civic group monitoring the political election, claimed that four conditions (1) physical ballot checks, (2) QR code checks, (3) voting paper imaging files, and (4) voting paper print status checks, are required. Many media, who have not even appeared on the recount court, are paying attention to the Moon Jae-in administration and are reporting irresponsibly with titles such as “There was no pre-voting fraudulent” and “There was no pre-manipulation…”, but the reality is quite different from that.
Only two of the above conditions were verified incompletely on the 28th and 29th June, and QR codes were simply calculated without precision analysis. It is also unconvincing with common sense that the National Election Commission does not submit the original voting imaging file on the day of the recount.
A serious problem discovered by observers is the printing of ballots. The CCAN analyzed the print status of the recounting observers, including a printing expert, through a image of the ballot. Based on this, it is hard to say that the ballots taken at the recount on the June 28th were printed using the Epson TM-C3400 printer used in the pre-voting on April 10th-11th, 2020. In addition, the ballot paper printed by overlapping the proportional representation ballot on the advance ballot paper secured by the Supreme Court as evidence symbolically shows the fact that the ballot paper is forged. In South Korea, people vote as if they were stamping a ballot by hand, but civic groups claim that the photos taken at the recount booth look as if they were printed through a large printing machine at a printing house.
Many South Korean civic groups, such as “CCAN” on the interim results of the June 28 recount, claim as follows. First, Korea mass media should stop reporting predicting the outcome of the recount and focus now on the salient printing issue. Second, it is necessary to conduct an appraisal of the print status of the ballot papers, which appeared during the recount process on the 28th, causing a lot of suspicion. Third, in particular, the Supreme Court should disclose to the media the paper printed by overlapping the proportional representation ballot on the advance ballot secured by <Evidence No. 5> and undergo objective verification. Fourth, it is necessary to investigate the imaging file collation within a short time with a validated algorithm.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court has not issued a final ruling on the lawsuit. However, as the first recount has been delayed for as long as eight months, it is expected that a conclusion will not be made easily. If the reality of the rigged election is concealed and the credibility of the election collapses, South Korea could return to the authoritarian society before 1987. As there are no general elections in Red China, this could be the first step in the chinesization of the Korean Peninsula.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Byoung Ho Kang is a Professor at Pai-Chai University.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Much as I welcome the proliferation of articles on saving the ruins of Lifta from the Israeli development industry, I would much rather read articles that focus on saving these ruins for the purpose of reconstruction by their rightful owners, many of whom are just waiting for such an opportunity, armed with deeds and architectural plans, only a stone’s throw away.
The articles one reads now advocating against Israel’s plans to hand over the site to developers seem to stress the idea that saving the ruins of Lifta from demolition will serve to enrich Israel’s cultural and historical “heritage.” Lifta was added to the 2018 World Monuments Watch list of endangered heritage sites.
Lifta for Palestinians, according to this vision, is now a monument, a symbol of the Nakba to feel nostalgic about. At best, it is useful in educating Israeli Jews and the world at large about Israel’s, not Palestine’s, history. After all, doesn’t Facebook locate where I am from as “From Lifta, Yerushalayim, Israel”?
Israeli Jews in Lifta hold a middle finger to a group of Palestinian children visiting the site. [Blekh | MintPress News]
Even Palestinians being interviewed for these articles do not veer in their narration from a vision of loss seemingly impossible to redeem: “Lifta is a witness of what happened during the Nakba,” says a Palestinian in an article titled “The Fight to Save Lifta, the Last Remaining Palestinian Village.” Another explains:
In December 1947, the Haganah killed a Palestinian business owner in Lifta. Later that month, one of Lifta’s two coffeehouses was ambushed with gunfire and grenades. The attack killed six and wounded seven. Two months into 1948, the Jewish Agency chairman and future first prime minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, boasted of the ethnic cleansing’s success, telling his political party members: “From your entry into Jerusalem through Lifta — Romema, through Mahane Yehuda, King George Street and Mea She’arim — there are no strangers. One hundred percent Jews.
But a recent article in The Guardian on saving Lifta from Israel’s land authority’s plans to “redevelop” the “abandoned” Palestinian village ends with a sentence that finally strikes the right note:
“… many of Lifta’s houses have a small Palestinian flag painted inside their doorframes and a single statement, or wish, inscribed below in Arabic: ‘We will return.’”
Within this article several images are displayed (the usual artistic views of Lifta’s ruins in various seasons and lighting conditions). None show pictures of the Palestinian families of Lifta who live just a few kilometers away in Jerusalem rallying on the grounds of Lifta for their return.
The reader of these articles doesn’t learn about Dr. Salman Abu Sitta’s reconstruction project and the practicality of his plans for return. Perhaps that’s because so many still disbelieve, like the Israeli writer Amos Oz, that Palestinians can or should go back in both “time” and “space.” Oz called Palestinian longing for return an “illness” of “reconstritis,” shoutingat a Palestinian exile from Lifta at a lecture just before Oz died:
If you miss Lifta so much, write a book. Make a film. Write a play. Write up a research. Seek what you have lost in time, not in space… You miss your childhood? That’s OK, but if you start behaving like a 5-year old child [Oz is literally shouting here] because of your childhood longings, you need to be hospitalized!
Well, one such “ill” Palestinian, Dr. Salman Abu Sitta has, in fact, written a book (Mapping My Return: A Palestinian Memoir), but he has also dug up every piece of information and documented the location of hundreds of Palestinian homes and villages before Zionist Jewish forces wiped their existence off the map. What’s more, he is able to demonstrate, with irrefutable facts and figures, that Palestinian return is far from an “ill” fantasy. It is not only possible, but necessary:
The argument which gains currency, especially among people who believe that the Right of Return is legal and just, is the assumption that Israel is fully populated and that any returnees would displace existing Jewish residents. It will be shown that this fear is unfounded and that the return of the refugees is possible with no appreciable dislocation to the Jewish residents.
… But even in the most congested case, only 154,000 Jews may choose to relocate elsewhere in Israel to allow 4,476,000 refugees to return to their homes and end half a century of destitution and suffering. This is a very cheap price Israel should pay for what it has inflicted upon the Palestinians and still cheaper price to pay for a secure future for both peoples.
Abu Sitta’s huge database is being used as the source of inspiration for students of architecture who are rebuilding Palestinian history — reconstructing that which Zionist aggression has destroyed. To see one such reconstruction of Lifta, watch this:
It is this powerful, paradigm-shifting vision I wish upcoming articles on Lifta would develop, because it promises the feasibility of our return.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank.
She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Left: Palestinians rallying in Lifta, northwest of Jerusalem (Apr 21, 2017). Right: from The Guardian article titled “‘We will return’: the battle to save an ancient Palestinian village from demolition”
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
One of America’s leading physicians on the early treatment of COVID-19, his protocols and scientific works are relied upon to help millions around the globe. Along with half of Americans, Dr. McCullough has appropriate concerns over COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy.
Dr. McCullough is a prominent graduate of Baylor University with an endowed scholarship in his name; he is commonly associated as a point of pride for Baylor.
The Baylor Scott and White Health System Foundation has been appreciative of Dr. McCullough’s generosity over the years as a major philanthropic donor to the system.
As a current active member of medical staff for both Baylor University Medical Center and Baylor Heart and Vascular Hospital with his office on campus, Dr. McCullough is associated on public internet platforms and groups with countless links and mentions to Baylor Scott and White Health System.
As the national crisis has drawn on the world, Dr. McCullough has been heavily relied upon in the media for his scientific interpretation of the data and his accurate assessment of situation. Dr. McCullough has not falsely represented himself as a spokesperson for Baylor Scott and White nor has he publicly claimed past senior leadership roles at any prior institution. Dr. McCullough’s views have been represented as his own and not those of any organization.
Many fellow physicians, nursing staff, and most importantly patients are outraged over Baylor Scott and White’s attempt to damage Dr. McCullough’s reputation and censor his important views to America and the world during a time of crisis. Free speech and scientific discourse are the bedrock of progress in medicine and Baylor Scott and White’s ill-advised lawsuit is an attack on civil liberties with serious implications on public health and policy far beyond a lawsuit
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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).
Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FACC, FACP, FAHA, FASN, FNKF, FNLA, FCRSA
Professor of Medicine, Texas A & M College of Medicine, Baylor Dallas Campus
President, Cardiorenal Society of America
Editor-in-Chief, Cardiorenal Medicine
Editor-in-Chief, Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine
Senior Associate Editor, American Journal of Cardiology
Dr. McCullough is an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, and Professor of Medicine at Texas A & M College of Medicine, Dallas, TX USA. He maintains ABIM certification in internal medicine and cardiovascular diseases. He practices both internal medicine including the management of common infectious diseases as well as the cardiovascular complications of both the viral infection and the injuries developing after the COVID-19 vaccine.
Since the outset of the pandemic, Dr. McCullough has been a leader in the medical response to the COVID-19 disaster and has published “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection” the first synthesis of sequenced multidrug treatment of ambulatory patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the American Journal of Medicine and subsequently updated in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. He has 46 peer-reviewed publications on the infection and has commented extensively on the medical response to the COVID-19 crisis in The Hill and on FOX NEWS Channel.
On November 19, 2020, Dr. McCullough testified in the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and throughout 2021 in the Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, Colorado General Assembly, and New Hampshire Senate concerning many aspects of the pandemic response.
Dr. McCullough has had one full-year of dedicated academic and clinical efforts in combating the SARS-CoV-2 virus and in doing so, has reviewed thousands of reports, participated in scientific congresses, group discussions, press releases, and has been considered among the world’s experts on COVID-19.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Craig Murray, a former ambassador to Uzbekistan, the father of a newborn child, a man in very poor health and one who has no prior convictions, will have to hand himself over to the Scottish police on Sunday morning. He becomes the first person ever to be imprisoned on the obscure and vaguely defined charge of “jigsaw identification”.
Murray is also the first person to be jailed in Britain for contempt of court in half a century – a period when such different legal and moral values prevailed that the British establishment had only just ended the prosecution of “homosexuals” and the jailing of women for having abortions.
Murray’s imprisonment for eight months by Lady Dorrian, Scotland’s second most senior judge, is of course based entirely on a keen reading of Scottish law rather than evidence of the Scottish and London political establishments seeking revenge on the former diplomat.
And the UK supreme court’s refusal on Thursday to hear Murray’s appeal despite many glaring legal anomalies in the case, thereby paving his path to jail, is equally rooted in a strict application of the law, and not influenced in any way by political considerations.
Murray’s jailing has nothing to do with the fact that he embarrassed the British state in the early 2000s by becoming that rarest of things: a whistleblowing diplomat. He exposed the British government’s collusion, along with the US, in Uzbekistan’s torture regime.
His jailing also has nothing to do with the fact that Murray has embarrassed the British state more recently by reporting the woeful and continuing legal abuses in a London courtroom as Washington seeks to extradite Wikileaks’ founder, Julian Assange, and lock him away for life in a maximum security prison. The US wants to make an example of Assange for exposing its war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and for publishing leaked diplomatic cables that pulled the mask off Washington’s ugly foreign policy.
Murray’s jailing has nothing to do with the fact that the contempt proceedings against him allowed the Scottish court to deprive him of his passport so that he could not travel to Spain and testify in a related Assange case that is severely embarrassing Britain and the US. The Spanish hearing has been presented with reams of evidence that the US illegally spied on Assange inside the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he sought political asylum to avoid extradition. Murray was due to testify that his own confidential conversations with Assange were filmed, as were Assange’s privileged meetings with his own lawyers. Such spying should have seen the case against Assange thrown out, had the judge in London actually been applying the law.
Similarly, Murray’s jailing has nothing to do with his embarrassing the Scottish political and legal establishments by reporting, almost single-handedly, the defence case in the trial of Scotland’s former First Minister, Alex Salmond. Unreported by the corporate media, the evidence submitted by Salmond’s lawyers led a jury dominated by women to acquit him of a raft of sexual assault charges. It is Murray’s reporting of Salmond’s defence that has been the source of his current troubles.
And most assuredly, Murray’s jailing has precisely nothing to do with his argument – one that might explain why the jury was so unconvinced by the prosecution case – that Salmond was actually the victim of a high-level plot by senior politicians at Holyrood to discredit him and prevent his return to the forefront of Scottish politics. The intention, says Murray, was to deny Salmond the chance to take on London and make a serious case for independence, and thereby expose the SNP’s increasing lip service to that cause.
Relentless attack
Murray has been a thorn in the side of the British establishment for nearly two decades. Now they have found a way to lock him up just as they have Assange, as well as tie Murray up potentially for years in legal battles that risk bankrupting him as he seeks to clear his name.
And given his extremely precarious health – documented in detail to the court – his imprisonment further risks turning eight months into a life sentence. Murray nearly died from a pulmonary embolism 17 years ago when he was last under such relentless attack from the British establishment. His health has not improved since.
At that time, in the early 2000s, in the run-up to and early stages of the invasion of Iraq, Murray effectively exposed the complicity of fellow British diplomats – their preference to turn a blind eye to the abuses sanctioned by their own government and its corrupt and corrupting alliance with the US.
Later, when Washington’s “extraordinary rendition” – state kidnapping – programme came to light, as well as its torture regime at places like Abu Ghraib, the spotlight should have turned to the failure of diplomats to speak out. Unlike Murray, they refused to turn whistleblower. They provided cover to the illegality and barbarism.
For his pains, Murray was smeared by Tony Blair’s government as, among other things, a sexual predator – charges a Foreign Office investigation eventually cleared him of. But the damage was done, with Murray forced out. A commitment to moral and legal probity was clearly incompatible with British foreign policy objectives.
Murray had to reinvent his career, and he did so through a popular blog. He has applied the same dedication to truth-telling and commitment to the protection of human rights in his journalism – and has again run up against equally fierce opposition from the British establishment.
Two-tier journalism
The most glaring, and disturbing, legal innovation in Lady Dorrian’s ruling against Murray – and the main reason he is heading to prison – is her decision to divide journalists into two classes: those who work for approved corporate media outlets, and those like Murray who are independent, often funded by readers rather than paid big salaries by billionaires or the state.
According to Lady Dorrian, licensed, corporate journalists are entitled to legal protections she denied to unofficial and independent journalists like Murray – the very journalists who are most likely to take on governments, criticise the legal system, and expose the hypocrisy and lies of the corporate media.
In finding Murray guilty of so-called “jigsaw identification”, Lady Dorrian did not make a distinction between what Murray wrote about the Salmond case and what approved, corporate journalists wrote.
That is for good reason. Two surveys have shown that most of those following the Salmond trial who believe they identified one or more of his accusers did so from the coverage of the corporate media, especially the BBC. Murray’s writings appear to have had very little impact on the identification of any of the accusers. Among named individual journalists, Dani Garavelli, who wrote about the trial for Scotland on Sunday and the London Review of Books, was cited 15 times more often by respondents than Murray as helping them to identify Salmond’s accusers.
Rather, Lady Dorrian’s distinction was between who gets protected when identification occurs. Write for the Times or the Guardian, or broadcast on the BBC, where the audience reach is enormous, and the courts will protect you from prosecution. Write about the same issues for a blog, and you risk being hounded into prison.
In fact, the legal basis of “jigsaw identification” – one could argue the whole point of it – is that it accrues dangerous powers to the state. It gives permission for the legal establishment to arbitrarily decide which piece of the supposed jigsaw is to be counted as identification. If the BBC’s Kirsty Wark includes a piece of the jigsaw, it does not count as identification in the eyes of the court. If Murray or another independent journalist offers a different piece of the jigsaw, it does count. The obvious ease with which this principle can be abused by the establishment to oppress and silence dissident journalists should not need underscoring.
And yet this is no longer Lady Dorrian’s ruling alone. In refusing to hear Murray’s appeal, the UK supreme court has offered its blessing to this same dangerous, two-tiered classification.
Credentialed by the state
What Lady Dorrian has done is to overturn traditional views of what constitutes journalism: that it is a practice that at its very best is designed to hold the powerful to account, and that anyone who engages in such work is doing journalism, whether or not they are typically thought of as a journalist.
That idea was obvious until quite recently. When social media took off, one of the gains trumpeted even by the corporate media was the emergence of a new kind of “citizen journalist”. At that stage, corporate media believed that these citizen journalists would become cheap fodder, providing on-the-ground, local stories they alone would have access to and that only the establishment media would be in a position to monetise. This was precisely the impetus for the Guardian’s Comment is Free section, which in its early incarnation allowed a varied selection of people with specialist knowledge or information to provide the paper with articles for free to increase the paper’s sales and advertising rates.
The establishment’s attitude to citizen journalists, and the Guardian’s to the Comment is Free model, only changed when these new journalists started to prove hard to control, and their work often highlighted inadvertently or otherwise the inadequacies, deceptions and double standards of the corporate media.
Now, Lady Dorrian has put the final nail in the coffin of citizen journalism. She has declared through her ruling that she and other judges will be the ones to decide who is considered a journalist and thereby who receives legal protections for their work. This is a barely concealed way for the state to license or “credentialise” journalists. It turns journalism into a professional guild with only official, corporate journalists safe from legal retribution by the state.
If you are an unapproved, uncredentialed journalist, you can be jailed, as Murray is being, on a similar legal basis to the imprisonment of someone who carries out a surgical operation without the necessary qualifications. But whereas the law against charlatan surgeons is there to protect the public, to stop unnecessary harm being inflicted on the sick, Lady Dorrian’s ruling will serve a very different purpose: to protect the state from the harm caused by the exposure of its secret or most malign practices by trouble-making, sceptical – and now largely independent – journalists.
Journalism is being corralled back into the exclusive control of the state and billionaire-owned corporations. It may not be surprising that corporate journalists, keen to hold on to their jobs, are consenting through their silence to this all-out assault on journalism and free speech. After all, this is a kind of protectionism – additional job security – for journalists employed by a corporate media that has no real intention to challenge the powerful.
But what is genuinely shocking is that this dangerous accretion of further power to the state and its allied corporate class is being backed implicitly by the journalists’ union, the NUJ. It has kept quiet over the many months of attacks on Murray and the widespread efforts to discredit him for his reporting. The NUJ has made no significant noise about Lady Dorrian’s creation of two classes of journalists – state-approved and unapproved – or about her jailing of Murray on these grounds.
But the NUJ has gone further. Its leaders have publicly washed their hands of Murray by excluding him from membership of the union, even while its officials have conceded that he should qualify. The NUJ has become as complicit in the hounding of a journalist as Murray’s fellow diplomats once were for his hounding as an ambassador. This is a truly shameful episode in the NUJ’s history.
But more dangerous still, Lady Dorrian’s ruling is part of a pattern in which the political, judicial and media establishments have colluded to narrow the definition of what counts as journalism, to exclude anything beyond the pap that usually passes for journalism in the corporate media.
Murray has been one of the few journalists to report in detail the arguments made by Assange’s legal team in his extradition hearings. Noticeably in both the Assange and Murray cases, the presiding judge has limited the free speech protections traditionally afforded to journalism and has done so by restricting who qualifies as a journalist. Both cases have been frontal assaults on the ability of certain kinds of journalists – those who are free from corporate or state pressure – to cover important political stories, effectively criminalising independent journalism. And all this has been achieved by sleight of hand.
In Assange’s case, Judge Vanessa Baraitser largely assented to US claims that what the Wikileaks founder had done was espionage rather than journalism. The Obama administration had held off prosecuting Assange because it could not find a distinction in law between his legal right to publish evidence of US war crimes and the New York Times and the Guardian’s right to publish the same evidence, provided to them by Wikileaks. If the US administration prosecuted Assange, it would also need to prosecute the editors of those papers.
Donald Trump’s officials bypassed that problem by creating a distinction between “proper” journalists, employed by corporate outlets that oversee and control what is published, and “bogus” journalists, those independents not subject to such oversight and pressures.
Trump’s officials denied Assange the status of journalist and publisher and instead treated him as a spy who colluded with and assisted whistleblowers. That supposedly voided the free speech protections he constitutionally enjoyed. But, of course, the US case against Assange was patent nonsense. It is central to the work of investigative journalists to “collude” with and assist whistleblowers. And spies squirrel away the information provided to them by such whistleblowers, they do not publicise it to the world, as Assange did.
Notice the parallels with Murray’s case.
Judge Baraitser’s approach to Assange echoed the US one: that only approved, credentialed journalists enjoy the protection of the law from prosecution; only approved, credentialed journalists have the right to free speech (should they choose to exercise it in newsrooms beholden to state or corporate interests). Free speech and the protection of the law, Baraitser implied, no longer chiefly relate to the legality of what is said, but to the legal status of who says it.
A similar methodology has been adopted by Lady Dorrian in Murray’s case. She has denied him the status of a journalist, and instead classified him as some kind of “improper” journalist, or blogger. As with Assange, there is an implication that “improper” or “bogus” journalists are such an exceptional threat to society that they must be stripped of the normal legal protections of free speech.
“Jigsaw identification” – especially when allied to sexual assault allegations, involving women’s rights and playing into the wider, current obsession with identity politics – is the perfect vehicle for winning widespread consent for the criminalisation of the free speech of critical journalists.
Corporate media shackles
There is an even bigger picture that should be hard to miss for any honest journalist, corporate or otherwise. What Lady Dorrian and Judge Baraitser – and the establishment behind them – are trying to do is put the genie back in the bottle. They are trying to reverse a trend that over more than a decade has seen a small but growing number of journalists use new technology and social media to liberate themselves from the shackles of the corporate media and tell truths audiences were never supposed to hear.
Don’t believe me? Consider the case of Guardian and Observer journalist Ed Vulliamy. In his book Flat Earth News, Vulliamy’s colleague at the Guardian Nick Davies tells the story of how Roger Alton, editor of the Observer at the time of the Iraq war, and a credentialed, licensed journalist if ever there was one, sat on one of the biggest stories in the paper’s history for months on end.
PIC1
In late 2002, Vulliamy, a veteran and much trusted reporter, persuaded Mel Goodman, a former senior CIA official who still had security clearance at the agency, to go on record that the CIA knew there were no WMD in Iraq – the pretext for an imminent and illegal invasion of that country. As many suspected, the US and British governments had been telling lies to justify a coming war of aggression against Iraq, and Vulliamy had a key source to prove it.
But Alton spiked this earth-shattering story and then refused to publish another six versions written by an increasingly exasperated Vulliamy over the next few months, as war loomed. Alton was determined to keep the story out of the news. Back in 2002 it only took a handful of editors – all of whom had risen through the ranks for their discretion, nuance and careful “judgment” – to make sure some kinds of news never reached their readers.
Social media has changed such calculations. Vulliamy’s story could not be quashed so easily today. It would leak out, precisely through a high-profile independent journalist like Assange or Murray. Which is why such figures are so critically important to a healthy and informed society – and why they, and a few others like them, are gradually being disappeared. The cost of allowing independent journalists to operate freely, the establishment has understood, is far too high.
First, all independent, unlicensed journalism was lumped in as “fake news”. With that as the background, social media corporations were able to collude with so-called legacy media corporations to algorithm independent journalists into oblivion. And now independent journalists are being educated about what fate is likely to befall them should they try to emulate Assange or Murray.
Asleep at the wheel
In fact, while corporate journalists have been asleep at the wheel, the British establishment has been preparing to widen the net to criminalise all journalism that seeks to seriously hold power to account. A recent government consultation document calling for a more draconian crackdown on what is being deceptively termed “onward disclosure” – code for journalism – has won the backing of Home Secretary Priti Patel. The document implicitly categorises journalism as little different from espionage and whistleblowing.
In the wake of the consultation paper, the Home Office has called on parliament to consider “increased maximum sentences” for offenders – that is, journalists – and ending the distinction “between espionage and the most serious unauthorised disclosures”. The government’s argument is that “onward disclosures” can create “far more serious damage” than espionage and so should be treated similarly. If accepted, any public interest defence – the traditional safeguard for journalists – will be muted.
Anyone who followed the Assange hearings last summer – which excludes most journalists in the corporate media – will notice strong echoes of the arguments made by the US for extraditing Assange, arguments conflating journalism with espionage that were largely accepted by Judge Baraitser.
None of this has come out of the blue. As the online technology publication The Register noted back in 2017, the Law Commission was at the time considering “proposals in the UK for a swingeing new Espionage Act that could jail journalists as spies”. It said such an act was being “developed in haste by legal advisers”.
It is quite extraordinary that two investigative journalists – one a long-term, former member of staff at the Guardian – managed to write an entire article in that paper this month on the government consultation paper and not mention Assange once. The warning signs have been there for the best part of a decade but corporate journalists have refused to notice them. Similarly, it is no coincidence that Murray’s plight has also not registered on the corporate media’s radar.
Assange and Murray are the canaries in the coal mine for the growing crackdown on investigative journalism and on efforts to hold executive power to account. There is, of course, ever less of that being done by the corporate media, which may explain why corporate outlets appear not only relaxed about the mounting political and legal climate against free speech and transparency but have been all but cheering it on.
In the Assange and Murray cases, the British state is carving out for itself a space to define what counts as legitimate, authorised journalism – and journalists are colluding in this dangerous development, if only through their silence. That collusion tells us a great deal about the mutual interests of the corporate political and legal establishments, on the one hand, and the corporate media establishment on the other.
Assange and Murray are not only telling us troubling truths we are not supposed to hear. The fact that they are being denied solidarity by those who are their colleagues, those who may be next in the firing line, tells us everything we need to know about the so-called mainstream media: that the role of corporate journalists is to serve establishment interests, not challenge them.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
“When the government of South Africa began to trample upon the human rights of the people of South Africa they were taken to the U.N. When the government of Portugal began to trample upon the rights of our brothers and sisters in Angola, it was taken before the U.N. Why, even the white man took the Hungarian question to the U.N. And just this week, Chief Justice Goldberg was crying over three million Jews in Russia, about their human rights, charging Russia with violating the U.N. Charter because of its mistreatment of the human rights of Jews in Russia. Now you tell me how can the plight of everybody on this Earth reach the halls of the United Nations and you have twenty-two million Afro-Americans whose churches are being bombed, whose little girls are being murdered, whose leaders are being shot down in broad daylight? Now you tell me why the leaders of this struggle have never taken it before the United Nations.” – Malcolm X (April 3, 1964)[1]
Of all the figures risen to the level of legends in the United States that faced an assassination in that five year stretch in the 1960s, Malcolm X would definitely qualify as the most controversial.
The man who went into prison as a convict for larceny and break and enter and came out a minister within the religion of Islam. He bore the surname to replace his actual family name which was taken from African slaves and replaced with ‘Little,’ a slavemaster’s name. And while still in the Nation of Islam, he advocated for the separation of blacks and white, that blacks are superior to whites, and to the philosophy of non-violence he promoted defense of black people “by any means necessary.”[2][3]
But Malcolm X was a powerful figure who spoke extremely well. And he was a media favorite. He attracted the attention of prominent world leaders including Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, Kenneth Kaunda of the Zambian African Congress, and Ahmed Sékou Touré of Guinea. Following a visit to the United Nations General Assembly in September of 1960, even Fidel Castro expressed an interest in meeting privately with him in Cuba.[4][5][6]
The leader backed away from the previous views on racial segregation. He advocated Pan-Africanism, a world-wide movement promoting solidarity among indigenous and diaspora ethnic groups of African descent. He advocated the pursuit of racial justice. [7]
And it just so happens a number of agencies under the auspices of the government, had taken notice of him as well.
The Nation of Islam was not alone in seeking to curtail is influence.
That convergence of factors led to his murder on the stage of the Audubon Ballroom in Manhattan on February 21, 1965.
The Global Research News Hour spends the entire hour of this special program looking at what motivated Malcolm X, what made him a threat to authorities, and how the Nation of Islam attackers on him were manipulated by the FBI and the CIA. Taking us through the entire legend of this figure is the outstanding scholar of all four assassinations of the ‘60s: James DiEugenio.
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The forever-head of the US NIAID, Tony Fauci, has repeatedly demanded that the public “trust the science” as he shifts his own science opinion from one positon to another. What is never mentioned in mainstream media in the West or almost anywhere in the world is the scientific record of the major global vaccine making pharmaceutical giants. In short, it is abysmal and alarming in the extreme. That alone should prohibit governments from pushing radical untested experimental injections on their populations without extensive long-term animal and other testing to assure their safety.
This past April as the US vaccination program was in high gear, the Biden chief covid adviser, 80-year-old Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) since 1984, announced that the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had decided to order a “pause” on giving the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) vaccine in order to examine reports of blood clots. It turned out that there were six reported blood clot cases of some seven million who then had had the J&J covid jab. Fauci in his press remarks declared, “one of the things that’s, I think, such a good thing about our system here, is that we’re ruled by the science, not by any other consideration.” There is good reason to question Fauci.
That was supposed to reassure people that the authorities were being ultra-careful with the experimental covid medications which, after all, never have been mass-tested on humans before and have only gotten “emergency use authorization,” provisional FDA approval. The FDA quickly lifted the pause as J&J agreed to print that its vaccine could cause blood clots.
Yet at the same time, rival vaccine makers, Pfizer and Moderna, both using a hyper-experimental genetic treatment known as mRNA, were not being paused by “the science” despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of alarming vaccine-related severe reactions, including official data of several thousand deaths from both, had been recorded by CDC data base, VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System).
According to the CDC such “adverse” events, post-vaccine, include anaphylaxis, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, myocarditis, pericarditis, and death. For the week of July 16 the CDC VAERS reported an alarming 9,125 reported deaths since late December from the COVID-19 vaccinations. Never in history have such high death totals been associated with any vaccine, yet the media is deafeningly silent about this.
Their dismal science record
The wording of Fauci is precise and deliberately manipulative. It suggests that there exists some fixed thing we can call “The Science,” like some Vatican religious dogma, whereas the real scientific method is one of continuous questioning, overturning past hypotheses with newly proven ones, adjusting. Yet when it comes to “Science,” the handful of giant vaccine makers, sometimes known as Big Pharma, a cartel not unlike Big Oil, have a record of fraud, deliberate doctoring of their own tests, as well as widespread bribing of doctors and medical officials to promote their various drugs despite “Science” results that contradict their assertions of safety. A look at the major global pharmaceutical giants is instructive.
J&J
We begin with the Johnson & Johnson Company of New Jersey. On July 21, 2021 J&J and three other smaller drug makers agreed to pay a staggering $26 billion damages to a group of US states for their role in causing America’s opioid epidemic. Of that J&J will pay $5 billion. The CDC estimates that use of the highly-addictive opioids as painkillers caused at least 500,000 deaths between 1999 and 2019. Johnson & Johnson is accused of pushing the deadly painkillers for excessive use and downplaying their addiction risks. They knew better.
The same J&J is in a huge legal battle for knowingly using a carcinogen in its famous baby powder. A 2018 Reuters investigation found J&J knew for decades that asbestos, a known carcinogen, lurked in its baby powder and other cosmetic talc products. The company is reportedly considering legally splitting its baby powder division into a small separate company that would then declare bankruptcy to avoid large payouts. The J&J covid vaccine, unlike that from Pfizer and Moderna, does not use mRNA genetic alteration.
