Tunisia Stands Against the Muslim Brotherhood

July 30th, 2021 by Steven Sahiounie

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The 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.

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

Another Israeli Spy Story: When Will It End?

July 30th, 2021 by Philip Giraldi

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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]

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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.

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Lebensängste schränken das individuelle und gesellschaftliche Leben stark ein
  • Tags: , ,

Video: COVID Prison in British Columbia?

July 30th, 2021 by Netizensouljahtv

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In the middle of British Columbia just west of Vanderhoof, there is a COVID facility that resembles a prison.

Scenarios people tagged as conspiracy theories are gradually coming true. 

Watch the video here. or click screen above

*

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Primary players and acronyms:

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]

Featured image is CC BY-SA 2.0

Requiem for an Empire: A Prequel

July 30th, 2021 by Pepe Escobar

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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:
  1. “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.”
  2. “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.”
  3. “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.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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.

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

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)

This Month’s Most Popular Articles

July 30th, 2021 by Global Research News

Don’t Get Jabbed: Powerful Video on “Killer Vaccine” that Needs to be Watched by Everyone

By Dr. Gary G. Kohls, July 29, 2021

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.

The Same Shady People Own Big Pharma and the Media

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, July 29, 2021

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.

Biden Expected to Announce Vaccine Mandates for All Federal Employees, DOJ Declares Mandates Legal

By Children’s Health Defense, July 29, 2021

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.

Deaths from COVID Vaccines Are 407% Higher than All Cumulative Previously Reported Deaths from Other Vaccines

By Will Jones, July 29, 2021

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.

Video: Urgent Warning About Poisonous Jabs – “An Agonizing Situation”

By Dr. Peter McCullough and Stew Peters, July 29, 2021

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 1960s Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC): Gloria Richardson Dandridge and Bob Moses’ Monumental Contributions to Civil Rights

By Abayomi Azikiwe, July 29, 2021

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.

“Climate Change” and the “Great Reset”, From COP26 to COVID19: The Fallacy of Predictive Models and a Return to Real Thinking

By Matthew Ehret-Kump, July 29, 2021

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.

Julian Assange: Secrets, Sedition and the State

By Megan Sherman, July 29, 2021

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.

Prepare Now: Global Supply Chains at Risk. Covid Crisis’ Engineered Economic Destruction

By Jesse Smith, July 29, 2021

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.

The CDC’s Hysterical Delta Flip-Flop Might be Its Final Undoing

By Jeffrey Tucker, July 29, 2021

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?

The “Big Four” Companies that Rule the World

By BabaMail, July 29, 2021

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?

Flight MH17

The Downing of Malaysian Airlines MH17: The Quest for Truth and Justice. Review of the Evidence

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 29, 2021

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.

Video: Graphene Oxide, A Toxic Substance in the Vaccine Jabs: Karen Kingston, Former Consultant to Pfizer, with Stew Peters

By Karen Kingston and Stew Peters, July 29, 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.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Don’t Get Jabbed: Powerful Video on “Killer Vaccine” that Needs to be Watched by Everyone
  • Tags:

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

US Military “Interventions” and “Withdrawals”

July 30th, 2021 by Bouthaina Shaaban

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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.

Featured image is from Al Mayadeen English

Possible Union Between Boko Haram and ISIS Threatens Africa

July 30th, 2021 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

.

.

.

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. 

VIDEO

Related articles
.
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.
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Graphene Oxide, A Toxic Substance in the Vaccine Jabs: Karen Kingston, Former Consultant to Pfizer, with Stew Peters

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

On July 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 include Chelsea 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.

Copyright © Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

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

She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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.

Featured image is from LifeSiteNews

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A 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.

Notes

1 FDA.gov May 10, 2021

2 The Guardian July 19, 2021

3 Research Square July 7, 2021 DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-689684/v1

4 Research Square July 7, 2021 DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-689684/v1, Interpretation

5, 7, 8, 11 Wall Street Journal July 19, 2021

6 CDC Pandemic Planning Scenarios March 19, 2021, Table 1, Scenario 5: Current best estimate

9 Science May 14, 2021; 372(6543): 738-741

10 Archives of Disease in Childhood 2020;105:618-619

12 ABC7 News June 7, 2021

13 CDC.gov August 26, 2020, Comorbidities Table 3, updated October 14, 2020

14 Wired July 15, 2021

15, 16 Fox News July 13, 2021

17 NY Mag July 12, 2021

18 NHTSA October 1, 2020

19, 20 NEJM December 20, 2018; 379(25): 2468-2475

21 Twitter, White House July 6, 2021

22 US District Court of Alabama Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-00702-CLM (PDF)

23 The Defender July 20, 2021

24, 25 The BMJ Blog July 13, 2021

26 YouTube VRBPAC June 10, 2021 Peter Doshi

27 SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine BNT162 Biodistribution Study

28 Trialsitenews May 28, 2021

29, 31 Wayback CDC Reported Adverse Events July 19, 2021

30 Wayback CDC Reported Adverse Events July 13, 2021

32 CDC Reported Adverse Events July 19, 2021, Now altered

Featured image is from Mercola

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Children Are Safe from COVID-19. “Childhood Vaccination Push Built on Flimsy Evidence”
  • Tags: ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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.

‘Would have been definitely hospitalized’: Two fully vaccinated people share their stories of COVID-19 breakthrough cases

Excerpts:

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.

Source.

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.

Featured image is from Health Impact News

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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.”

Watch Tucker Carlson here.

*

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

Featured image is from CHD

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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.

Jeffrey Tucker is author of Liberty or Lockdown (AIER, 2020).

Featured image is from Vaccine Injury News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The CDC’s Hysterical Delta Flip-Flop Might be Its Final Undoing
  • Tags: , ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

This is the 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 Mail reports 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 ElizabethMyLondon reports 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.)

Key events analysis:

  • Acute Cardiac Event – 3357 (Pfizer) + 8468 (AZ) + 210 (Moderna) + 26 (Unknown) = 12,061
  • Anaphylaxis – 428 (Pfizer) + 781 (AZ) + 26 (Moderna) + 1 (Unknown) = 1,236
  • Herpes – 1,407 (Pfizer) + 2,311 (AZ) + 39 (Moderna) + 12 (Unknown) = 3,769
  • Headaches – 18,629 (Pfizer) + 81,728 (AZ) + 1,303 (Moderna) + 215 (Unknown) = 101,875
  • Migraine – 2,006 (Pfizer) + 7,665 (AZ) + 147 (Moderna) + 26 (Unknown) = 9,844
  • Blindness – 72 (Pfizer) + 260 (AZ) + 5 (Moderna) + 3 (Unknown) = 340
  • Deafness – 148 (Pfizer) + 327 (AZ) + 8 (Moderna) = 483
  • Spontaneous Abortions – 181 + 8 stillbirth/foetal death (Pfizer) + 146 + 2 stillbirth (AZ) + 11 (Moderna) + 1 (Unknown) = 339 + 10 [NOTE – 6 (Pfizer) + 5(AZ) – fatalities that possibly indicate maternal death]
  • Vomiting – 2,740 (Pfizer) + 11,129 (AZ) + 241 (Moderna) + 40 (Unknown) = 14,150
  • Facial Paralysis incl. Bell’s Palsy – 563 (Pfizer) + 770 (AZ) + 28 (Moderna) + 4 (Unknown) = 1,365
  • Nervous System Disorders – 44,131 (Pfizer) + 168,034 (AZ) + 3,792 (Moderna) + 535 (Unknown) = 216,492
  • Strokes and CNS haemorrhages – 443 (Pfizer) + 1,822 (AZ) + 9 (Moderna) + 5 (Unknown) = 2,279
  • Guillain-Barré Syndrome – 41 (Pfizer) + 344 (AZ) + 2 (Moderna) + 4 (Unknown) = 391
  • Dizziness – 6938 (Pfizer) + 23,477 (AZ) + 843 (Moderna) + 78 (Unknown) = 31,336
  • Tremor – 1,059 (Pfizer) + 9,500 (AZ) + 76 (Moderna) + 38 (Unknown) = 10,673
  • Paraesthesia/dysaesthesia (chronic burning sensation, tingling nerve pain) – 4,665 (Pfizer) + 15,315 (AZ) + 441 (Moderna) + 43 (Unknown) = 20,464
  • Pulmonary Embolism – 284 (Pfizer) + 1,417 (AZ) + 4 (Moderna) + 7 (Unknown) = 1,712
  • Deep Vein Thrombosis – 180 (Pfizer) + 1,047 (AZ) + 5 (Moderna) + 8 (Unknown) = 1,240
  • Nosebleeds – 632 (Pfizer) + 2,121 (AZ) + 45 (Moderna) + 8 (Unknown) = 2,806
  • Seizures – 593 (Pfizer) + 1,790 (AZ) + 62 (Moderna) + 9 (Unknown) = 2,454
  • Paralysis – 234 (Pfizer) + 666 (AZ) + 18 (Moderna) + 3 (Unknown) = 921
  • Haemorrhage (All types) – 1,878 (Pfizer) + 4,261 (AZ) + 203 (Moderna) + 18 (Unknown) = 6,360 [Haemorrhage types – cardiac, ear, adrenal, eye, gastric, mouth, tongue, gums, intestinal, injection site, brain, wounds, stoma, bladder, kidney, vaginal, uterine, post-menopausal bleeding, ovarian, penile, lung, nasal]
  • Vertigo/Tinnitus – 2174 (Pfizer) + 5876 (AZ) + 174 (Moderna) + 18 (Unknown) = 8242

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

*

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

Featured image is from The Daily Sceptic

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Deaths from COVID Vaccines Are 407% Higher than All Cumulative Previously Reported Deaths from Other Vaccines
  • Tags: ,

Video: Daraa’s Month-long Saga Comes to an End

July 29th, 2021 by South Front

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The “Big Four” Companies that Rule the World
  • Tags:

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The 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.

Today’s resolution approved by the committee, the official decision-making body under the World Heritage Convention, follows a 2017 petition from conservation groups and representatives of the Tohono O’odham of Sonora, Mexico. That petition sought “in danger” status for El Pinacate and Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve on the U.S.-Mexico border. This 2,700-square-mile World Heritage site shares a border with Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in the U.S.

“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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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.

Cambridge Nonviolent Action Committee leader Gloria Richardson (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

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)

Julian Assange: Secrets, Sedition and the State

July 29th, 2021 by Megan Sherman

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

When, 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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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 marketThe 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 handsomelythose 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.

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , a BRI Expert on Tactical talk, and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the‘Untold History of Canada’ book series, and Clash of the Two Americas. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation . Consider helping this process by making a donation to the RTF or becoming a Patreon supporter to the Canadian Patriot Review.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Climate Change” and the “Great Reset”, From COP26 to COVID19: The Fallacy of Predictive Models and a Return to Real Thinking
  • Tags: , , ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The 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.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

California will require millions of health care workers and state employees to show proof of a COVID-19 vaccination or get tested weekly, announcing a broad measure Monday to try to slow rising coronavirus infections in the nation’s most populous state, mostly among the unvaccinated.

The new rule, to take effect next month, is the latest example of California and politically progressive cities nationwide cracking down on a virus that has upended life since March 2020. New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio announced a similar plan Monday that requires 340,000 city employees, including teachers and police officers, to show proof of vaccination or undergo weekly testing.

Los Angeles County, the nation’s most populous, has reimposed an indoor mask mandate, regardless of vaccination status, and San Francisco announced it would require its 35,000 employees to get inoculated, get an exemption or lose their job.

California’s order goes even further by dipping into the private sector. Medical professionals applauded Gov. Gavin Newsom’s new policy, saying it’s legal, ethical and necessary given a national surge driven by the highly contagious delta variant.

“He’s really showing leadership to strengthen the case for vaccination, which the entire country is trying to make,” said Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious diseases professor at the University of California, San Francisco.

The new rule would apply to an estimated 246,000 state employees, according to the governor, and at least 2 million health care workers and long-term care workers in the public and private sectors.

To Read Complete article click Here

*

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

One of the 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. I warned about this looming threat in my article What the Future Portends: 10 Predictions for 2021 and Beyond.

The narrative being sold to the public goes like this. The new wave of COVID-19 infections caused by various Greek-letter variants, major disruptions due to natural disasters (attributed to climate change), and cyber-attacks targeting key industries are causing worker shortages and the inability for ships and other major transport systems to reach their destinations. This “shortage” of workers and goods such as food and computer chips plays right into globalist stooges hands. As prices skyrocket, the economy will further deteriorate and panic will rule the day. People desperate for basic necessities will turn to looting and violence which will give governments a new excuse to lockdown and subdue their populations.

The true narrative points to global forces using these unfolding calamities as the perfect convergence of manufactured “problem-reaction-solution” scenarios. These “existential” crises are deliberately put in motion to move the world towards global governance based on the UN (Agenda 2030) Sustainable Development goals, a new blockchain based financial system, and a China-like surveillance state.

Pandemics, climate change, cyber terror, and manufactured supply shortages are trojan horses used to remove individual rights, destroy nations and governments, and push people into a new technocratic society. All of these events allow governments to implement “emergency” measures while consolidating more power. As these scenarios play out, control mechanisms such as biometric surveillance, smart technology, social credit, Universal Basic Income, mandatory vaccination, and digital ID/wallet systems are steadily materializing.

A new article in the Insurance Journal provides details to the changes rapidly taking place as the global supply chain is threatened. The article states:

Events have conspired to drive global supply chains towards breaking point, threatening the fragile flow of raw materials, parts and consumer goods, according to companies, economists and shipping specialists.

The Delta variant of the coronavirus has devastated parts of Asia and prompted many nations to cut off land access for sailors. That’s left captains unable to rotate weary crews and about 100,000 seafarers stranded at sea beyond their stints in a flashback to 2020 and the height of lockdowns.

Meanwhile, deadly floods in economic giants China and Germany have further ruptured global supply lines that had yet to recover from the first wave of the pandemic, compromising trillions of dollars of economic activity that rely on them.

Manufacturing industries are reeling.

Automakers, for example, are again being forced to stop production because of disruptions caused by COVID-19 outbreaks. Toyota Motor Corp said this week it had to halt operations at plants in Thailand and Japan because they couldn’t get parts.

Buckling supply chains are hitting the United States and China, the world’s economic motors that together account for more 40% of global economic output. This could lead to a slowdown in the global economy, along with rising prices for all manner of goods and raw materials.

Ports across the globe are suffering the kinds of logjams not seen in decades, according to industry players.

The China Port and Harbour Association said on Wednesday that freight capacity continued to be tight.

A cyber attack hit South African container ports in Cape Town and Durban this week, adding further disruptions at the terminals.

If all that were not enough, in Britain the official health app has told hundreds of thousands of workers to isolate following contact with someone with COVID-19 — leading to supermarkets warning of a short supply and some petrol stations closing.

Richard Walker, managing director of supermarket group Iceland Foods, turned to Twitter to urge people not to panic buy.

“We need to be able to supply stores, stock shelves and deliver food,” he wrote.

Another recent article from The Conversation details how extensive the shortages are, stating:

It expands to include a whole range of products like lumber and other building materials, tools, foodstuffs, seeds, furniture, cleaning supplies, aluminum cans, jars, pools and pool equipment, chemicals, bicycles, camping gear, household appliances and replacement parts of all kinds.

In many cases supply chains have been simultaneously squeezed on both ends — supply and demand.

The empty store shelves that dotted the landscape at the beginning of last year’s plandemic is only a taste of what is to come. Manufactured famine would be the perfect way to introduce complete control of the food supply. The ultimate goal is to eliminate meat-eating and increase consumption of GMO crops and synthetic food as only a few major corporations would control the entire world’s food supply. This is why Bill Gates is now the largest landowner in the U.S.

Recently there have already been major “cyber attacks” by mysterious hacker groups on a major U.S. gasoline pipeline (Colonial) and global food supplier (JBS). The power grid failure in Texas this past February created shortages of water, food, and heat for short periods, but caused much devastation and even death. In March, a container ship blocked both lanes of the Suez Canal and kept vessels from crossing for an entire week leading to inflated oil prices and long shipping delays. Current drought conditions in the western United Statesexacerbated by wildfires and extreme high temperatures are ruining vegetation and impacting the water supply.

These events along with a “cyber pandemic” could easily trigger a worldwide crisis. World Economic Forum frontman and globalist stooge Klaus Schwab has warned of an event to come that could make the coronavirus “pandemic” seem like a small disturbance. The World Economic Forum sponsored Cyber Polygon events have been creating simulations of massive cyber-attacks that could completely disrupt finance, global trade, power grids, and life as we know it. Will these simulations go live in the near future?

If you’re reading this you are ahead of the curve as most people are still marching along like sheep to the slaughter. But don’t wait! Take action now and stock up on needed goods and supplies before it is too late. Discuss these scenarios with your loved ones and formulate a plan that can help you stay above water if and when calamity strikes.

*

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.

Jesse Smith is an independent journalist who operates the Truth Unmuted website. Truth Unmuted is dedicated to exposing the lies, motives, and methods of the global cabal trying to force humanity into a new world order. The website covers issues such as technocracy, globalism, transhumanism, politics, health, and other relevant topics that tie into global agendas. 

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Julian Assange’s long, contentious relationship with Ecuador is officially over: According to Associated Press, the nation has chosen to revoke his citizenship effective immediately.

The WikiLeaks founder famously took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2012 after Swedish prosecutors issued an international arrest warrant (later dropped) on counts of rape and sexual misconduct, saying that the case was a pretext to extradite him to the U.S. on espionage charges. Ecuador granted Assange—who had leaked troves of U.S. military, intelligence, and diplomatic secrets via WikiLeaks—political asylum and later citizenship. Official Ecuadorian citizenship was intended to pave the way for Assange to assume a diplomatic role with immunity to prosecution, but the relationship reportedly soured as Assange proved a frustrating, expensive, and politically inconvenient guest over the course of his seven-year stretch in the embassy.

Ecuadorian officials enraged that Assange was continuing to operate WikiLeaks from within the embassy (including leaking files stemming from a hack of Democratic Party servers during the U.S. presidential election in 2016) cut off his internet access in 2018 and stripped him of asylum status in 2019, allowing police to enter and take him into custody. Since then, Assange has been convicted of bail evasion in the UK and spent much of his time desperately trying to avoid extradition to the U.S., which is seeking revenge for the humiliating leaks by slapping him with a slew of hacking and espionage charges.

Assange won the initial round, citing the near certainty he would be tortured by solitary confinement in U.S. custody like WikiLeaks source Chelsea Manning, but the U.S. government is appealing the decision. Assange’s case has raised serious issues about freedom of the press and whether his activities should be protected by the First Amendment. But don’t worry, the U.S. has pinky swornnot to do the whole torture thing so long as nothing happens that causes it to change its mind and has issued assurances that he could potentially serve his sentence in Australia that are full of legal caveats.

Julian Assange’s long, contentious relationship with Ecuador is officially over: According to Associated Press, the nation has chosen to revoke his citizenship effective immediately.

The WikiLeaks founder famously took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2012 after Swedish prosecutors issued an international arrest warrant (later dropped) on counts of rape and sexual misconduct, saying that the case was a pretext to extradite him to the U.S. on espionage charges. Ecuador granted Assange—who had leaked troves of U.S. military, intelligence, and diplomatic secrets via WikiLeaks—political asylum and later citizenship. Official Ecuadorian citizenship was intended to pave the way for Assange to assume a diplomatic role with immunity to prosecution, but the relationship reportedly soured as Assange proved a frustrating, expensive, and politically inconvenient guest over the course of his seven-year stretch in the embassy.

Ecuadorian officials enraged that Assange was continuing to operate WikiLeaks from within the embassy (including leaking files stemming from a hack of Democratic Party servers during the U.S. presidential election in 2016) cut off his internet access in 2018 and stripped him of asylum status in 2019, allowing police to enter and take him into custody. Since then, Assange has been convicted of bail evasion in the UK and spent much of his time desperately trying to avoid extradition to the U.S., which is seeking revenge for the humiliating leaks by slapping him with a slew of hacking and espionage charges.

Assange won the initial round, citing the near certainty he would be tortured by solitary confinement in U.S. custody like WikiLeaks source Chelsea Manning, but the U.S. government is appealing the decision. Assange’s case has raised serious issues about freedom of the press and whether his activities should be protected by the First Amendment. But don’t worry, the U.S. has pinky swornnot to do the whole torture thing so long as nothing happens that causes it to change its mind and has issued assurances that he could potentially serve his sentence in Australia that are full of legal caveats.

In another blow, albeit one which will have little practical impact on Assange’s fate moving forward, Ecuadorean officials now appear to have decided there were irregularities in the WikiLeaks founder’s naturalization process.

The Guardian reported that in a letter filed in response to a claim by the Ecuadorean foreign ministry, the Pichincha court for contentious administrative matters has confirmed that Assange’s naturalization has been annulled. Issues cited by Ecuadorean authorities included inconsistencies and different signatures in naturalization documents, unpaid fees, and the implication some paperwork may have been modified, the paper wrote.

A likely factor in the about-face is that Assange was originally granted citizenship under the tenure of ex-President Rafael Correa. His successor, Lenín Moreno, made a hard break with Correa’s legacy, including by evicting Assange and turning him over to UK police. Moreno’s successor, in turn, right-wing politician Guillermo Lasso, had also called for the removal of Assange, highlighting how his tenure in the embassy and general relationship with Ecuador had become a political liability.

As the Register noted, Ecuador has shown almost no public support whatsoever for Assange during his current extradition proceedings in the UK. In fact, the opposite has occurred, as Ecuador reportedly cataloged Assange’s possessions and shared troves of data with U.S. prosecutors despite the ongoing nature of the extradition fight.

According to the Guardian, Ecuador’s foreign ministry denied that political pressure played a role in the decision to axe Assange’s citizenship and that it “acted independently and followed due process in a case that took place during the previous government and that was raised by the same previous government.”

*

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.

#Yes, It’s A “Killer Vaccine”. They are Killing our Children

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 28, 2021

#Yes, It’s A Killer Vaccine. That message should be loud and clear. Our children are being killed. 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.

Study on Electromagnetism of Vaccinated Persons

By Mamer and Amar Goudjil, July 28, 2021

It was found that vaccinated individuals do give off an electromagnetic field and that the earlier the individuals were vaccinated, the stronger the field they gave off. This sensation and appraisal, which is purely a tactile experience when the shoulder magnet is applied and removed, should be verified much more accurately with much more precise equipment.

Covid-19 Vaccines Lead to New Infections and Mortality: The Evidence is Overwhelming

By Gérard Delépine, July 28, 2021

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.

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

By Peter Koenig, July 28, 2021

The directors of the world, the Merkels, Macrons and other compromised world leaders, plus their nameless tiny elite-bosses way above them – are calling for tightening the screws again. To use Madame Merkel’s terminology of what she decided to do with the German people a few months ago. She has hardly loosened the screws since.

Nanotechnology-derived Graphene in Face Masks — Now There Are Safety Concerns

By Andrew Maynard, July 28, 2021

Face masks should protect you, not place you in greater danger. However, last Friday Radio Canada revealed that residents of Quebec and Ottawa were being advised not to use specific types of graphene-containing masks as they could potentially be harmful.

At FDA Urging, Pfizer and Moderna to Include Thousands More Children in Clinical Trials

By Children’s Health Defense, July 28, 2021

Citing concerns about the risk of heart inflammation associated with the vaccines, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration asked Pfizer and Moderna to expand the number of children in their clinical trials.

Why Germany Has Won and Italy Has Lost

By Manlio Dinucci, July 28, 2021

German Chancellor Merkel – writes Alberto Negri (il manifesto, July 23) – has resisted the pressure of three U.S. administrations – Obama, Trump and Biden – to cancel North Stream 2, the pipeline that flanks the North Stream inaugurated ten years ago, doubling the supply of Russian gas to Germany.

“Learning to Loath GMOs”: Genetic Engineering, Genetic Modified Plants, Biotechnology and Big Agriculture

By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null, July 28, 2021

The Times article makes an effort to advance the flawed agro-chemical mantra of “substantial equivalence” without citing the term.

The Corona “War on Reality”. School Closures and the Hardships of Our Children

By Alex Gutentag, July 28, 2021

“Public health” and “the safety of our children” came to mean students Zooming from homeless encampments, experiencing severe abuse, regressing academically, falling into depression, going hungry, struggling through catastrophic learning loss, and, in the saddest cases, not making it through the year alive.

British Government Adviser Who Warned of 200,000 COVID Cases a Day Faces Scrutiny after Dramatic Fall in UK Infections

By Paul Joseph Watson, July 28, 2021

Professor Neil Ferguson, the controversial epidemiologist who predicted there would be as many as 200,000 COVID cases a day in the UK if restrictions were lifted, is facing scrutiny after infections continued to drop for the 6th day in a row.

Video: No Scientific Reason to Vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2: Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi

By Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, July 28, 2021

Dr. Bhakdi explains clearly, based on new scientific evidence, why he believes your immune system is your best defence against SARS-CoV-2, and indeed all coronaviruses.

Pentagon Chief Calls for Southeast Asian, Asia-Pacific Military Alliance Against China

By Rick Rozoff, July 28, 2021

In accusing China of “genocide and crimes against humanity,” he used the exact language used by NATO to justify waging its air wars against Yugoslavia and Libya.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: #Yes, It’s a “Killer Vaccine”. They Are Killing Our Children
  • Tags:

The Same Shady People Own Big Pharma and the Media

July 29th, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

First published on June 15, 2021

Big Pharma and mainstream media are largely owned by two asset management firms: BlackRock and Vanguard

Drug companies are driving COVID-19 responses — all of which, so far, have endangered rather than optimized public health — and mainstream media have been willing accomplices in spreading their propaganda, a false official narrative that leads the public astray and fosters fear based on lies

Vanguard and BlackRock are the top two owners of Time Warner, Comcast, Disney and News Corp, four of the six media companies that control more than 90% of the U.S. media landscape

BlackRock and Vanguard form a secret monopoly that own just about everything else you can think of too. In all, they have ownership in 1,600 American firms, which in 2015 had combined revenues of $9.1 trillion. When you add in the third-largest global owner, State Street, their combined ownership encompasses nearly 90% of all S&P 500 firms

Vanguard is the largest shareholder of BlackRock. Vanguard itself, on the other hand, has a unique structure that makes its ownership more difficult to discern, but many of the oldest, richest families in the world can be linked to Vanguard funds

*

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. Moreover, it turns out these two companies form a secret monopoly that own just about everything else you can think of too. As reported in the featured video:1,2

“The stock of the world’s largest corporations are owned by the same institutional investors. They all own each other. This means that ‘competing’ brands, like Coke and Pepsi aren’t really competitors, at all, since their stock is owned by exactly the same investment companies, investment funds, insurance companies, banks and in some cases, governments.

The smaller investors are owned by larger investors. Those are owned by even bigger investors. The visible top of this pyramid shows only two companies whose names we have often seen …They are Vanguard and BlackRock.

The power of these two companies is beyond your imagination. Not only do they own a large part of the stocks of nearly all big companies but also the stocks of the investors in those companies. This gives them a complete monopoly.

A Bloomberg report states that both these companies in the year 2028, together will have investments in the amount of 20 trillion dollars. That means that they will own almost everything.’”

Who Are the Vanguard?

The word “vanguard” means “the foremost position in an army or fleet advancing into battle,” and/or “the leading position in a trend or movement.” Both are fitting descriptions of this global behemoth, owned by globalists pushing for a Great Reset, the core of which is the transfer of wealth and ownership from the hands of the many into the hands of the very few.

Interestingly, Vanguard is the largest shareholder of BlackRock, as of March 2021.3,4 Vanguard itself, on the other hand, has a “unique” corporate structure that makes its ownership more difficult to discern. It’s owned by its various funds, which in turn are owned by the shareholders. Aside from these shareholders, it has no outside investors and is not publicly traded.5 As reported in the featured video:6,7

“The elite who own Vanguard apparently do not like being in the spotlight but of course they cannot hide from who is willing to dig. Reports from Oxfam and Bloomberg say that 1% of the world, together owns more money than the other 99%. Even worse, Oxfam says that 82% of all earned money in 2017 went to this 1%.

In other words, these two investment companies, Vanguard and BlackRock hold a monopoly in all industries in the world and they, in turn are owned by the richest families in the world, some of whom are royalty and who have been very rich since before the Industrial Revolution.”

While it would take time to sift through all of Vanguard’s funds to identify individual shareholders, and therefore owners of Vanguard, a quick look-see suggests Rothschild Investment Corp.8 and the Edmond De Rothschild Holding are two such stakeholders.9 Keep the name Rothschild in your mind as you read on, as it will feature again later.

The video above also identifies the Italian Orsini family, the American Bush family, the British Royal family, the du Pont family, the Morgans, Vanderbilts and Rockefellers, as Vanguard owners.

BlackRock/Vanguard Own Big Pharma

According to Simply Wall Street, in February 2020, BlackRock and Vanguard were the two largest shareholders of GlaxoSmithKline, at 7% and 3.5% of shares respectively.10 At Pfizer, the ownership is reversed, with Vanguard being the top investor and BlackRock the second-largest stockholder.11

Top 10 Owners of Pfizer Inc

Keep in mind that stock ownership ratios can change at any time, since companies buy and sell on a regular basis, so don’t get hung up on percentages. The bottom line is that BlackRock and Vanguard, individually and combined, own enough shares at any given time that we can say they easily control both Big Pharma and the centralized legacy media — and then some.

Why does this matter? It matters because drug companies are driving COVID-19 responses — all of which, so far, have endangered rather than optimized public health — and mainstream media have been willing accomplices in spreading their propaganda, a false official narrative that has, and still is, leading the public astray and fosters fear based on lies.

To have any chance of righting this situation, we must understand who the central players are, where the harmful dictates are coming from, and why these false narratives are being created in the first place.

As noted in Global Justice Now’s December 2020 report12 “The Horrible History of Big Pharma,” we simply cannot allow drug companies — “which have a long track record of prioritizing corporate profit over people’s health” — to continue to dictate COVID-19 responses.

In it, they review the shameful history of the top seven drug companies in the world that are now developing and manufacturing drugs and gene-based “vaccines” against COVID-19, while mainstream media have helped suppress information about readily available older drugs that have been shown to have a high degree of efficacy against the infection.

BlackRock/Vanguard Own the Media

When it comes to The New York Times, as of May 2021, BlackRock is the second-largest stockholder at 7.43% of total shares, just after The Vanguard Group, which owns the largest portion (8.11%).13,14

In addition to The New York Times, Vanguard and BlackRock are also the top two owners of Time Warner, Comcast, Disney and News Corp, four of the six media companies that control more than 90% of the U.S. media landscape.15,16

Needless to say, if you have control of this many news outlets, you can control entire nations by way of carefully orchestrated and organized centralized propaganda disguised as journalism.

BlackRock/Vanguard Own the Media

If your head is spinning already, you’re not alone. It’s difficult to describe circular and tightly interwoven relationships in a linear fashion. The world of corporate ownership is labyrinthine, where everyone seems to own everyone, to some degree.

However, the key take-home message is that two companies stand out head and neck above all others, and that’s BlackRock and Vanguard. Together, they form a hidden monopoly on global asset holdings, and through their influence over our centralized media, they have the power to manipulate and control a great deal of the world’s economy and events, and how the world views it all.

Considering BlackRock in 2018 announced that it has “social expectations” from the companies it invests in,17 its potential role as a central hub in the Great Reset and the “build back better” plan cannot be overlooked.

Add to this information showing it “undermines competition through owning shares in competing companies” and “blurs boundaries between private capital and government affairs by working closely with regulators,” and one would be hard-pressed to not see how BlackRock/Vanguard and their globalist owners might be able to facilitate the Great Reset and the so-called “green” revolution, both of which are part of the same wealth-theft scheme.

BlackRock and Vanguard Own the World

That assertion will become even clearer once you realize that this duo’s influence is not limited to Big Pharma and the media. Importantly, BlackRock also works closely with central banks around the world, including the U.S. Federal Reserve, which is a private entity, not a federal one.18,19 It lends money to the central bank, acts as an adviser to it, and develops the central bank’s software.20

BlackRock/Vanguard also own shares of long list of other companies, including Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Alphabet Inc.21 As illustrated in the graphic of BlackRock and Vanguard’s ownership network below,22 featured in the 2017 article “These Three Firms Own Corporate America” in The Conversation, it would be near-impossible to list them all.

In all, BlackRock and Vanguard have ownership in some 1,600 American firms, which in 2015 had combined revenues of $9.1 trillion. When you add in the third-largest global owner, State Street, their combined ownership encompasses nearly 90% of all S&P 500 firms.23

Network of ownership by the Big Three in listed US firms

A Global Monopoly Few Know Anything About

Watch the video here.