The two global covid vaccine makers which have by far the largest market to date are the two being personally promoted by Fauci. These are from Pfizer in alliance with the tiny German BioNTech company under the name Comirnaty, and from the US biotech Moderna.
Pfizer
Pfizer, one of the world’s largest vaccine makers by sales, was founded in 1849 in the USA. It also has one of the most criminal records of fraud, corruption, falsification and proven damage. A 2010 Canadian study noted, “Pfizer has been a “habitual offender,” persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results.” That’s serious. Note that Pfizer has yet to make fully public details of its covid vaccine studies for external examination.
The list of Pfizer crimes has gotten longer since 2010. It is currently engaged in lawsuits related to charges its Zantac heartburn medication is contaminated with a cancer-causing substance. As well, Pfizer received the biggest drug-related fine in US history in 2009 as part of a $2.3 Billion plea deal for mis-promoting medicines Bextra and Celebrex and paying kickbacks to compliant doctors. Pfizer pleaded guilty to the felony of marketing four drugs including Bextra “with the intent to defraud or mislead.” They were forced to withdraw their arthritis painkiller Bextra in the USA and EU for causing heart attacks, strokes, and serious skin disease.
Clearly in a move to boost revenue, Pfizer illegally paid doctors kickbacks for “off-label” use of more than one of its drug which resulted in patients being injured or killed. Among them were Bextra (valdecoxib); Geodon (ziprasidone HCl), an atypical antipsychotic; Zyvox (linezolid), an antibiotic; Lyrica (pregabalin), a seizure medication; its famous Viagra (sildenafil), an erectile dysfunction drug; and Lipitor (atorvastatin), a cholesterol drug.
In another court trial, Pfizer subsidiaries were forced to pay $142 million and release company documents that showed it was illegally marketing gabapentin for off-label use. “Data revealed in a string of U.S. lawsuits indicates the drug was promoted by the drug company as a treatment for pain, migraines and bipolar disorder – even though it wasn’t effective in treating these conditions and was actually toxic in certain cases, according to the Therapeutics Initiative, an independent drug research group at the University of British Columbia. The trials forced the company to release all of its studies on the drug, including the ones it kept hidden.”
In 2004 Pfizer subsidiary Warner-Lambert was forced to pay $430 to settle criminal charges and civil liability arising from its fraudulent marketing practices with respect to Neurontin, its brand for the drug gabapentin. Originally developed for the treatment of epilepsy, Neurontin was illegally promoted off-label for the treatment of neurological pain, and in particular for migraine and bipolar disorder – even though it wasn’t effective in treating these conditions and was actually toxic in some cases. Neurontin for unapproved uses made up some 90% of the $2.7 billion in sales in 2003.
A New York Times report disclosed in 2010 that Pfizer “…paid about $20 million to 4,500 doctors and other medical professionals in the United States for consulting and speaking on its behalf in the last six months of 2009.” It paid another $15.3 million to 250 academic medical centers and other research groups for clinical trials. In the US legal practice it is seldom that corporate executives actually doing the criminal deeds are prosecuted. The result is that court fines can be treated as “business costs” in this cynical milieu. In eight years of repeated malfeasance through 2009, Pfizer accumulated just under $3 billion in fines and civil penalties, about a third of one year’s net revenues.
In 2020 as its covid vaccine was in development, Pfizer paid $13,150,000 in lobbying Congress and officials in Washington among others. Also notable is the fact that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation own shares of both Pfizer and their partner in the leading mRNA vaccine, BioNTech of Germany.
Moderna
The third covid vaccine producer today with FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is Moderna of Cambridge, Massachusetts. It has yet to be sued for illegal practices unlike J&J or Pfizer. But that fact is likely only because before its EUA for its mRNA experimental vaccine, in its ten years existence since 2010 it had failed to get FDA approval to market a single medicine, despite repeated failed attempts. However Moderna has a red neon sign that reads “conflict of interest” that should give pause.
Moderna and Fauci’s NIAID have collaborated on development of vaccines using Moderna’s mRNA platform and NIAID of Fauci on coronaviruses including MERS, since at least November, 2015. On January 13, 2020, before the first case of a supposed Wuhan, China “novel coronavirus” was even detected in the United States, Fauci’s NIAID and Moderna signed an updated cooperation agreement which described them as co-owners of a mRNA based coronavirus and that they had finalized a sequence for mRNA-1273, the vaccine now being given to millions for supposedly averting the novel coronavirus. That means that Fauci’s NIAID and perhaps Fauci personally (it’s allowed in the US) stood to reap huge financial benefits from emergency approval of the Moderna jab, yet Fauci has never admitted to the conflict publicly when he was Trump corona adviser, nor as Biden’s.
Ten days later on January 23, 2020 Moderna announced it was granted funding by CEPI, a vaccine fund created by Bill Gates’ foundation along with Davos WEF among others, to develop an mRNA vaccine for the Wuhan virus.
Moderna was created by a venture capitalist, Noubar Afeyan along with Harvard professor Timothy A. Springer, and others. In 2011 Afeyan recruited French businessman and former Eli Lilly executive Stephane Bancel as CEO of the new Moderna. Despite having no medical or science degree nor any experience running a drug development operation, Bancel lists himself as co-patent holder for a hundred patents of Moderna tied to the different vaccines. Beginning in 2013 the tiny Moderna was receiving grants from the Pentagon to develop its mRNA technology. As of 2020 just prior to its receiving emergency use authorization from the US Government FDA, fully 89% of Moderna revenues were from US Government grants. This is hardly an experienced company yet it holds the fate of millions in its hands. As Fauci says, “Trust the Science.”
In February 2016, an editorial in Nature magazine criticized Moderna for not publishing any peer-reviewed papers on its technology, unlike most other emerging and established biotech companies. The company remains ultra-secretive. That same year, 2016 Moderna got $20 million from the Gates Foundation for vaccine development using mRNA.
Up to its receiving EUA approval for its covid mRNA product in December 2020 Moderna had only made losses since its founding. Then curiously, following a March 2020 personal meeting with then-President Trump where Bancel told the president Moderna could have a vaccine ready in a matter of months Moderna luck changed.
On May 15, Trump announced creation of Operation Warp Seed to rollout a COVID-19 vaccine by December. The head of the Presidential group was a 30-year R&D veteran of the large UK drug firm GSK, Moncef Slaoui. In 2017 Slaoui had resigned from GSK and joined the board of none other than Moderna. Under Slaoui’s Warp Speed, some $22 billion of US taxpayer money was thrown at different vaccine makers. Moderna was a prime recipient, a brazen conflict of interest but nobody seemed to care. Slaoui funneled some $2 billion in government funds to his old company, Moderna, to develop the mRNA covid vaccine. Only under public criticism did Slaoui sell his stock in Moderna, making millions in profit from Moderna’s role as a covid vaccine leading candidate. Shortly after resigning at the end of the Trump presidency, Slaoui was fired by his old firm GSK from a company subsidiary following charges of sexual harassment of a female employee.
In February 2020 Trump Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar, invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP) to exempt Moderna, Pfizer, J&J and any future covid makers from any and all liability arising from damage or death caused by their vaccines for the Wuhan coronavirus. The legal protection lasts until 2024. If the vaccines are so good and safe, why is such a measure needed? Azar was former head of the US drug giant Eli Lilly. There are some serious questions that must be raised openly regarding the vaccine makers who are now pushing experimental highly controversial gene-edited formulations in human experiments.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
We call on our readers and all humanity to question this diabolical “vaccine consensus” imposed by our governments, Big Pharma, the World Economic Forum and the Gates Foundation. And the mainstream media is complicit.
This article demonstrates unequivocally that mortality and morbidity has increased dramatically as a result of the vaccine. The incidence of Covid positive cases has also increased.
Let us be under no illusions, it’s not only “experimental”, it’s a Big Pharma “killer vaccine” which modifies the human genome. The evidence of mortality and morbidity resulting from vaccine inoculation both present (official data) and future (e.g. undetected microscopic blood clots) is overwhelming.
Here is a must-watch, totally-truthful, science-based, vaccinology-literate video for anyone who is considering getting a booster (or even an initial) dose of any of the still-experimental, still unproven for long-term safety or efficacy, mRNA Covid-19 inoculations. and then quickly forwarded on to loved ones before one of the many powers-that-be finds a way to shut it down.
VAERS – the American version of the Yellow Card reporting system – released new data bringing the total to 463,457 reports of adverse events following Covid vaccines, including 10,991 deaths and 48,385 serious injuries between December 14th 2020 and July 9th 2021.
We bring to the attention of Global Research readers this important interview of Stew Peters with Karen Kingston, which provides evidence of what’s inside the mRNA vaccine vial.
Dr. McCullough has had one full-year of dedicated academic and clinical efforts in combating the SARS-CoV-2 virus and in doing so, has reviewed thousands of reports, participated in scientific congresses, group discussions, press releases, and has been considered among the world’s experts on COVID-19.
Those who warned that Corona “vaccinations“ were the first step towards the genetic manipulation of humans faced harsh attacks from quality media, politicians and activists who denied this and ridiculed the corresponding fears.
For the past few months, hundreds of amateur videos have been popping up all over social media featuring people who have visibly become electromagnetic following vaccination. After many questions were raised by a number of our members about this “supposed” electromagnetic effect in vaccinated subjects, our association decided to take a concrete interest in this intriguing subject.
A Chanceler alemã Merkel – escreve Alberto Negri (il manifesto, 23 de Julho) – resistiu à pressão de três administrações norte-americanas – Obama, Trump e Biden – para que cancelasse o North Stream 2, o gasoduto que flanqueia o North Stream inaugurado há dez anos, duplicando o fornecimento de gás russo à Alemanha.
Em vez disso, “o South Stream, o gasoduto Eni-Gazprom, fracassou”. Conclui correctamente Negri que Merkel “ganhou a partida que nós perdemos”. Surge imediamente a pergunta: Porque é que a Alemanha ganhou e a Itália perdeu?
O título do Washington Post é significativo: “Os EUA e a Alemanha chegam a um acordo sobre gasoduto russo, pondo fim ao conflito entre aliados”. O acordo, assinado pelo Presidente Biden com a Chanceler Merkel, foi e é fortemente oposto por um grupo bipartidário no Congresso, liderado pelo Senador Republicano J. Risch, que propõe uma lei contra o “perigoso projecto russo”.
Portanto, o acordo é, de facto, uma “trégua” (como o define Negri). Foi a razão pela qual a Administração Biden decidiu pôr fim à “discórdia” que azedava as relações com a Alemanha, um importante aliado da NATO. No entanto, a Alemanha teve de pagar “dividendos” ao patrão USA, comprometendo-se – tal como solicitado pela Secretária de Estado, Victoria Nuland – a “proteger a Ucrânia” (de facto, já parte da NATO) com um fundo de investimento de um bilião de dólares para compensá-la pela redução de receitas, dado que os gasodutos gémeos North Stream passam através do Mar Báltico, contornando o seu território. Como contrapartida, a Alemanha tem, pelo menos por agora, permissão USA para importar 55 biliões de metros cúbicos/ano de gás natural da Rússia.
O gasoduto é gerido pelo consórcio internacional Nord Stream AG, constituído por cinco empresas: Gazprom da Rússia, Wintershall e Pegi/E.On da Alemanha, Nederland’s Gasunie dos Países Baixos e Engie da França. A Alemanha tornou-se assim o centro de energia para a distribuição do gás russo através da rede europeia.
A Itália poderia ter desempenhado o mesmo papel com o gasoduto South Stream. O projecto nasceu em 2006, durante o governo Prodi II, com um acordo entre a Eni e a Gazprom. O gasoduto atravessaria o Mar Negro (em águas territoriais russas, búlgaras e turcas) e continuaria por terra através da Bulgária, Sérvia, Hungria, Eslovénia e Itália até Tarvisio (Udine). A partir daí, o gás seria distribuído através da rede europeia.
A construção do gasoduto começou em 2012. Em Março de 2014, Saipem (Eni) adjudicava um contrato inicial de 2 biliões de euros para a construção da secção submarina. Mas, entretanto, quando o putsch da Praça Maidan precipitava a crise ucraniana, a Administração Obama, em concertação com a Comissão Europeia, moveu-se para afundar o South Stream. Em Junho de 2014, chegava a Sófia uma delegação do Senado dos EUA, chefiada por John McCain, e transmitiu as ordens de Washington ao governo búlgaro. Este último anunciou imediatamente o bloqueio dos trabalhos do South Stream, no qual a Gazprom já tinha investido 4,5 biliões de dólares. Desta forma, a Itália perdeu não só contratos no valor de biliões de euros, mas também a possibilidade de ter no seu território o centro de distribuição do gás russo na Europa, o que teria gerado receitas significativas e o aumento de postos de trabalho.
Porque é que a Itália perdeu tudo isto? Porque o governo Renzi (em funções de 2014 a 2016) e o Parlamento aceitaram de cabeça baixa, a imposição de Washington.
A Alemanha de Merkel, pelo contrário, opôs-se a essa exigência. Iniciou-se, então, a “discussão entre aliados” que forçou Washington a aceitar a duplicação do North Stream, mantendo ao mesmo tempo a pretensão USA de decidir de que países a Europa pode ou não pode importar gás natural. Será que um governo italiano ousaria abrir hostilidades com Washington para defender os nossos interesses nacionais? O facto é que a Itália perdeu não só o gasoduto, como também abdicou da sua soberania.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Naval tensions continue to rise in East Asia. Recent American incursions into the Chinese maritime zone have raised concerns among security experts around the world. Another “freedom of navigation” operation has been carried out along the coast of Taiwan, being strongly repudiated by Beijing. Regardless of any legal aspect of such activities, this type of operation tends to unnecessarily escalate international tensions and should be avoided by any nation committed to global peace.
On Thursday, Beijing accused the US of being the main cause of friction in the Taiwan Strait. According to a statement from the Chinese Army, “The US is the biggest destroyer of peace and stability (…) and the biggest maker of security risks across the Taiwan Strait”. The Army spokesman also mentioned that the troops of the People’s Liberation Army Eastern Theater Command are ready to respond to all foreign threats and provocations, defending Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity. This Command is the Chinese Army’s unit responsible for the security of the Taiwan Strait, which is the coastal strip that separates mainland China from the autonomous island.
The statement was a response to the presence of an American warship in the region this week – the seventh to cross the Taiwanese waterway in 2021. The Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, USS Benfold, sailed through the Strait on Wednesday, carrying out an operation that, according to a US Navy statement, shows Washington’s commitment to freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific, as guaranteed by the rules of international maritime law. This same ship performed a similar maneuver two weeks ago when it navigated through the South China Sea, near the Paracel Islands, which are a disputed territory historically claimed by China (which is why the operation was considered a territorial violation by Beijing).
These cases are not isolated incidents. The so-called “freedom of navigation operations” have become a frequent practice in American naval strategy. Such operations are maneuvers performed by military vessels in a “peaceful” way in tense and disputed maritime zones. The aim is supposedly to “guarantee freedom of navigation”, but in practice this tactic affronts the interests of the nations involved in local disputes. Countries that dispute the coasts consider the operations as territorial violations, which generates more tensions and conflicts. There is no contribution to peace and no guarantee of freedom in this strategy – just unnecessary displays of power and invasions of historically disputed territories.
Particularly on the Chinese coast, the US Navy has exponentially increased the frequency of its operations. Since 2016, more than 30 US vessels sailed within 12 nautical miles of China-controlled islands in the South China Sea. In the Taiwan Straits, the situation is analogous: in 2019, American ships navigated the region on nine occasions; last year, there were fifteen operations; this year, seven cases have been reported so far.
The scenario that is forming is one of encirclement campaign, with American military vessels constantly surrounding the Chinese coast. The aim is to prevent the Chinese government from gaining any real influence in its own maritime zone, obstructing territorial claims, and making Chinese sovereignty unfeasible in the local islands. In addition, there is an intimidating factor, with Washington’s most modern warships showing force in that region.
Taiwan has enhanced its importance in American foreign policy. To harm China, Washington has strengthened its cooperation with the autonomous island. Last month, Raymond Greene, deputy head of the de facto embassy of the American Institute in Taiwan, said: “The United States no longer sees Taiwan as a ‘problem’ in our relations with China, we see it as an opportunity to advance our shared vision for free and open Indo-Pacific and also as a beacon to people around the world who aspire for a more just, safe, prosperous, and democratic world”. It is possible that cooperation will evolve to a more advanced stage, perhaps with formal US diplomatic representation in Taipei – which will certainly be responded by China.
As declared in Wednesday’s statement, the Chinese armed forces are willing to act promptly to neutralize any US maneuver classified as a threat. On several occasions in recent months, American ships navigating the South China Sea have been intercepted by Chinese vessels that forced foreign forces to retreat. Certainly, Beijing will have less tolerance for foreign operations and interceptions will become more frequent. In addition, the Chinese presence abroad is expected to grow significantly, especially in the Caribbean and other regions historically occupied by the US Navy, in response to the US presence in Asia. Countries allied to Washington, such as Japan, can also have their coastlines visited by Chinese ships and, with that we will have the perpetuation of naval tensions.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
Featured image is from US-China Perception Monitor
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Tarsell, a licensed clinical professional counselor in Baltimore, recently appeared on the “Right on Point Podcast” with Wayne Rohde, where she said she didn’t initially connect the HPV vaccine to her daughter’s death.
She described how, after doctors failed to find a cause for Christina’s death, she learned about other deaths and began to compare notes with parents who had similar experiences.
Weeks after receiving Gardasil’s HPV vaccine, Abigail Stratton knew something was wrong. She was eventually diagnosed with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and dysautonomia, which left her with life-altering, debilitating health problems.https://t.co/pLTnSNN4RT
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) July 26, 2021
“It became clear to me there were patterns that were reported by these other parents,” Tarsell said. “When I called my doctor to report Christina’s death, my doctor said I should file a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) report.”
An entire year passed after filing the report before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (which manages VAERS) followed up and requested Christina’s medical records.
“I thought by filing the report, calling the CDC and telling them about my daughter’s death, there would be an investigation,” Tarsell said. “But I quickly found that wasn’t the case.”
Tarsell learned Merck had filed its own report with VAERS — a false explanation that Christina had died from a viral infection.
“No one had ever said that was the cause of death,” Tarsell said.
Tarsell engaged in an exchange of letters with Merck, in which she asked what the drugmaker’s basis was for citing a viral infection as the cause of death.
Merck said the information came from Christina’s doctor’s office — but the doctor’s office denied that, Tarsell said.
Tarsell’s experience led her to start researching VAERS. “I wanted to know more about the reporting process, and if there were patterns,” she said. She queried thousands of VAERS reports and began to notice a pattern.
For example, the CDC was labeling ailments such as cervical cancer, lupus, paralysis of the stomach and autoimmune disorders as “non-serious,” said Emily.
“You don’t even have to be a physician to realize those are serious conditions,” Tarsell said.
Her research led her to co-author a study, published in August 2019, in the journal Science, Public Health Policy and the Law.
The study revealed that VAERS adverse event reports counted a significant proportion of “serious” reactions to the Gardasil HPV vaccine as “non-serious,” thus skewing the vaccine’s safety profile.
When VAERS receives a report, its first step is to decide whether the event is “serious” or “non-serious” based on criteria in the Code of Federal Regulations. VAERS reviewers then categorize the report according to specific symptoms from the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities and record them.
If reviewers incorrectly rate an event as “non-serious,” they cease further investigation. If serious adverse events with severe symptoms happen frequently, then reviewers undertake a more rigorous inquiry.
How accurately do the reviewers of VAERS reports distinguish “serious” from “non-serious” adverse events? When it comes to Merck’s Gardasil HPV vaccine, the answer is “not very,” according to the study authors.
Listen to the podcast to hear Emily discuss her legal journey through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and how she sought compensation for the death of her daughter.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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).
There are numerous studies which suggest that there is a surge in Covid-19 positive cases among the vaccinated.
According to Dr. Jospeh Mercola:
In the U.K., symptomatic COVID-19 cases among “vaccinated” individuals have risen 40% in one week, reaching an average rate of 15,537 new infections a day being detected. Meanwhile, symptomatic COVID-19 cases among the unvaccinated has declined by 22% and is now at a current daily average of 17,588
Data show countries with the highest COVID injection rates are also experiencing the greatest upsurges in cases, while countries with the lowest injection rates have the lowest caseloads
An Israeli study confirms that “Most of the People Tested Positive Are Vaccinated“
COVID-19 cases have begun to rise in Israel over the last few weeks, reported Reuters. The outbreaks started in schools among unvaccinated children then began spreading to vaccinated adults.
Last week, Israel recorded an average of 775 new daily cases last week, according to data from Reuters.
This is Israel’s highest number of daily new infections since March, Reuters reported.
Unlike in many other countries, most of the people testing positive in Israel are vaccinated, reported The Washington Post.
But this should not be surprising, according to epidemiologist Katelyn Jetelina, per The Washington Post.
“The more vaccinated a population, the more we’ll hear of the vaccinated getting infected,” she said.
Authoritative “scientific statement”? .
What analysts fail to mention is that the methodology used to generate these so called positive cases (indicating an increase in covid positive cases among the vaccinated) is dependent upon the WHO sponsored Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) test.
While the estimates of the rRT-PCR have been questioned from the very outset,it is now confirmed by the WHO in a January 20, 2021 advisory that the rRT-PCR test adopted as a means to detecting the SARS-COV-2 virus cases is TOTALLY invalid. In this regard, the WHO is categorical (January 20, 2021): the PCR test at 35+ cycles (amplification) threshold does not under any circumstances constitute a means to detecting SARS-CoV-2.
And consequently all statements regarding trends in covid 19 positive cases among the vaccinated or unvaccinated simply do not make sense. Nor do these statements pertaining to the variants make sense.
There’s nonetheless a contradiction which needs to be addressed. Why do the vaccinated persons exhibit an increase in Covid positive cases?
I would suggest the following. The conduct of sample surveys which differentiate between two distinct categories of individuals:
vaccinated individuals who experience adverse health effects (and seek medical attention)
vaccinated individuals who are in perfect health.
Let us examine the issue from the standpoint of a vaccinated individual (category 1) who goes home and then a week or two later feels sick and seeks medical attention at a health clinic or at the hospital where he/she was vaccinated.
At the clinic, the vaccinated person who seeks medical assistance will invariably be subjected to a medical diagnosis as well as a to routine RT-PCR test, which we know is flawed and invalid.
The vaccinated person tests positive or is diagnosed as a probable Covid positive. And the numbers of covid positive cases assigned to the “vaccinated” goes up.
Even if the patient does not undergo the test, the person may have symptoms of injuries or adverse effects resulting from the vaccine and these symptoms may be tagged as a probable Covid-19 case with or without the test.
And bear in mind, the hospitals are instructed to avoid recording vaccine related injuries and “adverse effects”.
It should be understood that this medical diagnosis and RT-PCR test would not have been administered to a healthy vaccinated person (category 2) who continues a normal life and who does seeks medical attention.
So we are dealing with a statistical issue.
In other words, this does not prove that a probable diagnosis or a recorded Covid positive cases have increased among the vaccinated.
What it suggests is that there is a surge in probable covid-19 cases and/or covid positive PCR results of people who are vaccinated with “adverse effects” and who return to a clinic or a hospital for medical assistance, where medical diagnosis is undertaken and where the RT-PCR test is routinely administered.
To establish the cause of this tendency among vaccinated, a sample survey with the two distinct categories mentioned above should be envisaged.
Is this surge in so-called recorded Covid cases among the vaccinated attributable to the vaccine or to the virus?
What it suggests a priori is that those vaccinated who seek medical attention are casually being diagnosed and test as Covid positive when in fact they may be suffering from the “adverse effects” of the vaccine.
The cause of this phenomenon should be analyzed by a simple sample survey which distinguishes between vaccinated persons who have health problems following the vaccination and who seek medical attention and those vaccinated individuals who are in perfect health.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, July 30, 2021
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Observers are divided over whether Tunisian President Kais Saied‘s controversial decision on Sunday to suspend parliament for 30 days as well as its members’ legal immunity, remove the Prime Minister, and take over the general prosecutor’s office with support of the military – which blocked off parliament and the state television station – was an anti-constitutional coup or a legal last-ditch effort to save the state per the vague powers vested within him by Article 80 in response to increasingly chaotic socio-economic protests.
The cradle of the theater-wide Color Revolution campaign popularly described nowadays as the “Arab Spring” is once again the center of global attention after Tunisian President Kais Saied’s controversial decision on Sunday. The democratically elected leader who’s only been in office for less than two years suspended parliament for 30 days as well as its members’ legal immunity, removed the Prime Minister who represents the parliament’s largest party Ennahada that’s denied prior accusations of its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and took over the general prosecutor’s office with support of the military, which blocked off parliament and the state television station.
President Saied defended his decision on the basis of the vague powers vested within him by Article 80 and thus presented his efforts as a legal last-ditch attempt to save the state in response to increasingly chaotic socio-economic protests. That relevant part of the constitution reads that “In the event of imminent danger threatening the nation’s institutions or the security or independence of the country, and hampering the normal functioning of the state, the President of the Republic may take any measures necessitated by the exceptional circumstances”. Furthermore, the Speaker of Parliament or thirty of its representatives could call upon the Constitutional Court to review this decision within 30 days of it entering into force.
There are two legal problems with President Saied’s decision: (1) Article 80 doesn’t explicitly stipulate the course of action that he ultimately undertook; and (2) the Constitutional Court for adjudicating such disputes has yet to be established. It’s for this reason that his opponents accused him of staging an anti-constitutional coup. Financial Times quoted senior Ennahda official Saied Ferjani who speculated that the UAE, Egypt, and France were behind President Saied’s move. The Turkish Foreign Ministry, which is considered supportive of Ennahda for ideological reasons due to the group’s alleged alignment with the Muslim Brotherhood that Ankara backs throughout the region, said in a written statement that it’s “deeply concerned” by what just happened.
President Saied’s supporters at home and abroad hailed his decision for supposedly emulating that of Egyptian President Sisi nearly a decade ago when he decisively moved against the Muslim Brotherhood’s control of his country. It’s relevant to mention that the Tunisian authorities also stormed Al Jezeera’s office in Tunis, which has been accused by some of sympathizing with the Muslim Brotherhood due to its Qatari state patron’s support of the group. The optics certainly suggest that this was a coordinated military move legitimized by President Saied’s controversial invocation of the vague powers vested within him by Article 80 to crush what they and their alleged foreign allies seem to regard as the Muslim Brotherhood’s Ennahda proxy.
The domestic and international context in which this happened is also pertinent to keep in mind. Tunisia experienced increasingly chaotic socio-economic protests the day of the decision. The growing destabilization could have naturally presented fertile ground for extremist groups and/or their political proxies to seize power or at the very least provoke further unrest. This isn’t exclusive to Tunisia is but is simply part of the dynamics associated with such protests, especially in the Middle East-North Africa (MENA) region per the precedent set a decade ago during the so-called “Arab Spring”. It’s unclear whether the protests were organized or organic, but all that’s important is that they appeared to be reaching a dangerous climax before Sunday evening’s decision.
The international context is such that there’s a theater-wide rivalry occurring at the moment between the Muslim Brotherhood that’s backed by Turkey & Qatar and the comparatively more secular authorities supported by the UAE, Egypt, and France. Libya was the latest flashpoint between them prior to Sunday, but the ideological situation there and elsewhere across MENA can be described as complicated. These societies are divided between very passionate supporters of both camps. There’s also differing degrees of state suppression against their opponents depending on which of them is in power in any given country. Muslim Brotherhood supporters regard secular governments as dictatorships while the latter’s regard the group as terrorists.
As it stands, the secular Tunisian authorities seem to have at the very least temporarily neutralized Ennahda’s political power in parliament with full support from the military, which is also maintaining control of the situation in the streets, but it’s unclear whether this legally constitutes a coup or not due to the fact that the Constitutional Court hasn’t yet been established to adjudicate such. The most accurate assessment that an observer can make is that both camps have compelling points: President Saied’s are correct to claim that the situation was truly “exceptional” and posed an “imminent danger” to the state while their opponents are also right to describe it as an unprecedented political move against Ennahda.
What remains to be unseen is whether the authorities and/or their military backers level charges against Ennahada’s parliamentary representatives whose legal immunity was just suspended together with their peers’. The basis for such can only be speculated upon in that scenario at this time but could possibly involve some sort of accusations related to an alleged attempt to seize power and/or cavort with terrorist groups. Ennahda’s political future is also uncertain since it might theoretically be banned on national security pretexts or at the very least purged of its most popular and/or ideological members on the aforementioned legal basis. Another unknown is whether some Ennahda sympathizers will resort to unconventional warfare/terrorism.
Looking ahead, the next week or two will of course be pivotal per the precept of Steven R. Mann’s 1992 article about “Chaos Theory And Strategic Thought”. He postulated that the initial conditions disproportionately shape the outcome of complex processes such as what the chain of events that President Saied set into motion can be described as. It’ll also be worthwhile to keep an eye on any foreign support that he, the military, and/or Ennahda receive during this time, especially tangible manifestations thereof such as arms. Even in the best-case scenario that nothing dramatic transpires again anytime soon, stability might only be illusory since it’s possible that some members of the opposition will become radicalized by what happened and push back at a later date.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on OneWorld.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
In April 2021, a military court in Burkina Faso indicted former president Blaise Compaoré and thirteen co-conspirators for the murder of Thomas Sankara, the country’s revolutionary socialist leader from 1983 to 1987. Sankara was a pan-Africanist who was committed to continental unity and self-sufficiency for the Burkinabé people, including through the nationalization of Burkina Faso’s mineral wealth and precious metals. For his efforts, the French government conspired with Ivory Coast president Fêlix Houphouët-Boigny to remove him. On October 15, 1987, Compaoré (who up until that point had been a top advisor to Sankara) led the coup against him. As a reward for murdering his former ally at the behest of France, he spent a comfortable 27 years in power until popular uprisings in 2014 forced to him to flee the country.
Guyanese intellectual Walter Rodney argues that the industrialization of Europe was dependent on the expatriation of surplus from the African continent. In short, he wrote, “the development of Europe [was] part of the same dialectical process in which Africa was underdeveloped.” When national liberation movements brought formal colonialism to an end across the continent, this underdevelopment continued, but under the guise of what Ghanaian independence leader Kwame Nkrumah called “neo-colonialism.” Nkrumah writes that “the essence of neo-colonialism is that the State which is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty [but] its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside.”
The Global North applied pressure on the newly freed countries to keep their markets open, forcing them, sometimes through the murder of popular leaders, to neoliberalize their economies for the benefit of Western capital.
In recent decades, Canada has played an outsized role in this process of underdevelopment—not through the direct overthrow of socialist governments and the propping-up of right-wing dictatorships, but through its exploitative investment in countries which have already had this economic agenda imposed on them by more overtly imperialist powers.