To tease out the overarching influence of BlackRock and Vanguard in the global marketplace, be sure to watch the 45-minute-long video featured at the top of this article. It provides a wide-view summary of the hidden monopoly network of Vanguard- and BlackRock-owned corporations, and their role in the Great Reset. A second much shorter video (above) offers an additional review of this information.

How can we tie BlackRock/Vanguard — and the globalist families that own them — to the Great Reset? Barring a public confession, we have to look at the relationships between these behemoth globalist-owned corporations and consider the influence they can wield through those relationships. As noted by Lew Rockwell:24

“When Lynn Forester de Rothschild wants the United States to be a one-party country (like China) and doesn’t want voter ID laws passed in the U.S., so that more election fraud can be perpetrated to achieve that end, what does she do?

She holds a conference call with the world’s top 100 CEOs and tells them to publicly decry as ‘Jim Crow’ Georgia’s passing of an anti-corruption law and she orders her dutiful CEOs to boycott the State of Georgia, like we saw with Coca-Cola and Major League Baseball and even Hollywood star, Will Smith.

In this conference call, we see shades of the Great Reset, Agenda 2030, the New World Order. The UN wants to make sure, as does [World Economic Forum founder and executive chairman Klaus] Schwab that in 2030, poverty, hunger, pollution and disease no longer plague the Earth.

To achieve this, the UN wants taxes from Western countries to be split by the mega corporations of the elite to create a brand-new society. For this project, the UN says we need a world government — namely the UN, itself.”

As I’ve reviewed in many previous articles, it seems quite clear that the COVID-19 pandemic was orchestrated to bring about this New World Order — the Great Reset — and the 45-minute video featured at top of article does a good job of explaining how this was done. And at the heart of it all, the “heart” toward which all global wealth streams flow, we find BlackRock and Vanguard.

*

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

Notes

1, 6 SGT Report May 6, 2021

2, 7, 20, 24 Lew Rockwell April 21, 2021

3, 18 Reuters January 30, 2021

4 Stockzoa.com BlackRock Investors

5 Investopedia June 22, 2019

8 Fintel Rothschild

9 Fintel Edmond De Rothschild

10 Simply Wall Street February 3, 2020

11 Twitter Peter Dunne May 30, 2021 Top 10 Owners of Pfizer screenshot

12 Global Justice Now, The Horrible History of Big Pharma

13 Harvard University New York Times May 11, 2021

14 Twitter Peter Dunne May 30, 2021

15 Reddit Media Controlled by Just Six Companies

16 Global Issues Media Conglomerates January 2, 2009

17 Investigate-Europe.eu May 2018

19 Wall Street on Parade June 4, 2020

21 Holdings Channel BlackRock Stock Holdings

22, 23 The Conversation May 10, 2017

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Fingerprints on Terrorism Aimed at China-Pakistan Economic Corridor

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

.

A group of “citizens” of the Andromeda Galaxy, the closest to our Milky Way, but still about 2.5 million light years away from planet Earth – People of Peace – wanted to visit Mother Earth, the beautiful blue planet. They must have heard lots of good things about our planet, many light years back. The Andromeda people’s nutrition is love. When they landed on earth, they first were thrilled – the breathtaking landscape, mountains, lakes, still fresh air, forests – though rapidly diminishing. They ignored the latter, because of the beauty of the former. But gradually they started starving – they had to leave. They found no love on Earth….

***

Lost Love. The Gladiator Games are over, the soccer players went home, both in South America and in Europe, to continue celebrating without masks and without social distancing – and the Olympics in Japan will be taking place in virtual mode, arenas without live spectators. The infection case numbers are on the rise, a scaringly rapid rise, the Delta Variant and Wave Four are at the doorstep, actually they are knocking at the door – in some US States at least, and soon in Europe – to give you a last chance to get the wonder jab.

The directors of the world, the Merkels, Macrons and other compromised world leaders, plus their nameless tiny elite-bosses way above them – are calling for tightening the screws again. To use Madame Merkel’s terminology of what she decided to do with the German people a few months ago. She has hardly loosened the screws since.

The populace has had their summer fun. They have enjoyed their Gladiators.

Now reality sets in again. Preparation for the Fourth Wave. New lockdowns.

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

The tyrants, first in disguise, then in semi-disguise – and now with the Fourth Wave coming, they show their true face – wide open. No scruples. They have been given their quota of vaxxing by the higher masters, and god-forbid, they may not reach their targets.

The Presidents of Tanzania and Burundi, they did not want to jab their people with poisonous mRNA inoculations. They knew about and had natural remedies to heal. While there is no firm evidence, they died mysterious deaths. Just a few months ago. And nobody dares to investigate them.

Source Al Jazeera, January 21, 2021

The President of Haiti, Jovenel Moïse (A right wing president who was the object of mass protests), on 7 July 2021, was assassinated in the middle of the night in his bed, by a well-organized group of 28 mercenaries, they say.

He too, said there was no need to jab Haitians. They were free of masks, and they were free to hug and socialize. No social distancing. And Haiti’s “case numbers” and deaths were very low. Proportionately much lower than the artificially blown out of proportion, fear-inducing “cases”, disease and death numbers of the obedient tyrannical West. (See Open Democracy)

Haiti was the only country in the Western Hemisphere which refused to implement the mRNA vaccine.

In a bitter irony, immediately following Jovenal Moise’s assassination, President Joe Biden sent half a million vaccine doses (and more to come) (courtesy of Uncle Sam) which were promptly delivered to Port au Prince (six days later) on July 14.

 

Remember Agenda ID2020?

See this and this.

What we are living today, is the Lockstep Scenario, according to the infamous 2010 Rockefeller Report, confirmed by Klaus Schwab’s (WEF) “The Great Reset”.

These Rockefeller Report’s four scenarios (Lock Step; Clever Together; Hack Attack; and Smart Scramble), have been on the drawing board for decades. Ever so often we were told and warned about the deadly actions they had in store for us.

This is part of their cult. They have to tell people. And they did on numerous occasions.

But nobody listened. For example, by publishing the 2010 Rockefeller Report which was never a secret. Not even now. See this. (p. 34)

Have you noticed, the scenario “Hack Attack” is being tried out, in plain sight?

The highly propagated blame and breach of cyber security is on Russia and China. And hardly anybody is linking it to the openly displayed chapter “Hack Attack” of the 2010 Rockefeller report (p 34).

How come? Are we so blind or brain-brushed and brain-washed to ignore the open warnings we receive?

Then almost simultaneously, Bill Gate’s TedTalk in February 2010, in Southern California, where he says “If we are doing a real good job, we could reduce world population by 10% to 15%”; see this, called “Innovating to Zero”.

And then there is this “Luciferian” Swiss Gotthard tunnel inauguration in June 2016.

People say Switzerland is one of the cults main hubs. All of the European government “leaders” and other hot shots were sitting in the front line to watch this nefarious spectacle – that just coincidentally starts with a “lockstep scenario” – watch this 6 min very revealing youtube (below). Also see this.

Event 201

As if this is not enough, there was Event 201 that took place on 18 October 2019, in NYC, just a few weeks before the “start” of the pandemic, what turned out to be a plandemic. It was sponsored by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security (funded by the Rockefeller Foundation) in partnership with the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, with the participation of WHO, UNICEF, other UN agencies, and – of course, the World Bank, the IMF and many more.

The event portrayed a simulation of things to come, a corona virus à la SARS (China 2002 / 2003), thus called SARS-CoV-2, later renamed by WHO to Covid-19 (the disease), a simulation of what we are living since the beginning of 2020. The simulated virus caused 65 million deaths in 18 months, destroyed the world economy and left humanity in chaotic shambles. See this.

Surely, there were many more such introductory demonstrations on what “they” intend to do with us. Even though, they played out right in front of our eyes, we largely ignored them all.

This profoundly immoral and criminal endeavor has been on the drawing board for years. The final and formal decision to go ahead NOW, albeit planned, was taken in January 2020 at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos – behind closed doors, of course. The Gates, GAVI (an association of vaccination-promoting pharmaceuticals), Rockefellers, Rothschilds et al, they are all behind this decision – the implementation of Agenda ID2020 – see links above.

The key points and predictions of these Agenda ID2020-linked articles, were published by GR on 12 March 2020.

The Coronavirus Vaccine: The Real Danger is “Agenda ID2020”. Vaccination as a Platform for “Digital Identity”By Peter Koenig, March 12, 2020

These key points are the following:

(i) “Force vaccination, under police and / or military surveillance. Those who refuse may be penalized (fines and / or jail – and force-vaccinated all the same);”

(ii) “People really don’t know what kind of cocktail will be put into the vaccine, maybe a slow killer, that acts-up only in a few years – or a disease that hits only the next generation – or a brain debilitating agent, or a gene that renders women infertile …. all is possible – always with the aim of full population control and population reduction. In a few years’ time, one doesn’t know, of course, where the disease comes from. That’s the level of technology our bio-war labs have reached (US, UK, Israel, Canada, Australia…);” – See this.

(iii) “Along with the vaccination – if not with the first one, then possibly with a later one, a nano-chip may be injected, unknown to the person being vaccinated. The chip may be remotely charged with all your personal data, including bank accounts – digital money. Yes, digital money that’s what “they” are aiming at, so you really have no control any more over your health, and other intimate data, but also over your earnings and spending. Your money could be blocked, or taken away – as a ‘sanction’ for misbehavior, for swimming against the stream. You may become a mere slave of the masters. Comparatively, feudalism may appear like a walk in the park.”

Lo and behold, precisely this is happening. We thought forced vaccination is anti-constitutional and could never happen. But it is just in the process of being imposed. Why is it possible? Because the constitutional democratic rights of people throughout Europe and most of the Western World, have quietly been overtaken by “Health Martial Laws” that were quickly passed through the respective Parliaments, with most people not even noticing.

And as to what’s in the vaccines, mostly nefarious organ destroying toxins, mostly graphene oxide. See also Spanish research team report  entitled “Graphene Oxide Detection in Aqueous Suspension”.

This means, our Constitutional Human and Civil Rights have been suspended. The governments can do whatever they want, in the name of health. They can storm your house, arrest you, fine you, put you in jail, or even in a mental hospital. All has already happened, with the mainstream media hardly reporting on it.

Keep one thing in mind though – and that is very important keeping always before your eyes and in your mind: Tyrants don’t create tyranny; people do – by their obedience.

Keep also in mind, all the mainstream media are bought by governments and by the order-giving cult, above the governments.

As an example, in tiny Switzerland with 8.4 million people, the Government had just a few weeks ago decided to increase the “subsidies” to the (mainstream) media by another 120 million Swiss francs (about US$ 132 million), to an annual aggregate total of close to half a billion Swiss francs, or about 550 million dollars. That sum “obliges”.

Imagine, what sums are being dished out to the media in the rest of Europe, the US and most of the all-coerced 193 UN member countries!

Forced Vaccination announced in France on Bastille Day

Now comes the BREAKING: On 13 July, a day before the French National Independence Day, the Bastille Day, the very day celebrating the French Revolution – 14 July 1789, when the French broke loose from Royal feudalism, when they gave an example for others to follow – on that very occasion, French President Macron announced forced vaccination, to begin with all health services employees; no attending of public events, taking public transportations, a ban on movie theatres, restaurants and even shops – and of course no flying – for unvaxxed people. See this.

This was foreseeable, as Germany, Greece, Canada and others have passed similar laws. Others are to follow – probably the Netherlands, Italy and Spain. Boris Johnson, UK, may join the gang later.

As of 19 July he declared the UK totally free of any covid restrictions. Maybe he has fulfilled his vaxx-quota? And gives people – or rather the economy – a little reprieve, before the cult cracks down on him and other coopted-coerced leaders (sic) again. There is a lot to be done to complete the UN Agenda 2030 – and, foremost Agenda ID2020.

On 14 of July 2021, French Bastille Day – instead of celebrating the French prowess of freeing themselves from feudalism and aristocratic oppression 232 years ago, millions took to the streets in Paris and major French cities to demonstrate against Macron and his abject dictatorship. What they will achieve remains to be seen. The mainstream media hardly covered the protests. Of course, not. They are paid not to incite people to bond in solidarity.

Apropos solidarity, a little anecdote. Swiss citizens, as a step towards a direct democracy, have, since the Constitutional Revision of 1891, the right to launch a referendum against a law. It takes 50,000 validated signatures. As somewhat a surprise, on 7 March 2021 a people’s referendum rejected a law governing a proposed electronic identity system, the so-called e-ID Act, i.e., Agenda ID2020, by more than two thirds majority. The Swiss ID2020 would have connected everything to everything on personal data.

The key reason for such a clear rejection was most likely the Swiss government’s intent to privatize the data handling and management of ID2020. Can you imagine, a bank or insurance company handling your very sensitive personal data, possibly even selling it to marketing companies or to foreign secret service agencies! Well, that didn’t pass.

In September 2020, the Swiss Parliament quietly passed a law giving the government “martial powers” over matters concerning Covid-19. This Health Martial Law would be valid until 2031. An Association of “Friends of the Constitution” was formed, launching a referendum against this law. On 13 June, the referendum was rejected by the people and the law prevailed.

However, after the law passed Parliament, a small but significant amendment was introduced into the Covid-19 law. The Friends of the Constitution launched immediately a new referendum. This time in less than 5 weeks, 187,000 signatures were collected, an all-time record for a referendum in the 130 years of the Swiss Right to Referendum. The new Referendum will be voted on in November 2021. Let’s wait and see, whether this time people will reject the Swiss Health Martial Law.

The 187,000 signatures are a clear sign of a growing anti-covid, anti-oppression movement, or awakening, in Switzerland. When “Friends of the Constitution” was created in the summer 2020, they counted a few dozen people. Now, a year later, their membership has grown to over 10,000.

In most other European countries, a covid martial law was passed by Parliament or by government decree, with no saying by the people.

The key in a situation like the one the world faces today, where a small cult of evil, but dirty rich people, attempt to take control of the world, of the population, of the financial system, of the manufacturing and infrastructure apparatus – peoples’ solidarity in spirit and in actions, is key.

We are 99.999 %, they are 0.001% or less. We shall overcome their nefarious tyrannical attempt to rule the world, attempt to do away with sovereign nation states – and convert a drastically reduced world population into a One World Order – OWO, or a New World Order. They shall not succeed.  But we must remain peaceful, non-aggressive – but in solid solidarity, steadily moving forward, like a flowing stream, gathering ever more momentum and strength – towards a mankind and sovereign states with a shared future.

*

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

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

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He is also a non-resident Sr. Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Featured image is from Zero Hedge

Dear Readers,

We are in the midst of an unprecedented global crisis. In an increasingly polarized and crazy world, truly independent news and analysis is a vital tool which sustains democratic values worldwide.

We are currently facing an unprecedented threat to the independent media and freedom of expression on the internet.  

The ultimate goal is the silencing of any voice of opposition to the mainstream narrative.

To ensure the longevity of Global Research, we need your help! Our content will always be free, but your donations and membership subscriptions are essential to the functioning of our website. Free content involves some very real costs. We cannot meet these costs without your support. Please click below to make a donation or become a member now.

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation


Click to become a member (receive free books!):

Click to view our membership plans


Thank you for supporting independent media.

The Global Research Team

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Threat to Independent Media and Freedom on the Internet: Support Global Research!
  • Tags:

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

According to a Spanish research team, graphene oxide is also contained in the Covid mRNA vaccine vial.

For Further details, click here

First published by Global Research on July 12, 2021

***

UPDATE April 2, 2021: Health Canada have issued an advisory asking people not to “use face masks labelled to contain graphene or biomass graphene.” More information here.

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

Featured image is from OffGuardian


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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Citing concerns about the risk of heart inflammation associated with the vaccines, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration asked Pfizer and Moderna to expand the number of children in their clinical trials.

Pfizer and Moderna will increase the number of children in their COVID vaccine clinical trials prior to seeking Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) told the vaccine makers the size and scope of their pediatric studies, as initially envisioned, were inadequate to detect rare side effects.

The rare side effects cited by the FDA include myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis, inflammation of the lining around the heart, multiple people familiar with the trials told The New York Times.

Moderna’s shot is authorized for emergency use in people 18 and up, and Pfizer’s vaccine is authorized for children as young as 12. No COVID vaccines have yet received EUA approval for children younger than 12.

Expanding the pediatric trials means thousands more children as young as 6 months old may soon be recruited and enrolled in COVID vaccine trials.

According to the Times, the FDA asked the companies to include 3,000 children in the 5- to 11-year-old group, the group for whom results were expected first.

One person, granted anonymity by the Times to speak freely, described that figure as double the original number of study participants.

Moderna researchers had intended to test the vaccine in about 7,000 children, with some as young as 6 months, according to ABC News, but the company told the news outlet today in an email they never decided on how many kids would be added to the trial.

Pfizer began testing its vaccine in children ages 5 to 11 on June 8, with those younger than 5 being included as of June 21. The study will involve up to 4,500 subjects from the U.S., Finland, Poland and Spain, according to the Wall Street Journal, which also reported the company declined to say whether the recent request from the FDA will change the timing of any authorization submissions.

Last month, Pfizer and Moderna said their vaccines for children 5 through 11 could be ready as early as September. Pfizer, which is on a faster timetable than Moderna, may be able to meet the FDA’s expectations on a bigger trial size and still file a request for expanded EUA by the end of September, the Times reported.

A federal official, who spoke to the Washington Post on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, predicted authorization of a COVID vaccine for children 5 through 11 might come by late October or early November.

The government is not expecting it will be a big problem to enroll more children because so many parents are eager to get their children vaccinated, the official said.

Heart inflammation in teens raises red flag

Moderna spokesman Ray Jordan told the Post the goal is “to enroll a larger safety database which increases the likelihood of detecting rarer events.”

According The Washington Post:

“The FDA wants to be particularly careful about the possibility of children developing myocarditis, or heart inflammation, after receiving a coronavirus vaccine. Adolescents who receive the vaccines are more likely to develop myocarditis than adults — though the risk remains small — and officials want to increase the chances that the trials will indicate whether there is increased incidence of heart inflammation in children.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in June acknowledged 1,200 cases of heart inflammation in 16- to 24-year-olds, and said mRNA COVID vaccines should carry a warning statement. The FDA followed by adding the warning.

According to the latest data available, the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System has received 383 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis in vaccine recipients between the ages of 12 and 17 years old, with 379 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.

For all age groups during the same period, 1,848 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were reported to VAERS, with 1,176 cases attributed to Pfizer, 606 cases to Moderna and 62 cases to J&J’s COVID vaccine.

The data reflects reports received between Dec. 14, 2020 and July 16, 2021. The FDA first authorized Pfizer’s vaccine for 12- to 15-year-olds in May of this year.

Despite the known cases and the FDA warning, the CDC said the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risk.

Doctors weigh in on ill-advised rush to vaccinate kids

The authors of an op-ed published earlier this month in The BMJ argued that even if one assumes the vaccine provides protection against severe COVID, 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, they said.

They wrote:

“In the clinical trial underlying the authorization of Pfizer-BioNTech’s mRNA vaccine in children aged 12 to 15, of the close to 1000 children who received placebo, 16 tested positive for COVID-19, compared to none in the fully vaccinated group.

“Given this low incidence, the fact that COVID-19 is generally asymptomatic or mild in children, and the high rate of adverse events in those vaccinated (e.g. in Pfizer’s trial of 12-15 year olds, 3 in 4 kids had fatigue and headaches, around half had chills and muscle pain, and around 1 in 4 to 5 had a fever and joint pain), a comparison of quality-adjusted life-years in the trial would very much favor the placebo group.”

Doctors for COVID Ethics, an EU-based international alliance of hundreds of concerned doctors and scientists, said COVID vaccines are not only “unnecessary and ineffective,” but also “dangerous for children and adolescents.”

Three of the group’s founding signatoriesDr. Michael Palmer (Canada), Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, (Germany) and Stefan Hockertz, Ph.D. (Germany) — assembled in one document powerful expert evidence that highlights the Pfizer vaccine’s “catastrophically bad” safety profile in both adults and adolescents.

In an open letter to the EU’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, more than 40 doctors, medics and scientists in the UK said children are more vulnerable to the potential long-term effects of COVID vaccines.

Vaccinating kids for COVID is “irresponsible, unethical and unnecessary,” they said.

The letter warned against vaccinating people under 18 because evidence shows the virus poses almost no risk to healthy children. The risk of death from COVID in healthy children is 1 in 1.25 million, the authors wrote.

COVID vaccines, however, are linked to strokes due to cerebral venous thromboses in people under 40 — a finding that “led to the suspension of the Oxford-AstraZeneca children’s trial,” the authors said.

The doctors wrote:

“Children have a lifetime ahead of them, and their immunological and neurological systems are still in development, making them potentially more vulnerable to adverse effects than adults.”

According to the latest available data for 12- to 17-year-olds, between Dec. 14, 2020 and July 16, 2021, VAERS received a total of 14,494 reports of adverse events related to COVID vaccines, including 871 rated as serious and 17 deaths.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

What this article fails to acknowledge is that Neil Ferguson’s “Mathematical Model” was generously funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The unspoken objective was to spearhead the fear campaign as well as provide a pretext and a justification to impose the March 2020 lockdown which resulted in the near closing down of the national economies of 190 member states of the United Nations, creating economic, social and political chaos Worldwide. 

This was “fake science” in support of powerful financial interests. To put it mildly, the scrutiny should also apply to the sponsors of  the lockdown

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research. July 28, 2021

***

Professor Neil Ferguson, the controversial epidemiologist who predicted there would be as many as 200,000 COVID cases a day in the UK if restrictions were lifted, is facing scrutiny after infections continued to drop for the 6th day in a row.

The day before so-called ‘freedom day’ in England, where most mask mandates and social distancing restrictions were lifted, Ferguson was asked by the BBC’s Andrew Marr where the country was heading as a result.

“It’s very difficult to say for certain, but I think 100,000 cases a day is almost inevitable,” said Ferguson, adding, “The real question is do we get to double that or higher? We could get to 200,000 cases a day.”

The professor went on to warn of “major disruption” to the NHS and the interruption of elective surgeries.

Ferguson is being proven wrong by the statistics once again, which today showed there were 24,950 new coronavirus cases, the sixth consecutive daily fall.

“Lockdown zealots will attribute this decline to the vaccines, but that begs the question of why they weren’t confident the vaccines would prevent cases from surging when they predicted armageddon last Monday?” asks Toby Young.

As Christopher Snowdon highlights, the scientists who claimed England’s unlocking represented “a threat to world” are also being proven spectacularly wrong. SAGE government advisers who claimed that relaxing restrictions was “a dangerous and unethical experiment” also face embarrassment.

The issue once again begs the question; Why does the government continue to follow advice given by arch-lockdown advocates who have got it wrong time and time again?

Don’t forget that it was Ferguson who infamously warned that half a million Brits would die without a draconian lockdown, despite the fact that countries like Sweden which didn’t impose lockdown had similar waves and infection rates.

Not only has Ferguson repeatedly proven himself to be totally unreliable (after having already disgraced himself during the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak), but he infamously betrayed what he really thought about the severity of the pandemic via his own behavior.

During the first lockdown, when Ferguson himself was predicting up to half a million deaths, the professor took the threat of the virus so seriously, he allowed his mistress to violate the rules by traveling back and forth across London to continue the pair’s sordid affair.

“It’s OK when we do it!”

*

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

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In its July 19th issue, the New York Times Magazine published, in our opinion, a brilliant piece of twisted pseudo-scientific propaganda. The essay, entitled “Learning to Love GMOs,” is truly stunning. Its author, journalist Jennifer Kahn, takes readers who would have little to no understanding of genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms (GMO) through a fictional labyrinth of out-dated and conflated GMO similitudes to an end point where readers might believe GMOs are really cool and there is nothing to be frantically worried about.

Kahn spins the story of Cathie Martin’s research to develop a genetically engineered purple tomato high in the anti-oxidant anthocyacin as the work of a solo humanitarian to improve consumers’ health by providing nutrient-rich GMO produce. What is missing from Kahn’s equation is that the research was conducted at one of the world’s oldest and most prestigious independent centers for plant science, the Johns Innes Centre (JIC) in the UK. The Centre, which is registered as a charity, lists over 500 employees and is funded by some of the largest proponents of genetic-modified plants, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. JIC’s website includes purple tomatoes as one of its projects that combines “transcription factors, biosynthetic genes and iRNA [interference RNA] with the availability of natural tomato mutants.”  iRNA, or Post-Transcriptional Gene Slicing, is a method to silence certain genes that researchers desire to curtail their expression.

The Times article makes an effort to advance the flawed agro-chemical mantra of “substantial equivalence” without citing the term. Substantial equivalence is a metaphysical belief that natural foods and crops can serve as a basis for determining the safety and nutritional profiles for foods engineered by genetic biotechnological methods. The early acceptance of GMOs was largely based upon the unproven hypothesis of “substantial equivalence.” The USDA’s adoption of this concept during Bill Clinton’s first term in the White House gave GM seed companies a free pass to avoid submitting trial evidence to prove the environmental and health safety of genetically modified crops. Since the ruling claims that GMOs genetically function identically to their natural counterparts, no compliance of safety regulations should necessarily apply. Therefore Big Ag firms did not have to worry over strict regulatory hurdles, which otherwise apply to other products such as pharmaceutical drugs, processed foods, pesticides, cosmetics and chemical additives.

However, during the past decade a flurry of research has shown that the “substantial equivalence” hypothesis is patently false. Alexandria University in Egypt, the Permaculture Research Institute and the Norwegian Center for Biosafety each found genetically modified crops to be fundamentally different. In addition, studies have confirmed that nutrient levels in traditional, organically raised grown crops are substantially higher than GM varieties. New technological methods to create concise profiles of a food’s molecular composition, notably “omics,” were not available in the early 1990s when Clinton wore the mantle as America’s first biotech president. Omic technology destroyed the Big Ag’s industry’s arguments to support the lie about substantial equivalence. For example, Kings College London published a study in Scientific Reports of Nature revealing unquestionable genetic consequences between GMO Roundup and non-GMO corn. The differences include changes in 117 proteins and 91 metabolites.

Despite “substantial equivalence” having been debunked, the erroneous hypothesis continues to linger in pro-GMO propaganda. However, in Kahn’s recent essay, she attempts to shift attention away from the early generation of GMOs, which were engineered solely to sell more toxic pesticides, and emphasize GMO’s potential for increasing nutritional health and to advance medicine. In order to add a bit of balance, Kahn quotes James Madison University professor Alan Levinovitz who accurately described one fundamental criticism, among many others, against GMOs. “With genetic engineering there’s a feeling that we’re mucking about with the essential building blocks of reality,” Levinovitz stated. “We may feel OK about rearranging genes, the way nature does, but we’re not comfortable mixing them up between creatures.”

But most disturbing is Kahn’s failure to make any mention of the trail of environmental disasters and disease risks due to consuming genetically modified foods. She whitewashes the matter; she prefers we may forget that Monsanto’s soy and corn, which now represent the majority of these foods grown in the US, was developed solely to allow farmers to spray highly toxic pesticides without injuring the crops.

These crops contain notable concentrations of the pesticides that then find their way into numerous consumer food products including baby foods. Nor should we forget that Round-Up grown foods may be destroying people’s microbiome.  Last year, researchers at the University of Turku in Finland reported a “conservative estimate that approximately 54% of organisms in our microbiome are “potentially sensitive” to glyphosate. Despite her pro-GMO advocacy, Kahn could have taken a moral high road to at least apologize on Monsanto’s behalf for the disasters glyphosate has left in its wake. The company has yet to atone despite losing three trials with $2.4 billion fines, repeated appeal losses, and being ordered to pay $10.5 billion in settlements. To date Monsanto’s glyphosate poisoning has been identified with the suppression of essential gut enzymes and amino acid synthesis, gluten intolerance, disruption of manganese pathways, neurological disease, cancer, amyloidosis and autoimmune disease. Her New York Times article would have better served the improvement of public health as a warning rather than an applause to appease companies such as Bayer/Monsanto and Syngenta. And shame on the New York Times’ editors for permitting such biased misinformation to find its way into print.

Kahn is eager to cite findings showing GMO benefits without indicating her sources. She tells us that environmental groups have “quietly walked back their opposition as evidence has mounted that GMOs are both safe to eat and not inherently bad for the environment.” Kahn doesn’t mention who these groups might be. She reframes the Philippine story of the destruction of genetically engineered Golden Rice; yet around that time even the pro-industry magazine Forbes published an article questioning Golden Rice’s viability and noting that its benefits are only based upon unfounded hypotheses. As for its risks to health, GM Watch in the UK points out the work conducted by David Schubert at the Salk Institute revealed that the rice might potentially generate Vitamin A derivatives that could “damage human fetuses and cause birth defects.”

Kahn, who should be acknowledged as a highly respected science journalist and teaches journalism at the University of California’s Berkeley campus, happens to be a contributing author for the Genetic Literacy Project (GLP) at the University of California at Davis, acts more like a public relations operation sponsored by the agro-chemical industry.  Monsanto/Bayer, Syngenta and DuPont are among GLP’s industry partners.

It is one of the most frequently quoted sources of cherry-picked information by pro-GMO advocates and journalists. In our opinion, it is perhaps one of the most financially compromised and scientifically illiterate organizations, founded and funded to disseminate pro-GMO propaganda in order to prop up public support for GMOs and genetic engineering in general. In effect, some universities now act as private industry’s lobbyists. This becomes a greater scandal when the university is a public institution receiving public funding.  GLP and its east coast partner, Cornell University’s Alliance for Science, largely funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, serve as the GMO industry’s clearing houses for public relations to spin science into advertising, propaganda and character assassination of GM opponents.

The Genetic Literacy Project is a key collaborator with another food industry front organization, the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). ACSH has nothing to do with actual health science. It has been described by the independent corporate financial watchdog organization Sourcewatch as a thinly veiled corporate front that holds “a generally apologetic stance regarding virtually every other health and environmental hazard produced by modern industry, accepting corporate funding from Coca-Cola, Syngenta, Proctor Gamble, Kellogg, General Mills, Pepsico, and the American Beverage Association, among others.” ACSH also favors toxic pesticides, the use of biphenol A in products, cigarettes and hydrofracking.  It is closely aligned with pseudo-medical front organizations that criticize alternative and natural health modalities, such as Quackwatch and the Science Based Medicine network.

GLP sources a couple thousand corporate-friendly studies favoring GMO benefits and safety.  One review of over 1,700 studies, known as the Nicolia Review, for a time was the most cited source making the broadest claims for GMO safety.  However subsequent independent and unbiased reviews of Nicolia’s analysis concluded that many of these studies were tangential at best and barely took notice of anything related to crop genetic engineering.

Many studies are completely irrelevant from a value-added perspective because they have nothing to do with GMO safety. Furthermore, other studies in Nicolia’s collection conclude the exact opposite of their intention and give further credibility to GMOs environmental, animal and human health risks. When Nicolia published his review, he omitted and ignored scientifically sound research that directly investigated GMO safety and found convincing evidence to issue warnings.  For example, one peer-reviewed publication by over 300 independent scientists declared that there is no scientific consensus that GM crops and food are safe.  Not surprisingly, there is no mention of this study in the Nicolia Review.

It is no secret that Monsanto and Big Ag have significant influence over UC-Davis’s agricultural department and divisions.  The bogus economic studies trumped up by the Big Ag cartel to defeat California’s GMO labeling bill Prop 37 were performed at UC-Davis and then publicized through the GLP. Gary Ruskin, who has been filing Freedom of Information Act requests, has publicly expressed deep concerns that UC Davis is acting as a financial conduit for private corporations and interests to develop and launch PR attacks against academics, professors, activists and other institutions who oppose those same corporate interests.

For GMO opponents, the name Mark Lynas, may send shivers down the spine. As soon as any journalist or researcher mentions Lynas’ name approvingly, one can be certain which camp the author represents. Therefore when Kahn quotes Lynas as if he were an unbiased authority about GMOs, we know we have boarded the wrong train and will reach a destination of distorted scientific facts and self-righteous corporate praise.

The public watchdog group US Right to Know describes Lynas as “a former journalist turned promotional advocate for genetically engineered foods and pesticides who makes inaccurate claims about those products from his perch at the Gates Foundation-funded Cornell Alliance for Science (CAS).” Lynas has accused those who would inform the public about Round-Up’s carcinogenic properties as conducting a “witch hunt” by “anti-Monsanto activists” who “abused science.”  Lynas has denied his role as a shill for Big Ag. However, a decade ago, The Guardian acquired a private memo from the pro-biotechnology organization EuropaBio about its initiative to recruit “ambassadors” to preach the GMO gospel. Mark Lynas was specifically named in the document alongside then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan as a prime candidate to pressure European agencies who were skeptical about GMO claims, promises and health and environmental risks. In short, Lynas has been one of Big Ag’s most invaluable foot soldiers for over a dozen years.