Burkina Faso is one of Africa’s top gold producers—the precious metal accounts for approximately 60 percent of its global exports—and according to the Embassy of Canada to Burkina Faso and Benin, Canada is the largest mining investor in the country. By 2014 Canada became Burkina Faso’s largest source of foreign direct investment. Canadian firms own half the gold mines in the country and mining assets worth over $3 billion (about $2.5 billion USD). For perspective, the Rwanda-based Africa Improved Foods (AIF) estimates that it would cost just $5 billion USD to make the African continent self-sufficient in food production and eliminate hunger. A higher estimate, given by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), argues that an extra $1 billion in aid every year until 2030 would end hunger in Ghana, Malawi, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. According to the latter figure, the value of Canadian corporate holdings in Burkina Faso is equal to two and a half years of hunger elimination in all seven nations.
The Canadian mining industry usually brings social and ecological devastation wherever it chooses to set up shop, such as in the case of the Tarpako mine (owned by Toronto-based High River Gold), the establishment of which meant “the expropriation of peasant land; destruction of traditional gold mining, the main activity of the villagers; the emergence of a water crisis; rise in the cost of living; and intense monitoring by private security guards.” These mines also fuel food insecurity as a result of the removal of peasants from their property and the subsequent destruction of their land, as well as the trafficking and forced prostitution of women from around Africa, especially Nigeria.
The most prominent Canadian companies with investment in gold extraction in Burkina Faso are High River Gold (Toronto), Barrick Gold (Toronto), Iamgold Corporation (Toronto), Tajiri (Vancouver), Roxgold (Toronto), and Semafo (Montreal). Semafo in particular was known for its egregious practices across West Africa: it was very close with the Compaoré regime, engaging in violent strike-breaking in Niger, while evading nearly $10 million in taxes in Guinea. In 2020, the scandal-plagued company was acquired by Endeavour Mining, a multinational based in the Cayman Islands. The Vancouver-based True Gold Mining Inc., which operated a gold mine in Burkina Faso, was also purchased by Endeavour in 2016.
Partly due to the fact Canadian mining companies own $2.5 billion of Burkina Faso’s gold resources, the country remains one of Africa’s most underdeveloped nations. Over 40 percent of people live below the national poverty line. Hunger rates are rising every year, and in 2020 the World Food Program reported that tens of millions people are facing acute food insecurity in Burkina Faso. Development is obviously not a priority of the state: since the overthrow of Sankara’s revolutionary government, the country consistently ranks near the bottom of the United Nations’ Human Development Index (HDI). In 2019, Burkina Faso ranked 182 of 189 countries included in the Index—three places below Yemen, whose famine is commonly cited as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.
One of the most important reasons for Burkina Faso’s dire situation is Compaoré’s reversal of Sankara’s state monopoly on the country’s minerals and precious metals. Almost immediately after taking power in 1987, Compaoré passed neoliberal laws which privatized large sections of the Burkinabé mining industry, continuing the cycle of underdevelopment from which Sankara sought to free his country.
The latest disclosures from the Oslo-based Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) are illustrative of this decline: they show that in 2016, the Burkinabé government received $407 million through the taxation of the gold industry. When one takes into account the fact that Burkina Faso is estimated to contain 154 metric tonnes of gold, one can clearly see the disparity. Over the past decade, the price of a metric tonne of gold has fluctuated significantly, but always hovered around $60 million USD. Therefore, roughly speaking, the government’s taxation program only recoups five percent of the value of its gold industry. When one factors in export revenues, this rises to about 10 percent. Statistics from 2017 confirm these facts: of the 46 tonnes produced in the country that year, 41.4 were sent abroad by multinationals and smugglers. In other words, $2.5 billion of the $2.8 billion produced by the gold industry in 2017—over 90 percent—was taken from the Burkinabé people.
Sankara understood the dynamics of this global looting. In a speech to the UN General Assembly in 1984, he said “it is [African] blood that nourished the rise of capitalism, that made possible our present condition of dependence and consolidated our underdevelopment.” If he had been able to demonstrate what could be accomplished by liberating one’s country from this perpetual poverty, his example would have gained influence across the continent, and the Global North would have lost control of Africa’s resources. It is through the blood of popular leaders and the suffering of working people that underdevelopment persists—and although France and its allies in the region did the dirty work back in 1987, Canadian industry has been parasitically reaping the rewards ever since.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Owen Schalk is a writer based in Winnipeg. His areas of interest include post-colonialism and the human impact of the global neoliberal economy.
Featured image: A soldier patrols the streets of Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, October 2018. Photo by Issouf Sanogo.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Lawyers representing a woman suffering from cancer are prepared to face off against Monsanto and its German owner Bayer AG in a California courtroom on Monday in what is set as the fourth trial over allegations Monsanto’s popular Roundup weed killers cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).
Jury selection in the case of Donnetta Stephens v. Monsanto is expected to take several days and the trial itself is expected to last up to eight weeks. Judge Gilbert Ochoa of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County in California is overseeing the proceedings.
Monsanto has lost three out of three previous trials, with a jury in the last trial – held in 2019 – ordering a staggering $2 billion in damages due to what the jury saw as egregious conduct by Monsanto in failing to warn users of evidence – including numerous scientific studies – showing a connection between its products and cancer. (The award was later shaved to $87 million.)
Lawyers for Stephens say that she was a regular user of Roundup herbicide for more than 30 years and it was that extended exposure to the glyphosate-based products made popular by Monsanto that caused her NHL.
Stephens was diagnosed in 2017 and has suffered from numerous health complications amid multiple rounds of chemotherapy since then. Because of her poor health, a judge in December granted Stephens a trial “preference,” meaning her case was expedited, after her lawyers informed the court that Stephens is “in a perpetual state of pain,” and losing cognition and memory.
She is one of tens of thousands of plaintiffs who filed U.S. lawsuits against Monsanto after the World Health Organization’s cancer experts classified glyphosate – the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicides – as a probable human carcinogen with an association to non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Judge Ochoa has made several pretrial rulings, including agreeing with Monsanto that federal law regarding pesticide regulation and labeling preempts “failure to warn” claims under state law and Stephens’ lawyers would not be able to pursue such claims.
The plaintiffs still will be able to argue that separate from the labeling issues, Monsanto could have, and should have, warned consumers about the potential cancer risk in other ways, according to Stephens’ lawyer Fletcher Trammell. He and Stephens’ other lawyers will seek to prove their claims that Monsanto made an unsafe herbicide product and knowingly pushed it into the marketplace despite scientific research showing glyphosate-based herbicides could cause cancer.
Monsanto was purchased by Bayer AG in 2018 and is no longer a stand-alone company but is the named defendant in ongoing litigation. Bayer insists, just as Monsanto has for decades, that there is no valid evidence of a cancer connection between its weed killing products and cancer.
Questions for the Jury
Jury selection is deemed a critical part of any trial and as the opposing sides look at the pool of prospective jurors for the Stephens trial they will be screening them for signs of bias. According to a jury questionnaire, among the questions jurors are to be asked are these:
Do you believe most companies’ scientific studies regarding safety are altered to further a specific agenda?
Do you have any opinions about how well most corporations communicate safety information about their products to the public?
Do you, or does anyone close to you, have any health problems or concerns resulting from any products you or they have used or been around?
Do you believe that any exposures to hazardous chemicals, no matter how small, is harmful to humans?
The jurors who are selected will face a daunting amount of evidence, including scientific studies and internal Monsanto records. The list of evidence, in the form of ‘exhibits’ to be presented at trial, runs more than 250 pages and includes many damning Monsanto emails and other documents that led a federal judge who has been overseeing nationwide Roundup litigation to state in a recent order that the trials have provided “a good deal of damning evidence against Monsanto—evidence which suggested that Monsanto never seemed to care whether its product harms people.”
There also will be many witnesses involved in the trial. Stephens’ lawyers have listed 39 people they intend to call to testify, including deposition testimony of Monsanto scientist Donna Farmer, former Monsanto Chairman Hugh Grant, and multiple other Monsanto executives.
Monsanto’s witness list includes many of the company’s executives and scientists as well as former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official Jess Rowland, who has been revealed as an ally and friend to the company in the ongoing litigation. Monsanto has listed a total of 32 individuals as witnesses for the defense.
Bayer Looking for a Win
In the first trial against Monsanto, a unanimous jury awarded plaintiff Dewayne Johnson $289 million; the plaintiff in the second trial was awarded $80 million; and the jury in the third trial awarded more than $2 billion to husband-and-wife plaintiffs. All the awards were reduced sharply by judges involved in the cases but the verdicts assigning blame to Monsanto for the cancers have not been overturned.
Bayer sees the preemption argument as critical to its ability to limit the ongoing litigation liability. The company has made it clear that it hopes at some point to get a U.S. Supreme Court finding that under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the EPA’s position that Monsanto’s herbicides are not likely to cause cancer essentially bars complaints that Monsanto didn’t warn of any cancer risk.
Even as it pursues a preemption ruling, Bayer said last year that it had agreed to pay close to $11 billion to settle existing Roundup cancer claims. But many law firms have dismissed the individual offers for their clients as insufficient, and they continue to press for more trials.
Bayer said recently it is considering pulling Roundup products from the U.S. market for residential users, though not from farm use.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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: Yann Avril | Credit: Pixavril – stock.adobe.com
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Iceland’s chief epidemiologist has suggested that some COVID-19 lockdown restrictions may remain in place for as long as fifteen years.
Yes, really.
Þórólfur Guðnason, a doctor who serves as the Chief Epidemiologist of the Icelandic Directorate of Health, was quizzed by journalist Esther Hallsdóttir how long the rules should continue.
Guðnason was,
“Asked if there is no clear way out of the epidemic, now that measures are being proposed despite vaccinations, and whether we could be on the verge of restrictions over the next five, ten or fifteen years.”
His response was in the affirmative.
Despite a 75% vaccination rate, Iceland's top epidemiologist agrees that restrictions may be required for the next "five, ten or fifteen years."https://t.co/ZYixOfPq0O
“It can be quite like that, no one can say with certainty what the future will be like. That’s what we’re always been saying, too, that there’s no predictability in this,” said Guðnason.
“It is nothing new and many people complain that it is not possible to bring predictability in operations and such, but it is not possible when the virus is unpredictable and something new comes up that changes what you thought a few months ago,” he added.
As we previously highlighted, SAGE government advisor and proud Communist Party member Susan Michie went even further, asserting that things like social distancing and mask mandates should last “forever.”
Another doctor in the UK who wants lockdown to remain in place indefinitely lamented that, “sadly, it can’t be forever.”
As we highlighted earlier this month, British author Peter Hitchens warned that if people continued to blithely accept lockdown restrictions, their grandchildren will still be wearing masks in 2050 and no one will remember why.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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).
We summarize the findings of an animal study which Pfizer submitted to the Japanese health authorities in 2020, and which pertained to the distribution and elimination of a model mRNA vaccine. We show that this study clearly presaged grave risks of blood clotting and other adverse effects. The failure to monitor and assess these risks in the subsequent clinical trials, and the grossly negligent review process in conjunction with the emergency use authorizations, have predictably resulted in an unprecedented medical disaster.
1. Introduction and background
As with any drug, a key consideration for the toxicity of the COVID mRNA vaccines is where exactly in the body they end up, and for how long they will stay there. Such questions, which are the subject of pharmacokinetics, are usually thoroughly investigated and during drug development. Initial studies on pharmacokinetics and also on toxicity are carried out in animals. If the outcome is favourable, similar experiments will be performed on a small number of human volunteers. Only after such preliminary studies have been successfully concluded will proper clinical trials be approved, which will then determine whether the drug or vaccine in question has the desired clinical efficacy.
Because of the officially sanctioned haste and systematic gross negligence in the development and approval of the COVID-19 vaccines, our knowledge of their pharmacokinetics is sketchy. The only somewhat detailed animal study that has reached the public pertains to the Pfizer vaccine [1, 2]. These data were publicized after Pfizer had filed them with the Health authorities in Japan when applying for emergency use authorization of its vaccine in that country.1 These data pertained in particular to the distribution of the vaccine within the body after injection and to its elimination from the body. Even though far from being comprehensive or even adequate, this document has rather far-reaching implications: it shows that Pfizer— as well as the authorities that were apprised of these data— must have recognized the grave risks of adverse events after vaccination even before the onset of clinical trials. Nevertheless, Pfizer’s own clinical trials failed to monitor any of the clinical risks that were clearly evident from these data, and the regulatory authorities failed to enforce proper standards of oversight. This dual failure has caused the most grievous harm to the public.
Before we discuss this study and its implications in detail, we will briefly review how the Pfizer mRNA vaccine works. These explanations also apply to the Moderna mRNA vaccine, whereas the AstraZeneca and the Johnson & Johnson vaccines differ in some aspects.
1.1 How the mRNA COVID vaccines work
The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines consist of a synthetic messenger RNA (mRNA) that encodes the SARS-CoV-2 “spike protein,” which normally is found on the surface of the coronavirus particles. This mRNA is coated with a mixture of synthetic lipids (fat-like molecules) that protect it during transport within the body, and which also facilitate its uptake into the target cells through endocytosis.
After the vaccine has entered a cell, it initially finds itself enclosed by a mem- brane vesicle—a little bubble that was pinched off from the cell membrane. The subsequent accumulation of acid inside this bubble causes the lipids to be stripped off, and the mRNA to be released into the cytosol (the intracellular fluid); this release step is facilitated by the cationic lipid ALC-0315 (see later). The mRNA then binds to ribosomes—the cell’s little protein factories—and induces the synthesis of the actual spike protein molecules. Most of the spike protein molecules will then be transported to the cell surface.
Once it appears there, it will be recognized by B-lymphocytes (B-cells), which will then start making antibodies to it.2 Furthermore, some part of the spike protein can also be cleaved off by proteases on the cell surface and released from the cell. If this happens within the circulation, the released fragment—referred to as S1—can bind to blood platelets (thrombocytes) and activate them. In this manner, the spike protein directly promotes blood clotting.
As with any protein that is synthesized within the cell, a small number of mole- cules will undergo fragmentation, and the fragments will be presented on the cell surface in association with specific (HLA-) carrier proteins. The purpose of this mechanism is immune surveillance—as soon as fragments show up of some protein which the immune system does not recognize as “self,” an immune response will be mounted against that protein and against the cells that produce it. This response is mediated by cytotoxic T-lymphocytes (CTLs, T-killer cells).
In mounting its cytotoxic response, the immune system will not distinguish between a true virus infection and the expression of an mRNA vaccine—as long as the spike protein fragments appear on the cell, the killer cells will be on the march. If the vaccine is expressed in the cells that line the blood vessels—the endothelial cells—the vascular lesion caused by the immune attack will again set off blood clotting. Thus, we have at least two distinct paths toward blood clotting after vaccination.
1.2 The lipid-coated mRNA vaccines acquire an apolipoprotein “corona”
Lipoprotein particles occur naturally in the bloodstream and within the tissues of our body. They consist of a core of lipids that is surrounded with a shell of proteins called apolipoproteins. Their purpose is to transport lipids such as cholesterol and triacylglycerol (regular fat) between organs. For example, a specific type of lipoprotein called chylomicrons transports dietary fats after they have been taken up in the small intestine. Other lipoproteins called VLDL and LDL distribute fats that have been synthesized in the liver to other organs and tissues.
The various apolipoproteins that encase the lipoproteins stabilize the particles, and they also serve as “address tags” that bind to receptor molecules on cell surfaces. This interaction will trigger the uptake of the lipoproteins into those cells. Artificial lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) like those used in the COVID mRNA vaccines can acquire a shell—a “corona”—of the body’s own apolipoprotein molecules [3]. This enables these vaccines to be taken up into the cells of our body, too.
The liver has a central place in lipid and lipoprotein metabolic turnover. Accordingly, liver cells are rich in specific surface receptor molecules which mediate lipoprotein uptake, suggesting that they will efficiently take up LNPs decorated with apolipoproteins also. This is indeed the case. However, other organs have high rates of lipoprotein uptake, too, and they must therefore be expected to accumulate the apolipoprotein-decorated vaccine LNPs as well.
1.3 Receptor-mediated cellular uptake of lipoproteins and of vaccines
This slide illustrates the role of cellular receptors and the apolipoproteins in facili- tating the uptake of vaccines into cells through endocytosis. They bind to the same cellular receptors as the regular lipoprotein particles do, and they subsequently get taken up in the same manner. The subsequent events—release of the mRNA and protein synthesis—have already been discussed above.
1.4 Transcytosis of lipoproteins from the bloodstream into the tissues
All substrate exchange between the tissues and the bloodstream occurs in the capil- laries. In these finest of all blood vessels, the blood is separated from the extracel- lular matrix of the tissues by only one cellular layer—namely, the endothelial cells. The capillary wall permits free passage only to small molecules such as for example blood sugar (glucose) or amino acids. The lipoproteins, which are far larger, must be transported across the capillary wall by transcytosis. In this two-stage process, endocytosis on one side of the cell is followed by exocytosis, that is, by release of the particles, which occurs on the other side.
While this figure shows transcytosis from the bloodstream to the tissue, the process actually works in both directions. In this manner, cells in the tissues can avail themselves of cholesterol carried by circulating LDL, but they can also return surplus cholesterol through the bloodstream to the liver via other lipoproteins (HDL).
Transcytosis will also apply to the “corona”-decorated vaccine LNPs and enable them to reach the tissues in various organs. Reverse transcytosis of vaccine might contribute to its uptake from the muscle tissue into the circulation after injection (see below).
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
“Most of the People Tested Positive Are Vaccinated“: What is the significance of this statement.
What analysts fail to mention is that the methodology used to generate these so called positive cases (indicating an increase in covid positive cases among the vaccinated) is dependent upon the WHO sponsored Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) test.
While the estimates of the rRT-PCR have been questioned from the very outset,it is now confirmed by the WHO in a January 20, 2021 advisory that the rRT-PCR test adopted as a means to detecting the SARS-COV-2 virus cases is TOTALLY invalid.
And consequently all statements regarding trends in covid 19 positive cases of the vaccinated or unvaccinated simply do make sense. Nor do the statements pertaining to the variants.
There certainly is a contradiction which needs to be addressed. But analysts continue to rely on PCR estimates to make their authoritative statements.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, July 30, 2021
***
Israel — the poster child for COVID-19 vaccination and the first country to reach herd immunity — has seen a recent rise in cases. Recently, most of the people testing positive are vaccinated, reported The Washington Post.
The trend has brought a slew of questions about the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines and the implications of new strains for future outbreaks. While these trends initially seem like cause for vaccine skepticism, a closer look at Israel’s current outbreaks shows that vaccines are effective and working — even against the delta variant.
Let’s unpack the situation.
What’s happening in Israel’s coronavirus outbreak?
About a month ago, Israel celebrated what seemed like the end of its domestic pandemic. The country dropped all coronavirus restrictions, including mask mandates and social distancing requirements, reported Reuters. Unfortunately, the celebration was premature.
COVID-19 cases have begun to rise in Israel over the last few weeks, reported Reuters. The outbreaks started in schools among unvaccinated children then began spreading to vaccinated adults.
Last week, Israel recorded an average of 775 new daily cases last week, according to data from Reuters.
This is Israel’s highest number of daily new infections since March, Reuters reported.
The average number of weekly hospital admissions is currently 120 people, according to The Washington Post.
The country has reimposed mask mandates, social distancing requirements and quarantines for everyone arriving in Israel.
Just like in many other countries, the recent outbreak has been driven by the more contagious and “more vaccine-resistant” delta variant, reported The Washington Post.
Who is testing positive for COVID-19 in Israel?
Unlike in many other countries, most of the people testing positive in Israel are vaccinated, reported The Washington Post.
But this should not be surprising, according to epidemiologist Katelyn Jetelina, per The Washington Post.
“The more vaccinated a population, the more we’ll hear of the vaccinated getting infected,” she said.
And Israel has one of the most vaccinated populations in the world. About 60% of the nation’s entire population of 9.3 million has received at least one vaccine dose, reported Reuters. Among adults, about 85% have been vaccinated which means that Israel’s vaccinated community is five times larger than its unvaccinated community.
“Countries with high vaccination will see mostly vaccinated people getting ill from COVID,” wrote Arieh Kovler, a political analyst, on Hat Tip.
The people who are not testing positive in the current outbreak are those who have had COVID-19 previously and recovered. These people account for 9% of Israel’s population but less than 1% of recent infections, according to Kovler’s analysis. This has brought new questions about whether natural infections are more protective against the delta variant than vaccinations — but the answer is not yet certain.
What does Israel’s experience show about vaccines?
The Israel Health Ministry’s data analysis has produced some new estimates about the effectiveness of Pfizer vaccines, according to The Washington Post:
In protecting against infection, Pfizer vaccines are 95% effective for the alpha variant but only 64% effective for the delta variant.
In preventing symptomatic COVID-19 cases, Pfizer vaccines are 97% effective for the alpha variant but only 64% effective for the delta variant.
In preventing hospitalization and serious disease, Pfizer vaccines are 97.5% effective for the alpha variant and still 93% effective for the delta variant.
While the Pfizer vaccine is less effective against the delta variant, the vaccine’s effectiveness still far exceeds the 50% vaccine efficacy threshold required for WHO approval, according to the organization’s website.
“Just because a variant emerges that renders the vaccines less effective doesn’t mean those vaccines weren’t effective in the first place,” according to The Washington Post.
What is Israel’s post-vaccination outbreak like compared to pre-vaccination?
While vaccinated people are testing positive and being hospitalized in Israel’s delta outbreak, the current post-vaccination outbreak is only a fraction of the country’s worst pre-vaccination outbreak in January, reported The Washington Post.
Hospitalizations during the current outbreaks are less than one-sixteenth of January’s peak, per The Washington Post. Put differently, Israel is currently averaging 120 weekly hospital admissions. In January, the country averaged 2,000 weekly hospital admissions.
Most importantly, admission to intensive care units for severe COVID-19 cases is less than one-twentieth the number of admissions in January.
Israel: Evidence for vaccine effectiveness against Delta
Percent of cases that turn critically ill is now 1.6%, compared to 4% at a similar stage in the 3rd wave when there were no vaccines
“We estimate that we won’t reach high waves of severe cases like in previous waves,” said Israel’s health ministry’s director-general, Nachman Ash, per Reuters.
What does Israel’s experience mean for other countries?
“Israel is as good an example of vaccine efficacy as just about anywhere in the world,” according to The Washington Post. “The delta variant means the virus will probably continue to spread, even among vaccinated people and even in a strongly vaccinated country, such as Israel.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 America’s Frontline Doctors
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The only democracy to emerge from the Arab Spring in 2011 is going through a process of strategic correction. Tunisian President Kais Saied announced late Sunday he was firing the prime minster, Hichem Mechichi, dismissing the parliament, and assuming executive authority under Article 80 of the constitution. The speaker of Parliament, Rachid Ghannouchi, declared the actions amounted to a coup.
Saied announced that he was assuming the public prosecutor’s powers and stripping lawmakers of immunity, while assuring Tunisian rights groups on Monday that he remains committed to civil liberties and the democratic process, and that the changes will be temporary.
The crisis stems partly from an economy which never improved, and the COVID pandemic which has hit Tunisia hard. The main cause of the crisis is a political power struggle between Saied, Mechichi and Ghannouchi which has split the country into two camps: those who want Tunisia to maintain a secular based government, and those who follow Radical Islam as a political ideology.
On Sunday, demonstrators across Tunisia called for the dissolution of Parliament, which gave Saied the green-light to take action based on the will of the people.
Videos posted to social media showed crowds cheering, honking, ululating and waving Tunisian flags after the president’s actions Sunday night.
By Monday afternoon, Saied had fired the defense minister and acting justice minister. On Wednesday, Saied revealed shocking allegations against Ghannouchi’s party, Ennahda, that they accepted money from foreign governments, which amounts to a crime against democracy in Tunisia. Additionally, Saied has identified 480 persons who have defrauded the government of billions of Tunisian dinars. He has promised to hold all accountable.
Mr. Saied was elected in 2019, and many Tunisians hoped he could turn things around, seeing him as a fresh political outsider. However, since taking the helm he has been locked in a fight with Mechichi and Ghannouchi.
What is Ennahda platform and leadership?
According to western mainstream media, such as the New York Times and Washington Post, Ennahda is a moderate Islamist party.
Likewise, the same media calls the group which holds Idlib, Syria as the ‘moderate rebels’, when in fact they are the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria.
Anger toward Ennahda has mounted over the past year as the pandemic hit the country and its economy and a movement against police brutality gained steam. Angry citizen activists called for the dissolution of parliament, which is controlled by Ennahda’s highly unpopular leader Rachid Ghannouchi, who has been its president for 38 years.
Ghannouchi wrote, “The Islamic government is one in which: 1- supreme legislative authority is for the shari’a, which is the revealed law of Islam, which transcends all laws. Al-Ghannouchi, R. (1998). “Participation in Non-Islamic Government”.
Critics, lawyers and politicians have accused Ennahda of forming a secret organization that has infiltrated security forces and the judiciary. Ennahda was relaunched during the Tunisian revolution in 2011. The party was accused of being behind the 2013 assassinations of Chokri Belaid and Mohamed Brahmi, two progressive political leaders of the leftist Popular Front electoral alliance.
Ennahda was founded in 1981 by the Islamic cleric, Rached Ghannouchi. The party is part of the global network of the Muslim Brotherhood. The party’s decline in popularity continued into mid-2016, and has now hit rock-bottom with the present corrective action undertaken by Saied.
The role of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 2011 Arab Spring
Ghannouchi has remained a steadfast follower and member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Ghannouchi attened a global Muslim Brotherhood conference in Istanbul in April 2016, and has continued to serve Islamist and Brotherhood-affiliated organizations in Europe, as a high-ranking member. Most notable is his involvement with a Dublin-based center ECFR, and the designated terrorist organization, the International Union of Muslim Scholars.
Most worrying is Ghannouchi’s ties to Islamist and violent extremist groups, both in Tunisia and around the world. Leaders of the al-Qaeda-affiliated Ansar al-Sharia group in Tunisia (AST) attended meetings at Ghannouchi’s home in 2011 at which he allegedly advised them to encourage AST youth to infiltrate Tunisia’s national army and National Guard.
In a leaked video, Ghannouchi also claimed that his Ennahda party had previously met with AST leader Seifallah Ben Hassine. In 2014, Ben Hassine was sanction-designated by the United States and United Nations for his links to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and his implication in various terror attacks, including the assassination of Tunisian security forces and political figures, as well as the September 2012 AST attack on the US Embassy in Tunis. Ben Hassine died in a US airstrike in Libya in mid-June 2015.
Many compare Egypt’s histories with Tunisia. In 2011 Egypt had a popular revolution which saw Mubarak step-down. The US engineered a vote which put a Muslim Brotherhood leader, Morsi, in power. However, the Egyptian people took to the streets once again, in a corrective change, and the current leader stepped into the leadership role. Many western analysts bemoaned that the fledgling Egyptian ‘democracy’ was squandered with the ouster of Morsi. The Egyptian people made a political correction: they decided the Muslim Brotherhood regime of Morsi was more brutal than that of the previous authoritarian leader, Mubarak.
Western governments such as the US and UK, and to a lesser extent Germany, are very close to the Muslim Brotherhood in their own land, and wanted to install, at any cost, like regimes across the Middle East. Places such as: Libya, Syria, Egypt and Tunisia. The west recognizes that the Muslim Brotherhood works well in coordination with Israel, and does not present a threat to Israel, or the occupation of Palestine.
What country’s currently struggle against Muslim Brotherhood?
Al Jazeera, the Qatar state news channel, said on Monday the security services had shut-down their bureau in Tunis. Qatar, and their media, are politically aligned with Ennahda. Qatar and Turkey are both run by Muslim Brotherhood regimes.
Currently in Libya, there is a civil war raging against those who support the Muslim Brotherhood, and those who wish to maintain a secular form of government. It is not surprising that the US is on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood there, along with Qatar and Turkey, while Russia supports the secular side.
In Syria, the US-NATO war against the Syrian people which began in 2011 and has raged for 10 years, pitted the US backed Muslim Brotherhood terrorists against the only secular government in the Middle East. The US and the Muslim Brotherhood lost the war, but not before destroying the country, and killing hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians.
What will Biden’s position be on the Tunisian crisis?
The current Tunisian crisis presents a major test for the Biden administration. If Saied is seen as usurping power, and against democratic principles, we may see Biden square off in support of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Ennahda. Already we have a warning from the State Department, “Tunisia must not squander its democratic gains,” Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, said in a phone call Monday with Mr. Saied, while encouraging him “to adhere to the principles of democracy and human rights.”
“Tunisia is the last ember of the Arab Spring, now snuffed out,” Said Ferjani, an Ennahda member of Parliament, said in an interview, calling on President Biden to demonstrate his commitment to democracy.
While the US and her allies might be on the Ennahda side, the opposing side is formidable. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the two biggest powerhouses of the Middle East, join the UAE and Syria in welcoming the Tunisian president’s strategic correction, and the public denouncement of the Muslim Brotherhood.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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).
It is perhaps not necessary to point out how the mainstream media in the United States as well as in Europe and Oceania persist in ignoring or otherwise covering up stories that make the Israelis look bad. Recent accounts of the slaughter of children and mostly civilians in Gaza by Israeli planes, missiles and artillery consistently try to depict the conflict as warfare between two comparable opponents, ignoring the enormous disparity in the military force available to the two sides. Israel has a modern army, air force and navy while Hamas has nothing but some small arms as well as improvised rockets and incendiary balloons.
The reluctance to criticize Israeli behavior is largely attributable to the power of the Zionist lobbies in the respective countries but it is also at least in part due to the complicity of Western governments in conniving at the Jewish state’s actions in its own region. The persistence in Israeli demands for war against Iran, preferable fought by the United States, was clear again this past week when the new government in Jerusalem declared that it would be increasing its military budget in anticipation of war with the Islamic Republic. Perhaps not surprisingly, the U.S. Congress also has several bills pending that would increase military assistance to Israel by a factor of three.
Aside from their overwhelming affection for the Jewish state, politicians and talking heads in Washington have always sought to have an enemy to explain why the foreign and national security policies have been such failures. Russia was so designated during the long years of the Cold War and more recently both the White House and Congress have begun to warn that it is China that is seeking to confront democratic norms and “export its authoritarian model.”
Given all of that, there must have been shock in a number of newsrooms when it turned out that the guilty party behind an explosive spy story that was revealed recently appears to be none other than America’s “closest ally and best friend.” It seems that a private Israeli surveillance plus security firm consisting of former cyberwarfare military and intelligence officers and having close ties to the Benjamin Netanyahu government has been selling advanced spyware to at least 45 governments. The sales are in theory restricted for use only in terrorism and criminal cases, but somehow the resource has instead been routinely used against journalists, political activists, business executives, and politicians. Saudi Arabia, for example, used the spyware to track dissident journal Jamal Khashoggi, who was murdered by Saudi agents in Istanbul in 2018.
And even though the software has been regularly used against U.S. government officials and journalists, it appears that the Biden Administration has been aware of its capabilities and has done nothing to stop it. In its own defense, the Israeli company NSO that developed the spyware has claimed, implausibly, that it can no longer be used to hack U.S. phones. That assertion was debunked by former NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, who tweeted “NSO’s claim that it is ‘technologically impossible’ to spy on American phone numbers is a bald-faced lie: a exploit that works against Macron’s iPhone will work the same on Biden’s iPhone. Any code written to prohibit targeting a country can also be unwritten. It’s a fig leaf.”
The surprise revelation of the Israeli activity came not from a government counter-intelligence agency, but rather from a group of 17 international media organizations that formed a consortium to investigate a data leak relating to hacked telephones. The group included major news outlets that had apparently been targeted using the Pegasus hacking spyware developed by the NSO Group, which was primarily designed to penetrate the security features of smartphones. One former cybersecurity engineer from the U.S. intelligence community described Pegasus as an “eloquently nasty” tool that could be used to “spy on almost the entire world population.” The spyware “can be installed remotely on a targeted person’s smartphone without requiring them to take any action such as clicking on a link or answering a call. Once installed, it allows clients to take complete control of the device, including accessing messages from encrypted messaging apps like WhatsApp and Signal, and turning on the microphone and camera.” It can also reveal the phone’s location.
The software was designed with a backdoor which allowed NSO to monitor the surveillances and it is presumed that the information was also shared with Israeli intelligence. By one estimate 50,000 smartphones were accessed worldwide, including 10 prime ministers, three presidents including Emmanuel Macron of France, a king, foreign ministers and assorted journalists and government officials both in the U.S. and elsewhere.
A more cautious estimate from the Washington Post, which participated in the investigation, states only that “1,000 people spread across 50 different countries were identified as having numbers on the list, among them are ‘several Arab royal family members, at least 65 business executives, 85 human rights activists, 189 journalists, and more than 600 politicians and government officials.’ This includes Robert Malley, the Biden administration’s lead Iran negotiator, and journalists for CNN, the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times.” Other news agencies that were hacked by Pegasus include Agence France-Presse, Al Jazeera, France 24, Radio Free Europe, Mediapart, El País, the Associated Press, Le Monde, Bloomberg, the Economist, Reuters and Voice of America.
Some are inevitably wondering why the Biden White House has been silent about NSO. It has not identified the Israeli firm as a threat to national security and made demands to the Israeli government that it intercede with NSO and shut down the use of Pegasus until some international regulation of the use of hacking software can be developed. Part of the explanation for the reluctance might be that Biden’s senior adviser Anita Dunn’s consulting firm SKDKickerbocker was hired by NSO in 2019 to provide “public relations” advice to improve the company’s image.
The reluctance, of course, also derives from the fact that Israel is involved, but those with longer memories of the Jewish state’s record in stealing American secrets should not be surprised by this latest venture. Israeli-recruited U.S. Navy analyst Jonathan Pollard was, for example, the most damaging spy in U.S. history. And Israel has, in fact, a long history of stealing U.S. technology and military secrets to include sharing them with countries that Washington has regarded as enemies, including China and Russia.
Israel always features prominently in the annual FBI report called Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage. The 2005 report states: “Israel has an active program to gather proprietary information within the United States, these collection activities are primarily directed at obtaining information on military systems and advanced computing applications that can be used in Israel’s sizeable armaments industry.” It adds that: “Israel recruits spies, uses electronic methods, and carries out computer intrusion to gain the information.” A 1996 Defense Investigative Service report noted that: “Israel has great success stealing technology by exploiting the numerous co-production projects that it has with the Pentagon.” It says: “Placing Israeli nationals in key industries is a technique utilized with great success.” A General Accounting Office (GAO) examination of espionage directed against American defense and security industries described how: “Israeli citizens residing in the U.S. had stolen sensitive technology to manufacture artillery gun tubes, obtain classified plans for reconnaissance systems, and pass sensitive aerospace designs to unauthorized users.” The GAO concluded that: “Israel conducts,” and this is a quote, “conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any U.S. ally.” More recently, FBI counterintelligence officer John Cole has reported how many cases of Israeli espionage are dropped under orders from the Justice Department. He has provided a conservative estimate of 125 viable investigations into Israeli espionage — involving both American citizens and Israelis — that were stopped due to political pressure.
So Israel gets yet another pass on its spying against the United States. Indeed, the Biden Administration has yet to definitively comment on the latest impropriety. One wonders when the penny will drop and the American people will rise up and say “enough is enough.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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.orgaddress is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Angststörungen wirken sich nicht nur auf die seelische und körperliche Gesundheit des Menschen, seinen Beruf und seine Liebe negativ aus, sie beeinträchtigen auch die Entwicklung des gesellschaftlichen Lebens, da die Entscheidungsfähigkeit erwachsener Bürger stark eingeschränkt ist. Lebensängste im Sinne anhaltender Gefühle von diffuser Angst, für die kein realer, konkreter Grund vorliegt, gehen über das natürliche Gefühl der Angst und Furcht, mit dem der Mensch zur Welt kommt hinaus. Da sie erst im Laufe der Erziehung und der gesellschaftlichen Sozialisation erworben werden, lassen sie sich grundsätzlich überwinden. Der vorliegende Fachartikel in allgemeinverständlicher Sprache soll auch dem interessierten Laien Einsicht in das menschliche Seelenleben vermitteln.
Natürliches Grundgefühl der Angst versus irrationale Lebensangst
Jedes Kind kommt mit dem Gefühl der Angst und Furcht zur Welt, weil das Wesen des Lebens mit Furcht und Angst behaftet ist. Ohne diese Furcht, ohne diese Vorsicht – die Angst, das Leben zu verlieren – wäre die Entwicklung des Menschen und des Lebens generell nicht möglich. Nicht nur der Mensch, sondern auch das kleinste Wesen, das man nur unter dem Mikroskop beobachten kann, ebnet sich den Weg und zieht sich bei Gefahr zurück.
Während dieses Grundgefühl der menschlichen Angst und Furcht das Leben erhält, schränken irrationale Lebensängste, die durch eine unsachliche Haltung der Eltern und Erzieher sowie der Umwelt entstehen, das Fühlen, Denken und Handeln des Menschen stark ein. Eine solche Lebensangst kann sich bis hin zum Irrsinn entwickeln. Der Ausgeglichene, Gesunde, der weniger beschädigt wurde, wird auch Angst und Furcht empfinden, doch er wird nicht so leicht in Panik geraten, er verliert nicht die Sinne.
Den ersten Grundstein für diese Lebensängste legen die Eltern, die Mutter und der Vater. Das ist die Welt des Kindes. Die Art und Weise, wie Mutter und Vater mit ihm umgehen, welche kulturellen – und speziell religiösen – Werte und Gefühle sie an das Kind herantragen, das ergibt schlussendlich das Lebensgefühl des Menschen: den Grad des Mutes und den Grad der Ängstlichkeit. Der eine hat dann sehr viel Angst, der andere weniger.
Bevor das Kind denkt, empfindet es schon und erlebt die Haltung der Erwachsenen. Auch wenn die Mutter mit ganzem Herzen dabei ist, wenn sie ihr Kind zur Welt bringt, weiß sie der Regel nicht, wie sie mit dem Kind umgehen soll. Sie erzieht es gut, aber mit dem Vorzeichen der Autorität, der Gewalt, des Zwanges und des Tadels. Und das führt dazu, dass der Erwachsene den anderen Menschen nicht schätzen kann. Er hat ihn im Gefühl nicht als Freund erlebt, sondern als Gegner. Die mitmenschliche Beziehung ist gestört worden: Die autoritäre Erziehung führt zur Angst und Befangenheit gegenüber dem anderen Menschen.
Hinzu kommt die religiöse Erziehung: Kaum zeigen sich beim kleinen Kind die ersten seelischen Regungen und es lernt zu sprechen, wird es von der Gesellschaft, das heißt von den Eltern und der Kirche „in Obhut genommen“. Es wird ihm klar gemacht, dass sich sein Wesen bezüglich des Naturgefühls und der Weltanschauung nicht frei entwickeln darf. Im 3. Lebensjahr schalten sich dann Gott und Teufel der betreffenden Religion ein und lehren das Kind, nicht auf sich selbst zu vertrauen, sondern sich von übernatürlichen Mächten führen und beherrschen zu lassen. Das Kind lernt die Dämonenfurcht kennen und bekommt Ängste, die sich gegen den Menschen wenden.
Schließlich schreitet der junge Mensch in die Welt hinaus und erfährt immer wieder dasselbe. In unserer Kultur wird immer mit Gewalt vorgegangen. Auch die Haltung des Lehrers in der Schule ist autoritär – selbst dann, wenn er nicht schlägt. Das Kind lebt nicht in einer freundlichen Welt. Alles ist die Fortsetzung des Erziehungsproblems zuhause. Ob in der Schule, in der Lehre, beim Militär oder in der Universität: Der Autoritätsgedanke wird überall gepflegt.
Der menschliche Reflex des absoluten Gehorsams als Folge unbewusster Ängste
Wie bereits erwähnt, reagieren die meisten Menschen auf diese Lebensängste wie verwirrt und paralysiert. Darunter leidet nicht nur ihr ganz persönliches Leben, sondern auch ihr Handeln in der Gesellschaft. Sehr schnell sind sie dazu bereit, das eigene Denken aufzugeben, sich der Meinung vermeintlicher Autoritäten anzuschließen und bedingungslos zu gehorchen. Dies geschieht großenteils unbewusst. Das Gefühl der Angst überfällt den Menschen, er kann sich nicht helfen.
Ein Tsunami von Angststörungen bei Erwachsenen und Jugendlichen
Die seit über einem Jahr von der Politik ergriffenen Maßnahmen, die vorgeblich zum Schutz der Gesundheit der Bevölkerung verhängt wurden, haben bei Jung und Alt einen regelrechten Tsunami schwerer Angststörungen und Hilflosigkeit ausgelöst. Das Zerstörungspotential hinsichtlich der menschlichen Gesundheit und des menschlichen Lebens allgemein hat weltweit ein enormes Ausmaß. Alles, was das Leben lebenswert macht, wurde auf den Kopf gestellt. Und dieser angerichtete Schaden wird nicht wieder gut zu machen sein. Zu den getroffenen Maßnahmen zählen alle irregulären politischen Entscheidungen. Da sie jede Bürgerin und jeder Bürger am eigenen Leib verspürte und nach wie vor verspürt, erübrigt es sich, sie hier noch einmal aufzuzählen.
Raphael Bonelli: „Brisante Studie! Haben MEDIEN & CORONA-POLITIK Menschenleben auf dem Gewissen?“
Abschließend sei noch eine neuere wissenschaftliche Studie erwähnt, auf die der österreichische Psychiater und Psychotherapeut Raphael M. Bonelli vor kurzem in einem Video mit dem Titel „Brisante Studie! Haben MEDIEN & CORONA-POLITIK Menschenleben auf dem Gewissen?“ aufmerksam machte. Bonelli schlussfolgerte: Angst ist tödlich! Die Hauptaussage der Studie lautet: Angst führt bei COVID-19 zu schwereren Krankheitsverläufen bis hin zum Tod. Jedem Interessierten ist das gesamte Video zu empfehlen.
Die gefühlsmäßige Überwindung der Angst
Wie soll der Mensch diese Lebensängste überwinden? Die tiefenpsychologisch orientierte Psychotherapie hat auf diese Frage eine Antwort: Die gefühlsmäßige Überwindung der teilweise unbewussten Ängste gelingt am besten im Rahmen einer Psychotherapie in Verbindung mit verstandesmäßigem Wissen und Lesen.
Selbstverständlich kann man immer wieder an den Mitbürger appellieren, dass er die allgemeine Lebensangst aufgeben soll, oder dass er vor dem anderen Menschen keine Angst zu haben braucht, weil der nichts gegen ihn hat, oder dass er sich mit den Menschen befreunden soll. Doch diese Appelle werden wenig Erfolg haben. Um die Angst aufgeben zu können, braucht man fachmännische Hilfe. Der Ängstliche kann dieses Gefühl nicht ablegen, bevor er nicht mit einem Menschen, zum Beispiel mit einem Psychotherapeuten Erlebnisse macht, die im Gegensatz zu Vater, Mutter und Lehrer stehen, das heißt, zu seinen Erlebnissen in der Kindheit. Er muss erleben, dass da ein Mensch ist, der ihm das Gefühl des Vertrauens vermittelt.
Die Ängste, die er bei Vater und Mutter gefühlsmäßig erlebt hat, noch bevor er sich überhaupt Gedanken machen konnte, kann er mit dem Therapeuten langsam ablegen. Er erlebt, dass ein Mensch ihn versteht. Das öffnet ihm die Augen und er fängt an, sich selbst und den anderen Menschen richtig einzuschätzen und zu begreifen, dass die Eltern nicht gewusst haben, wie sie mit dem Kind umgehen sollen. Er versöhnt sich mit ihnen.
Er fängt auch an zu lesen und sich über die Menschen und die Welt das nötige Wissen anzueignen, was seine Ängste in einem realistischen Licht erscheinen lässt. Die Psychotherapie ist eine schwere Arbeit am Charakter. Doch wenn er sein Gefühl geändert hat, hat er auch keine Angst mehr vor dem anderen Menschen, dem Blitz und auch nicht vor dem Teufel und der Hölle. Die falschen Meinungen der Großeltern oder Eltern verblassen dann.
Mittels der Psychologie kann man sich eine neue Sicht über das Leben und sich selbst, über die Menschen und die Welt erwerben. Dies stellt selbstverständlich hohe Anforderungen an den Psychologen und Therapeuten. Der Psychologe muss soweit sein, dass er weiß und erklären kann, warum der Hilfesuchende diese Ängste hat und wie er sie überwinden kann. Er muss auch wissen, wie er mit dem Hilfesuchen sprechen muss. In gewisser Weise muss er die Meinung des Hilfesuchenden, die ihm die Eltern und Großeltern vermittelt haben, „sprengen“ und ihm eine neue und realistische vermitteln.
Leider ist ein großer Prozentsatz der Menschen nicht imstande, die eigene Meinung mit einer neuen zu konfrontieren. Doch erst mit einer Wandlung der Gefühle und Gedanken fangen wir an, die Welt anders zu sehen, die irrationalen Lebensängste aufzugeben und nicht mehr zu gehorchen.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, NRhZ-Online.
Dr. Rudolf Hänsel ist Diplom-Psychologe und Erziehungswissenschaftler.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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).
FINA – Fédération Internationale de Natation (International Swimming Federation). Established 1908.
WADA – World Anti-Doping Agency. Established in 1999. Based in Montreal, Canada.
CAS – Court of Arbitration for Sport. Highest court for adjudicating international sport. Established in 1984. Based in Lausanne, Switzerland.
IDTM – International Doping and Test Management. Swedish company that merged with US based Drug Free Sports in September 2018.
ADRV – Anti-Doping Rule Violation. Official name for doping offense which leads to sanction (ineligibility) for some time.
ISTI – International Standards for Testing and Investigation. Initiated by WADA in 2004.
DCO – Doping Control Officer. Doping test team leader.
BCO – Blood Collection Officer. Medical staff who draws blood sample.
DCA – Doping Control Assistant. May act as “chaperone” to verify urine collection.
Introduction
Why is the all-time greatest Chinese swimmer Sun Yang not at the Tokyo Olympics? The short answer is that he has been banned from competitive swimming for four years by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). He has been banned for four years NOT for doping, but for a “doping rule violation”.
What lays behind this? What are the essential facts? Was the decision just or biased? This article will review the case and offer suggestions to improve the process.
CAS Panel admission and decision
The Court of Arbitration for Sport decision about Sun Yang came very recently, in mid-June. At the very end of the 88-page decision, there is a crucial acknowledgment:
“The Panel considers it pertinent that there has been no allegation that the Athlete was doped on 4 September 2018. Indeed, given that Mr. Sun tested negative eight times in the prior two weeks, the likelihood that he would have tested positive, had the samples of 4–5 September 2018 been analyzed in Beijing, appears remote.”
Despite this acknowledgement, the CAS Panel decided that Sun Yang was guilty of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV).
The controversial and aborted test
The controversy involves an aborted attempt to take blood and urine samples from Sun Yang on the night of Sept 4, 2018. Sun Yang arrived home late at night after travelling all day from Jakarta Indonesia where he had competed at the Asia Games. He was about to commence a one-month vacation.
A doping test team from the Swedish American company, International Doping Tests & Management (IDTM), met Sun Yang and said they wished to take an “out of competition” blood and urine sample. There was a female Doping Control Officer (DCO), a female Blood Collection Officer (BCO) and male Doping Control Assistant (DCA).
There are conflicting reports about what transpired over the next few hours, but these are essential facts:
After seeing the Doping Control Assistant surreptitiously taking photographs of him, Sun Yang became suspicious and asked to see the authorization papers of the test team.
The DCO did not have paper IDTM accreditation but did have an image on her cell phone. The BCO and DCA had no proof of authorization from IDTM. Nor did they have paperwork to authorize this specific out of competition test. All they had was a generic annual authorization for IDTM to do testing for the International Swimming Federation (FINA).
Sun Yang consulted his doctor and Chinese swim team leader asking what to do. Both said the test should be stopped until the test team can provide proper documentation.
The DCO consulted with her supervisor in Sweden. They then said to Sun Yang they could not leave the equipment behind. A member of Sun Yang’s group broke the container holding the blood vial so the IDTM team could leave with their equipment. The blood vial was preserved and is still under refrigeration at the doctor’s hospital.
Over the next days, Sun Yang reported that the test was aborted because the test team lacked accreditation. The leader of the test team, the DCO, reported that Sun Yang had committed a “Refusal to Comply” with the test.
The FINA Doping Panel
The International Swimming Federation (FINA) convened a Doping Panel to examine the events and determine whether Sun Yang had committed a doping rule violation. They held the hearing and issued their decision in early January 2019. They determined that “Sun Yang has not committed an anti-doping rule violation” because the test team did not have the required accreditation documentation to take blood and urine samples from the athlete.
The FINA Doping Panel also faulted the test team leader for not making the athlete (Sun Yang) aware that she would consider this incident to be a “Failure to Comply” and thus a potential Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV).
WADA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
For whatever reasons, the Canadian-based World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) strongly objected to the FINA Doping Panel decision. They filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against Sun Yang and FINA.
In November 2019, the first CAS Panel held a public hearing about the case. In February 2020, CAS issued their decision that Sun Yang DID commit a doping rule violation and was to be banned from swimming for eight years. Some western competitors and sports media cheered this decision. Others were more objective and thoughtful. The decision was criticized in articles here and here.
Based on evidence revealed in the article, “Why the Sun Yang Decision Should be Overturned”, Sun Yang’s attorneys won their appeal to the Swiss supreme court. There was compelling evidence the CAS Panel chairman was biased if not racist.
Although the CAS decision was annulled, WADA decided to continue. A new CAS panel was created.
The second CAS Panel had new members but all the same background. All three jurists were senior white western European men. Additionally, they all have strong ties to the United States. Although the second panelists claim they were not influenced by the decision of the first CAS panel, their decisions are essentially the same: they say Sun Yang is guilty of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation. With relaxed punishment requirements, he is now banned for 4 years, three months beginning February 2020.
FINA Doping Panel vs CAS panels
Why did the FINA doping panel conclude that Sun Yang did not commit an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) while the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled that he did?
Here are the essential differences:
1) Was the test team legitimate?
CAS says they were, even though two of the three test team members had no proof that they were authorized by the test contractor, International Doping and Test Management (IDTM). CAS said that only the test team leader, the Doping Control Officer, needed proof of accreditation.
The CAS decision says, “ISTI imposes a specific threshold for notification. The threshold seeks to ensure that an athlete understand that a demand for his samples is legitimate and duly authorized—all the while avoiding the imposition of unnecessarily burdensome administrative criteria or the creation of yet more opportunities for gamesmanship by bad actors. “
In contrast, FINA said that all members of a test team need to be trained, accredited, and have proof. “FINA members (swimmers) must know with certainty under whose authority they are being tested and that every official attending at the sample collection session has been properly trained, appointed and authorized by the Sample Collection Agency.”
Which is right? The ISTI is ambiguous and can be interpreted both ways. ISTI Annex H says, “Sample Collection Personnel requirements start with the development of the necessary competencies for Sample Collection Personnel and end with the provision of identifiable accreditation.” There was debate over whether “personnel” was singular or plural.
One thing is certain: the Doping Control Assistant was not properly trained. The controversy was sparked because he took personal photographs which is a significant violation of protocol and the athlete’s privacy.
2) Did the test team show adequate proof they were authorized to conduct the test?
CAS says yes; it was sufficient to show the annual authorization paper from FINA to IDTM, nothing more.
FINA said no; there needs to be more than an annual authorization. The test team must show evidence that they are authorized to carry out this specific mission.
Which is right? Again, the ISTI is ambiguous. It seems reasonable to require a test team entering a person’s personal space to show proof of the fact they have authorization to collect bodily fluid samples from that individual at that time. The test team must have a mandate to go to the Athlete’s residence and collect the samples. Why not show it to the athlete to confirm this is a legitimate intrusion?
3) Was the Blood Collection Officer (BCO) qualified to draw blood from the athlete?
CAS says yes, even though the Blood Collection Officer only had an old junior nurse certificate in her possession.
FINA said no. They explain, “What is certain is that she did not produce unequivocal evidence of her qualifications to draw blood from the athlete, as required in the ISTI.”
The ISTI clearly states the blood collection must meet local standards and regulatory requirements.
4) Did the Doping Control Officer warn the athlete that his actions could be considered a Refusal to Comply as required?
FINA says no. The DCO did not make that clear and to further complicate things, she signed a statement of events written by Sun Yang’s doctor.
“The ISTI is clear in Annex A 3.3.a) that the DCO must tell the Athlete, in a language he can understand, the consequences of a possible Failure to Comply. Explaining the risks that certain conduct might lead to a violation is not sufficient. The DCO must go further and clearly articulate that she is treating the Athlete’s conduct as a Failure to Comply and that the following consequences will apply.”
CAS says the DCO warned the athlete sufficiently. They claim the DCO told the athlete the consequences of “Refusal to Comply”.
CAS says, “Nothing in Annex A.3.3(a) requires a DCO, on the spot, to proclaim a definitive anti-doping rule violation. The Panel therefore has no hesitation in disavowing this artificially high threshold. It is enough for Sample Collection Personnel to tell an athlete, in language he can understand, the consequences of a possible failure to comply. As to whether an actual violation has occurred, this is for the Testing Authority to determine and prosecute; such a proclamation is not within any DCO’s competence.”
Which is right? One thing is clear: the ISTI wording is poor and misleading. All athletes know the consequence of a Refusal to Comply is an Anti-Doping Rule Violation. This is comparable to a policeman telling a civilian the consequences of a crime (you go to prison) instead of telling them they are being charged with a crime.
Under ISTI regulations 5.4.8 and 7.4.6, the DCO is supposed to document what happened. The DCO did not document the events as required. Promoting more confusion, she signed the statement by Sun Yang’s doctor. If she was only signing the statement as a witness, it seems that should have been explicitly indicated.
Summary of Differences: FINA Doping Panel vs CAS Panel
In summary, the FINA doping panel emphasized that all test team members must be authorized.
In contrast, the CAS Panel advocated fewer requirements for a doping test team. Only the test team leader needs to have credentials and they do not have to show proof that their specific visit is authorized. The blood collection nurse does not need to prove she is qualified. CAS expressed preference to avoid “burdensome administrative criteria” and a concern for “gamesmanship by bad actors”.
The WADA Guidelines regarding Blood Collection support the position of Sun Yang in various respects. Dismissing this, CAS says “Guidelines are recommendations, not law, and they do not alter the minimum requirements of the ISTI”. They ignore the fact that Blood Sample Collection Guidelines have “ISTI” prominently printed on the cover.
Questions and Observations about this case
At the November 2019 public hearing, Sun Yang said he thought there were “dark forces” behind the effort to ban him. He did not say much more, but the suggestion was clear enough. Having studied this case in some depth, I believe his concerns are warranted.
If there is a “bad actor” here, it might be the private test contractor, IDTM. At each step of the events, they seem to have provoked rather than resolved the dispute. They selected as DCO a person who Sun Yang had complained about when she was DCA on a previous test. They chose to go to Sun Yang’s residence very late at night knowing he was returning from all day travel from Indonesia. They brought an improperly trained DCA who proceeded to surreptitiously take photographs. They declined to get a substitute DCA. They declined to postpone the test until the next day. They falsely claimed they needed to take the test equipment. They did not tell Sun Yang that they would file a Refusal to Comply.
The DCO was a Chinese woman who lives abroad. She was a DCO for less than a year. Her supervisor in Sweden, Romanian Tudor Popa, had only nine months experience at the time of the incident. He is now Vice President of International Testing at IDTM.
For the past 30 months, WADA has pursued this case against Sun Yang at great cost in time and resources. It is fair to ask why they have done this. It is not as though Sun Yang was avoiding being tested or making a habit of objecting. He is one of the most tested athletes in the world, on average every two weeks. Nearly all tests have been performed without any problem at all. Logic would dictate that Sun Yang had no motive to take performance enhancing medications. At the Asia Games, where he was tested six times, he won four gold plus two silver medals. Also, he was about to start a one-month vacation and rest period from swimming. It was not like he was a struggling swimmer who might be tempted to get some little extra advantage.
Would WADA have pursued this case if the swimmer had been an American, British, Canadian, or Australian? It was a huge investment of time and resources. In the end, they “achieved” the elimination of the Chinese athlete even though he was not doped. What kind of achievement is that?
The bias of the first CAS panel was acknowledged by the Swiss Federal Court.
Was the second CAS panel any less biased? Their decision suggests no. At each critical point, they favor minimizing requirements for the test team contractor. They hint that an athlete who is concerned with the test integrity may be a “bad actor”. They critique the FINA Doping Panel decision as showing “leniency” towards Sun Yang and “stringency” toward the testing process.
The CAS panel considers that requiring each test team member to have identifiable credential would be “unnecessarily burdensome administrative criteria”. Making this a requirement might give “opportunities for gamesmanship by bad actors”.
It should be noted that WADA had a serious conflict of interest in this case. They were the expert witnesses while also being the appellant.
Suggestions to improve the process
The World Anti-Doping Agency has become an influential force in global sport. They say they are “impartial, objective, balanced and transparent.” They publicly ask for feedback.
Here are some suggestions considering the Sun Yang case:
WADA documentation including the Guidelines and ISTI should be critically reviewed, and areas of ambiguity cleared up.
A genuine mix of international athletes should review the requirements for a test team. Should it be confirmed that all members of a test team are trained, accredited, and have proof? Should it be confirmed that an “out of competition” test team intruding in an athlete’s personal space needs to show authorization for this mission?
An athlete should be given a written warning if a test team is going to report a potential “Refusal to Comply”. There should be a standard “Refusal to Comply” form. Such notices or warnings are standard in society. This simple measure would probably have avoided the entire costly controversy with Sun Yang.
The composition of WADA should be more diverse to avoid appearing or in fact being biased.
Conclusion
The FINA Doping Panel was correct and Sun Yang should be competing in the Tokyo Olympics.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 Sterling is an independent journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. He can be reached at [email protected]
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Assaulted by cognitive dissonance across the spectrum, the Empire of Chaos now behaves as a manic depressive inmate, rotten to the core – a fate more filled with dread than having to face a revolt of the satrapies.
Only brain dead zombies now believe in its self-billed universal mission as the new Rome and the new Jerusalem. There’s no unifying culture, economy or geography knitting the core together across an “arid, desiccated, political landscape sweltering under the brassy sun of Apollonian ratiocination, devoid of passion, very masculine, and empty of human empathy.”
Clueless Cold Warriors still dream of the days when the Germany-Japan axis was threatening to rule Eurasia and the Commonwealth was biting the dust – thus offering Washington, fearful of being forced into islandization, the once in a lifetime opportunity to profit from WWII to erect itself as Supreme World Paradigm cum savior of the “free world”.
And then there were the unilateral 1990s, when the once again self-billed Shining City on the Hill basked in tawdry “end of history” celebrations – just as toxic neocons, gestated in the inter-war period via the gnostic cabal of New York Trotskysm, plotted their power takeover.
Today, it’s not Germany-Japan but the specter of a Russia-China-Germany entente that terrorizes the Hegemon as the Eurasian trio capable of sending American global domination to the dustbin of History.
Enter the American “strategy”. And predictably, it’s a prodigy of narrow mindedness, not even aspiring to the status of – fruitless – exercise in irony or desperation, yielding as it is from the pedestrian Carnegie Endowment, with its HQ in Think Tank Row between Dupont and Thomas Circle along Massachusetts Avenue in D.C.
Making U.S. Foreign Policy Work Better for the Middle Class is a sort of bipartisan report guiding the current, bewildered Crash Test Dummy administration. One of the 11 writers involved is none other than National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. The notion that a global imperial strategy and – in this case – a deeply impoverished and enraged middle class share the same interests does not even qualify as a lousy joke.
With “thinkers” like these, the Hegemon does not even need Eurasian “threats”.
Wanna talk to Mr. Kinzhal?
Meanwhile, in a script worthy of Dylan’s Desolation Row rewritten by The Three Stooges, proverbial Atlanticist chihuahuas are raving that the Pentagon ordered the partition of NATO: Western Europe will contain China, and Eastern Europe will contain Russia.
Yet what’s actually happening in those corridors of European power that really matter – no, baby, that ain’t Warsaw – is that not only Berlin and Paris refuse to antagonize Beijing, but mull how to get closer to Moscow without enraging the Hegemon.
So much for microwaved, Kissingerian Divide and Rule. One of the few things the notorious war criminal really got it was when he noted, after the implosion of the USSR, that without Europe “the US would become a distant island in the coastline of Eurasia”: it would dwell “in solitude, a minor status”.
Life is a drag when the (global) free lunch is over and on top of it you need to face not only the emergence of a “peer competitor” in Eurasia (copyright Zbig “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski) but a comprehensive strategic partnership. You fear that China is eating your lunch – and dinner, and nightcap – but still you need Moscow as the designated enemy of choice, because that’s what legitimizes NATO.
Call The Three Stooges! Let’s send the Europeans to patrol the South China Sea! Let’s get those Baltic nullities plus pathetic Poles to enforce the New Iron Curtain! And let’s deploy Russophobic Britannia Rules the Waves on both fronts!
Control Europe – or bust. Hence the Brave New NATO World: white man’s burden revisited – against Russia-China.
So far, Russia-China had been exhibiting infinite Daoist patience in dealing with those clowns. Not anymore.
The key players in the Heartland have clearly seen through the imperial propaganda fog; it will be a long and winding road, but the horizon will eventually unveil a Germany-Russia-China-Iran alliance rebalancing the global chessboard.
This is the ultimate Imperial Night of the Living Dead nightmare – hence these lowly American emissaries frantically scurrying around multiple latitudes trying to keep the satrapies in line.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the pond, China-Russia build submarines like there’s no tomorrow equipped with state of the art missiles – and Su-57s invite wise guys to a close conversation with a hypersonic Mr. Kinzhal.