Similar to the Genetic Literacy Project, the Cornell Alliance for Science does not conduct any agricultural research; yet its tentacles to attack GMO opponents are far reaching in the media. CAS was launched in 2014 after the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation granted the alliance $5.6 million in start-up monies. The public relations Alliance makes the unfounded claim to represent “balanced” research about genetic engineered products.  One of its missions is to influence the next generation of agricultural researchers to embrace GMO science. For CAS, as for Bill Gates, GMOs are the only food solution for Africa’s future. Five years ago, organic New York farmers mobilized to pressure the Trustees of Cornell University to evict CAS from the campus and halt its influence over the school’s prestigious College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Unfortunately, the Alliance is still there.

One argument Kahn wants us to buy into is that there were mistakes made during the early roll out of GMOs in the 1990s. But, somehow, mysteriously and without any solid evidence, we are supposed to believe that these same companies now engineering new generations of crops have learned their lessons. All that has really changed has been the genetic technology for altering plant genomes. The same mind-set that only technology and the quest for food dominance remain. After hundreds of thousands of dollars were flushed away during a genetically modified wheat project, a retired professor of plant agriculture at the University of Guelph in Canada remarked:

“We – scientists and the public – are so malleable and gullible (or is it because researchers and research administrators are just desperate for money?), that we swallow and become promoters of the mantra that GM is somehow going to feed the world: by resolving the monumental threat of burnt toast? Or browning in cut apples? Or flower color in carnations? Really? For shame. Let’s be honest. The one and only reason these people, corporations, and governments are funding this sorry use of [lab] bench space is because it may yield a proprietary product.”

Following Lynas’ lead, Kahn wants us to believe that genes exchanged between different plants is common in nature and therefore manipulating genes between species with genetic engineering tools, such as CRISPR, should not worry us. Yes, plants have acquired genes from other organisms in the past – the far distant past – according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. However, it is so exceedingly rare that these should be regarded as anomalies without any correlation whatsoever to the millions of different genes available to bio-engineer new plant organisms. This has been one of Lynas’ pet arguments on his bully pulpit since turning his back on his former Greenpeace activists and joining Monsanto’s legions.

It may also be noted that Jennifer Kahn is an active participant in CRISPRcon, a forum dedicated to “the future of CRISPR and gene editing technology applications in agriculture, health, conservation and more.” Among the organization’s supporters are Bayer, the Innovative Genomics Institute, Cornell Alliance for Science, Corteva Agriscience and the United Soybean Board.  A mission noted on its website is expressed in one of its mottos, “The public doesn’t trust GMOs. Will it trust CRISPR?” This is a public relations pitch that permeates her Times article.

It is important for independent investigators and researchers to identify and publicize the background of cloaked public relations shills posing as unbiased journalists in mainstream news sources. We believe Kahn’s New York Times piece is an attempt to disingenuously manipulate the narrative so more Americans will love GMOs. In the wake of the agrichemical industry’s efforts to bolster favorable images of GMOs and more recently CRISPR editing technologies, the mainstream media willingly rolls out a red carpet. No equal publishing space is awarded to the critics of genetic engineering who uncover the flaws in the industry’s public research. Consequently, journalists such as Mark Lynas and Jennifer Kahn are the norm rather than exception. Today the lesson is clear that money, power and influence sustain the lies and deceit of private industry.  Take on any cause critical of genetic engineered foods, and Big Ag will come after you.

Seven years ago, 70 percent of Americans, according to a Consumer Reports National Research Center survey, did not want genetically modified organisms in their food. In 2018, the Pew Research Center reported that only five percent of Americans said GM foods were better for one’s health – which about makes up the number of people who are in one way or another invested in the agrichemical industry. Still over half believe they endanger health. Yet too much has been invested into agro-biotechnology to expect GMOS to disappear at any time. As the public increasingly turns away from genetically modified organisms in their produce, we will expect new volleys of industry propaganda appearing in the mainstream media. We can also expect to hear ever wilder and more irrational claims about how GMO-based agriculture might reduce CO2 greenhouse pollution and save humanity. And we expect much of this PR campaign to be backed by the World Economic Forum’s full-throttle Great Reset invasion. In other words, out of desperation to reach global food dominance, the agro-chemical industry backed by western governments will be declaring a full food war against the peoples of the world.  It is time for us to unlearn any illusory attachment we might have to Big Agriculture and learn to loath GMOs.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Learning to Loath GMOs”: Genetic Engineering, Genetic Modified Plants, Biotechnology and Big Agriculture
  • Tags: , ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Stoke White Investigations has examined the reported killing of civilians in a French air strike on a wedding party in Mail in January 2021. The following is adapted from the report’s Executive Summary. The full report can be viewed here.  

On 3 January 2021, France undertook 3 airstrikes as part of its Operation Barkhane mission in Bounti, central Mali. France claimed it had attacked an armed “terrorist group”, but locals reported that a wedding party had been attacked. A subsequent UN report into the strikes  – the first investigating France’s military activities in Mali – concluded that a wedding was indeed taking place, and that 19 civilians had been killed.

What exactly happened on the Sunday afternoon is disputed by the various parties of this civilian casualty allegation, but by the evening of the attack, a local social organisation, the AES Corporation, had already notified its members that a wedding was attacked outside Bounti, killing civilians.  Two days later, French forces told the AFP that its military aircrafts had “neutralised” dozens of fighters in central Mali and that reports of an attack on a wedding “do not match the observations that were made”.

French Armed Forces reported on January 7 that they had targeted members of Katiba Serma, an armed group, loosely connected with Al-Qaeda after they had conducted a multi-day intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) mission in Douentza, in central Mali’s Mopti region. As part of this, a French Reaper drone had been conducting an ISR mission for one hour when it decided to follow a motorcycle carrying two individuals north of the “NR16” highway.  The motorcycle joined approximately “40 adult men in an isolated area”, one kilometre north of the village of Bounti, in the region of Douentza. The real-time intelligence of the drone had apparently given the French Armed Forces the confidence that it located members of the Katiba Serma.

‘Robustness Of The Targeting Process’

Following the Reaper’s ISR mission, a pair of French Mirage 2000 fighter aircrafts were called in to carry out a “targeted strike at 3:00 pm local time”. The “behaviour of the individuals”, “materials identified” and “cross-checking” led to the launch of three airstrikes located at “30 PWB 4436 83140” [15.223967, -2.586948] in a semi-wooded area. According to the French Armed Forces, the airstrikes resulted in the killing of 30 individuals, and no women or children were killed due to the “analysis of the area before and after the strike, as well as the robustness of the targeting process”. The French were adamant that they had excluded the possibility of “collateral damage”. The Malian Ministry of Defence and Veterans Affairs (MDAC) supported France’s statement that it targeted members of Katiba Serma.

A  Wedding Was Attacked, At Least 100 Attended Says UN 

A United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) investigation, following the airstrikes in Bounti, declared that 22 individuals were killed at the wedding. The UN report found that five members of Katiba Serma were among the guests of the wedding, only one of them was visibly armed. Two of them had left before the airstrikes hit the celebration, while three were killed. The rest of the casualties were civilians.

While France claimed that it had targeted 40 adult men in an isolated area, the UN concluded that a group of at least 100 individuals were attending a wedding. This finding corresponds with testimony gathered by Stoke White Investigations from victims and relatives. The victims were all men, aged between 23 and 71, the majority of whom lived in the Bounti village. Fighters from non-state armed groups rarely gather together in Mali, due to the threat of airstrikes and drone surveillance. The French government responded to the UN report by questioning its validity and methodology.

We believe that it is highly likely that the drone-led airstrikes against the wedding in Bounti have infringed the laws of war by ignoring or failing to comply with the principle of distinction between combatants and civilians, or the principle of proportionality by killing civilians to attain a military advantage.

Both the French armed forces and the Mali government are yet to come clean and provide evidence that the gathering was not a wedding, and secondly that it has “neutralised” members of a terrorist non-state armed group. The burden of proof remains with the attacking force, as the onus is on the one triggering lethal force, not the one on the receiving end, particularly when concerning civilians.

There is no denying that the laws of war and international human rights law is applicable on the 3 January, 2021 attack against the wedding in Bounti. With this in mind, it could only be lawful to target valid military objectives as per International Humanitarian Law. France urgently needs to provide evidence on how it came to the conclusion that the wedding it targeted was, in its perspective, a gathering of members of a non-state armed group.

While it could be argued that members of the armed group joined the wedding and used it as a human shield, it should be noted that France denies that the gathering was a wedding in the first instance. Additionally, at least two of the members of the armed group left the wedding before the attack took place according to testimonies documented by MINUSMA. Thus, making it difficult to enter the realm of legal argument that it was even proportionate to engage.

France’s Shadow War in Mali

We believe that the French Armed Forces need to act promptly and conduct an impartial and transparent investigation into the Bounti attack. Ignoring and denying the MINUSMA report, as well as our investigation that it was a wedding that was attacked, creates an environment of mistrust on France’s military activities across the Sahel, let alone in other theatres of conflict such as Syria and Iraq.

Along with the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), we received data on 51 fatalities from civilian targeting incidents involving French forces in Mali between 2017 and 2021. Others suggest that at least 43 civilians were killed and five other injured in six separate incidents since 2018 alone.

This demonstrates not  only the underreported nature of the conflict across the Sahel, but also the lack of monitoring of civilian casualties of local and foreign forces.  This is not the first instance of France ignoring civilian casualty allegations. This gap in transparency needs to be addressed. It is reasonable to say that France has a systematic problem in admitting and identifying civilian casualties and / or injuries as a result from its military actions. The denial of the killing of civilians at a wedding in Bounti on 3 January 2021, should be viewed in this light.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on New Report Examines Civilian Deaths in French Drone-instigated Air Strike in Mali
  • Tags: , ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

On March 13, 2020, the public school district where I teach announced that all classrooms and buildings would be closed for two weeks. Then two weeks turned into two months, and two months turned into over a full year without in-person instruction.

My school serves a diverse population of low-income students in the San Francisco Bay Area. It is impossible to overstate the severity of this disruption caused by school closures for these students, many of whom did not have a computer or internet at home when virtual learning began. Online, my students got only a fraction of the regular curriculum. Kids who had once loved the social aspects of school were left with only the parts of school they hated, and students with disabilities who depended on school for daily living needs were cut off from a vital service.

“Public health” and “the safety of our children” came to mean students Zooming from homeless encampments, experiencing severe abuse, regressing academically, falling into depression, going hungry, struggling through catastrophic learning loss, and, in the saddest cases, not making it through the year alive.

Despite consistent evidence that schools were not sites of high transmission for COVID-19, many teachers failed to put aside baseless fears about classroom superspreading and rampant infection. As a result, many of the most vulnerable children in our society suffered outrageous hardships, while their affluent peers attended private schools in person. We’ve all been told that school closures and lockdowns were mandated by science, but what if these mandates were immoral? What if they were based on a series of lies? In fact, what if the entire rationale for most restrictions was actually rotten to the core?

We’re watching the mainstream pandemic narrative starting to unravel. While the Senate and House intelligence committees investigate the origins of SARS-CoV-2, many reporters are openly wondering why they initially dismissed the lab leak hypothesis as “misinformation.” Few in media consider the possibility that their approach to the theory was not an anomaly, but rather a long-established pattern of journalistic dereliction of duty. For the public, these renewed questions about the virus (and their hard-to-face answers) speak to a deep sense that something is amiss in the story we’ve been told by major media outlets. But gain-of-function research is just the tip of the iceberg.

A trove of media darling Dr. Anthony Fauci’s emails was recently released to the public. The emails reveal early assertions that asymptomatic transmission is rare, that post-infection immunity is highly likely, and that masks are “not really effective.” However, you wouldn’t know that from the public messaging since the start of the pandemic, in which bureaucrats and journalists upheld lasting misconceptions that asymptomatic cases are dangerous, natural immunity is not a factor in protecting the population, and individuals are responsible for viral spread. These misconceptions fueled countless months of lockdowns, business closures, and job losses, pushing millions of people into poverty and despair through the destructive lie that stringent “sick until proven healthy” interventions save lives.

In reality, the rushed doomsday forecasts and commitment to politically correct pseudoscience prompted leaders to abandon decades of pandemic planning. This not only had disastrous economic consequences, but it also exacerbated the effects of COVID-19 itself. And rather than swiftly correct their errors, public health officials and politicians doubled down, manipulated data, and blamed ordinary people for the failure of nonsensical policies. The uncomfortable truth is that “The Science” did not protect vulnerable populations. Instead, “expert” advice served only to make the pandemic more deadly and replace the scientific process with destructive anti-science.

Saving Lives by Killing People

In December 2020, 35% of Americans believed that half of the people with COVID-19 required hospitalization. The correct figure was 1%-5%. Americans also estimated that the share of COVID-19 deaths for people between 18 and 24 was 8%. It was actually 0.1%. These incorrect assumptions were influenced by anecdotes, shocking media coverage, and early projections like the influential Imperial College model, which threatened that without lockdowns there would be 40 million COVID-19 deaths worldwide. The model assumed an infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.9%, but the actual IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15% and the median IFR for people under 70 is 0.05%.

As a result of mistaken prognostications like this, the media compared COVID-19 to the 1918 influenza pandemic, for which the average age of death was 28. For COVID-19 the average age of death is 73, and about half of all deaths are in people 80 or older. While the CDC projected a one-year decrease in life expectancy for the U.S. population, the overall decrease in life expectancy was only five days, and the U.S.’s excess mortality in 2017 was greater than its excess mortality in 2020.

There is no better example of the harm created by flawed simulations, and the subsequent misguided interventions, than New York’s disastrous nursing home policy. While Gov. Andrew Cuomo landed a $5 million book deal and won an Emmy for his televised briefings, conditions on the ground for COVID-19 patients in his state were catastrophic. Over 9,000 elderly COVID-19 patients were sent from hospitals back to nursing homes. Additionally, Cuomo required group homes for people with intellectual disabilities to take COVID-19 patients and attempted to issue a blanket DNR guideline for all cardiac patients in New York City. He also denied nursing homes’ requests for testing kits, ignored the concerns of families, and gave immunity to nursing home executives. This resulted in the deaths of nearly 15,000 long-term-care patients.

These deaths did not occur because Cuomo ignored scientists and researchers. They occurred precisely because Cuomo was adhering to predictions from his team of experts who projected the need for 140,000 hospital beds and 40,000 ICUs. Ultimately, New York’s actual bed and ICU use peaked in mid-April at 18,825 and 5,225, respectively. The deadly decisions the governor’s office made were motivated by a perceived need to save resources and space—a manufactured imperative based on fictitious IFR figures and a baseless belief in universal risk.

Moreover, although some New York hospitals were overwhelmed, many were not. While Elmhurst hospital in Queens was at full capacity in April, the hospital had 26 new ambulances to take patients to 3,500 empty beds in New York City, many within a 20-minute drive. Because of panic induced by horrific forecasts, New York City doctors cited the need for “wartime ethics” when advising patients and families about DNRs. At some hospitals, doctors were informally allowed to override patients’ desires for medical intervention. These ethical violations were urged on by crazed media coverage and an environment of psychological terror, but they were not justified by the true level of danger involved in treating patients.

Despite concerns about hospital beds and ICUs, field hospitals across the country remained largely empty, costing taxpayers $660 million despite the fact that most of them did not serve any patients. Cuomo’s nursing home order was replicated by four other Democratic governors, and one-third of all American deaths from the virus are now linked to nursing homes. As a consequence of these practices, New York State has the second-highest COVID-19 mortality rate in the country.

Following the Science

Three of the top four states in overall COVID-19 mortality have Democratic governors who “followed the science” long after the initial promises that it would only take “two weeks to flatten the curve.” Although these states have high population density, density is often associated with lower COVID-19 death rates. After Texas Gov. Greg Abbott lifted all his state’s restrictions in April, Texas saw no resulting surge in cases, hospitalizations, or deaths. In fact, many states that continued restrictions saw higher cases and deaths than states that lifted restrictions early.