Sergey Lavrov, like an aristocratic Grand Seigneur, took the trouble of enlightening the clowns with a stark, erudite distinction between rule of law and their self-defined “rules-based international order”.
That’s too much for their collective IQ. Perhaps what they will register is that the Russian-Chinese Treaty of Good-Neighborliness, Friendship, and Cooperation, initially signed on July 16, 2001, has just been extended for five years by Presidents Putin and Xi.
As the Empire of Chaos is incrementally and inexorably expelled from the Heartland, Russia-China are jointly managing Central Asian affairs.
In the Central and South Asia connectivity conference in Tashkent, Lavrov detailed how Russia is driving “the Greater Eurasian Partnership, a unifying and integrational outline between the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans that is as free for the movement of goods, capital, labor and services as possible and which is open to every country of the common continent of Eurasia and the integration unions created here.”
Then there’s the updated Russian National Security Strategy, which clearly outlines that building a partnership with the US and hitting win-win cooperation with the EU is an uphill struggle: “The contradictions between Russia and the West are serious and are hard to solve.” By contrast, strategic cooperation with China and India will be expanded.
A geopolitical earthquake
Yet the defining geopolitical breakthrough in the second year of the Raging Twenties may well be China telling the Empire, “That’s enough”.
It started over two months ago in Anchorage, when the formidable Yang Jiechi made shark fin’s soup out of the helpless American delegation. The piece de resistance came this week in Tianjin, where Vice Foreign Minister Xie Feng and his boss Wang Yi reduced mediocre imperial bureaucrat Wendy Sherman to stale dumpling status.
This searing analysis by a Chinese think tank reviewed all the key issues. Here are the highlights.
The Americans wanted to ensure that “guardrails and boundaries” are established to avoid a deterioration of U.S.-China relations in order to “manage” the relationship responsibly. That did not work, because their approach was “terrible”.
“Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Xie Feng hit the nail on the head when he said that the U.S. “competition, cooperation and confrontation” triad is a “blindfold” to contain and suppress China. Confrontation and containment are essential, cooperation is expedient, and competition is a discourse trap. The U.S. demands cooperation when it is in need of China, but in areas where it thinks it has an advantage, it decouples and cuts off supplies, blocks and sanctions, and is willing to clash and confront China in order to contain it.”
Xie Feng “also presented two lists to the U.S. side, a list of 16 items requesting the U.S. side to correct its wrong policies and words and deeds toward China, and a list of 10 priority cases of China’s concern (…) if these anti-China issues caused by the U.S. side’s bent are not resolved, what is there to talk about between China and the U.S.?”
And then, the sorbet to go with the cheesecake: Wang Yi’s three bottom lines to Washington. In a nutshell:
“The United States must not challenge, denigrate or even attempt to subvert the socialist road and system with Chinese characteristics. China’s road and system are the choice of history and the choice of the people, and they concern the long-term welfare of 1.4 billion Chinese people and the future destiny of the Chinese nation, which is the core interest that China must adhere to.”
“The United States must not try to obstruct or even interrupt China’s development process. The Chinese people certainly have the right to a better life, and China also has the right to modernization, which is not the monopoly of the United States and involves the basic conscience of mankind and international justice. China urges the U.S. side to expeditiously lift all unilateral sanctions, high tariffs, long-arm jurisdiction and the science and technology blockade imposed on China.”
“The United States must not infringe on China’s national sovereignty, let alone undermine China’s territorial integrity. The issues related to Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong are never about human rights or democracy, but rather about the major rights and wrongs of fighting against “Xinjiang independence”, “Tibet independence” and “Hong Kong independence”. No country will allow its sovereign security to be compromised. As for the Taiwan issue, it is a top priority (…) If “Taiwan independence” dares to provoke, China has the right to take any means needed to stop it.”
Will the Empire of Chaos register all of the above? Of course not. So the inexorable imperial rot will go on, a tawdry affair carrying no dramatic, aesthetic pathos worthy of a Gotterdammerung, barely eliciting even a glance from the Gods, “where they smile in secret, looking over wasted lands / Blight and famine, plague and earthquake, roaring deeps and fiery sands, / Clanging fights, and flaming towns, and sinking ships, and praying hands”, as Tennyson immortalized it. Yet what really matters, in our realpolitik realm, is that Beijing doesn’t even care. The point has been made: “The Chinese have long had enough of American arrogance, and the time when the U.S. tried to bully the Chinese is long gone.”
Now that’s the start of a brave new geopolitical world – and a prequel to an imperial requiem. Many a sequel will follow.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Pepe Escobar,born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Congratulations to Syrian table tennis Olympian Hend Zaza. Most press attention to Zaza’s Tokyo presence is her age. Not only has she won qualifying competitions essential for entry into the Olympic rank. At 12, she’s the youngest performer in this year’s games.
Perhaps African Americans—although enduring harsh and humiliating Jim Crow racist-conditions across the USA–when watching their champion athletes excel, experience what Syrians feel today when their achievements are globally recognized.
News of this promising and ardent Syrian, Hend Zaza —an Arab woman too, let’s not forget— invites a dialogue on related issues: first, the pride that this athlete bestows on all Syrians, also on Arab women worldwide; second, her place as successor to the overlooked Ghada Shouaa, Syria’s Olympic gold medalist; third, her outstanding accomplishment in a land smitten by ongoing deprivations of war and sanctions (see below).
Beyond the joy Ms. Zaza will doubtless bring to her family and her coach is national pride for Syrians everywhere, but especially vital in the homeland. Given how little the world knows about real Syrian women and men, this girl’s place in the 2021 Olympics is a window into Syrian’s steadfast and robust character. No champion emerges in a vacuum. Like any athlete Zaza would have had an active career at home before passing a series of qualifiers internationally. This suggests that within Syria healthy competition still endures. Hend is one of countless youths somehow managing to achieve a dream—in any field.
Image on the right: Hend Zaza
Hend Zaza’s athletic prowess might lead some enterprising journalist to Ghada Shouaa, her worthy Olympian predecessor. Shouaa was more than just another Syrian Olympian. She was a gold medalist, achieved for her outstanding heptathlon victory at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. (When American Jackie-Joyner-Kersee won gold at an earlier Olympics, she was celebrated as an ‘all-time greatest of athletes’, the heptathlon being the most stringent and demanding of all sports).
Shouaa’s 1996 “Olympic Gold” received fleeting mention in the U.S.; even then Syria was treated as a pariah state; its citizen’s achievements were largely hidden from the public. Today too, it’s not easy to learn about this champion. (Although a Wikipedia editor managed to attach to Shouaa’s listing, a superfluous 2013 civil war entry gratuitously linking her to the Syrian military.)
What is especially noteworthy about Ghada Shouaa is her mettle. (Her athletic potential was spotted at an early age!) The available notes about her career review how, from 1991, within five years, she climbed from a low ranking to victories at regional and global competitions to the summit– an Olympic Gold Medalist. It’s possible that Hend Zaza too is on a similar path to Olympic gold.
International competitions allow us to identify individuals, in this case, athletes, who are otherwise hidden from history.
The rise of these two women cannot be detached from the character of Syrian people. One does not have to reach into ancient Syrian history to recognize the country’s accomplishments. After the nation jettisoned from the USSR’s economic domain in 1989, unlike many former Soviet satellites, with little foreign help—it was denied access to World Bank funds– Syria became economically self-sufficient. It opened the economy to some private enterprise. Within a decade its graduates ranked among the region’s most sought-after professionals. Syria soon became food independent, and by 2005 its new Arabic language film and television industry rivaled that of Egypt (don’t expect proof in internet searches). Syria’s TV-series became a major export, along with agricultural produce, chemicals and textiles. These are just a few of its past assets.
Since the 2011 uprisings that led to civil war and destabilized the entire region, Syria is unrecognizable. Internal rebellion was aided by outside powers, with Islamic extremism exacerbating strife. The nation’s economy and social fabric were shredded. Reports by journalists Tim Anderson, Eva Bartlett and Mark Taliano provide a picture at odds with biased mainstream media coverage of Syria, but are hard to come by. American troops occupy regions of the country; Turkey controls a strategic northern strip. Added to this is a severe embargo: starting in 1979, expanded in December 2020, imposed and policed by Washington, it intensifies human suffering, makes rebuilding impossible and electricity scarce, lowers food production and spurs young people to flee. Sanctions constitute a well-tested, malicious war strategy to advance the American and Israeli long-term goal of destroying Syria, at any cost.
Tokyo’s spotlight on athlete Hend Zaza may meanwhile offer outsiders the incentive to learn about her country‘s early successes, why it is demonized, and why others found its achievements and independent position intolerable.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, B. Nimri Aziz.
Author Aziz was a correspondent in Syria on many occasions from 1990 to 2012.
Barbara is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: ATLANTA, UNITED STATES: Ghada Shouaa from Syria celebrates at the end of the 800m, the final event of the women’s heptathlon in the Olympic athletics competition at the Olympic Stadium in Atlanta, Georgia, 28 July. Shouaa gave Syria its first Olympic title when she won the event with 5,893 pts. (FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY) AFP-IOPP/Georges GOBET (Photo credit should read ROMEO GACAD/AFP via Getty Images)
Here is a must-watch, totally-truthful, science-based, vaccinology-literate video for anyone who is considering getting a booster (or even an initial) dose of any of the still-experimental, still unproven for long-term safety or efficacy, mRNA Covid-19 inoculations. and then quickly forwarded on to loved ones before one of the many powers-that-be finds a way to shut it down.
What does The New York Times and a majority of other legacy media have in common with Big Pharma? Answer: They’re largely owned by BlackRock and the Vanguard Group, the two largest asset management firms in the world.
White House officials said Tuesday Biden is considering requiring all civilian federal employees to be vaccinated or be forced to submit to regular testing, social distancing, mask requirements and restrictions on most travel.
Norway has announced vaccine injury compensation for at least three claims following AstraZeneca vaccination. An Oxford man has called for a review of U.K. Government vaccine injury compensation after he developed Guillain-Barré Syndrome following AstraZeneca vaccination.
Dr. McCullough has had one full-year of dedicated academic and clinical efforts in combating the SARS-CoV-2 virus and in doing so, has reviewed thousands of reports, participated in scientific congresses, group discussions, press releases, and has been considered among the world’s experts on COVID-19.
The world has recently been swept up by waves of propaganda promoting the idea that a “Great Reset” of the world system is in order to prepare society for a new “post-COVID’ world order.
When, conspicuously shortly after the breaking of the “Collateral Murder” and ‘Cablegate’ scandals, senior US security state officials hijacked the micromanagement of PR for Assange, it became their duty as Machiavellian imperialists to suppress the rising star of Wikileaks, a pacifist research institute with a record for 100% accuracy.
One of the ways the global cabal is attempting to implement The Great Reset and the Fourth Industrial Revolution is by putting global supply chains at risk to bring the economy to its knees.
In May, Anthony Fauci showed up to a Senate hearing fully vaccinated but wearing a mask. Rand Paul lit into him, claiming that this was absurd. Fauci, he said, was undermining confidence in the vaccines. We need to give people a reward for being vaccinated, he said. If you can’t even take off your mask, why bother?
Many a sinister conspiracy theory exists with regard to the true rulers of our world, but did you know that ownership of most of it can actually be traced to just FOUR huge corporations that you’re likely to have never even heard of?
It is worth recalling that immediately after the MH17 plane crash on July 17 2014, prior to the conduct of a preliminary investigation, Secretary of State John Kerry and US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power pointed their finger at Moscow without a shred of evidence.
We bring to the attention of Global Research readers this important interview of Stew Peters with Karen Kingston, which provides evidence of what’s inside the mRNA vaccine vial.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
In Greater Idlib, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) lost quite a bit of equipment, when a weapon depot in the village of Ma’arat Shalef exploded.
The reason behind the explosion is unknown, but it was completely destroyed on July 26.
According to unconfirmed reports, earlier in the same day, clashes took place between unknown gunmen and members of HTS at the al-Ram checkpoint near the town of Maarrat Sarin.
The clashes reportedly followed an attack by the gunmen, who were later forced to escape.
Meanwhile, the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) continued to pound ground positions and facilities of the so-called “moderate opposition” in Greater Idlib, in response to ceasefire violations.
VKS warplanes struck an underground terrorist facility in the area near the villages of Kansafra and al-Bara in the southern part of Idlib province.
The Syrian Arab Army also bombarded the town of Sfuhun in the same area with heavy artillery.
Meanwhile, in the northeast, the exchange between the Turkish Armed Forces and the militants it backs against the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) shows no promise of ending.
The SDF announced the killing of one of their fighters by Turkish artillery, shelling one of their positions in the northern countryside of Aleppo.
Syrian media reported that Turkish shelling resulted in the injury of several civilians.
Ankara’s forces struck he villages of al-Hoshariya and al-Arimah, north of al-Bab city and the villages of Sheikh Issa and Ahras which are affiliated with the Tel Refaat township in Aleppo.
In response, the SDF bombarded the western outskirts of the city of Azaz in the northern countryside of Aleppo.
No casualties were reported.
Turkey, however, didn’t simply take it without a response and shelled SDF positions in Maraanaz, also in Aleppo.
This shelling is a daily occurrence, as Turkish-backed forces shelled SDF positions near the Minnagh Airbase, Mara-anaz and the Ain Deqna areas on July 25th, as well.
The SDF usually respond by targeting the Turkish-occupied city of Afrin, but also often strike other positions of Ankara’s and pro-Ankara forces in other areas.
Finally, in addition to fighting against the SDF and other Kurdish groups, the factions backed by Turkey are also frequently fighting amongst themselves.
On July 25th, infighting with light and medium weapons erupted within the Turkey-backed “Jaish al-Sharqiya” in the city of Ras al-Ayn.
5 militants were injured in the clashes.
Such infighting is quite common and has claimed the lives of dozens of militants.
Civilian casualties have also been reported, as well as damage to private property.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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).
What we are witnessing nowadays proves that the US withdrawal from the countries they intervened in may be just as dangerous as the invasion itself, because it was designed to ensure that the country continues, yet in the form mapped out for it.
It is essential for our ailing countries and our peoples who are paying high prices to conduct fact-based and realistic assessments of each and every US intervention in the Arab countries, not to mention the disasters that these interventions have brought down, all the blood they spilled and all the destruction they caused to what we have built in our countries. We should also study the motives and consequences of their crimes and withdrawals when those happen. It is no longer acceptable at any rate to go through the daily events with a day-to-day mentality and move from one day to another without actually learning and drawing lessons from them so as to use them efficiently in the formation of our vision for the present-day and the future, as well as in the materialization of our decisions.
The situation is best described in the words of the late Ramsey Clark, who said, “Nobody knows, when the World Trade Center in New York was blown up, why the US chose to invade Afghanistan first and then Iraq in a plan that included invading seven countries in five years.”
As a matter of fact, no one is fully aware of the real motives of the US behind withdrawing from Afghanistan at this particular time and in this particular way, although these motives unfold before those who are concerned and interested in the matter in the repercussions of these withdrawals on the neighboring countries and on the regional and international relations. So far, the relationship between the US aggressive interventions and withdrawals, on the one hand, and the sanctions that they impose on the countries involved or on other countries, on the other, has not yet been studied. These questions and many others need research centers capable of drawing lessons and extracting deductions, and, at the same time, presenting concepts and methods of thinking and planning that are, without doubt, of great value to the countries that suffer from these interventions or sanctions or both.
Ramsey Clark also said that no one knew what Afghanistan and Iraq had to do with the 9/11 attacks in the US, and although the reasons they had submitted for invading these two countries outside the framework of the United Nations were proven false and untrue, the world made no reaction because the United States constitutes the greatest military power in the world, meaning that the logic of force has dominated the reactions of the international community. The pretexts used for the invasion of Afghanistan were summed up in fighting the terrorism that struck in New York and eliminating the “Taliban” after uprooting “al-Qaeda”.
However, 20 years later, the United States handed over Afghanistan and its borders with the neighboring countries to the “Taliban”, perhaps with the intention of using the “Taliban” wild card against Russia, China, and Iran, and encouraging any extremist Islam that resides in western China to intertwine and cooperate with the “Taliban” in order to destabilize China and threaten its unity. It goes without saying that China is too big and powerful to be affected by such a threat, but it might, nevertheless, distract it and waste some of its resources. It is necessary to make a comparison between Afghanistan before the US invasion and its situation after that, and even between the situation of Afghanistan since the fifties of the last century and its situation today. The reason is that such comparisons proves by numbers the societal, political, economic and educational disasters that this invasion has brought down on the Muslim Afghan people, which requires a long time and massive budgets, as well as organization and willpower, to be able to get rid of the repercussions and rebuild the country all over again.
Image on the right: George W. Bush declares victory in Iraq War, USS Abraham Lincoln, San Diego, May 1, 2003
In our backyard lies a relevant example that depicts the Arab reality and what we know about it. To this end, we can examine the US invasion of Iraq and draw conclusions from it, and this must apply to most of the countries that were subjected to such a military invasion during different times in history.
For despite all its shortcomings and flaws, our precious Iraq was the Arab country that brought forth intellectuals, scholars, and poets, and the al-Mutanabbi Market in Baghdad was the only market in the world dedicated for books only. Iraq was the educated country that printed thousands of copies of any book issued from Morocco to Kuwait, because the educated Iraq would buy most of these copies.
Moreover, the achievements of the Iraqi scholars had raised Iraq and taken it to advanced stages in scholarly research, knowing that education in the country was one of the best educational systems in the Arab world.
But the US invasion of Iraq, which took place under the pretense of dismantling weapons of mass destruction, which have proved to be non-existent over time, targeted the Iraqi infrastructure, the Iraqi scholars, the Iraqi army, as well as the political parties, organizations, antiquities, and all the people who were impoverished, killed and displaced in millions. The US administrator of Iraq, Bremer, established a constitution that guarantees the inability of the Iraqis to unify their ranks and bring their efforts together to put an end to all the divisive and destabilizing intentions that achieves the colonizers’ dream of plundering the oil of Iraq. The constitution was also aimed at keeping the Iraqis in a poor environment that drives away education, scholars, scientists, medicine, doctors and all what could constitute an indication or a sign of Iraq coming back to life. The reason is that with such revival, the Iraqis would be able to take matters into their own hand; by building their own lives, reconstructing their country, and being their own masters.
The ongoing discussions over possible US intentions to withdraw from Iraq indicates withdrawal attempts similar to those of Afghanistan, where US advisors stay behind to run the country, the US intelligence makes sure that no resistance gains enough strength to fight it or change the course the US forces have set for Iraq and the Iraqis, and the US air forces undertake the mission of eliminating any form of resistance in any position on the Iraqi soil.
In the meantime, separatist currents would receive funding and support, and the neo-Ottoman power would be unleashed to occupy any part of the beloved land of Iraq, whilst keeping everyone weak and incapable of confronting that multi-handed creature that has fortified the causes that maintains Iraq’s weakness and inability to invest its oil to generate energy, improve the level of services and education, and get the environment back on the right track. Once this is achieved, the Iraqis will be able to produce future generations capable of changing the path of Iraq’s future and transforming it from a country ruled by US advisors who ensure its continued weakness and plundering of its wealth, into a country ruled by its own people who mount up their points of strength and open the door for all the Iraqis to invest their distinguished intellectual potentials in the course of rebuilding this country to be a beacon to the Arab region and the entire world.
What we are witnessing nowadays is best proof that the US withdrawal from the countries they intervened in may be just as dangerous as the invasion itself, because it was designed to ensure that the country continues, yet in the form mapped out for it by the invasion and imposed sanctions. This would stifle all its energies, thus posing a constant threat to anyone who dares to challenge the map set by the colonizer in order to supervise its execution over the upcoming years and perhaps over decades. It is worth mentioning that these countries that have long suffered from the US military invasion and are supposed to witness the withdrawal of any military presence will continue to be weighed down by the US sanctions indefinitely. Moreover, the advisers chosen to oversee the restoration of the country’s wellbeing fail to make any proposals to lift these sanctions, or at least to explain their devastating impact on people’s lives. Thus, the sanctions continue to be used as part of the withdrawal plans, in an attempt to keep the country under the mercy of poverty and backwardness and guarantee the continuous looting of its wealth for the benefit of the occupying invader over the coming decades.
This is the bitter truth behind the US allegations of spreading freedom and democracy and of its concern for human rights. And if the circumstances allow honest researchers to study these cases, from the invasions to the withdrawals and sanctions imposed on many countries in the world, they will reach results capable of changing the concepts of humanity once and for all. This entails a dire need and a demand to rewrite world history, so that the future generations do not feed on the same lies and misleading stories that are in no way related to the reality. As a matter of fact, the peoples of our countries pay the price of these lies and fabricated stories with blood, anguish, heartbreak, and endless sufferings on all levels. It goes without saying that this is a huge, important research project, and I hope that the competent people will pick it up and establish the necessary foundations for it, because it is essential for us and for our children and grandchildren.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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).
Terrorism continues to advance in Africa. Brutal attacks in Cameroon earlier this week raised suspicions about an integration between Boko Haram and a regional branch of ISIS. The result of this unification process could be the formation of an even stronger and more influential terrorist organization.
This Tuesday, unidentified terrorists murdered five soldiers and a civilian in a violent attack against a military base in Zigue, a city in the northern region of Cameroon. Previously, on Saturday, another military base had been attacked in Sagme, also in the north of the country, near the border with Nigeria, leaving at least seven soldiers dead. Apparently, other attacks have recently taken place in the same region, both against the military and civilians. However, the precariousness of data reporting – something common in African countries due to the inefficiency of state services – makes it difficult to reveal the real dimension of the problem.
The geographic proximity to Nigeria favors the action of terrorists in Cameroon. The neighboring country is the territory of operations of Boko Haram – a Sunni fundamentalist and jihadist organization that since 2002 has been trying to implement Sharia in Nigerian territory. Despite having been founded in Nigeria and having this country as its main focus of action, Boko Haram has expanded its power to neighboring countries such as Chad and Cameroon in recent years, taking advantage of the political and social instability of these nations to increase its area of occupation. It is not by chance that the most recent attacks in Cameroon took place precisely in regions close to the border with Nigeria.
However, the problem is not restricted to Boko Haram, as this group is unlikely to operate alone in these attacks. In May, Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekaku died, allegedly by suicide. Following this event, a regional branch of ISIS, the Islamic State West African Province (ISWAP), began a process of absorbing the remaining members of Boko Haram, forming a much stronger, more equipped, prepared, and unified militia. ISWAP has claimed responsibility for many of the recent terrorist attacks in the three countries where Boko Haram is present, including Cameroon – and, interestingly, Boko Haram did the same. This integration explains the intensified frequency and brutality of operations, in addition to generating fears about the future of local security, considering the possible formation of one of the most dangerous terrorist organization of the African continent.
As has been denounced by several experts, ISIS has turned its attention to Africa since the beginning of the Russian intervention in the Syrian civil war, when this organization suffered a major blow against its structures in the Middle East. The instability of local governments, the absence of foreign troops and the abundance of natural resources make Africa an attractive place for international terrorism, being at the same time strategic and easy to occupy. ISIS’s strategy, apparently, has been to integrate with pre-existing local extremist militias, which has already happened in many countries. Now, such integration appears to be taking place with one of the most powerful organizations of African terrorism, resulting in a truly alarming situation.
This integration seems to be happening quickly and easily due to a simple factor: ISWAP originates from Boko Haram itself. In 2016, there was a split in the Nigerian militia, where a new group was formed. This dissident faction did not agree with some attitudes of the leader of Boko Haram, Abubakar Shekaku. This group later joined ISIS and adopted the name by which it is known today. With Shekaku’s death, the way is free for both organizations to seek reunification. Apparently, it is ISIS which is in control of the situation and the rapprochement between both groups will certainly mean an absorption of Boko Haram by ISIS.
The scenario becomes even more worrying when we consider the fact that since 2019 the ISWAP has been integrated into the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (ISGS), which is the ISIS branch occupying Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger. The possibility of joint actions between these organizations, in addition to the growth in the number of combatants with the affiliation of current Boko Haram soldiers, form an unprecedented situation, leading to the domination of a considerable part of the African territory by ISIS – which will definitively displace its center of activities for this continent.
Once again, Africa needs international help. Local states are not able to deal with this type of situation and the delay of international society in helping them can have a serious consequence: the creation of a great international caliphate on African soil.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
We bring to the attention of Global Research readers this important interview of Stew Peters with Karen Kingston, which provides evidence of what’s inside the mRNA vaccine vial.
Karen Kingston is a pharmaceutical and medical device business analyst with over 20 years of experience in business development, marketing, sales, public speaking, and strategic consulting. As an executive strategist, her clients range include Allergan, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, and Thermo Fisher Scientific.
The results of their analysis by electron microscopy and spectroscopy are far-reaching. Graphene oxide is a toxin which triggers thrombi and blood coagulation. It also has an impact on the immune system. Graphene oxide accumulated in the lungs can have devastating impacts.
The stated objective is to enforce the Worldwide vaccination of 7.9 billion people in more than 190 countries, to be followed by the imposition of a digitized “vaccine passport”. The evidence of mortality and morbidity resulting from the vaccine is overwhelming. Needless to say this is a multi-billion dollar operation for Big Pharma.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
On July 27, a federal district court judge in Alexandria, Virginia, sentenced former U.S. Air Force intelligence analyst Daniel Hale to 45 months in prison for revealing evidence of U.S. war crimes.
In 2015, Hale, whose job involved identifying targets for drone strikes, provided journalist Jeremy Scahill with secret military documents and slides that exposed shocking details about the U.S. drone program. Hale’s revelations became the basis of “The Drone Papers,” which was published on October 15, 2015, by The Intercept.
Although the government admitted it had no evidence that direct harm resulted from Hale’s revelations, in 2019, the Trump administration charged Hale with four counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of theft of government property. Facing up to 50 years in prison, Hale pled guilty to one count that carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.
The leaked documents disclosed the “kill chain” the Obama administration used to determine whom to target. Countless civilians were killed using “signals intelligence” in undeclared war zones: Targeting decisions were made by following cell phones that might not be carried by suspected terrorists. The Drone Papers divulged that half of the intelligence used to identify potential targets in Yemen and Somalia was based on signals intelligence.
During one five-month period during January 2012 to February 2013, nearly 90 percent of those killed by drone strikes were not the intended target, according to The Drone Papers. But civilian bystanders were nonetheless classified as “enemies killed in action” unless proven otherwise.
Hale said, “It’s stunning the number of instances when selectors [used to identify “terrorist” targets] are misattributed to certain people.” Calling a missile fired at a target in a group of people a “leap of faith,” he noted, “it’s a phenomenal gamble.” Hale added, “Anyone caught in the vicinity is guilty by association.”
The Drone Papers reveal that reliance on drones actually undermines U.S. intelligence gathering. Drones terrorize communities, breeding resentment against Americans and making the United States more vulnerable to violence. Indeed, Hale wrote in his 11-page pre-sentencing letter, “the war had very little to do with preventing terror from coming into the United States and a lot more to do with protecting the profits of weapons manufacturers and so-called defense contractors.”
Drone strikes shield U.S. military members from harm in order to minimize Americans’ opposition to war. But drone operators who make or carry out remote targeting decisions nevertheless suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
At his sentencing hearing, Hale told U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady, “I believe that it is wrong to kill, but it is especially wrong to kill the defenseless.” Hale said he revealed what “was necessary to dispel the lie that drone warfare keeps us safe, that our lives are worth more than theirs.”
“You had to kill part of your conscience to keep doing your job,” Hale added.
In November 2013, I participated in a panel on the illegality of drones and targeted killing at a drone summit in Washington, D.C. Hale also spoke on a panel at that conference. He described how he located a man riding a motorcycle in the mountains who then met up with four other people and they sat around a campfire, drinking tea. Hale relayed information that resulted in a drone strike, killing all five men. He said he realized that he “was no longer part of something moral or sane or rational.” He had heard someone say that “terrorists are cowards” because they used improvised explosive devices (IEDs). “What was different,” Hale asked, “between that and the little red joystick that pushes a button thousands of miles away?”
Hale told the sentencing judge about this incident in his pre-sentencing letter, writing, “Despite having peacefully assembled, posing no threat, the fate of the now tea drinking men had all but been fulfilled. I could only look on as I sat by and watched through a computer monitor when a sudden, terrifying flurry of hellfire missiles came crashing down, splattering purple-colored crystal guts on the side of the morning mountain.”
Hale’s revelations did not pose a threat to national security, even by traditional interpretations. Harry P. Cooper, a former senior CIA official, wrote in a declaration in Hale’s case that “the disclosure of [the Drone Papers], at the time they were disclosed and made public, did not present any substantial risk of harm to the United States or to national security.”
Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden have used armed drones to drop bombs on other countries in violation of international law. All four administrations have killed and are still killing untold numbers of civilians.
It is estimated that U.S. military and CIA drone operations have killed 9,000 to 17,000 people since 2004, including 2,200 children and many U.S. citizens. But those numbers are likely low because the U.S. military labels all individuals killed in those operations as presumptive “enemies killed in action.”
Bush authorized about 50 drone strikes that killed 296 alleged “terrorists” and 195 civilians in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Obama vastly increased the number of people killed with drones.
Obama presided over 10 times more drone strikes than his predecessor. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, during his two terms in office, Obama carried out 563 strikes — largely with drones — in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, killing between 384 and 807 civilians.
Obama’s 18-page Presidential Policy Guidance (PPG) was made public after a Freedom of Information Act request by the ACLU and resulting court order. It purported to outline targeting procedures for the use of lethal force outside “areas of active hostilities.” The PPG required that a target pose a “continuing imminent threat.” But a secret 2011 Justice Department white paper leaked in 2013 permitted the killing of a U.S. citizen even without “clear evidence that a specific attack on US persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.” The bar was presumably lower for non-U.S. citizens.
Obama’s PPG also mandated that there be “near certainty that an identified HVT [high-value terrorist] or other lawful terror target” is present before lethal force could be used against him. But the Obama administration mounted “signature strikes” that didn’t necessarily target individuals, but rather men of military age who were present in an area of suspicious activity.
It was also necessary to have “near certainty that non-combatants [civilians] would not be injured or killed.” But the revelations of The Drone Papers call into question the Obama administration’s compliance with that requirement as well. Plus, activists have emphasized that “near certainty” is a dangerous barometer when it comes to the decision of whether to take a human life.
Trump lowered the bar even further for drone strikes. His administration reduced the requisite level of confidence that a target was present in a strike zone from “near certainty” to “reasonable certainty.” Under Trump, targets were not limited to “high-value terrorists” but could include foot soldiers. Whereas decisions about drone bombings had been made at the highest levels of government — with Obama having the final say about who would be targeted — Trump allowed commanders in the field to make targeting decisions. Trump gave increased authority to the Pentagon and CIA to conduct drone strikes. He weakened the targeting rules in large areas of Somalia and Yemen by designating them as “areas of active hostilities.” And Trump eliminated the government’s commitment to report on civilian casualties.
During his first two years in office, Trump launched 2,243 drone strikes, compared to 1,878 in Obama’s eight years in office.
Biden Continues Drone Bombings
In March, Biden secretly set temporary limits on drone strikes outside of recognized battlefields. He has ordered a comprehensive review of whether to keep Trump’s relaxed rules in place, or return to Obama-era rules, or impose some middle ground. In any event, it is doubtful that Biden would comply any better than Obama did with the tighter rules.
Meanwhile, the United States conducted a drone strike against Shabab “militants” in Somalia on July 20. The White House had rejected some requests by the U.S. military’s Africa Command to conduct drone strikes against Shabab targets in Somalia because they didn’t meet the new rules. However, White House approval was considered unnecessary here because the Africa Command has authority to carry out strikes in support of allied forces under what the military calls “collective self-defense.” But that does not constitute lawful collective self-defense under the United Nations Charter.
Although Biden is withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan, he is continuing to launch airstrikes, including drone strikes, there. “We’ve been doing it where and when feasible, and we’ll keep doing it where and when feasible,” an official involved in operational planning said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Gen. Kenneth E. McKenzie Jr., the top U.S. general in charge of Afghanistan, refused to say whether airstrikes would continue past the cutoff date of August 31.
The Air Force is requesting $10 billion to perpetuate the U.S. imperial footprint in South Asia and the Middle East.
On June 30, 113 organizations, including Veterans for Peace, wrote a letter to Biden, “to demand an end to the unlawful program of lethal strikes outside any recognized battlefield, including through the use of drones.”
Drone Strikes Violate International Law
The UN Charter requires that international disputes be settled peacefully. It allows a country to use military force only in self-defense after an armed attack or with the consent of the UN Security Council. Neither the U.S. war in Iraq nor in Afghanistan complied with the Charter’s mandates.
“Outside the context of active hostilities, the use of drones or other means for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal,” Agnès Callamard, UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, tweeted. She added that “intentionally lethal or potentially lethal force can only be used where strictly necessary to protect against an imminent threat to life.” Thus, Callamard said, the United States would need to demonstrate that the target “constituted an imminent threat to others.”
Targeted or political assassinations — also known as extrajudicial executions — violate international law. Willful killing is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and is punishable as a war crime under the U.S. War Crimes Act. Civilians must never be the target of military strikes. A targeted killing is only lawful if it is deemed necessary to protect life, and no other means — including capture or nonlethal incapacitation — is available to protect life.
Yet the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations have all prosecuted whistleblowers for revealing evidence of U.S. war crimes. In addition to Hale, those courageous folks includeChelsea Manning, Julian Assange and John Kiriakou, who revealed that CIA officials used waterboarding, which constitutes the war crime of torture.
Misuse of the Espionage Act
The Espionage Act of 1917 was enacted to prosecute foreign spies. It was never intended for use against whistleblowers. Nevertheless, Obama charged eight whistleblowers with violating the act, more than all prior presidents combined.
But although Obama refrained from indicting Assange for publishing evidence of U.S. war crimes (for fear of setting a dangerous precedent), Trump indicted Assange for 17 charges under the Espionage Act. Assange now faces 175 years in prison. A British judge denied Trump’s request that Assange be extradited to the U.S. to stand trial for those charges. But Biden has continued Trump’s appeal of the denial of extradition, notwithstanding the grave threat Assange’s prosecution poses to the First Amendment right to freedom of the press.
Hale is the first person sentenced under the Espionage Act during the Biden administration and he probably won’t be the last.
Ironically, Hale told the sentencing judge that he was a descendent of Nathan Hale, who was executed by the British for spying during the Revolutionary War. “I have but this one life to give in service of my country,” Hale said, quoting his ancestor.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and a member of the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues.
She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: CODEPINK protests killer drones at DC home of Jeh Johnson (Credit: CODEPINK)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
We, the undersigned civil society organizations and independent experts, are alarmed at the media revelations that NSO Group’s spyware has been used to facilitate human rights violations around the world on a massive scale.
These revelations are a result of the Pegasus Project and are based on the leak of 50,000 phone numbers of potential surveillance targets. The project is a collaboration of more than 80 journalists from 16 media organizations in 10 countries coordinated by Forbidden Stories, a Paris-based media non-profit, with the technical support of Amnesty International, who conducted forensic tests on mobile phones to identify traces of the Pegasus spyware.
The Pegasus Project’s revelations prove wrong any claims by NSO that such attacks are rare or anomalous, or arising from rogue use of their technology. While the company asserts its spyware is only used for legitimate criminal and terror investigations, it has become clear that its technology facilitates systemic abuse. As the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said, “if the recent allegations about the use of Pegasus are even partly true, then that red line has been crossed again and again with total impunity.”
From the leaked data and their investigations, Forbidden Stories and its media partners identified potential NSO clients in 11 countries: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Hungary, India, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Morocco, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Togo, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). NSO claims it only sells it to government clients.
The investigation has so far also identified at least 180 journalists in 20 countries who were selected for potential targeting with NSO spyware between 2016 to June 2021. Deeply concerning details that have emerged include evidence that family members of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi were targeted with Pegasus software before and after his murder in Istanbul on 2 October 2018 by Saudi operatives, despite repeated denials from NSO Group that its products were used to target Khashoggi or his family members.
The revelations are only a tip of the iceberg. The private surveillance industry has been allowed to operate unchecked. States have failed not only in their obligations to protect people from these human rights violations, but have themselves failed in their own human rights obligations, clearly letting these invasive weapons loose on people worldwide for no other reason than exercising their human rights. Additionally, the targeting may in fact reveal only part of the picture of human rights violations that they signify. This is because violations of the right to privacy impact on numerous other human rights and show the real-world harm caused by surveillance that is inconsistent with international norms.
In Mexico, journalist Cecilio Pineda‘s phone was selected for targeting just weeks before his killing in 2017. Pegasus has been used in Azerbaijan, a country where only a few independent media outlets remain. Amnesty International’s Security Lab found the phone of Sevinc Vaqifqizi, a freelance journalist for independent media outlet Meydan TV, was infected over a two-year period until May 2021. In India, at least 40 journalists from major media outlets in the country were selected as potential targets between 2017-2021. Forensic tests revealed the phones of Siddharth Varadarajan and MK Venu, co-founders of independent online outlet The Wire, were infected with Pegasus spyware as recently as June 2021. Amidst this revelation, Moroccan journalist and human rights activist Omar Radi was sentenced to six years in prison. Radi’s phone had previously been forensically examined by Amnesty International in 2020 and was determined to be targeted by Pegasus. In Morocco, of the 34 other journalists whose phones were selected for potential targeting by Pegasus, two are imprisoned. The investigation also identified journalists working for major international media including the Associated Press, CNN, The New York Times and Reuters as potential targets. One of the highest profile journalists was Roula Khalaf, the editor of the Financial Times. These targets represent only a small part of the revelations and the full picture is yet to emerge.
This is not the first time NSO’s Pegasus software has been linked to human rights violations. Researchers, journalists, activists and others have uncovered significant evidence over the years of the use of NSO Group’s surveillance technology to target individuals. Previous research by Citizen Lab exposed how Ahmed Mansoor, a human rights defender imprisoned in the United Arab Emirates, was targeted with NSO Group technology in 2016. In Mexico, journalists, lawyers, and public health experts have also been previously targeted.
Where surveillance is operated without adequate legal frameworks, oversight, safeguards and transparency, its harms have an impact far beyond those who may have actually been targeted. In the face of opacity and inadequate safeguards, and especially in situations where surveillance is known or suspected to be carried out in unlawful ways, human rights defenders and journalists are forced to self-censor out of fear of being persecuted for their work, even where such surveillance may in fact not be taking place. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of revelations journalists and activists are already noting the chilling effect on their work.
Importantly, the use of targeted digital surveillance tools such as Pegasus infringe the right to privacy and many other rights. Pegasus impacts the right to privacy by design: it is surreptitious, deployed without the knowledge of the rights holder, and has the capacity to collect and deliver an unlimited selection of personal, private data (along with data of any contacts with which a target interacts). Moreover, as noted above, a violation of the right to privacy can have cascading effects on other rights, including the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly. It is evident from these disclosures that these uses of the tool are abusive and arbitrary, and do not constitute a permissible interference with the right to privacy. Further, states’ unchecked deployment of these tools does not meet the tests of necessity, proportionality, and legitimate aim as outlined under international standards.
A culture of impunity specific to targeted digital surveillance has developed that must be urgently countered. These disclosures show just how states’ use of the targeted digital surveillance tools supplied by one of the industry’s most prominent participants is utterly out of control, destabilizing, and threatening to individuals’ human rights, including physical safety. The revelations shine a light on an unaccountable industry, and an unaccountable sphere of state practice, that must not continue to operate in their current forms. Our rights and the security of the digital ecosystem as a whole depend on it.
We back the call of the UN High Commissioner that “Governments should immediately cease their own use of surveillance technologies in ways that violate human rights, and should take concrete actions to protect against such invasions of privacy by regulating the distribution, use and export of surveillance technology created by others.”
Thus, we urge all states to urgently take the following steps: To all states:
a. Immediately put in place a moratorium on the sale, transfer, and use of surveillance technology. Given the breadth and scale of these findings, there is an urgent need to halt surveillance technology enabled activities of all states and companies, until human rights regulatory efforts catch up.
b. Conduct an immediate, independent, transparent and impartial investigation into cases of targeted surveillance. Further, investigate export licenses granted for targeted surveillance technology, and revoke all marketing and export licenses in situations where human rights are put at risk.
c. Adopt and enforce a legal framework requiring private surveillance companies and their investors to conduct human rights due diligence in their global operations, supply chains and in relation to the end use of their products and services. Under this legislation, private surveillance companies should be compelled to identify, prevent, and mitigate the human rights-related risks of their activities and business relationships.
d. Adopt and enforce a legal framework requiring transparency by private surveillance companies, including information on self-identification/registration; products and services offered; the results of regular due diligence including details of how they addressed identified risks and actual impacts; and sales made as well as potential clients rejected for failing to meet standards of human rights or good governance. States should make this information available in public registries.
e. Ensure that all surveillance companies domiciled in their countries, including sales intermediaries, affiliates, holding companies, and private equity owners, are required to act responsibly and are held liable for their negative human rights impacts. They must require by law that these companies undertake human rights due diligence measures in respect of their global operations. This should include liability for harm caused and access to remedy in the home states of the companies, for affected individuals and communities. Governments should therefore initiate or support domestic proposals for corporate accountability legislation.
f. Disclose information about all previous, current and future contracts with private surveillance companies by responding to requests for information or by making proactive disclosures.
g. As a condition to continued operation of surveillance companies, demand immediate establishment of independent, multi-stakeholder oversight bodies for NSO Group and all other private surveillance companies. This should include human rights groups and other civil society actors.
h. Establish community public oversight boards to oversee and approve the acquisition or use of new surveillance technologies, with powers to approve or reject based on the states’ human rights obligations, provisions for public notice and reporting.
i. Reform existing laws that pose barriers to remedy for victims of unlawful surveillance and ensure that both judicial and non-judicial paths to remedy are available in practice.
j. Furthermore, states must, at a minimum, implement the below recommendations if the moratorium on the sale and transfer of surveillance equipment is to be lifted:
Implement domestic legislation that imposes safeguards against human rights violations and abuses through digital surveillance and establishes accountability mechanisms designed to provide victims of surveillance abuses a pathway to remedy.
Implement procurement standards restricting government contracts for surveillance technology and services to only those companies which demonstrate that they respect human rights in line with the UN Guiding Principles and have not serviced clients engaging in surveillance abuses.
Participate in key multilateral efforts to develop robust human rights standards that govern the development, sale and transfer of surveillance equipment, and identify impermissible targets of digital surveillance
k. Inform securities exchanges and financial regulators of the harms associated with private surveillance technology companies, and require strict, regular scrutiny in law and regulation of disclosures and applications by those companies and their owners, including before any major events (public listings, mergers, acquisitions, etc.)
l. Protect and promote strong encryption, one of the best defences against invasive surveillance.
We urge Israel, Bulgaria, Cyprus and any other states in which NSO has corporate presence:
a. Exporting States, including Israel, Bulgaria and Cyprus, must immediately revoke all marketing and export licenses issued to NSO Group and its entities, and conduct an independent, impartial, transparent investigation to determine the extent of unlawful targeting, to culminate in a public statement on results of efforts and steps to prevent future harm.
Signatories
Civil Society Organizations
#SeguridadDigital
Access Now
Advocacy for Principled Action in Government
Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation (AODIRF)
African Freedom of Expression Exchange (AFEX) Al-Haq
ALQST for Human Rights
Amman Center for Human Rights Studies (ACHRS) Amnesty International
ARTICLE 19: Global Campaign for Free Expression
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) Asociación por los Derechos Civiles (ADC)
Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
Bits of Freedom
Bloggers of Zambia
BlueLink Foundation
Body & Data, Nepal
Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism (Abraji)
Brazilian Institute of Consumer Protection (Idec) Breakpointing Bad
Business & Human Rights Resource Centre Center for Democracy & Technology
Сenter for Civil Liberties (Ukraine)
Centro de Análisis Forense y Ciencia Aplicadas -CAFCA-
Centro de Documentación en Derechos Humanos “Segundo Montes Mozo S.J.” (CSMM) Citizen D | Državljan D
Civic Assistance Committee, Russia
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
Civil Rights Defenders
Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) Comisión Ecuménica de Derechos Humanos, Ecuador
Comisión Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz
Comisión Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz
Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
Conectas Direitos Humanos
Conectas Human Rights
Conexo
Cooperativa Tierra Común – México CyberPeace Institute
Data Privacy Brasil Research Association Deache
Defense for Children International – Palestine Derechos Digitales · América Latina Digitalcourage
Digital Defenders Partnership
Digital Empowerment Foundation
Digital Rights Foundation
Digital Rights Kashmir
Digital Security Lab Ukraine
DPLF – Due Process of Law Foundation/Fundación para el Debido Proceso
Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR)
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
ELSAM
epicenter.works
Equipo de Reflexión, Investigación y Comunicación de la Compañía de Jesús en Honduras
Equipo Jurídico por los Derechos Humanos (Honduras) Ethics in Technology a 501c3
European Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ECNL) European Digital Rights (EDRi)
FIDH – International Federation for Human Rights Fitug e.V.
Franciscans International
Free Expression Myanmar (FEM)
Fundació.Cat
Fundación Acceso (Central America)
Fundación Datos Protegidos Fundación InternetBolivia.org Fundación Karisma (Colombia) Global Partners Digital
Global Voices
Global Witness
GlobaLeaks
Guardian Project
Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
Health, Ethics and Law Institute of Forum for Medical Ethics Society, India Heartland Initiative
Hermes Center Hiperderecho (Perú) Hivos
Homo Digitalis Horizontal
Human Rights Commission of Pakistan Human Rights First
Human Rights House Foundation (HRHF) IFEX
IFEX-ALC
Iniciativa Mesoamericana de Mujeres Defensoras de Derechos Humanos (IM-Defensoras) INSM Network (Iraq)
Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (ELSAM), Indonesia
Instituto para la Sociedad de la Información y 4ta Revolución Industrial (ISICRI) de Perú International Corporate Accountability Roundtable
International Legal Initiative
International Service for Human Rights
Internet Freedom Foundation, India Internet Protection Society (Russia) IPANDETEC Centroamérica
Jordan Open Source Association (JOSA) Justice for Iran
Kijiji Yeetu, Kenya
Liga voor de Rechten van de Mens (LvRM), The Netherlands Ligue des droits humains, Belgium
Masaar -Technology and Law Community
Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA)
MediaNama, India Meedan Nothing2Hide
ONG Acción Constitucional
OpenArchive
Paradigm Initiative (PIN) PDX Privacy
PEN America
PEN International
Pen Iraq
Privacy International (PI) Protection International (PI) Punjab Women Collective Ranking Digital Rights (RDR)
Red de Desarrollo Sostenible Honduras
Red en Defensa de los Derechos Digitales (R3D)
Reporters Sans Frontières / Reporters Without Borders (RSF) Rethink Aadhaar
Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights
Roskomsvoboda (Russia)
S.T.O.P. – The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project Security First
Seguridad en Democracia (SEDEM)
Sin Olvido
Sin Olvido Verde
SMEX
Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network (SAFENet) Statewatch
Sursiendo, Comunicación y Cultura Digital
TEDIC NGO
Tejiendo Redes Infancia en América Latina y el Caribe
Terra-1530
The Bachchao Project (TBP)
The Humanism Project
The London Story, The Netherlands
Ubunteam
Universidad de Paz
Ura Design
Urgent Action Fund for Women’s Human Rights (UAF)
Wikimedia France
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)
World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)
Xnet
Independent Experts
Alex Orué, LGBTQ+ & digital activist, Mexico Alex Raufoglu, Washington D.C, USA
Chip Pitts, Independent Expert
David Kaye, Clinical Professor of Law, UC Irvine School of Law, and former United Nations
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of
opinion and expression
Douwe Korff, Emeritus Professor of International Law, London Metropolitan University
Elies Campo, Telegram Messenger
Hannah R. Garry, Clinical Professor of Law, Director, USC International Human Rights Clinic
Jennifer Green, Clinical Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
John Scott-Railton, Senior Researcher, the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy
Alexandra Argüelles (Mozilla Fellow)
Arzu Geybulla (Azerbaijan Internet Watch)
Dr. Courtney Radsch
Dr. Koldo Casla, Lecturer, University of Essex School of Law and Human Rights Centre Dr. Tara Van Ho, Lecturer, University of Essex School of Law and Human Rights Centre
Elio Qoshi (Ura Design) Giorgio Maone (NoScript)
Kenneth Harrow, Rwanda country specialist, Amnesty International USA Kiran Jonnalagadda, Hasgeek
Kushal Das, Public Interest Technologist, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Director at Python Software Foundation
Marietje Schaake, President, CyberPeace Institute
Nikhil Pahwa, MediaNama
Rebecca MacKinnon, co-founder, Global Voices
Ritumbra Manuvie, University of Groningen
Ron Deibert, Professor of Political Science and Director of the Citizen Lab at the University
of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy Susan Farrell (OTF AC)
Tarcizio Silva (Mozilla Fellow)
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
A recent study that looked at deaths occurring in children in the U.K. during the first 12 months of the pandemic found 99.995% of children diagnosed with COVID-19 survived
Between March 2020 and February 2021, only 25 children under the age of 18 died directly as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This gives us an absolute mortality rate for children of 2 per 1 million
In the U.S., 335 children under 18 have died with a COVID-19 diagnosis on their death certificate. The CDC estimates the infection fatality rate from COVID-19 among children 0 to 17 years old is 20 per 1 million
The 20-in-1 million mortality rate in the U.S. cited by the CDC is likely a gross overestimate as, unlike the U.K., PCR tests were done with grossly inappropriate cycle threshold levels and those who had legitimate infections also had existing comorbidities that were the true cause of death, yet it was inappropriately attributed to COVID-19
Researchers at Johns Hopkins teamed up with the nonprofit FAIR Health to analyze the health insurance data of approximately 48,000 children under 18 diagnosed with COVID-19 between April 2020 and August 2020. None of the children who died were free of preexisting medical conditions such as cancer
*
We’ve known from the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic that children were at exceptionally low risk for hospitalization and death from this infection. Despite that, massive efforts are underway to get a needle in the arm of every child.
At present, COVID-19 injections are authorized for emergency use in children as young as 12 in the U.S.,1 and vaccine makers are moving forward with plans to get authorization for children as young as 6 months.
Fortunately, there are glimmers of hope, here and there. In the U.K., children will not be eligible to receive a COVID shot unless they have underlying conditions that make them more vulnerable to infection or live with a high-risk person. As reported by The Guardian, July 19, 2021:2
“The opinion of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) expands the eligibility for children, after a previous decision that vulnerable 16- and 17-year-olds could get vaccinated … [T]he advisory body said:
‘The health benefits in this population are small, and the benefits to the wider population are highly uncertain. At this time, JCVI is of the view that the health benefits of universal vaccination in children and young people below the age of 18 years do not outweigh the potential risks.’”
Vulnerabilities that would make children over the age of 12 eligible for COVID injection include severe neuro-disabilities, Down’s syndrome, immunosuppression and multiple or severe learning disabilities.
If you ask me, this is a rather curious list, seeing how neurodevelopmental problems are unlikely to make you more prone to viral infection. We already know the high-risk factors for COVID-19 are things like obesity and multiple chronic diseases — not neurological problems and intellectual deficiencies.
At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, this list is uncomfortably similar to that of Hitler’s T4 program. This was an involuntary euthanasia campaign where the incurably sick, physically and mentally handicapped, psychologically ill and elderly were selectively murdered by the medical establishment.
COVID-19 Deaths in Children Extremely Rare
Overall, the risk of COVID-19 to children of all ages is so small as to be inconsequential, learning disabilities and chromosomal irregularities or not. A study3 posted July 7, 2021, which looked at deaths occurring in children in the U.K. during the first 12 months of the pandemic, found 99.995% of children diagnosed with COVID-19 survived.
In all, between March 2020 and February 2021, only 25 children under the age of 18 died directly as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection. (An additional 61 children had positive test results when they died, but their death was attributed to other causes.) This gives us an absolute mortality rate for children of 2 per 1 million. As noted by the authors:4
“SARS-CoV-2 is very rarely fatal in CYP [children and young people], even among those with underlying comorbidities. These findings are important to guide families, clinicians and policy makers about future shielding and vaccination.”
Childhood Vaccination Push Built on Flimsy Evidence
In the United States, a total of 335 children under 18 have died with a COVID-19 diagnosis on their death certificate.5 The CDC estimates the infection fatality rate from COVID-19 among children zero to 17 years old is 20 per 1 million.6 This is likely a significant overestimation, however.
In the British study above, they specifically differentiated between those who actually died from COVID-19, meaning there was no other underlying condition that contributed to their death, and those who simply tested positive at the time of death but died from other causes.
This has not been done in the U.S., so we don’t know how many of those 335 children had underlying conditions that contributed or directly caused their death. As noted by Marty Makary in a Wall Street Journal Opinion piece dated July 19, 2021:7
“Without these data, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP] decided in May that the benefits of two-dose vaccination outweigh the risks for all kids 12 to 15.
I’ve written hundreds of peer-reviewed medical studies, and I can think of no journal editor who would accept the claim that 335 deaths resulted from a virus without data to indicate if the virus was incidental or causal, and without an analysis of relevant risk factors such as obesity.”
To remedy this shortcoming, Makary and colleagues at Johns Hopkins teamed up with the nonprofit FAIR Health to analyze the health insurance data of approximately 48,000 children under 18 diagnosed with COVID-19 between April and August 2020.
As it turns out, none of the children who died were free of preexisting medical conditions such as cancer. “If that trend holds, it has significant implications for healthy kids and whether they need two vaccine doses,” Makary says.8
Overall, children appear naturally immune against COVID-199 and are not significant vectors of transmission either.10 So, there’s really no need to place draconian COVID restrictions on children out of fear for their own safety or anyone else’s.
Death Statistics Were Illegally Inflated From the Start
Makary also points out that we’ve already established that COVID-19 mortality statistics have been vastly overinflated in the U.S.11 In early June 2021, Alameda County in California lowered its reported death toll from COVID-19 by 25%, after state health officials insisted that deaths only be attributed to COVID-19 if SARS-CoV-2 infection was a direct or contributing factor.12
As detailed in “CDC Violated Law to Inflate COVID Cases and Fatalities,” investigation has revealed the CDC inflated fatalities by as much as 96%. They did this by illegally altering the way deaths are reported. Had the old guidelines remained in place, the COVID-19 death toll as of August 23, 2020, in the U.S. would have been 9,684.
As you may recall, in late August 2020, the CDC admitted that only 6% of the total death count had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death. The remaining 94% had had an average of 2.6 comorbidities or preexisting health conditions that contributed to their deaths.13 As of August 23, 2021, the CDC reported 161,392 COVID-related fatalities. Multiplied by 6%, you get an actual death toll of 9,684.
It’s hard to believe anyone would be willing to shut down commerce in an entire state over such a number. It’s also hard to believe people would line up to take an unproved and dangerous experimental gene modification injection based on a mortality risk this low.
Unfortunately, we’ve been lied to for so long, many are still effectively brainwashed with the continuous propaganda from mainstream news and public health officials that have long since abandoned their commitment to integrity.
Parents Clamor to Enroll Their Children in COVID Trials
Mainstream media have since the very beginning ignored and hidden data showing COVID-19 isn’t as bad as initially feared. And now they’re ignoring and hiding data showing the COVID shots are worse than suspected. Wired Magazine, for example, blames parents’ apprehension to have their children injected with experimental gene therapy on right-wing politics rather than actual data.14
Wired also reports that more parents have volunteered their children for clinical COVID-19 trials than trial sites have spaces for which, to me, suggests many are still clueless about the risks of these injections, as well as the risk posed by SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Fauci Blasted for Latest Mask Recommendation
In related news, Dr. Anthony Fauci recently faced backlash after saying children aged 2 and older should continue to wear masks.15 During an interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Fauci said:
“Unvaccinated children of a certain age greater than 2 years old should be wearing masks. No doubt about that. That’s the way to protect them from getting infected, because if they do, they can then spread the infection to someone else.”
It’s tiring, all of these outrageous and health damaging lies — no doubt about that. Another thing there’s no doubt about is that Fauci has changed his mind on the usefulness of masks more times than some of us have actually donned said masks.
In response to Fauci’s declaration that children need to be forced to wear masks to protect adults, New York Post columnist Karol Markowicz tweeted, “I can’t believe it’s July 2021 and this man is still spouting nonsense on our televisions without any serious follow-up questions. What an embarrassment.”16
Children Are Not at Risk
Getting back to the issue of COVID jabs, all available data suggest COVID-19 is of no significant concern for children. Their risk of being hospitalized or dying from COVID-19 is actually lower than their risk of being hospitalized or dying from the flu.17
For comparison, more than 2,000 American children and teens died in car crashes in 2019,18 and accidental drowning claims the lives of nearly 1,000 children each year.19 Even unintentional drug overdoses claim more lives than COVID-19 in this age group. In 2016, unintentional drug poisoning killed 761 children.20
Why isn’t there a national outrage about these drug-related deaths, seeing how the 2016 statistics show that more than TWICE the number of children most likely have died from overdoses during the pandemic than supposedly died from COVID-19?
There’s also no solid evidence to assume children pose a transmission risk to adults. Besides, 90% of American seniors have now received their COVID shots,21 so by the logic of the official narrative, the most vulnerable adults now have the best herd immunity available and are individually protected with the best modern medicine supposedly has to offer.
Importantly, since children’s risk is so minuscule, there’s really no legal framework for an emergency use authorization of COVID injections for children. Still, the Food and Drug Administration and vaccine makers push forward with that exact plan. Hopefully, they’ll be stopped.
July 19, 2021, America’s Frontline Doctors filed a motion to stop the emergency use authorization of COVID injections for children under 18, anyone with natural immunity and anyone who has not been given proper informed consent.22,23
In their motion, the group points out that the prerequisite health emergency no longer exists, that COVID shots do not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection, that adequate treatment alternatives exist, and that the known risks of COVID gene modifying injections outweigh any potential benefit for these groups.
They also include a sworn statement by a CDC whistleblower, a computer programmer, who claims the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) under-reports deaths by a factor of five or more. The whistleblower estimates the number of deaths actually may have been around 45,000 as of July 9, 2021.
Vaccinating Children to Benefit Adults Is Unethical
An opinion piece in The BMJ24 by Peter Doshi, Elia Abi-Jaoude and Claudina Michal-Teitelbaum also highlights why we must not force children to take the COVID shot simply because it might help vulnerable adults. They write:25
“While there is wide recognition that children’s risk of severe covid-19 is low, many believe that mass vaccination of children may … also prevent onward transmission, indirectly protecting vulnerable adults and helping end the pandemic. However, there are multiple assumptions that need to be examined when judging calls to vaccinate children against covid-19 …
Even if one assumes protection against severe covid-19, given its very low incidence in children, an extremely high number would need to be vaccinated in order to prevent one severe case. Meanwhile, a large number of children with very low risk for severe disease would be exposed to vaccine risks, known and unknown.
Thus far, Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine has been judged by Israel’s government as likely linked to symptomatic myocarditis, with an estimated incidence between 1 in 3000 to 1 in 6000 in men ages 16 to 24. Furthermore, the long term effects of gene-based vaccines, which involve novel vaccine platforms, remain essentially unknown …
Given all these considerations, the assertion that vaccinating children against SARS-CoV-2 will protect adults remains hypothetical.
Even if we were to assume this protection does exist, the number of children that would need to be vaccinated to protect just one adult from a bout of severe covid-19 — considering the low transmission rates, the high proportion of children already being post-covid, and most adults being vaccinated or post-covid — would be extraordinarily high.
Moreover, this number would likely compare unfavorably to the number of children that would be harmed, including for rare serious events. A separate, but crucial question is one of ethics. Should society be considering vaccinating children, subjecting them to any risk, not for the purpose of benefiting them but in order to protect adults? We believe the onus is on adults to protect themselves.”
Doshi was even more blunt in his June 10, 2021, public comment26 to the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. There, he pointed out that the FDA can only authorize the use of a medical product in a given population if the benefit outweighs the risk in that same population.
This means that even if adults were to benefit, the COVID shots cannot be authorized for children unless children will actually benefit from it themselves. Since when, in the history of public health, have children been sacrificed to protect the sick and elderly? Public health authorities have completely reversed the conventional risk/reward analysis.
In the case of COVID-19 injections, children cannot benefit, seeing how they only have a 0.005% risk of death in the first place. Meanwhile, healthy children have died shortly after the jabs, dozens of cases of heart inflammation have been reported, and Pfizer’s biodistribution study27,28 raises serious questions about the shot’s potential to cause infertility.
Since demonstrated risks far outweigh demonstrated benefits in children, the vaccines also fail to meet the biologics license application required for ultimate market approval. Last but not least, since there’s no “unmet need,” there’s no need to rush the approval of these injections for children.
CDC Is Deliberating Lowering the COVID Injection Death Toll
While the exact number of deaths from these COVID shots remains uncertain — VAERS reports 12,313 deaths29 as of July 13, 2021, and the CDC whistleblower estimates the death toll at 45,000 or higher — we can unequivocally state that the number is record-breaking high. There’s no vaccine in modern medical history that even comes close. The risk is extraordinary, which is precisely why we must protect our children from it.
Speaking of the CDC, I just discovered it slashed the number of deaths reported to VAERS from 12,313 as of July 13, 2021, to 6,079. In what appears to be a deliberate attempt at deception, the CDC “rolled back” its July 19, 2021, adverse events report to statistics from the previous week. I’ll explain. Take note of the specific dates and death totals in each of the following excerpts. The July 13 report reads as follows:30
“Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 334 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 12, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,079 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.”
The original July 19 report (saved on Wayback) initially read as follows:31
“Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 338 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 19, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 12,313 reports of death (0.0036%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.”
Please note, the death toll more than doubled in a single week. That original July 19 report was then changed to this. The date on the report is still July 19:32
“Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 334 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 13, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,079 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.”