These trends are consistent with dozens of peer-reviewed studies and retrospective analyses indicating that stay-at-home orders did not have an impact on rates of fatal infection and that comparisons between many countries do not show superior outcomes from lockdowns. Besides hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care settings, households show some of the highest rates of transmission, while the share of transmission that has happened outdoors is less than 0.1%. Furthermore, vitamin D and exercise have both been linked to better outcomes for COVID-19 patients. In the U.S. 78% of people hospitalized for COVID-19 were overweight or obese. Lockdowns caused Americans to gain an average of two pounds per month and reduce their daily steps by 27%, thereby increasing the likelihood of adverse COVID-19 outcomes.

Not only were government orders confining people to their homes highly detrimental, but the early recommended treatment procedures for the virus were often fatal. Although experts and the media claimed that ventilators were lifesaving, death rates in most states actually dropped dramatically once the use of ventilators was abandoned in favor of other treatments. In order to meet what was supposed to be an astronomical medical demand, the U.S. spent $3 billion manufacturing ventilators, but by August 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services had distributed only 15,057 ventilators, leaving 95,713 of them untouched in a federal stockpile.

Usually, 40%-50% of patients in severe respiratory distress die on ventilators, but in New York City the death rate for COVID-19 patients on ventilators was 88%. Hospital staff often intubated patients prematurely or left them on ventilators for 10-15 days. Patients were given unusually heavy sedatives so that staff would be able to check on them less frequently. U.S. hospitals received $13,000 for each Medicare COVID-19 patient and $39,000 for each Medicare patient they intubated. These patients were separated from their families and had no one to advocate for them. Many people died after terrified doctors, misinformed about the scale of the risks, used intubation as a way to avoid virus exposure.

When lockdowns began, commentators referred to herd immunity as a “genocidal” concept that meant exposing vulnerable people to disease. That is actually what happens when natural immunity is prevented. Lockdowns limit and delay the acquired immunity of the younger population, making older people more vulnerable to exposure, especially in the absence of focused protection measures. Long-lasting immunity from COVID-19 is acquired after mild or asymptomatic cases, and sensational stories about “long COVID” and “COVID heart” have been debunked. In-person learning was not correlated with higher rates of student illness and school closures may have actually worsened death rates.

Clearly, quarantining the healthy did exactly the opposite of what was sold to the public: It increased non-COVID-19 excess deaths while leaving elderly and immunocompromised people completely unprotected. While some may excuse the destructiveness of lockdowns as a simple error, the sheer volume of reversals public health officials have made during the pandemic paints a picture of bureaucrats intentionally misleading the public in order to cover up their failures or pursue agendas unrelated to public health.

Moving the Goal Posts

Experts have consistently taken an imprecise approach to statistics, changed their minds, and withheld information while claiming the mantle of “scientific consensus.” Over the summer of 2020, the WHO quietly changed its definition of herd immunity from protection acquired through both natural immunity and vaccination to one acquired only through vaccination. Similarly, in December 2020, Fauci declared that he was changing his estimate for vaccination rates needed to achieve herd immunity from 60% to 90%. When asked for a scientific rationale, Fauci said he changed the percentage based purely on polling that indicated more Americans were willing to take the COVID-19 vaccine.

When lockdowns failed to yield meaningful mitigation results, public health agencies that had previously recommended against masking changed their position. Although simulations suggested that 80% mask compliance would do more to stop the spread of COVID-19 than lockdowns, regional analysis in the United States does not show that mandates had any effect on case rates, despite 93% compliance. Moreover, according to CDC data, 85% of people who contracted COVID-19 reported wearing a mask.

Research has shown that once unquestioned rules like 6 feet for social distancing are arbitrary and not actually associated with lower transmission. Reporting of death and hospitalization rates was also inexact, and mass asymptomatic testing distorted public understanding of the virus. Ninety-five percent of COVID-19 deaths had an average of four related underlying conditions and the CDC’s death count includes “deaths involving unintentional and intentional injury.” As a result of testing children hospitalized for unrelated conditions, the number of pediatric COVID-19 hospitalizations was exaggerated by at least 40%.

The PCR testing protocol for COVID-19 was based on a paper by Christian Drosten, which was peer-reviewed and published within just two days in a journal on whose editorial board Drosten sits. The method was created “without having virus material available,” using instead a genetic sequence published online. The PCR test amplifies genetic material of the virus in cycles but does not determine whether a case is infectious. A higher number of cycles indicates a lower viral load. The cycle threshold for PCR tests used in the U.S. was usually limited at 37 or 40, highly sensitive levels. In July 2020, Fauci remarked that at these levels, a positive result is “just dead nucleotides, period.”

For vaccinated Americans, the CDC has lowered the cycle threshold for “breakthrough infections” to only 28 cycles and announced that post-vaccine cases will only be counted if they result in hospitalization or death. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky stated that vaccinated Americans who died and tested positive for COVID-19 merely died “with” COVID-19, not “from” COVID-19. This method of tallying would eliminate many pre-vaccine cases. It is also likely that 85%-90% of tests that are positive at a cycle threshold of 40 would be negative at a cycle threshold of 30.

Despite this lack of accurate data, authorities have consistently scapegoated members of the public as “anti-maskers” or “anti-vaxxers” responsible for prolonging the pandemic. They have used divisive messaging and disorienting scare tactics in order to justify months of COVID-19 restrictions that were based on dogma, not on science.

Scientific Inversion

Our current state of scientific inversion has sown intense division in the U.S. and threatens to rip apart the social fabric. For the past 16 months, the public has been told that it is our duty to serve the needs of medical institutions and personnel, not the other way around. Effective low-cost therapeutics like ivermectin were dismissed in favor of a vaccine program that transferred billions of dollars from taxpayers to pharmaceutical executives and shareholders. Critics of measures like school closures were accused of far-right white supremacy, even though these measures were most damaging to working-class people and minorities. Deadly policies were portrayed as lifesaving, and public health protocols caused immense clinical damage.

A few people have benefited from this war on reality while many have paid a heavy price. In 2020, workers lost $3.7 trillion, while billionaires gained $3.9 trillion and 493 new individuals became billionaires. During this same period, decades of progress against diseases like malaria and tuberculosis were reversed. Disruptions to health and nutrition services killed 228,000 children in South Asia. Globally, the impact of lockdowns on health programs, food production, and supply chains plunged millions of people into severe hunger and malnutrition.

In the U.S., we are facing a crisis of cardiovascular disease and undiagnosed cancer. Unemployment shock will cause 890,000 additional deaths over the next 15 years. Overdoses from synthetic opioids increased by 38.4%, and 11% of U.S. adults considered suicide last June. Three million children disappeared from public school systems, and ERs saw a 31% increase in adolescent mental health visits.

Now, the stories that were used to justify these hardships are continuing to unravel. Many of the people responsible will insist that the second-order consequences are the horrible symptoms of a magic virus and that the mistakes made in handling such a crisis were inevitable. But preventing young children from reaching crucial developmental milestones in the face of mounting evidence is not just a “mistake.” Forcing hospital patients to die alone without saying goodbye to their families is not just a “mistake.” Pushing millions of people into poverty and starvation is not just a “mistake.” These are crimes.

Basic civil, human, and economic rights were violated under demonstrably fraudulent pretenses. The sacrifices we thought we were making for the common good were sacrifices made in vain. Unlawful lockdowns demoralized the population and ruined lives. The tragic reality is that this was all for nothing. The only way to prevent these events from recurring is to exhaustively investigate not just the origin of the virus, but every corrupt and misguided decision made by politicians, NGOs, public health organizations, and scientific institutions made since its fateful emergence.

*

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.

Alex Gutentag is a public school teacher and writer in California. Follow her on Twitter at @galexybrane.

Featured image is from Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Dr. Bhakdi explains clearly, based on new scientific evidence, why he believes:

  • Your immune system is your best defence against SARS-CoV-2, and indeed all coronaviruses.
  • If you have been infected, even if you experienced no symptoms at all, you are immune to all variants.
  • We have already reached herd immunity.
  • There is no scientific reason to vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2. There is simply no benefit and the rollout must be stopped.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

What if America Delists Chinese Firms?

July 28th, 2021 by Prof. Shang-Jin Wei

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A recent flurry of official measures in both China and the United States suggests that the two governments are not keen on Chinese firms retaining their US stock-market listings. Moreover, the effects of delisting these often fast-growing companies may be easily manageable for both countries.

Chinese firms are more enthusiastic than most about listing on US stock exchanges. Currently, 250 of them, including companies that are registered in Hong Kong or offshore centers but derive most of their revenue and profits from mainland China, trade on US equity markets. But a recent flurry of official measures in both China and the United States suggests that the two governments are not keen on Chinese firms retaining their US listings. If push comes to shove, how would delisting hurt either country?

The latest controversy concerns the dominant Chinese ride-hailing platform Didi Global (partly owned by Uber), which on June 30 raised $4.4 billion in a successful IPO on the New York Stock Exchange. Within 48 hours, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), citing a suspected data-security breach, announced that it would restrict the company’s ability to sign up new users. The CAC then ordered the removal of Didi from all domestic Chinese app stores, and the State Administration of Market Regulation, the country’s antitrust authority, fined the firm for not obtaining prior approval for earlier mergers and acquisitions.

The penalties imposed on Didi – widely interpreted as a warning to other Chinese companies against listing in the US without government approval – partly reflect three concerns among Chinese policymakers. The authorities are worried that sensitive digital data, including the location of (and traffic flows around) important addresses in China, may fall into the hands of the US intelligence or defense communities. They also do not want Chinese technology firms to become too large and powerful, and fear that Big Tech companies’ forays into financial markets may undermine financial stability.

I suspect that the Chinese authorities have a fourth reason: to reduce US leverage. In the last days of his administration, President Donald Trump signed America’s Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act. The new law authorizes the delisting of Chinese companies from US stock exchanges if China fails to allow the US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to obtain the underlying worksheets of these firms’ auditors after three consecutive years. And on June 22, the US Senate passed another bill that could bring delisting forward by one year.

If the US has the option of delisting Chinese firms en masse and in a disorderly manner at a time of its choosing, it could potentially use it to generate financial and economic instability in China. The Chinese authorities may therefore find it prudent to reduce or eliminate this vulnerability.

US lawmakers’ ostensible reason for threatening to delist Chinese companies is to protect American investors from potential accounting frauds such as the one committed by Luckin Coffee last year. But US investors have lost much more money as a result of accounting scandals at US companies such as Enron, WorldCom, HealthSouth, Freddie Mac, American International Group, and Lehman Brothers, some of which took place after the PCAOB was established. Moreover, Chinese firms’ most egregious accounting frauds tend to be discovered by professional short-sellers using techniques – such as undercover company visits – that auditing firms do not employ.

Chinese authorities once tacitly encouraged US listings, viewing them as a symbol of China’s embrace of the global capital market. Many Chinese technology firms also had little alternative to listing in the US before 2018. But the situation today is different.

Previously, many Chinese firms chose to list in New York instead of Shanghai or Shenzhen because their foreign private-equity or venture-capital investors wanted to avoid China’s foreign-exchange controls. Moreover, China has much tougher listing requirements and a long and uncertain waiting period for regulatory approval. For example, Amazon and Facebook would not have been allowed to list in China at the time of their US IPOs because they did not have the requisite profits.

Similarly, although Hong Kong imposes no capital controls, it also had stricter listing requirements than the US until 2018. In particular, while the US allows different classes of shares to have different voting rights – as is the case with Alibaba and Didi, for example – Hong Kong required voting rights and financial stakes to be exactly aligned. Most countries regard a divergence between voting rights and cash-flow rights as facilitating bad corporate governance, because it potentially allows controlling shareholders to enrich themselves through self-dealing at the expense of other investors.

But after seeing so many Chinese companies choosing New York, the Hong Kong Stock Exchange decided to allow US-style multiple share classes for technology and life-sciences firms. More Chinese firms have since listed in Hong Kong, or have a dual listing there and in New York. Tencent, China’s biggest social-media company, was first traded in Hong Kong before adding a secondary listing in New York, and currently commands a higher price-to-earnings multiple than Facebook, its closest US counterpart.

This suggests that the effects of delisting US-traded Chinese firms may be manageable for both China and America. China, as a high-savings country and a net exporter of capital, does not need US listings of its companies to import more capital. And while some firms’ founders and initial investors may experience a valuation haircut in their IPOs, this does not pose a major challenge to the Chinese government.

Similarly, most US hedge funds, mutual funds, and rich individuals will still be able to invest in Chinese firms listed in Hong Kong, and even – albeit less conveniently and straightforwardly – those listed in mainland China. True, delisting profitable and fast-growing Chinese companies may reduce returns for many middle-class US households whose pension funds are restricted to investing only in US-listed securities, and US stock exchanges will lose business. As ordinary Americans would not connect lower returns on their pension funds to delisting of Chinese firms, US politicians are unlikely to face a backlash. And that fact could make delistings more likely.

*

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.

Shang-Jin Wei, a former chief economist at the Asian Development Bank, is Professor of Finance and Economics at Columbia Business School and Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. 

#Yes, It’s a “Killer Vaccine”. They Are Killing Our Children

July 28th, 2021 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

Share this article far and wide.

***

#Yes, It’s  A “Killer Vaccine”

And the governments are fully aware of what’s happening.

The vaccine must be halted and discontinued immediately.

Yesterday evening, we got news from France of a young man, 22 years old who died nine hours after having being vaccinated. He wanted to travel on a holiday to Greece.

He just wanted to live said his father. … he was my only son, and he died, killed by a crap vaccine that was never validated or properly tested”. 

This tragic event was posted on social media in a despicable statement:

“This story is intended to scare the French, it is invented from scratch by the #antivax …

A complaint should be filed for disseminating erroneous information for political ends!” (translation by GR)

And then what happened.

The mainstream media provided its own interpretation quoting “authoritative medical sources”.

It  wasn’t the vaccine which triggered Maxime Beltra‘s death. He died from an allergic reaction, they said:

“a probable serious food allergy, according to medical sources”.

Now isn’t that a piece of authoritative fake news, quoting hospital officials.

Today Our thoughts are with Maxime Beltra and his family.

And Maxime Beltra is not alone. There are millions of sons and daughters, family members: similar cases of vaccine related deaths Worldwide.

#Yes, It’s A Killer Vaccine. That message should be loud and clear. Our children are being killed.

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.

The fake reports issued by the health authorities are there to manipulate the “official” death and injury statistics.

We call on our readers to initiate a campaign, initiate #Yes, It’s A Killer Vaccine with informative messages of what is happening in different parts of the World.

Save Lives Worldwide.

Spread the word. Providing information and spreading News will Save Lives.

#Yes, It’s A “Killer Vaccine”. 

They Are Killing our Children. The Vaccine should be Halted and Discontinued Worldwide

***

The “Killer Vaccine” Worldwide. 7.9 Billion People

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 26, 2021

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on #Yes, It’s a “Killer Vaccine”. They Are Killing Our Children

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

More than a hundred executives with links to industries blamed for pollution were permitted to take part in vital international talks to combat climate change, The Ferret can reveal.

Shell, Chevron, middle eastern oil companies, other fossil fuel firms, carbon traders, agribusiness and chemicals multinationals all registered to join United Nations (UN) climate negotiations in May and June — as did the nuclear power industry.

Campaigners say that allowing such “vested interests” to be involved is “pandering to climate-wrecking” and “unacceptable”. They accuse big businesses of trying “to delay genuine progress and push false solutions”.

The companies, however, defend their right to have their voices heard by decision-makers. “The business community needs to be part of the solution, so it needs to be part of the process,” argues one industry association.

In November Glasgow is due to host a meeting of world leaders to make decisions about cutting climate pollution. Known as COP26, it could be the largest international summit ever held in the UK.

It is seen by many worldwide as the most important since the 2015 historic agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions agreed by 196 countries in Paris. The US President, Jo Biden, is expected to attend.

COP26 is being organised by the UK Government for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Online negotiations in the run-up to COP26 were hosted by UNFCCC in Bonn from 31 May to 17 June, covering the agenda for Glasgow and country actions to tackle climate change.

An analysis of all those who registered to attend has revealed that 138 were linked to big business interests. They included 45 with links to the fossil fuel industry, 24 from the carbon trading business, 19 from the nuclear power industry and its backers, 12 from agribusiness interests, eight from the chemical industry and 30 from other industry groups.

The largest delegation was 24 people from the International Emissions Trading Association (Ieta), based in Geneva. It says its mission is to be “the trusted business voice on market-based climate solutions” and has many fossil fuel companies as members.

One of the Ieta representatives was David Home, chief climate change advisor to the oil giant, Shell. He reportedly claimed in 2018 to have helped write part of the 2015 Paris Agreement on carbon markets.