At a time when accuracy and transparency is of such critical importance for informed consent, it’s beyond shocking to see the CDC engage in this kind of deception. Parents everywhere need to realize that the CDC and other agencies and their officials are deliberately downplaying and hiding the enormity of the danger their children will face if they take this injection.
I implore you. Please spend ample time looking at all the evidence before you allow your child to participate in this heinous experiment. I understand that the inclination to trust our “gold standard” health agencies is great, but trust must be continuously earned. It’s not a one-time done deal.
At this point, having a skeptical eye and double-checking every claim is of paramount importance. Your child’s health and life may depend on you not being gullible.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The Syrian Army has launched an offensive against the city of Dara’a in the south of the country. President Bashar al-Assad announced in February 2016 his intentions to liberate “every inch” of Syria, but is now facing a resurgence of terrorist acts – even in liberated cities. This situation is even more aggravated by U.S. economic sanctions.
It is remembered that Dara’a, considered the cradle of the rebellion against the Syrian government in 2011, was liberated by Syrian and Russian forces in 2018. Since then, rebel and jihadist groups have reformed and collected a large arsenal.
As a result, Damascus has been besieging the small city of 40,000 inhabitants for more than a month. However, the situation is more complicated since Dara’a is located on the Jordanian border, the main point for trafficking arms, drugs and combatants. This flow of contraband makes government efforts to pacify the area all the more difficult.
To show their opposition to Damascus, many of the inhabitants of Dara’a refused to participate in the presidential election on May 26, a demonstration that they do not recognize the re-election of Assad for a fourth term. Moreover, despite the city’s liberation in 2018, many residents manifest their hostility through violence and chronic instability. Between armed clashes, kidnappings, thefts and riots, Damascus is struggling to restore order in the area.
Homs, Aleppo and Palmyra were liberated in 2014 and 2016 respectively. At the cost of bitter fighting, Syrian troops and their allies methodically liberated the cities, effectively annihilating the jihadists. However, liberation does not mean security and stability. Terrorists no longer act openly and rather carry out car bombings on the outskirts of cities, a way of showing that they can still do harm without having to capture territory.
The jihadist aim is no longer seizure of a territory but rather is to maintain a threat that weighs on people’s daily lives. Without the presence of the Syrian Army and its allies, anarchy would return to the country as the main backers of the jihadist groups, primarily Turkey and the U.S., have unabatedly continued to support them.
According to Lebanese site Daraj, ISIS stepped up their operations in 2020 and killed more than 1,300 Syrian soldiers, two Russian personnel and 145 pro-Iran militiamen. This renewed ISIS threat is not about to fade, especially given the worsening economic situation in Syria caused by U.S.-led sanctions.
The Syrian pound has lost value: from 50 per dollar before the conflict to 2,300 today. Gasoline is rationed and residents struggle to heat themselves in winter. A lot of these issues for ordinary Syrians can be easily alleviated, but Washington categorically refuses to allow Damascus to benefit from the oilfields that Kurdish forces in eastern Syria control. The Biden Administration maintains 900 troops east of the Euphrates River to support Kurdish forces. These Kurdish proxies are unofficially preventing Syria from exploiting its own oil and agriculturally rich land.
Washington has also implemented a series of sanctions aimed at suffocating the Syrian economy. The Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, which came into force in June 2020, prevents the country from trading with the outside world, depriving it of imports. 411 Syrian people and 111 Syrian companies, banks and state bodies are affected by this Act.
Making the economic situation even more catastrophic for the Syrian people is the added crisis in neighbouring Lebanon. The two countries effectively have an intertwined financial system. According to Assad, between $20-42 billion belonging to Syria has likely disappeared due to the collapse of the Lebanese banking sector.
As the economic situation is untenable, people are more exposed to radicalism, especially as bread and onions is now the staple daily diet for many Syrians today. The radicalization of entire sections of Syrian civil society is linked with the economic situation, a situation that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has taken advantage of to recruit a proxy army of Syrians to not only fight in northern Syria, but even in the Caucasus and North Africa.
Although the Syrian Army has mostly won the armed conflict, under such difficult economic circumstances, it is expected that radicalism will be a permeating problem in the country. The West does not allow Syria to economically recover and are thus once again fuelling extremism in the country.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.
Featured image is from Mideast Discourse
Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.
Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes the mainstream media narratives on Syria.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Those of us in the alternative media who have been exposing the dangers of vaccines for years, have had to deal with the attacks and ridicule from the vaccine believers who parroted the one statement that always ended any debate on the subject of vaccines, which they claimed were responsible for eliminating most of the world’s infectious diseases:
The science is settled. Vaccines save lives.
Writing and reporting on this topic for more than a decade now, I have constantly told our readers that this statement, “The science is settled,” is one of the most unscientific statements the health bureaucrat “doctors” at the alphabet letter agencies have ever made, because when is the “science” ever settled?
Never mind the fact that the rate of autism among our children has increased from one in ten thousand to one out of every 50 children in the U.S. as the CDC childhood vaccination schedule ballooned over the years. Never mind that the U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate in developed countries along with the highest amounts of vaccines injected into children from birth to age 18 among the developed countries.
No, that is not related to vaccines, because “the science is settled” when it comes to vaccines, we were all told. Those infant deaths were all written into the death certificates as SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome), and everyone knows that autism is genetic, happening before birth, so don’t be a stupid “conspiracy theorist” and blame vaccines, because when it comes to vaccines, “the science is settled.”
So to all my fellow truth seekers in the alternative media who have been ridiculed for many years for publishing the truth about vaccines and the injuries and deaths they cause because “the science is settled,” we were all just vindicated yesterday by CDC director Rochelle Walensky, who announced to the world that people fully vaccinated for COVID-19 were spreading the “delta variant” and that it was now time to mask up again, just weeks after they announced that people fully vaccinated for COVID-19 no longer needed to wear masks, because: THE SCIENCE IS SHIFTING.
Imagine that. The “science” behind vaccines isn’t settled after all. We “conspiracy theorists” were correct all along, because the science is never settled, because the scientific method inherently can never prove anything, only provide theories that are subject to revisions as more data becomes available, and the universe is far too large for anyone to ever claim they have ALL the data, unless your name is “God Almighty, the Creator.” (More info here – and no Anthony, we didn’t just mention your name – go back to your adrenochrome stupor.)
In yesterday’s public address by the shifty CDC director Rochelle Walensky, not only did she announce that people fully vaccinated were spreading the COVID-19 delta variant to others requiring people to mask up again, she also stated:
“But the big concern is the next variant that might emerge, just a few mutations potentially away, could potentially evade our vaccines.”
Wow, sounds like it is time to admit these vaccines are a colossal failure and should be scrapped altogether, right?
Nope, instead she told America and the world that everyone who is not yet “vaccinated” needs to immediately go out and get one of the shots to stop the spread of this variant to make sure this doesn’t happen. And mask up again in the meantime.
Is this not the textbook definition of “insanity?” Is the United States just becoming one large asylum for the insane?
I did a search again today in the corporate media for “breakthrough cases” and could hardly believe what I found: Interviews with people who were fully vaccinated and had now become sick along with a COVID-19 positive test, and also spreading it to their friends and family members who are also fully vaccinated, and yet, they claim the vaccines “are working,” because if they had not received one of the COVID-19 injections, they would have been far sicker.
How could you even prove that?? But that’s what people are actually believing, as they follow the propaganda and shake their fists at those of us who are not vaccinated, blaming us for all these outbreaks.
Is this not insanity? Is anyone else waking up in the morning like I am, and asking yourself: “How could this all be real??”
Here is an example with an article published yesterday on NBC26 in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
With COVID-19 cases rising nationwide, reports of breakthrough cases among the fully vaccinated can be a real concern.
Two fully vaccinated people who recently contracted the Coronavirus are currently in isolation and share their stories.
Meet Trevor Ramseier. The De Pere man said it was last Wednesday he first began having symptoms.
“I had these body aches and pains that I’ve never experienced before. My hands hurt, down to the fingertips and hands, they were sore and achy,” Ramseier said. “Had the teeth chattering chills and the sweats and all that.”
He said he left work early that day and the next morning he received the news he was dreading to hear.
“Sure enough Thursday morning I woke up, slept miserable that night. Had the teeth chattering chills and the sweats and all that. Awful Thursday morning and my phone rang at 11:03, it was my doctor. I answered and I said ‘uh oh’ and he says ‘yeah you’re positive and you’re the first one in our clinic here that has a breakthrough case,” Ramseier said.
Though fully vaccinated Ramseier still contracted the virus and passed it to his loved ones.
His wife who is also fully vaccinated got it along with his two small children who are not.
His mom who happened to be visiting for the first time since the pandemic also contracted the virus. She was fully vaccinated as well.
“It’s just like uhh this happened. There’s a lot of guilt with that I’ve had to process. I know its not as fair for me to feel that way but boy it was a weird pill to swallow knowing that we waited all this time and now we sit here and she has COVID,” Ramseier said.
His mom has multiple sclerosis so it was a real concern for their family.
“If she wouldn’t be vaccinated I just can’t imagine how bad it would have been for her or myself included. I don’t have MS but I also have an autoimmune disease and asthma, I certainly fall into the high risk category for this,” Ramseier said. (Full story.)
And just remember, the CDC and the corporate media are censoring the CDC’s own data from their own database that tracks reported cases of injuries and deaths following the COVID-19 injections.
As of last Friday, the CDC’s own statistics list 11,405 deaths, 11,221 permanent disabilities, over 60,000 hospitalizations, and 10,233 life threatening injuries following the COVID-19 injections.
I saw a meme on social media today that gave me some hope that there are at least a few people left who have not been overtaken by the REAL pandemic, which is obviously a pandemic of the insane.
That looks like a meme from someone who is actually sane. What do you think?
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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).
White House officials said Tuesday Biden is considering requiring all civilian federal employees to be vaccinated or be forced to submit to regular testing, social distancing, mask requirements and restrictions on most travel.
After Justice Department officials on Monday said federal law doesn’t prohibit mandating COVID vaccines, President Biden on Tuesday signaled he may require all federal employees to get the vaccine, or undergo repeated testing for the virus.
White House officials said Biden is considering requiring all civilian federal employees to be vaccinated or be forced to submit to regular testing, social distancing, mask requirements and restrictions on most travel.
According to The New York Times, the White House will reveal more about the president’s plans later this week — possibly in a speech Biden is scheduled to deliver Thursday about “the next steps in our effort to get more Americans vaccinated.”
Asked by a reporter on Tuesday whether he would require vaccinations for the nation’s nearly 2 million federal workers, Biden was “blunt,” the Times reported.
“That’s under consideration right now,” Biden said. “But if you’re not vaccinated, you’re not nearly as smart as I thought you were.”
The latest news on mandates represents an about face by Biden, who as recently as last month said federal employees would not be required to get the vaccine.
It also follows just days after the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued an online statement concluding that federal law doesn’t prohibit public agencies and private businesses from requiring COVID vaccines — even though the vaccines have so far only received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) — not full licensing — from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Ahead of the DOJ opinion, the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs last week said it would require its frontline healthcare workers to get the COVID vaccine.
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is still analyzing the DOJ memo, but Ray Flores, a California attorney working with CHD on the analysis, made some initial observations.
“Although the DOJ memo is a thorough introduction to EUA law, it arrives at the wrong conclusion,” Flores told The Defender.
Flores said this isn’t the first time the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has got something wrong.
Flores said:
“The OLC previously condoned torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib, even after graphic details on the treatment of detainees were leaked to the press. Those memoranda were criticized for international norms. This memo brazenly ignores the Nuremberg Code’s law on human experimentation.”
Flores also pointed out that the DOJ memo mischaracterizes of Doe v. Rumsfeld, 341 F. Supp. 2d 1, 19 (2004), the precedent-setting case in which the court rejected punishments such as solitary confinement or dishonorable discharge as lawful consequences of refusal of the EUA anthrax vaccine — even though the U.S. Department of Defense had imposed such harsh sanctions.
“The court ruled in that case that coercion eviscerating informed consent violates federal law,” Flores said.
Tucker Carlson lambastes feds on vaccine mandates, masks
On Tuesday’s episode of “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson pounced on the latest news about COVID vaccine mandates.
Carlson said:
“That is not a small development. The federal government is the largest workforce in the world … so an awful lot of lives will be affected by this policy.”
Claiming that we’ve long ago left the realm of health, Carlson said the mandates are about politics and “social control.”
Carlson said:
“Government should never require people to submit to any medical procedure whether that procedure is sterilization or frontal lobotomies or COVID vaccinations. Most Americans still believe that, that is a foundational belief in this country, every poll shows it. The majority in both parties believe that.”
Carlson also addressed the announcement Tuesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advising fully vaccinated Americans in areas with high COVID cases to wear masks indoors.
“Americans were promised that if they took the vaccines, they could have their lives back,” Carlson said. “So by the millions they did that. Now, they have learned in the clearest possible way that they were lied to.”
The bottom line, Carlson said: “Americans should never be forced to take medicine they don’t want.”
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The crazy, convoluted, mixed up messaging from the CDC – it’s been this way from the beginning of the pandemic until now – has taken yet another turn. Now the CDC is recommending masks not just for the unvaccinated but for the vaccinated too. This is supposedly because of the discovery that the variant known as Delta is making an end-run around the vaccines, causing not only infections but infectious spread.
So we have an odd situation developing. The layperson’s understanding of a vaccine is that it protects a person against infection, like measles or smallpox. In other words, you won’t get Covid, exactly as President Biden accidentally and apparently inaccurately said in a press conference last week. That is apparently untrue in this case. That realization seemed to dawn on people only a few weeks ago, as reports from Israel revealed that half the new infections listed were with people who had been fully vaccinated.
I pity anyone who took a few weeks’ vacation from the news during this period. We went from believing that the whole point of the vaccines was to protect against infection to realizing that this was not the case. You can still get the bug. The point of the vaccines, we were newly told, is to protect against severe outcomes. Okay, that’s reasonable enough except that we know the demographics of severe outcomes, and hence the question presents itself: why is the policy priority near-universal vaccination?
None of this makes sense – if you are still looking for policies to make sense, which you probably gave up on long ago.
Now to the great mask conundrum. In May, Anthony Fauci showed up to a Senate hearing fully vaccinated but wearing a mask. Rand Paul lit into him, claiming that this was absurd. Fauci, he said, was undermining confidence in the vaccines. We need to give people a reward for being vaccinated, he said. If you can’t even take off your mask, why bother?
I suspect that the CDC listened carefully to his point. Senator Paul might just be one guy but he is positioned to impact policy because he has unusual access to the public, and to Fauci himself. Fauci is otherwise only on friendly terms with media who listen and adore every pronouncement. Paul has access by virtue of Senate protocol and therefore can make a dent in what’s actually happening out there in CDC land.
The CDC had become very aware that vaccination rates had flattened. They figured it was worth a try. So in early May, the agency did a messaging turnaround. It announced that people who are vaccinated no longer need to wear a mask. Fauci dutifully went on all the talk shows and invited the vaccinated to enjoy their privileges. He even smiled when saying so!
That was an interesting day for me because many of my anti-lockdown friends celebrated that the 16 months of living hell had officially ended. They correctly predicted that everyone, including the unvaccinated would now take off their masks and life could go back to normal. They were correct for everyone except the poor children who, because there is no vaccine for them, became permanently marked as wild-born disease carriers even though they are not.
Hey, the CDC had to be consistent, even when the results were cray cray, and therefore did not exempt children.
Well, how did vaccination rates respond? Far from incentivizing people to get the jab, everyone took off their masks and dared authorities to ask for their papers. This is because after a year and months of egregious restrictions on freedom, people were fed up and looking for some means by which they could pretend to go back to normal. Vaccination rates stayed stuck for the reason that everyone who wanted a vaccine already got it, while the rest possess natural immunity, are wary of the medicine, or were more than willing to accept the risks of exposure.
Now the CDC had a problem. The great goal of a 70% rate among all people was elusive, and infuriating the pandemic planners who demanded this based on the pharmaceutical definition of herd immunity. They embraced that definition because, for some reason that remains inexplicable for everyone not working for vaccine manufacturers, natural immunity has been thoroughly dismissed as primitive and irrelevant. Talk about ignoring the science!
Then on July 22, the influential Washington Post published the following:
So the CDC needs to state, as it should have in May, that unless there is a way to distinguish between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, indoor mask requirements should be reinstated…. The Biden administration has done many things right during the pandemic, but it made a grave error with its premature return to normalcy. It must hit reset and issue new guidance that addresses the escalating infections, waning interest in vaccination and unknowns of the delta variant. If it doesn’t, we could well be on our way to another national surge — and one that was entirely foreseen and entirely preventable.
The CDC seems more easily led by op-eds in political newspapers than actual scientific papers on the topic, of which there are many thousands now. They want digestible, clear instructions on what they should be doing. This piece in the Washington Post provided exactly that. Thus did the CDC reverse itself yet again.
But in doing so, it needed some rationale. This is when the agency jumped on the excuse of how the Delta variant often evades the vaccines, so therefore even the vaccinated need masks. It’s not clear whether and to what extent the CDC realizes that it has just once again undermined public confidence in the vaccines! The horns of the dilemma are obvious to anyone who is watching this clown show unfold. If the CDC removes the mask guidance, people don’t get vaccinated; if they add it back in, people have another excuse to avoid the jab. Masks in this case remain what they always were: a tool to prod the public into compliance with other mandates and dictates, purely a symbol of fear and its unrelenting trigger. And with fear comes obedediance. Maybe.
The real problem, conclude many, is this bogus freedom of choice. This is why there is more constant talk about vaccine mandates, and why NPR gets breathless with excitement at every new directive – from the Department of Veterans Affairs, for example – of new mandates. What they are really pushing for is a society-wide mandate that would push the shot on everyone. Biden reportedly will impose this on the whole federal workforce.
The Department of Justice has paved the way by issuing an opinion that such mandates are perfectly in keeping with the law. More mayors are backing the idea. The public is warmed up day by day to accept what two years ago would have universally been considered an Orwellian nightmare of passports and papers for access to regular life. It’s completely unAmerican in every way, and wholly unnecessary. It is further proof that once disease panic gets underway, and governments use it to enhance their powers in shocking ways, it becomes extremely difficult to dial it back.
Remember when only the “conspiracy theorists” said that the real goal was a passport and eventually a China-style social credit score?
At this point, anything is possible. The Biden administration can’t even bring itself to lift Trump-era restrictions on flights from Europe, even though every strain circulating there has long been circulating here. The default motive of exposure avoidance has completely spun out of control, holding even basic freedoms in the balance. Today your human rights are wholly contingent on what the pandemic planners desire, whether it is stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, or compulsory jabs.
What ultimately may be our saving grace here are the furious parents who have just been told that they must once again strap a cloth on the kids’ faces this fall. These poor kids have been messed with enough as it is. Maybe this will be the last straw, the final discrediting of the CDC, and the moment at which the American people will demand that enough is way more than enough.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
This is the ninth of the regular round-ups of Covid vaccine safety reports and news compiled by a group of medical doctors who are monitoring developments but prefer to remain anonymous in the current climate (find the eighth one here). By no means is this part of an effort to generate alarm about the vaccines or dissuade anyone from getting inoculated. It should be read in conjunction with the Daily Sceptic‘s other posts on vaccines, which include both encouraging and not so encouraging developments. At the Daily Sceptic we report all the news about the vaccines whether positive or negative and give no one advice about whether they should or should not take them. Unlike with lockdowns, we are neither pro-vaccine nor anti-vaccine; we see our job as reporting the facts, not advocating for or against a particular policy.The vaccine technology is novel and the vaccines have not yet fully completed their trials, which is why they’re in use under temporary and not full market authorisation. This has been done on account of the emergency situation and the trial data was largely encouraging on both efficacy and safety. For a summary of that data, see this preamble to the Government’s page on the Yellow Card reporting system. (Dr Tess Lawrie recently wrote an open letter to Dr June Raine, head of the MHRA, arguing that: “The MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow Card system to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans,” a claim that has been “fact checked” here.) We publish information and opinion to inform public debate and help readers reach their own conclusions about what is best for them, based on the available data.
Norway has announced vaccine injury compensation for at least three claims following AstraZeneca vaccination. An Oxford man has called for a review of U.K. Government vaccine injury compensation after he developed Guillain-Barré Syndrome following AstraZeneca vaccination.
A 16 year old boy in Singapore suffered a cardiac arrest when exercising after his Pfizer vaccination.
Some new medical reports exploring endocrine issues following Pfizer vaccination: one looking at a case of necrotising pancreatitis following the second dose of vaccine, and two looking at the development of Graves’ disease in two health care workers in Mexico.
The U.K. VITT Organ Donor Study Group has published a report of an analysis of organ donation and transplantation from U.K. donors with VITT (blood clots) to understand the implications. It concludes that transplantation from VITT donors should only proceed with caution due to a variety of possible complications in multiple organs.
The Daily Mailreports that the MHRA has quietly added warnings on Moderna and Pfizer vaccines that they can cause heart damage in rare cases.
The Government has uploaded its Technical Briefing for Variants of Concern Number 18, which continues to show that despite rising cases the Delta variant is not currently causing as many fatalities or hospitalisations as the Alpha variant (case fatality rate 0.2% vs 1.9%).
Following a FOI request to the MHRA for all vaccine associated deaths between 2010 and 2020, the Daily Expose reports that deaths from Covid vaccines are 407% higher than all cumulative previously reported deaths from other vaccines.
‘Breakthrough’ cases are being reported in Las Vegas, Wales and aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth. MyLondonreports that London Hospitals are refusing to provide this data.
The Daily Mail reports that Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca are both seeking to modify their vaccines to reduce the incidence of life-threatening blood clots.
VAERS – the American version of the Yellow Card reporting system – released new data bringing the total to 463,457 reports of adverse events following Covid vaccines, including 10,991 deaths and 48,385 serious injuries between December 14th 2020 and July 9th 2021.
Suspected adverse events in the U.K. as reported in the media: Kent radio host Jules Serkin and Anthony Shingler (57).
Summary of Adverse Events in the U.K.
According to an updated report published on July 16th (covering the period up to July 7th), the MHRA Yellow Card reporting system has recorded a total of 1,059,307 events based on 314,043 reports. The total number of fatalities reported is 1,470.
Pfizer (19.7 million first doses, 11.6 million second doses) now has one Yellow Card in 357 doses, 2.8 adverse reactions per card. Deaths: 1 in 68,640 (456 deaths)
AstraZeneca (24.7 million first doses, 22.3 million second doses) has one Yellow Card in 214 doses, 3.6 adverse reactions per card. Deaths: 1 in 47,813 (983 deaths)
Moderna (1.1 million first doses) has one Yellow Card in 123 doses, 2.9 adverse reactions per card. Deaths: 1 in 157,143 (7 deaths). (This is a high rate of Yellow Card reports but lower fatal reports compared to the other two vaccines.)
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has besieged a part of Daraa city known as “Daraa al-Balad” since late June.
Syrian authorities have been pressuring former rebels in Daraa al-Balad to accept a new reconciliation agreement with more demands.
Damascus wants the former rebels to hand over their personal arms and wanted personnel as well as to allow search operations and the establishment of four permanent military posts inside Daraa al-Balad.
The new demands are meant to improve security in Daraa city and its outskirts. The SAA made a large deployment to exert more pressure, however, this is more a show of force than any actual threat of an operation.
Initially, the former rebels refused to give any concessions and conclude a new agreement.
According to the Horan Free League and other pro-opposition sources, Russia asked the former rebels in Daraa al-Balad, to hand over 200 pieces of personal arms on June 23rd. On June 25, warplanes of the Russian Aerospace Forces made a “warning pass” over Daraa.
Despite this, former rebels, represented by the Daraa al-Balad Committee, rejected the Russian request. Some said that their arms are meant for self-defense, while others claimed that carrying arms is just a part of their traditions.
That is when the SAA siege on the part of the city began.
The SAA move provoked former rebels in the northern Daraa countryside to attack a number of positions and checkpoints of the Syrian military and intelligence inside and around the town of Nawa. No losses were reported as a result of the attacks.
Ultimately, however, on July 25th, a new agreement was reached.
Under the agreement, the SAA will lift its siege on Daraa al-Balad which was imposed in mid-June. All roads leading to the area will be opened by July 28th
Furthermore, the army will establish three permanent military positions inside Daraa al-Balad.
On the other side, the former rebels will hand over a part of their personnel arms. Around 100 gunmen will also join the reconciliation process.
Leading up to July 28th, when the siege is to be lifted, SAA deployed a major reinforcement to Daraa. On July 25, several units of the SAA, including the elite units of the 4th Division, were also deployed in the governorate’s center.
Their deployment is reportedly aimed at helping secure the region and implement the new agreement in Daraa al-Balad.
Security does need improvement, as many of the former rebels refuse to fight against ISIS, and sometimes Russia is putting pressure on them withholding salaries it was paying for that specific purpose. As such extremism might be brewing.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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).
Many a sinister conspiracy theory exists with regard to the true rulers of our world, but did you know that ownership of most of it can actually be traced to just FOUR huge corporations that you’re likely to have never even heard of?
People are slowly catching on to the fact that the world is controlled by perhaps 12 families, with the likes of the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, et al, often touted as having dominion over huge, covert empires whose true wealth and influence is expertly shielded from prying eyes.
So who actually owns the world? As always when it comes to such overarching questions, we need to follow the money. That involves looking at inventory, specifically at the world’s largest banks to establish who the shareholders are and thus who really calls the shots:
Bank of America Shareholders
State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock, FMR (Fidelity), Paulson, JP Morgan, T. Rowe, Capital World Investors, AXA, Bank of NY Mellon.
JP Morgan Shareholders
State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock, FMR, T. Rowe, AXA, Capital World Investor, Capital Research Global Investor, Northern Trust Corp. and Bank of NY Mellon.
Citigroup Shareholders
State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock, FMR, Paulson, Capital World Investor, JP Morgan, Northern Trust Corporation, Fairhome Capital Mgmt. and Bank of NY Mellon.
Wells Fargo Shareholders
State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock, FMR, Berkshire Hathaway, Capital World Investors, Wellington Mgmt, AXA, T. Rowe and Davis Selected Advisers.
Goldman Sachs Shareholders
State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock, FMR, Wellington, Capital World Investors, AXA, Massachusetts Financial Service and T. Rowe.
Morgan Stanley Shareholders
State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock, FMR, Mitsubishi UFJ, Franklin Resources, AXA, T. Rowe, Bank of NY Mellon e Jennison Associates. Rowe, Bank of NY Mellon and Jennison Associates.
Bank of NY Mellon Shareholders
State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock, FMR, Davis Selected, Massachusetts Financial Services, Capital Research Global Investor, Dodge, Cox, Southeastern Asset Management.
As you can see, the pattern goes on and on. The upshot of all this is that the eight largest financial companies in the United States are controlled by just TEN shareholders with FOUR companies involved in every single decision that’s made. That’s without mentioning dealings in tax havens such as the Cayman Islands, Monaco or Liechtenstein. Even more shocking is the fact that the US Federal Reserve is comprised of 12 banks represented by seven board members, some of whom are representatives of the “big four”.
In other words, State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock, and FMR have a controlling influence on US monetary policy without oversight or democratic safeguards to speak of.
Here is a list of some of the companies controlled by the “big four”:
Alcoa Inc.
Altria Group Inc.
American International Group
AT&T Inc.
Boeing Co.
Caterpillar Inc.
Coca-Cola Co.
DuPont & Co.
Exxon Mobil Corp.
General Electric Co.
General Motors Corporation
Hewlett-Packard Co.
Home Depot Inc.
Honeywell International Inc.
Intel Corp.
International Business Machines Corp
Johnson & Johnson
JP Morgan Chase & Co.
McDonald’s Corp.
Merck & Co. Inc.
Microsoft Corp.
3M Co.
Pfizer Inc.
Procter & Gamble Co.
United Technologies Corp.
Verizon Communications Inc.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Time Warner
Walt Disney
Viacom
Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation
CBS Corporation
NBC Universal
The “big four” also happen to control the vast majority of European companies listed on the US stock exchange, and also have an influence over the largest financial institutions in the world such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It goes without saying that the names of the families that control State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock and FMR never appear anywhere.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
July 29th, 2021 by Center For Biological Diversity
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The UNESCO World Heritage Committee today urged the United States to stop border wall construction. The committee also called on the United States to work with Mexico to assess damage from the wall to a World Heritage site in Mexico and adjacent protected lands in the United States and recommend ways to restore the landscape and wildlife habitat.
“This is an important step toward repairing the devastation the border wall has done to communities and wildlife,” said Alex Olivera, a senior scientist and the Mexico representative for the Center for Biological Diversity. “We share a responsibility to protect wildlife in the Sonoran desert and reverse the horrific damage wall construction has inflicted on both sides of the border.”
In its resolution, the committee said the “negative impacts of the border wall on the biodiversity and conservation of the property is of utmost concern.” It urged the United States to halt border wall construction between the biosphere reserve, Organ Pipe and Cabeza Prieta, assess the damage and “develop appropriate measures to ensure the restoration of ecological connectivity.”
In 2013 UNESCO designated the El Pinacate Biosphere Reserve as a World Heritage site in recognition of the area’s outstanding biodiversity, including desert wildlife that evolved over millions of years freely crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. The border wall blocks essential movement and migration, fragments habitat and limits animals’ ability to search for food and water.
The wall also harms the Tohono O’odham people, who historically inhabited El Pinacate and Gran Desierto de Altar and whose traditional lands are split by the U.S.-Mexico border. El Pinacate is sacred to the Tohono O’odham, and the site is regularly used for ceremonial purposes, including a sacred salt pilgrimage across the border to the Gulf of California.
President Joe Biden signed an executive order his first day in office that paused border wall construction. In June the administration canceled wall projects paid for with diverted military funds.
Conservation groups have called on the Biden administration to immediately begin restoring more than a dozen ecologically sensitive and culturally significant areas damaged by wall construction, including areas bordering El Pinacate.
The coalition sent the administration and members of Congress a document detailing the criteria and specific areas in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas where the wall should come down and the land allowed to heal. These include wildlife refuges, sacred sites, wilderness areas, wildlife corridors and rivers.
“Restoring these fragile ecosystems must be a binational effort, and we’re grateful UNESCO has stepped up so powerfully to address this,” said Olivera. “We’re hopeful the Biden and Lopez Obrador administrations will work closely with border communities and tribal nations to repair all that’s been destroyed.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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: Border-wall construction blasts through the Cabeza Prieta Wildlife Refuge and Pinacate Y Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve. Photo credit: Russ McSpadden, Center for Biological Diversity
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
During the month of July, two heroic figures in the struggle against Jim Crow and race terror, Gloria Richardson Dandridge and Bob Moses passed away.
Their lives intersected with the upsurge in the African American led struggle for full equality and self-determination centered in the southern United States while having a profound impact nationally and internationally.