In May Shell was told to cut its carbon emissions by a court in the Netherlands, following a legal challenge by environmental groups. On 20 July the company said it would appeal against the ruling.

Others on Ieta’s list included Kate Shilina from the German energy company, RWE, and Takashi Hongo from the Japanese firm, Mitsui. Both companies have fossil fuel interests.

The Paris-based business lobby group, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), had 15 people registered to attend the UN climate sessions. They included another of Shell’s climate advisors, Steve Schofield.

Other ICC representatives were Hinse Boonstra from the German drugs and pesticides multinational, Bayer, and Gloria Jaconelli from the agrochemical industry association, Croplife International.

There were four people registered from the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (Ipieca), which says it aims to advance “environmental and social performance”. One was Arthur Lee, a senior strategy advisor from the US oil company, Chevron.

Others included 11 people from Kuwaiti oil companies, one from a United Arab Emirates oil firm in Dubai, and one from Qatar Petroleum. Three of Russia’s delegation had links to fossil fuel, mining and chemical industries.

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development registered eight people with links to the Indian manufacturer, Tata, the Spanish energy company, Iberdrola, the Swiss food giant, Nestlé, and others.

Amongst others who registered for the climate talks were the Global Dairy Platform, which represents the dairy industry; the Edison Electric Institute, which brings together US power companies; and the industry-backed International Fertiliser Association.

The analysis of registrations was done by the campaign group, Glasgow Calls Out Polluters (Gcop). It met with UK COP26 president, Alok Sharma MP, in June to urge him to “kick polluters out of COP26”.

Gcop organiser, Eilidh Robb, warned that there could be a “corporate circus” at COP26. “The UK Government is refusing to challenge the industries at the centre of the climate crisis,” she said.

“Instead, they are pandering to their climate-wrecking interests by encouraging them to join vague and ill-defined net zero programmes which allow them to kick the can of climate action further down the road.”

Friends of the Earth Nigeria warned that the “profit-only” goals of businesses were incompatible with those of the UNFCCC. “Given the fossil fuel industry’s role in the massive carbon emissions that have led to the climate crisis, their accreditation and that of their allies to attend the climate talks represents an unacceptable and irreconcilable conflict of interest,” argued the group’s Philip Jakpor.

Corporate Europe Observatory, which exposes company lobbying, also criticised the UK Government. “The likes of Shell are only at the UN talks to delay genuine progress and push false solutions like carbon markets and offsets via lobby groups such as Ieta,” said the group’s researcher, Pascoe Sabido.

“Rather than slash industry emissions, these approaches allow firms to keep digging up and selling fossil fuels, which spells disaster for the climate. Yet the UK Government appears to be on board, and is pushing a similar agenda at COP26.”

Industry representatives insisted that they should be involved in international climate talks. “We believe in an open and fair democratic UN process that includes all points of view, including those who need to reduce emissions,” said a spokesperson for the International Emissions Trading Association.

climate

Photo thanks to Glasgow Calls Out Polluters

“It is true that our membership includes fossil fuel companies and other industries — which know they need to, and are committed to, change.”

Ieta supported the Paris Agreement using “market-based approaches” which it said could deliver climate goals effectively. “We support the UK Government’s efforts to inspire a monumental, cooperative effort to achieve the Paris goals as soon as possible,” the spokesperson added.

“The business community needs to be part of the solution, so it needs to be part of the process. The Paris goals require cooperation at a scale not seen before — not exclusion and ‘cancel culture’ tactics.”

Ieta denied that it wrote parts of the Paris Agreement. “Ieta supported negotiators with our observations and recommendations on drafts, just like many other groups did, as part of the normal UN diplomatic and stakeholder process,” the spokesperson said.

“Our members observe UN climate negotiations, because they are serious about bringing business solutions to the climate challenge.”

Shell also said it supported the Paris Agreement. “We are very clear about the steps that we are taking to help meet society’s needs for more and cleaner energy,” a company spokesperson told The Ferret.

“We make no apology for talking to policy makers and regulators around the world to make our voice heard on crucial topics such as climate change and how to address it.”

Altogether the climate negotiations in May and June involved 177 governments and governmental groups with more than 3,200 people. In addition there were 219 non-governmental organisations present as observers, comprising more than 1,600 individuals.

The Cabinet Office in London, which is co-ordinating the UK COP26 presidency, referred The Ferret to the UNFCCC, saying it organised the talks. “The UK COP Presidency did not have a role in determining attendance of the event,” said a spokesperson.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change has been approached for comments. The International Chamber of Commerce and Chevron did not respond to requests to comment.

*

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

This story was published in tandem with the Sunday National.

Featured image is from iStock/philips

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The following are excerpts from a speech Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s delivered in Singapore. The host country is one of ten members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which he mentions more than once in the address. The others are Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. For over a decade the U.S. has been trying to recruit ASEAN nations, individually and collectively, into an anti-Chinese (secondarily, an anti-Russian) bloc in the Asia-Pacific region. The first to lead that charge were Barack Obama, the self-styled first Pacific president of the U.S., and his secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

Austin’s use of the phrase “a free and open Pacific, at peace with itself and with the world” is not fortuitous. It’s a variation of the expression used by then-President George H. W. Bush at Mainz, Germany in 1989 in a speech titled A Europe Whole and Free. In the interim the description has been expanded to Europe, whole, free and at peace. That phrase has been used to place all of Europe under NATO’s thumb except for Belarus and European Russia. Austin’s repetition of it suggests a similar design on the Asia-Pacific region.

In accusing China of “genocide and crimes against humanity,” he used the exact language used by NATO to justify waging its air wars against Yugoslavia and Libya.

Secretary of Defense Remarks at the 40th International Institute for Strategic Studies Fullerton Lecture (As Prepared)

There are transnational threats, like the pandemic and the existential threat of climate change… the specter of coercion from rising powers… the nuclear dangers from North Korea… the struggles against repression inside countries such as Myanmar…and leaders who ignore the rule of law and abuse the basic rights and dignity that all people deserve.

***

In the days ahead, I’ll travel from Singapore to see my counterparts in Vietnam and the Philippines. I’ve come to Southeast Asia to deepen America’s bonds with the allies and partners on whom our common security depends….

[E]merging threats and cutting-edge technologies are changing the face and the pace of warfare. So we are operating under a new, 21st-century vision that I call “integrated deterrence.”

Now, integrated deterrence means using every military and non-military tool in our toolbox, in lock-step with our allies and partners. Integrated deterrence is about using existing capabilities, and building new ones, and deploying them all in new and networked ways…

We’re working with our hosts here in Singapore to enter a new phase in cyber-defense cooperation. We’re partnering with Japan to deploy new sensors in space to better detect potentially threatening behaviors….

Integrated deterrence also means working with partners to deter coercion and aggression across the spectrum of conflict… including in the so-called “grey zone” where the rights and livelihoods of the people of Southeast Asia are coming under stress….

Meanwhile, we’re improving interoperability across our security network. And that includes more complex exercises and training. In Japan, for example, we recently wrapped up an ambitious, large-scale exercise…in which U.S. and Japanese forces together conducted the first successful firing of a High Mobility Artillery Rocket System in Japan.

***

And we recently held the exercises known as Pacific Vanguard and Talisman Sabre off the coast of Australia, together with Japan, Australia, and the Republic of Korea. That underscored our ability to carry out integrated, high-end maritime operations with our allies.

Meanwhile, we are working with Taiwan to enhance its own capabilities and to increase its readiness to deter threats and coercion… upholding our commitments under the Taiwan Relations Act….

At the same time, we’re moving to enhance our combined presence in the Indo-Pacific with other close partners and allies. Take Britain’s historic deployment of a carrier to the Pacific. The HMS Queen Elizabeth is sailing through this region as the flagship of a multi-nation carrier strike group that includes a U.S. destroyer and a U.S. Marine Corps F-35 squadron.

Our strategic partnerships can carry us all closer to the historic common project of a free and open Pacific, at peace with itself and with the world….

[We] are working through old alliances, and through new partnerships, and through regional and multilateral channels—from ASEAN to the Quad to the U.N. Security Council.

Beijing’s claim to the vast majority of the South China Sea has no basis in international law. That assertion treads on the sovereignty of states in the region….And we remain committed to the treaty obligations that we have to Japan in the Senkaku Islands and to the Philippines in the South China Sea.

Unfortunately, Beijing’s unwillingness to resolve disputes peacefully and respect the rule of law isn’t just occurring on the water. We have also seen aggression against India… destabilizing military activity and other forms of coercion against the people of Taiwan…and genocide and crimes against humanity against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang.

***

I know how pleased President Biden was to host the first Quad Leaders’ Summit in March. And structures like the Quad make the region’s security architecture even more durable.

*

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

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

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

Featured image is a screenshot from a video on defense.gov

Selected Articles: How the COVID Scam Is Perpetrated

July 28th, 2021 by Global Research News

Politics over Science: Biden Admin Signals Intent to Force FDA Approval of COVID Vaccines

By Jordan Schachtel, July 27, 2021

The Biden Administration has signaled its next move as part of the White House’s full court press to pressure Americans into taking COVID-19 vaccines.

How the COVID Scam Is Perpetrated: Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, July 26, 2021

I have provided numerous documented detailed accounts demonstrating the lack of evidence supporting the official Covid narrative.  The next time you hear Big Pharma’s propagandists say “believe the science,” ask them what science.

After the Apocalypse – America’s Role in a World Transformed

By Jim Miles, July 27, 2021

The contemporary apocalypse as seen by Andrew Bacevich in his latest book, “After the Apocalypse”, consists of four different horsemen: first mentioned are the severe climate effects of global warming; Trump “toxic and divisive” presidency is mentioned next;  followed by the Covid-19 pandemic and its subsequent economic effects; and finally, “a mass movement demanding a reckoning with the nation’s legacy of racism”.

Israel’s War Crimes: Is the Tide Finally Turning?

By Philip Giraldi, July 27, 2021

The Unilever decision greatly boosted the morale of the perpetually under siege non-violent Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which has been calling on companies and investors to support Palestinian human rights by isolating Israel economically.

Florida COVID-19 Fatalities Data Included Man who Died in Motorcycle Accident

By Laura Dyrda, July 27, 2021

A man who died in a motorcycle accident was counted among the COVID-19 related deaths in the state, leading to questions about whether the state’s reported coronavirus death rates are accurate, according to Fox 35 Orlando.

Crimes against First Nations, Colonial Dispossession. Forcibly Separated from Their Families and Placed in Church-run Schools

By Kim Petersen, July 27, 2021

Imagine that your childhood experience was being forcibly separated from your family and placed in church-run schools. Imagine hearing that you were a savage; being forbidden to speak in your savage tongue.

Video: UK Official Admits Lockdowns for “Social Control”

By Del Bigtree and Jefferey Jaxen, July 27, 2021

Part whistleblower, part human rights activist, Graham Brady is calling out his own government’s ill-advised Covid mitigation policies, originating from fear, rather than sound public health science.

Health Freedom Is the Hottest Political Issue on the Entire Globe, and Our World Will Never be the Same after this

By Michael Snyder, July 27, 2021

We are witnessing an epic global struggle for freedom, and the outcome of that struggle is going to greatly shape what our world is going to look like in the years ahead.

Nicaragua’s Sandinistas Battle ‘Diabolical’ US Empire and Poverty on 42nd Anniversary of Revolution

By Ben Norton, July 27, 2021

42 years after the victory of the Sandinista revolution, Nicaraguans are still celebrating the gains of the leftist movement, and hoping to take the transformative process to another stage.

What’s Actually Going On in Cuba?

By Helen Yaffe, July 27, 2021

The international media has exaggerated and manipulated these events to depict mass opposition to the Cuban government, police repression of peaceful protests and a regime in crisis.

Belt and Road vs. New Quad for Afghanistan’s Coming Boom

By Pepe Escobar, July 27, 2021

While facts on the ground spell out balkanization, the Taliban, even on the offensive, know they cannot possibly pull off a military takeover of Afghanistan. And when the Americans say they will continue to “support Afghan government forces,” that means still bombing, but from over the horizon and now under new Centcom management in Qatar.

Exploitative Trade Rules: The World Trade Organisation

By Rod Driver, July 27, 2021

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) makes the rules that govern global trade. Its stated purpose is “expanding…trade in goods and services.” Its guiding principle is that governments should not have laws that ‘distort’ trade.

Why Germany Has Won and Italy Has Lost

July 28th, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

German Chancellor Merkel – writes Alberto Negri (il manifesto, July 23) – has resisted the pressure of three U.S. administrations – Obama, Trump and Biden – to cancel North Stream 2, the pipeline that flanks the North Stream inaugurated ten years ago, doubling the supply of Russian gas to Germany. Instead, “South Stream, the Eni-Gazprom pipeline, failed”. Negri rightly concludes that Merkel “has won the game that we have lost”. The question arises spontaneously: why did Germany win and Italy lose?

The headline of the Washington Post is significant: “US, Germany reach agreement on Russian gas pipeline, ending dispute between allies”. The agreement, stipulated by President Biden with Chancellor Merkel, has been and is strongly opposed by a bipartisan group in Congress, led by Republican Senator J. Risch who proposes a law against “the malignant Russian project”. So the agreement is actually a “truce” (as Negri defines it).

The reason why the Biden administration has decided to stipulate it is to put an end to the “dispute” that was spoiling relations with Germany, an important NATO ally. The latter, however, had to pay the “pizzo” to the U.S. boss, committing itself – as requested by the under-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland – to “protect Ukraine” (in fact already a member of NATO) with an investment fund of $ 1 billion to compensate it for the decreased revenue, since the twin North Stream gas pipelines pass through the Baltic Sea bypassing its territory.

In return, Germany has, at least for now, US permission to import 55 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year from Russia. The pipeline is managed by the international consortium Nord Stream AG, consisting of 5 companies: Russian Gazprom, German Wintershall and Pe-gi/E.On, Dutch Nederland’s Gasunie and French Engie. Germany thus becomes the energy hub for the Russian gas supply to the European network.

The same role could have been assumed by Italy with the South Stream pipeline. The project was born in 2006, during the Prodi Il government, with the agreement stipulated by Eni and Gazprom. The pipeline would have crossed the Black Sea (in Russian, Bulgarian and Turkish territorial waters) continuing overland through Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Slovenia and Italy to Tarvisio (Udine). From here the gas would be routed into the European network.

Construction of the pipeline had begun in 2012. In March 2014, Saipem (Eni) was awarded an initial €2 billion contract to build the undersea section. In the meantime, however, while the Maidan Square putsch precipitated the Ukrainian crisis, the Obama administration, in concert with the European Commission, moved to scuttle the South Stream. In June 2014, a delegation from the U.S. Senate, headed by John McCain, arrived in Sofia and transmitted Washington’s orders to the Bulgarian government. Immediately this announced the blocking of the works of the South Stream, in which Gazprom had already invested 4.5 billion dollars.

In this way, Italy lost not only contracts worth billions of euros, but also the possibility of having on its territory the hub for the supply of Russian gas in Europe, which would have generated strong revenues and increased employment. Why has Italy lost all this? Because the Renzi government (in office from 2014 to 2016) and Parliament accepted Washington’s imposition with bowed heads. Merkel’s Germany, on the contrary, opposed it. It then opened the “dispute between allies” that forced Washington to accept the doubling of North Stream, while retaining the U.S. claim to decide which countries Europe is allowed to import gas from and which countries it is not allowed to import gas from.

Would an Italian government dare to open a dispute with Washington to defend one of our national interests? The fact is that Italy has lost not only the pipeline, but its own sovereignty.

*

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 in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Perché la Germania ha vinto e l’Italia ha perso

July 27th, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

La cancelliera tedesca Merkel – scrive Alberto Negri (il manifesto, 23 luglio) – ha resistito alle pressioni di tre amministrazioni Usa – Obama, Trump e Biden – perché cancellasse il North Stream 2, il gasdotto che affianca il North Stream inaugurato dieci anni fa, raddoppiando la fornitura di gas russo alla Germania.

È invece «fallito il South Stream, il gasdotto di Eni-Gazprom». Conclude giustamente Negri che la Merkel «ha vinto la partita che noi abbiamo perso». Sorge spontanea la domanda: perché la Germania ha vinto e l’Italia ha perso?

Significativo il titolo del Washington Post: «Usa e Germania raggiungono un accordo sulla pipeline del gas russo, ponendo fine alla disputa tra alleati». L’accordo, stipulato dal presidente Biden con la cancelliera Merkel, è stato ed è fortemente osteggiato da uno schieramento bipartisan del Congresso, capeggiato dal senatore repubblicano J. Risch che propone una legge contro «il maligno progetto russo».