Gloria St. Clair Hayes was born on May 6, 1922 in Cambridge, Maryland to a family of hard working independent African Americans. Several members of her family were known as fighters for racial justice.
Richardson’s (her first married name) earliest involvement in the antiracist movement took place in 1938 when she became active in protesting segregation in Washington, D.C. as a student at Howard University. She also protested conditions at the premier Historic Black College and University (HBCU) during her tenure as a student. She would later return to Cambridge where prospects for employment were limited despite her graduation from Howard.
Dandridge worked in a pharmacy owned by a member of her family. She strongly opposed the inferior segregated educational and public facilities made available to African Americans in Maryland.
Years after returning to Cambridge she became involved in the Civil Rights Movement in the early 1960s. A series of demonstrations in December 1961 in the eastern shore city resulted in the arrests of several high school students including the daughter of Richardson.
By 1962, Richardson had made contact with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) attending their national conference in Atlanta. She would join the executive board of SNCC bringing a different perspective on organizing to Cambridge. The Cambridge Nonviolent Action Committee (CNAC) was founded as an affiliate of SNCC in that same year.
SNCC had been formed as a direct result of the outbreak of sit-ins and boycotts demanding an end to segregation beginning in February of 1960. Demonstrations rapidly spread throughout the South in cities such as Greensboro, North Carolina, Nashville, Tennessee, and many others. These actions were led by students and youth from the African American community seeking an immediate solution to the centuries-long system of national oppression and economic exploitation.
SNCC was formed at Shaw University in North Carolina in April 1960. The organization remained independent of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), headed by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Ella Baker, an organizer with decades of experience, served in 1960 as the executive secretary of SCLC. Baker encouraged the youth to form their own organization which they did. They would become the vanguard force in the broader struggle for Civil Rights and later Black Power.
An entry from the SNCC Digital Project on the contributions of Richardson, says that:
“The Cambridge Movement directed its work towards improving living conditions for the people of the Second Ward. Meanwhile, continuing militant CNAC protests angered not only the Kennedy administration nearby in Washington, D.C., but also national civil rights leaders. When the state of Maryland and federal negotiators, led by Robert Kennedy (then Attorney General under the John F. Kennedy administration), proposed voting for the right of access to public accommodations in 1963–a so-called “Treaty of Cambridge“–CNAC boycotted the vote. At a press conference, Richardson stated, ‘A first-class citizen does not beg for freedom. A first-class citizen does not plead to the white power-structure to give him something that the whites have no power to give or take away. Human rights are human rights, not white rights.’ The civil rights movement establishment was angered at her refusal.” (See this)
National Guard troops were deployed to Cambridge in the summers of 1963 and 1964 to quell protests and rebellions. Richardson and SNCC openly defied the occupation and were arrested on numerous occasions. During the protests, an infant and a senior citizen were killed as a direct result of police use of cyanogen (CN2), which is military grade crowd-control gas.
It would take two years of persistent mass activity to break Jim Crow in Cambridge. Richardson would later remarry professional photographer Frank Dandridge and move to New York City.
Bob Moses and the Role of Local Leadership in the Civil Rights Movement
Robert Parris Moses was a leading figure in SNCC joining its staff in the early 1960s. He, like Richardson, was older than the majority of people in the student organization.
Born to a working-class family in New York City on January 23, 1935, Moses witnessed first- hand the impact of segregation and exploitation in an urban setting. He was committed to education and earned a B.A. from Hamilton College in 1956 and later a M.A. in Philosophy from Harvard in 1957.
Moses was teaching at the Horace Mann School in New York when Ella Baker sent him into Mississippi to organize a chapter of SNCC in 1960. He made contact with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) official Amzie Moore. Later Moses joined the staff of SNCC and became a full-time organizer in Mississippi.
He witnessed the violence which was pervasive in Mississippi and other southern states in response to Civil Rights organizers. One leader in the voting rights struggle in Amite County, Mississippi was Herbert Lee, a successful African American cotton and dairy farmer. Lee was a charter member of the Amite County NAACP and was a proponent of defying the segregation laws prohibiting the majority of African Americans from voting in the state. (See this)
Moses worked with Lee in building up a campaign to encourage disenfranchised Black people to register and vote. On September 25, 1961, Lee was shot to death in broad daylight outside a cotton gin in Liberty, Mississippi by a white State Representative E.H. Hurst. After a grand jury indictment, Hurst was acquitted after a verdict of justifiable homicide was declared.
Later an eyewitness to Lee’s assassination, Louis Allen, also an agricultural producer and small businessman, informed federal law-enforcement personnel in 1964 that his testimony in the trial of E.H. Hurst was given under duress as armed white men were present in the courtroom. A day prior to Allen leaving the state of Mississippi in 1964, he was shot to death. No one was ever indicted for his murder after several investigations pinpointed the killer.
SNCC formed an alliance with the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE) and the Mississippi NAACP under the direction of state Vice President Amzie Moore, initiating the Council of Federated Organizations (COFO) in 1961, under whose banner that the Summer Project of 1964 was carried out. The project recruited hundreds of students and lawyers from other regions of the U.S. to come to Mississippi and assist with a massive voter registration effort.
On June 21, 1964, three youthful Civil Rights workers, Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman and James Chaney went missing near the town of Philadelphia, Mississippi in Neshoba County. Many of the students were still going through orientation in Ohio when word of the missing Civil Rights workers became national news. The three young men were found 44 days later, after a federal manhunt led by the FBI uncovered them buried in an earthen dam.
During the Freedom Summer project, scores of volunteers and local people were subjected to beatings and arrests. During that summer, the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) recruited residents to attend the Democratic National Convention (DNC) being held in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The MFDP delegation demanded they be seated as the genuine representatives of the state since the segregationist Democrats excluded African Americans from voting.
The then President Lyndon B. Johnson was seeking election because he had inherited the position as a result of the assassination of John F. Kennedy in November 1963. When Ms. Fannie Lou Hamer of SNCC and the MFDP spoke before the Democratic National Convention credentials committee, Johnson called a press conference to preempt Hamer from gaining a national audience over television. The MFDP delegation was denied the right to replace the segregationists and instead were offered two seats at-large at the DNC. MFDP rejected the offer and returned to Mississippi after exposing the hypocrisy of the Johnson administration in regard to Civil Rights implementation. The 1964 Civil Rights Act had just been signed into law that same summer, yet African Americans could not be seated as the legitimate representatives of the people of Mississippi along with other southern states.
Two years later, Moses would leave the U.S. to live and teach in the East African state of Tanzania for a decade, then a center of the national liberation movements and socialist construction throughout the continent. His most recent formidable contribution was the development of the Algebra Project which focused on the teaching of mathematics to secondary school students in urban areas. Moses would later return to Harvard to earn a Ph.D.
Significance of the Civil Rights Struggle in 21st Century
Individuals such as Gloria Richardson Dandridge and Bob Moses along with other SNCC comrades should be studied by youth organizers in the 21st century. Their selfless sacrifices and fearlessness are two of the required characteristics among those seeking to build movements and organizations aimed at transforming society.
SNCC organizers Bob Moses with Martha Prescod and other activists in Mississippi during 1963 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)
Both of these pioneers utilized their formal education to serve the oppressed and working people in the U.S. and around the world. The work which they embarked upon remains incomplete as the forces of racism, capitalism and imperialism continue to rule the U.S. and many geo-political regions around the globe.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: USA. 1963. Gloria RICHARDSON. (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)
Comments Off on The 1960s Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC): Gloria Richardson Dandridge and Bob Moses’ Monumental Contributions to Civil Rights
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
When, conspicuously shortly after the breaking of the “Collateral Murder” and ‘Cablegate’ scandals, senior US security state officials hijacked the micromanagement of PR for Assange, it became their duty as Machiavellian imperialists to suppress the rising star of Wikileaks, a pacifist research institute with a record for 100% accuracy.
This they did with bitter, belligerent rigour, heinously spreading the rumour that Assange was a cyberterrorist-cum-rapist. By that gesture, which quickly turned Assange into a pariah on the justice warrior left, the national security state only reinforced its reputation for aspiring for total social control and world domination governed from the Washington power nexus. The rape smear was an ignominious lie, puritanical, messianic propaganda that seemed to have the media and wider public under its spell.
Researching Assange’s life recently, for the purpose of backing up a dispassionate, objective analysis of his contributions to politics and diplomacy, I discovered that there are myriad myths about him, the lies of the media their own effluence, in dire need of an enema. As a socially conscientious hacker, Assange’s most proud contribution to society was actually his Rubberhose encryption software, which predates Wikileaks but shares its mission to inaugurate the presence of ethical software. Nobody in politics, their realpolitik worldviews and perceptions conditioned in the corridors of Ivy League universities and then neoliberal think tanks, actually understands Assange. He has been turned into a one-dimensional, useful symbol of villainy, with the public capitulating totally to the narrative of elites.
Once the preserve and exclusive class privilege of national security elites with classified access to special diplomatic data, state secrets, many of which are embarrassing to governments, are now exchanged in public, thanks to Wikileaks. Equally as important as the liberation of information is the revolutionary atmosphere it produces, with citizen pioneers commanding an internet through which elites retaliate by censoring revolutionaries and treating it as a realm for their exclusive use. Vast swathes of masses, especially youth coming of age, were radicalised by Wikileaks, which turned them into anti-imperial renegades. Then comes the backlash, a piece of Machiavellian theatre redolent of the tsars. Last, we find the tormented, emaciated figure of Assange, subject to calculated, premeditated torture and physical neglect.
On this last act in the tragic saga of Assange appears the historical spectre of Nelson Mandela, he too a formidable evangelist for justice who harnessed the power of thunder. It definitively, without doubt, demonstrates the empire’s longstanding, ongoing compulsion to harass, imprison and silence critics of an iniquitous regime. Meanwhile, other activist voices who share Wikileaks’ mission are industrially being killed off. Fascism is within sight of liberal democracies that write critics off with nefarious, gruesome endings, making free and fair debate an anachronism.
Assange is a political artefact, coveted either for romance or the electric chair. Whilst his morals are not for sell (he tells the truth because it paid not to put one’s soul up for trade) he was traded by the new neoliberal Ecuadorian government for IMF and Goldman Sachs bailouts, at best a politically dishonest triumvirate that sold Ecuador’s human rights standards down the river, at worst the purposeful brutal evisceration of an anti imperial activist through strategic countermeasures.
At various points throughout his reign of publicity – notably in a very well received Ted talk but also on his popular, now deplatformed Twitter – Assange gave us an account of his motives. With fathomless moral fortitude he instanced a conviction that transparency is the method and justice the goal; his love for technology as a liberating force, and his commitment to coding democracy; and his desire to advance the cause of humanity against technocratic fascism. He seeks to defend history from whitewashing and facts from obliteration.
As someone who was brought up to be sceptical of – distinctly reactionary – mainstream media, which represents the unified class interests of the 1%, I made the decision right away to pledge my solidarity to Assange. His commitment stoked my own, a powerful reinforcement of mission and philosophy. Approached, studied with care, Assange’s legacy, beginning in his teenage hacker days and ending in his imprisonment, could have multiplying benefits for democracy. He is the master of the raw material of data, at one with the rhythms of cyberspace, and the enemy to mechanized murder machines with their governance steeped deep in technology.
It appears to be an open question if the weight of civil liberties will overpower the tendency of the US prosecutors towards tyranny, because the conflict is still ongoing. But time will be an assistance to Assange, not a hindrance. He himself knows that illusions aren’t as powerful as pretended, that the exigencies of truth triumph over lies. Ultimately the persecution of Assange is the degradation of US public morality, not the degradation of himself.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The world has recently been swept up by waves of propaganda promoting the idea that a “Great Reset” of the world system is in order to prepare society for a new “post-COVID’ world order.
When one reviews the nature of those reforms on the World Economic Forum’s websites, or from the words of the former Governor of the Bank of Canada Mark Carney (who has recently returned to Canada to run the post-COVID reset team alongside fellow technocrat Chrystia Freeland), it becomes crystal clear that this Great Reset is just the Green New Deal under another name.
Just as the Green New Deal has been the effect of decades of tireless propaganda designed to convince credulous people that it is a good idea to deconstruct industrial civilization by eliminating all activities which either increase carbon dioxide into the atmosphere or disrupt supposedly pristine states of nature (which ivory tower mathematicians suppose exists in stasis), the Great Reset agenda is driven by very similar objectives and assumptions.
When compared with reality, the WHO/Gates-funded narrative justifying the total shutdown of global economies falls apart like a house of cards as outlined perfectly by the Swiss Propaganda Research Institute’s Facts of COVID-19.
Yet in spite of all of the evidence, it is worth asking: How have so many seemingly educated people become persuaded that COVID-19 or climate change are so existentially dangerous that we must shut down the world economy to somehow save ourselves from their apocalyptic effects?
The answer is to be found in the sleight of hand which occurred gradually over the 20th century which replaced actual scientific thinking for something called “predictive computer modelling”.
The Global Coup: Predictive Models Take Over Actual Thinking
The age of “predictive doomsday models” in many ways grew out of the 1972 Limits to Growth study funded by the Club of Rome which popularized the technique of tying temperature increases to carbon dioxide and projecting economic variables like population, resource losses, and “pollution growth” into the future in order to scare the hell out of their incredulous victims and intimidate nations to drastically modify their collective behavior.
This use of skewed, under-defined statistics, projected into the future in order to “act preventatively on future crises” became a hegemonic practice for the next 40 years and has been used by neo-Malthusians consistently to justify the increased rates of war, poverty and disease across the world.
Paul Ehrlich’s influential 1968 book the Population Bomb used similar models to cast trends of geometric population growth into the future which would result in a global crisis of unimaginable proportions as oil would dry up, arable lands dry away and resources disappear by the year 2000.
In 1968 his book, Ehrlich stated his misanthropic view in the following words:
“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people… We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
Obama and his science czar John Holdren
Ehrlich’s protégé John Holdren, who led in the shutdown of NASAs manned space systems and fusion program as Obamas science Czar went further when he wrote on p.942 in his 1977 book Ecoscience:
“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market. The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”
Under this heartless logic, nation states simply had to be converted into tools for imposing depopulation programs rather than naively endeavoring to end colonialism, poverty and war as foolish statesmen like John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Enrico Mattei or Martin Luther King attempted.
Kissinger’s National Security Study Memorandum 200 (1974) outlined this new objective for America stating: “Assistance for population moderation should give emphasis to the largest and fastest growing developing countries where there is a special US and strategic interest”. Among those developing nations targetted for population reduction, NSSM-200 listed birth control and the withholding of food as primary tools. Kissinger coldly wrote: “is the US prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth?”
Throughout the 1970s, the Trilateral Commission/Council on Foreign Relations cabal under the direction of Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski completely took over American foreign policy and launched a new economic program which Trilateral Commission member Paul Volcker called “the controlled disintegration of the economy”.
Upon attaining chairmanship of the Federal Reserve in 1979, Volcker put this policy to work by raising interest rates to 20% and kept them there for another two years- destroying America’s small and medium agro industries while leaving only a highly cartelized corporate behemoth capable of surviving such draconian rates. Real growth plummeted, long term planning was forgotten and deregulation ushered in vast speculation which replaced the formerly dirigistic capitalism that made the west great.
All investments into scientific and technological progress were shut down. Fusion energy research was systematically destroyed as fast as the space program. Infrastructure investments dried up and America’s age of nuclear power construction was shut down.
In true Pygmalion fashion, the oligarchy was able to “scientifically justify” their misanthropic view of global governance by first breaking humanity’s kneecaps and then arguing that we were never meant to run.
In today’s language, this practice of ‘predictive modelling’ is reflected in the central banking high priest Mark Carney’s calls for a new financial system to promote a decarbonized society by 2050 since ‘predictive models’ state that the world will heat 1.5 degrees according to a presumed connection to carbon dioxide emissions which can only be corrected if we monetize carbon and put a profit on shutting down human industrial activity.
As it turns out, when compared to the real data, not only does one quickly find that the post 1977 warming trend ended in 1999, but the actual temperature falls well below all computer projections produced by the IPCC (which is to environmental policy what the WHO is to health policy).
This hysterical prediction is also seen in Prince Charles’ recent warning that the world has 18 months to save itself before ‘predictive modelling’ says that global warming becomes unstoppable and the earth burns in a dystopic inferno!
Charles is the son of the same Prince Philip who infamously gushed over his wish to be reincarnated as a deadly virus “in order to solve overpopulation” making it more than a bit ironic that Charles announced his contraction of COVID-19 on March 25. In a 1988 interview with Deutsche Press Agentur, Prince Philip said:
“The more people there are, the more resources they’ll consume, the more pollution they’ll create, the more fighting they will do. We have no option. If it isn’t controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation and war. …In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”
One should not make the mistake of separating Philip’s misanthropic statements with his active role in co-founding the global ecology movement alongside Bilderberg group founder Prince Bernhardt of the Netherlands. This includes their joint role as co-founders of the World Wildlife Club in 1961, their founding of the 1001 Nature Trust in 1970 or their joint management and funding of global climate science throughout the 20th century.
As I outlined in my 2019 lecture, it was this organization that was caught red handed organizing the murder and coverup of John F. Kennedy.
Prince Bernhard and Philip’s powerful lackey Maurice Strong (who served as WWF vice-president under Philip from 1976-78), let the cat out of the bag in a 1990 interview saying:
“What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is ‘no’. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” [1]
This is exactly what Carney and his fellow central banking ideologues are talking about when they speak of “Green New Deals“.
The Failure of the Collective Green Suicide Pact
After five decades of tireless panic and propaganda, the oligarchy has had to conclude that this whole plan hasn’t really worked out too well. Many nations were more than a little reticent to shut down the basis of their existence just because some Malthusian technocrats said their computer models required it to be so.
Many inquiring minds noticed that those same computer models never proved in the first place that carbon dioxide actually causes temperature changes and others noticed that in longer waves of history, carbon dioxide actually follows temperature changes… implying that the true causes of climate change has less to do with CO2 and more to do with astrophysical effects like the sun and cosmic radiation (which recent studies by Professor Svensmark have proved seeds clouds and plays a much more direct role in shaping climate change than statisticians wish to admit).
Others were bothered by the fact that linear computer projections fail to take into account such non-linear processes as human creative reason and morality which allows mankind the freedom to leap beyond our “limits to growth” through the discovery of new principles in the universe and the application of those discoveries to the economy in the form of constant leaps in scientific and technological progress.
Try as they might, linear models cannot map non-linearity (except in the form of logarithms that seek chaotic randomness in the form of a Jackson Pollack painting), but not real creative DIRECTED progress.
What made this “Controlled disintegration agenda” additionally frustrating was the rise of China’s Belt and Road Initiative which demonstrated what REAL nation states can accomplish when they want to get rid of pollution, raise their populations out of poverty and “go green” at the same time [1].
In total opposition to the doomsday ‘predictive models’, China has lifted 800 million people out of poverty by forcing the monetary system to obey human needs rather than conforming to the statistical models used by the World Bank or IMF. China, Russia and other nations working within the BRI Framework have transformed the definition of “green” in recent years by investing massively into carbon free energy like 3rd and 4th generation nuclear power, fusion research, hydroelectricity and greening deserts.
On this last point, NASA recently announced a surprising 10% increase of global biomass due entirely to China and India’s development strategies which not only bring water into deserts, but also produce carbon dioxide which plants and trees actually treat as… FOOD!
Then Trump got elected and the Malthusian de-carbonization goals collapsed even further as an America long held under the control of a deep state changed its character and in so doing, revived both a lost sense of nationalism while also rejecting green suicide under a technocratic global dictatorship.
So something new had to happen.
New Lipstick. Same Pig.
Luckily, computer modelling doomsday scenarios are not hard to come by for British intelligence assets working through London’s Imperial College and Bank of England who settled on a new strategy… if only a virus could be blown into global pandemic proportions through a systemic skewing of data and centralized control of data management through the Michael Bloomberg School of Public Policy at Johns Hopkin and World Health Organization… then perhaps nations will finally learn how to shut down their economies.
After COVID-19 was announced as a global pandemic by the World Health Organization, the COVID-19 Response Team at London’s Imperial College wasted no time in using the same predictive modelling techniques that failed so miserably on climate catastrophe projections to begin forecasting end times scenarios for the coronavirus outbreak.
March 17, 2020 models projected over 500 000 UK deaths and 2.2 million American deaths over the coming months. These numbers were quickly taken up by the WHO and spread across international media to justify the study’s “remedy” of a full “shut down of major aspects of society for over a year.”
Despite the fact that these models were adjusted to predict only 20,000 UK deaths and 100,000 US deaths a week later, the calls to keep the world economy shut down for 12-18 months continued by Dr. Fauci, Gates, Soros and leading experts from the WHO, some of whom were caught on camera advocating breaking into homes to separate family members who have COVID.
For those paying attention, Michael Bloomberg isn’t only a famous billionaire corporatist who paid $500 million to get his ass kicked on public television, but is also Mark Carney’s green bosom buddy who acted as United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Change from 2018-2019 until Carney took over the position.
Bloomberg also chairs Carney’s Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures which is a keystone piece of the new green cathedral of anti-growth economics which will punish all “climate offending” companies by cutting them from credit while rewarding “green zero carbon” companies which accelerate human population collapse.
Bloomberg’s School of Public Health just so happened to co-sponsor the October 19, 2019 Global Pandemic Exercise Event 201 alongside the Bill Gates & Melinda Gates Foundation, and World Economic Forum which ran computer simulations under the theme of a novel coronavirus pandemic killing 60 million people.
Over the years while taking over economic, foreign policy and environmental policies of formerly industrial advanced nations of the western alliance, the neo-Malthusian movement also took over medical research through a gradual co-opting of funding of the World Health Organization by private foundations which have increasingly replaced the role of nation over the past 4 decades.
Today the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has become the primary financier of the WTO (taking the top spot with Trump’s recent announcement of America’s exit from it’s supporting role). With their interests so intertwined with Big Pharma, and the Five Eyes intelligence agencies, medical practice and medical policy has been put firmly under the control of an elite cadre of “scientific experts” who play god with the human race in ivory towers “untouched by politics” beholden only to the cold hard numbers of ‘predictive models’.
Both Gates and Bloomberg are among the top five world billionaires who run “The Giving Pledge”– which is a foundation made up of “good” plutocrats who pledged to donate half their wealth to charities. What are billions after all, when you know the system you parasitically exploited is designed to collapse? As Carney stated last year, those “that anticipate these developments will be rewarded handsomely; those that fail to adapt will cease to exist.”
Those industrial interests whom Carney threatened in his speech include those “dirty” (see “productive”) agro-industrial interests who are generally unhappy about the idea of being sacrificed on the alter of Gaia and would rather join China’s multi-trillion dollar Belt and Road Initiative, as the crisis continues to move closer to the inevitable collapse of the $1.2 quadrillion bubble economy.
As this future collapse point accelerates towards the present, the oligarchy knows that nations enmeshed in the west’s monetarist net will gladly jump into the Multipolar Alliance as an alternative to their total destruction if for no other reason.
The Multi-Polar Alliance Re-asserts the Hegemony of the Human Mind over Computer Modelling
The beauty of the new Multipolar Alliance guided by the associated Belt and Road Initiative Framework is this new system’s reliance upon the non-linearity of human creative thought. By defining future states of humanity not as a crisis caused by human cancer cells killing Gaia, the new system approaches the future from the standpoint of creative change.
By investing in space exploration, asteroid defense, lunar mining, fusion and fission development and large scale infrastructure the Multipolar Alliance is bringing mankind back into harmony with the demands for boundless scientific and technological progress within creation.
Speaking to the CPC central committee in 2016, President Xi said:
“Coordinated development is the unity of balanced development and imbalanced development. The process from balance to imbalance and then to rebalance is the basic law of development. Balance is relative while imbalance is absolute. Emphasizing coordinated development is not pursuing equalitarianism, but giving more importance to equal opportunities and balanced resource allocation.”
In an earlier speech, Xi developed this concept even further:
“We must consider innovation as the primary driving force of growth and the core in this whole undertaking, and human resources as the primary source to support development. We should promote innovation in theory, systems, science and technology, and culture, and make innovation the dominant theme in the work of the Party, and government, and everyday activity in society… In the 16th century, human society entered an unprecedented period of active innovation. Achievements in scientific innovation over the past five centuries have exceeded the sum total of several previous millennia. . . . Each and every scientific and industrial revolution has profoundly changed the outlook and pattern of world development. . . . Since the second Industrial Revolution, the U.S. has maintained global hegemony because it has always been the leader and the largest beneficiary of scientific and industrial progress.”
In a 2019 speech calling for Russia’s prioritization of fusion power as a replacement to the fossil fuel economy, President Putin expressed similar insights saying:
“It may seem strange at first, but fusion energy, which in fact is similar to how heat and light are produced in our star, in the Sun, is an example of such nature-like technologies.
“Potentially we can harness a colossal, inexhaustible and safe source of energy. However, we will only succeed in fusion energy and in solving other fundamental tasks if we establish broad international cooperation and interaction between government and business, and join the efforts of researchers representing different scientific schools and areas. If technological development becomes truly global, it will not be split up or reined in by attempts to monopolize progress, limit access to education and put up new obstacles to the free exchange of knowledge and ideas.. With their help, scientists will be able to literally see nature’s creation processes.”
So when Putin or Xi come out calling for a new economic order to replace the currently collapsing one, this is the spirit of the system he is talking about. They are talking about a system that rejects ‘predictive modelling’ using linear equations in favor of the REALITY of human creative mentation as a non-linear YET intelligible geological force of change bringing humanity into ever greater harmony with the laws of creation.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The Lebanese parliament concluded consultations on Monday on the appointment of ex-Premier Najib Mikati to head a fully-fledged government to tackle the country’s economic collapse, while Tunisians celebrated the dismissal by President Kais Saied of Prime Minister Hichem Mechichi and 30-day suspension of parliament. Saied also announced plans to strip legislators of their immunity and take over the office of state prosecutor.
Lebanon has boasted a sectarian-power-sharing quasi-democracy since securing independence from France in 1943, while Tunisia gained independence in 1957 under revolutionary autocrat Habib Bourguiba, who was overthrown in 1987 by Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. He was toppled during the 2011 Arab Spring and replaced by a semi-presidential representative democratic republic.
Lebanon has 4.5 million citizens and 1.5 million Syrian and other foreign residents. Tunisia has 11 million people. Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, both countries have exported nationals seeking their fortunes elsewhere.
Both Western-leaning Lebanon and Tunisia have educated populations, well-developed but troubled economies stricken with high unemployment, mismanagement and corruption. Both are heavily dependent on tourism, foreign aid and remittances from citizens living abroad. Both are widely afflicted by COVID, which has deepened the miseries of their people.
Lebanon has been brought low by the most critical economic crisis suffered by any country since the middle of the 19th century; Tunisia by decades of underinvestment in infrastructure, agriculture, industry and job creation.
Unlike Tunisians, Lebanese did not rise up in 2011 but waited until October 2019 to pour into the streets demanding effective governance, the ouster of the political elite, and an end to the sectarian system of governance. Since then, the politicians have refused to grant the demands of the people and clung to power, driving the country to the brink of ruin.
Tunisians believed their troubles would diminish and, perhaps, be resolved after Ben Ali’s departure, free and fair elections were held, and democrats took charge, but they failed to deliver the populace from graft and want.
While Tunisia remains a restive state, Lebanon never really attained statehood.
Tunisia’s uprising was the first and only Arab Spring movement to adopt democracy. But after 57 years of post-independence autocracy under Bourguiba and Ben Ali, Tunisian politicians have been unable to make democracy work. There have been eight prime ministers in 10 years. In 2020, as the economy contracted by 9 per cent, the international community ignored Tunisia, the country was compelled to pay debts incurred during the authoritarian regimes and foreign banks refused to seize and repatriate ill-gotten funds of former rulers. The government dickered with the International Monetary Fund over a $4 million loan.
Consequently, the past two decades have been characterised by multifactional political wrangling which has prevented the country from addressing its most urgent problems. The president’s “coup” followed the government’s failure to deal with rising COVID cases and continuing economic decline due to a collapse of tourism and fundamentalist attacks. After the 2011 uprising in Syria, alienated Tunisians swelled the number of takfiris seeking to overthrow the Damascus government, making the Tunisian nationals the largest group among the thousands of fighters from 50 countries.
By contrast with Tunisia’s long experience with autocracy, Lebanon’s politico-economic life has, essentially, been a free-for-all which has been exploited by sectarian and clan politicians to secure power, pelf and privilege.
The country has been frozen in the pre-independence regime imposed by France, under which the president is always a Maronite Christian, the prime minister a Sunni and the parliamentary speaker a Shia. The French also intended to make the Maronites the most powerful community in Lebanon by faking a census in 1932 which showed Christians, dominated by Maronites, were 50 per cent of the population. Sunnis, Shias and Druze were meant by France to follow the Maronite lead. While this imbalance was adjusted under the Taif accord which ended the second Lebanese civil war (1975-90), oligarchs and warlords who emerged from the conflict inherited the sectarian system, established patronage networks and the unregulated economy. Since the 2019 mass protests, the political elite has united to jeopardise the very existence of Lebanon to protect its interests.
Tunisian President Kais Saied and Lebanese putative Premier Najib Mikati also pose an interesting contrast. Saied, 63 is a constitutional law professor and jurist who entered politics in the 2019 presidential election on a anti-corruption platform. Following the transition to democracy, he provided advice in the drafting of the new constitution which, unlike most other constitutions does not mandate a separation of powers, but shares power among the presidency, parliament and prime minister.
A populist, who was elected by a 70 per cent majority, Saied favours radical change in the Tunisian system by cancelling the national parliament and empowering local councils. His suspension of the assembly and sacking the defence and justice ministers could be a first step in implementing his programme. Having tasted the complexities and uncertainties of democracy, many Tunisians may welcome a return to some sort of autocracy.
Telecom billionaire Najib Mikati, who served as premier twice, is seen by most of Lebanon’s the ruling elite as a safe bet. He was endorsed by 72 members of Lebanon’s 128 member parliament while 42 abstained, notably the two main Maronite parties — President Michel Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement and the Lebanese Forces which have a combined total of 40 seats. During consultations over the formation of a Cabinet, Aoun is likely to complain that Mikati cannot be prime minister because he does not have the support of the “Christians”. Aoun relied on this argument when he blocked efforts by former prime minister-designate Saad Hariri to cobble together a cabinet which would have credibility with the international community and release $21 billion in financial aid.
Mikati is no populist or reformer. He is the richest man in the country and hails from its poorest city, the northern port of Tripoli. While he has said he cannot produce the miracle needed to rescue Lebanon from bankruptcy and ruin, he has vowed to observe the French roadmap when assembling “specialist” independents for his Cabinet. Hariri tried and failed due to Aoun.
A politician few Lebanese want as premier, Mikati is likely to be met with protests in the street, particularly in his hometown, Tripoli, which has become the “hub of the revolution” that aims of throw out the sectarian system and establish a secular democracy.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
His jailing also has nothing to do with the fact that Murray has embarrassed the British state more recently by reporting the woeful and continuing 