Quindi l’accordo è in effetti una «tregua» (come la definisce Negri). La ragione per cui l’amministrazione Biden ha deciso di stipularlo è mettere fine alla «disputa» che incrinava i rapporti con la Germania, importante alleato Nato. Questa ha dovuto però pagare il «pizzo» al boss Usa, impegnandosi– come ha richiesto la sottosegretaria di Stato Victoria Nuland – a «proteggere l’Ucraina» (di fatto già nella Nato) con un fondo di investimento di 1 miliardo di dollari che la risarcisca per i diminuiti introiti, dato che i due gasdotti gemelli North Stream passano dal Mar Baltico aggirando il suo territorio. Come contropartita la Germania ha, almeno per ora, il permesso Usa a importare dalla Russia 55 miliardi di metri cubi annui di gas naturale.

Il gasdotto è gestito dal consorzio internazionale Nord Stream AG, costituito da 5 società: la russa Gazprom, le tedesche Wintershall e Pegi/E.On, l’olandese Nederland’s Gasunie e la francese Engie. La Germania diviene così l’hub energetico per lo smistamento del gas russo nella rete europea.

Lo stesso ruolo avrebbe potuto assumere l’Italia con il gasdotto South Stream. Il progetto era nato nel 2006, durante il governo Prodi Il, con l’accordo stipulato da Eni e Gazprom. Il gasdotto avrebbe attraversato il Mar Nero (in acque territoriali russe, bulgare e turche) proseguendo via terra attraverso Bulgaria, Serbia, Ungheria, Slovenia e Italia fino a Tarvisio (Udine). Da qui il gas sarebbe stato smistato nella rete europea.

La costruzione della pipeline era iniziata nel 2012. Nel marzo 2014 la Saipem (Eni) si aggiudicava un primo contratto da 2 miliardi di euro per la costruzione del tratto sottomarino. Nel frattempo però, mentre con il putsch di Piazza Maidan precipitava la crisi ucraina, l’amministrazione Obama, di concerto con la Commissione Europea, si muoveva per affossare il South Stream. Nel giugno 2014 arrivava a Sofia una delegazione del Senato Usa, capeggiata da John McCain, che trasmetteva al governo bulgaro gli ordini di Washington. Subito questo annunciava il blocco dei lavori del South Stream, in cui la Gazprom aveva già investito 4,5 miliardi di dollari. In tal modo l’Italia perdeva non solo contratti per miliardi di euro, ma la possibilità di avere sul proprio territorio l’hub di smistamento del gas russo in Europa, da cui sarebbero derivati forti introiti e incremento di posti di lavoro.

Perché l’Italia ha perso tutto questo? Perché il governo Renzi (in carica dal 2014 al 2016) e il Parlamento hanno accettato a testa china l’imposizione di Washington.

La Germania della Merkel, al contrario, si è opposta. Ha quindi aperto la «disputa tra alleati» che ha costretto Washington ad accettare il raddoppio del North Stream, pur mantenendo gli Usa la pretesa di decidere da quali paesi l’Europa può importare o no gas naturale. Un governo italiano oserebbe aprire una disputa con Washington per difendere un nostro interesse nazionale? Il fatto è che l’Italia ha perso non solo il gasdotto, ma la propria sovranità.

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Perché la Germania ha vinto e l’Italia ha perso

Majority of US Physicians Decline COVID Shots, According to Survey

July 27th, 2021 by Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

First published by Global Research on June 21, 2021

***

Of the 700 physicians responding to an internet survey by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), nearly 60 percent said they were not “fully vaccinated” against COVID.

This contrasts with the claim by the American Medical Association that 96 percent of practicing physicians are fully vaccinated. This was based on 300 respondents.

Neither survey represents a random sample of all American physicians, but the AAPS survey shows that physician support for the mass injection campaign is far from unanimous.

“It is wrong to call a person who declines a shot an ‘anti-vaxxer,’” states AAPS executive director Jane Orient, M.D. “Virtually no physicians are ‘anti-antibiotics’ or ‘anti-surgery,’ whereas all are opposed to treatments that they think are unnecessary, more likely to harm than to benefit an individual patient, or inadequately tested.”

The AAPS survey also showed that 54 percent of physician respondents were aware of patients suffering a “significant adverse reaction.” Of the unvaccinated physicians, 80 percent said “I believe risk of shots exceeds risk of disease,” and 30% said “I already had COVID.”

Other reasons for declining the shot included unknown long-term effects, use of aborted fetal tissue, “it’s experimental,” availability of effective early treatment, and reports of deaths and blood clots.

Of 560 practicing physicians, 56 percent said they offered early treatment  for COVID.

Nonphysicians were also invited to participate in the survey. Of some 5,300 total participants, 2,548 volunteered comments about associated adverse effects of which they were aware. These included death, amputation, paralysis, stillbirth, menstrual irregularities, blindness, seizures, and heart issues.

“Causality is not proven. However, many of these episodes might have resulted in a huge product liability or malpractice award if they had occurred after a new drug,” stated Dr. Orient. “Purveyors of these COVID products are protected against lawsuits.”

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has represented physicians in all specialties since 1943. Its motto is omnia pro aegroto, everything for the patient.

*

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 Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

On 24 July 1534, French navigator Jacques Cartier voyaged to the Gulf of Kaniatarowanenneh (River of the Mohawks, St Lawrence) and planted a cross on the shore of Gaspé. It signified claiming possession of the territory on behalf of the king of France, Francis I. Donnacona, chief of Stadacona (Québec city), was unhappy at this effrontery. Surmising this, Cartier lied and downplayed the significance of the 9-meter (30-ft) cross.

A Thought Experiment

Imagine that your childhood experience was being forcibly separated from your family and placed in church-run schools. Imagine hearing that you were a savage; being forbidden to speak in your savage tongue; being forced to dress in your oppressor’s sartorial; being made to pray to the oppressor’s god; being fed strange, insalubrious, unpalatable meals; being used as slave labor; being subject to beatings; and, even worse, being sodomized or raped. If you survived this cruel assimilation project, how would your feelings be toward the government, its gendarmerie, and the church? And what of your feelings toward the cross, that ubiquitous symbol of your stolen childhood and your people’s dispossession? [1]

The Blowback to Colonialism

On Canada Day, 1 July, a statue of the British navigator James Cook was torn from its pedestal and tossed into the murky waters of the Inner Harbor of Camosack (Victoria). Afterwards, several wooden red dresses, commemorating missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, were arranged in the bronze Cook’s sted. Half a block away, a statue of queen Victoria situated on the lawn in front of the Parliament Buildings somehow eluded the anti-imperialist fervor of the day. However, the Victoria statue in front of Winnipeg’s Manitoba Legislature did not escape its fate. It was decapitated and toppled, as was the statue of the current monarch, Elizabeth. Victoria’s head was thrown in the Assiniboine River. [2]

Then, sometime between 16 July and 17 July, a steel cross atop Mt Ts’uwxilum (known to most by its anglicized spelling of Mt Tzouhalem), in the Cowichan Valley on Vancouver Island, was cut down. People are drawing a link between the removal of the cross with the revelation of unmarked graves at former Indian Residential Schools in Canada. The taking down of the Mt Ts’uwxilum cross came on the heels of a confirmed 160 unmarked graves on the grounds of the former Kuper Island Residential School on Penelakut Island (the restored First Nation designation for Kupfer Island).

Ladysmith Chemainus Chronicle spoke to Penelakut member Steve Sxwithul’txw, an acclaimed filmmaker and a survivor of the Kuper Island Residential School, who started a GoFundMe with his partner Michele Mundy and Tom LaFortune for Vancouver Island First Nations to search former residential school sites on their territory. Is fundraising something First Nations should have to do?

“I think it’s important that the government fund this. In no way shape or form that First Nations should be funding this. In no way shape or form should a residential school survivor be fundraising to find bodies,” said Sxwithul’txw.

Sxwithul’txw demands accountability of the government and churches.

The work is going to continue for the next number of years — the unearthing of our lost children. We can keep unearthing them, but at the same time, what is going to happen? Who is going to be accountable? Is the Government of Canada going to take responsibility? They’re culpable. Same with the churches. So what’s going to be the process? I’m asking non-Indigenous Canadians to apply for answers. Write to your MP to get answers and move forward with investigations.

The government and churches are culpable, but so is the RCMP.

North Cowichan mayor Al Siebring knows of the devastation caused to many lives by the residential schools, but he nonetheless bemoans the removal of a cross first placed on Mt Ts’uwxilum in 1976: “That is not how we as a society should be dealing with our past. We need to respect each other and get along.” [3]

In other words, Siebring says the symbols of colonialism — the symbols of the institutions that brought about the dispossession of First peoples and sought their disappearance through assimilation — should remain on display or should not be summarily removed. This sentiment is expressed for a symbol now merged with genocide that was erected on the mountain named after chief Ts’uwxilum on the territory of the Quw’utsun (Cowichan) people.

Would Siebring argue similarly for mutual respect regarding swastikas displayed as symbols in Europe? [4]

As for how to deal with the symbols and symbolism, of course, First Nations should be consulted and lead the way. However, there is also an argument to be made that the current generation of non-Indigenous Canadians, who are ashamed of the heinous crimes of previous generations and wish to repudiate these crimes by removing the symbols of oppression, have a right to repurpose the spaces to better reflect sincerity for reconciliation.

The Cross and Original Peoples

Meanwhile, although reconciliation is the buzzword, many actions speak to the continuation of colonial-settler dispossession. For instance, the Mi’kmaq still struggle against government ennui and white racism for their right to harvest lobster as they have done centuries before the White Man arrived. The Wet’suwet’en First Nation are still resisting the construction of a pipeline through their unceded territory, abetted by the RCMP. Mi’kmaw groups are opposed to the construction of a LNG export facility in Mi’kma’ki (Nova Scotia) and have an understandable fear of “man camps” that would house the construction workers. And the RCMP are still killing Indigenous people.

Yet, the moral solution is clear. If you steal something, then elementary morality demands that you return what you have stolen — in the same condition and with additional compensation as required. Land back:

Land Back is really about the decision-making power. It’s about self-determination for our Peoples here that should include some access to the territories and resources in a more equitable fashion, and for us to have control over how that actually looks. — Jesse Wente, a dad, husband, and Ojibwe man

Dolefully, it seems that colonialism in both its historical and present-day forms remains a cross Indigenous peoples are forced to bear.

*

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.

Kim Petersen is a former co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be emailed at: kimohp@gmail. Twitter: @kimpetersen. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

1. I am not indigenous to Turtle Island, and do not pretend to know what it feels like to have experienced what the Indigenous people of Turtle Island have experienced. I can only attempt to imagine it.

2. Queen Victoria’s legacy is tarnished by her reigning over the racist dispossession of peoples throughout the British empire.

3. Quoted by Kevin Rothbauer, “Cross that overlooked Cowichan Valley from Mount Tzouhalem cut down,” Cowichan Valley Citizen, 22 July 2021, A1 and A35.

4. It is acknowledged that Nazis purloined the swastika from the East where it was a common symbol with a positive connotation and a long history for Hindus and Buddhists.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

Israel’s War Crimes: Is the Tide Finally Turning?

July 27th, 2021 by Philip Giraldi

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Targeting and killing Palestinian children could not accomplish what a decision by an ice cream company has achieved. To be sure, the visual impact of Israel’s recent onslaught on Gaza turned many against that country’s war crimes and its ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, but what the Israeli government really has feared most is an economic and cultural boycott such as the one that brought down the apartheid regime in South Africa. That blow came last week when Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, which is sold in the food shops in the illegal-under-international-law Israeli settlements on the West Bank, would no longer market its product in those areas after the current contract with suppliers expires at the end of 2022.

Social media and mainstream media normally censor any posts or stories that are too critical of the Jewish state, but in this case the decision reverberated throughout the media as ice cream wars are both newsworthy and exceedingly rare. But the dramatic response by both Israeli politicians and their spear carriers in the US Congress indicated just how serious the move, little more than a gesture in practical terms, was considered to be.

There was also a touch of irony to the tale as Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield were and still are both politically liberal Jewish New Yorkers who moved to Vermont to open their business. The fact is that they were not party to the decision as they had sold their company to British food and consumer home products conglomerate Unilever back in 2000, which is precisely the problem for the Israeli government. Even though Ben & Jerry’s has an independent board, its parent company Unilever is a major corporation. The fact that it accepted a decision that it knew would be extremely controversial is significant as there would have to have been a consensus over the issue by the company’s top executives and board as well by major shareholders. There are indeed reports that the independent board of Ben & Jerry’s wanted to boycott all of Israel but was restrained by Unilever management. Either way, for Israel it was perhaps the shape of things to come with other companies possibly following the Ben & Jerry example by limiting their involvement in the country’s economy or pulling out altogether.

The Unilever decision greatly boosted the morale of the perpetually under siege non-violent Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which has been calling on companies and investors to support Palestinian human rights by isolating Israel economically. Israel’s government responded sharply even as it unleashed its Ministry of Strategic Affairs’ army of largely diaspora trolls on the internet, overwhelming the ice cream maker’s website and Facebook pages with a defense of Israel that included vile accusations of anti-Semitism.

The Israeli head of the Ben & Jerry subsidiary is also apparently refusing to go along with what is only a partial boycott, affecting the clearly illegal settlements. In a tweet, local CEO Avi Zinger wrote:

“We are continuing to sell in all of Israel, and we will not surrender to the pressure of Unilever and the global Ben & Jerry’s.”

Israeli President Isaac Herzog immediately condemned the Ben & Jerry move, insisting that any boycotts of Israel over human rights concerns constitute “a new kind of terrorism.” Newly elected Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has also inevitably joined the chorus , labeling Ben & Jerry “anti-Israel ice cream.” Ironically, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also publicly called on his co-religionists to boycott Ben & Jerry, saying “Now we Israelis know which ice cream NOT to buy.” It was a complete reversal on Netanyahu’s part as he has argued vehemently against any boycott campaigns, particularly as they apply to Israel.

Also in Israel itself, Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked visited the Ben & Jerry’s ice cream factory. She confirmed that Israeli authorities were already working with American Jewish and Christian Zionists, as well as other pro-Israel groups and Congress to pressure Unilever “until they change their despicable decision. Ben & Jerry’s International chose to suck up to terrorist and antisemitic organizations” and the government will engage in the “legal, consumer and diplomatic arenas” to reverse the decision.

It is no surprise that Israel is particularly pressing hard on what it perceives as a friendly audience in the United States. In a move coordinated with Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, who has himself tweeted “Ben & Jerry’s decision represents shameful surrender to antisemitism, to BDS and to all that is wrong with the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish discourse. We will not be silent,” Gilad Erdan, Israel’s ambassador to the United States and the United Nations, called the move “the dehumanization of the Jewish people.” He reportedly has contacted the governors of the 35 states in America that have legislated against the BDS movement, demanding that they sanction or otherwise punish Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever over the decision. He wrote “I ask that you consider speaking out against the company’s decision, and taking any other relevant steps, including in relations to your state laws and the commercial dealings between Ben and Jerry’s and your state.” As two-thirds of US states have such legislation, including major large population states Florida, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, California, Maryland and Texas the threat is a serious one, though the legislation and what it actually authorizes varies from state to state.

The anti-BDS legislation is widely regarded as unconstitutional as it would essentially eliminate free speech if the subject is Israel. It was recently successfully challengedin Georgia by journalist Abby Martin, who was denied the right to speak before a college group if she would not first sign a statement saying that she would not support any boycott of Israel.

Indeed, Jewish groups and spokesmen in the US are beginning to line up against the ice cream maker. Faux conservative talking head Ben Shapiro has announced to his audience that he will no longer eat Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. Perhaps more significant, the ubiquitous Anti -Defamation League (ADL) has issued a statement on the decision “We are disappointed by this decision from @benandjerrys. You can disagree with policies without feeding into dangerous campaigns that seek to undermine Israel.” Meanwhile, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations has written to the governors of the 35 states that have anti-BDS legislation and has demanded that they force their state pension funds to divest from Unilever.

And as ADL and the Conference of Presidents go, so too goes the US government. Predicably call-me-Zionist Joe Biden and the US State Department, which has Zionist Jews at its three top positions, added their two cents, confirming that the White House “firmly reject[s] the BDS movement, which unfairly singles out Israel.” And there are the usual sounds coming out of the Israeli firsters in Congress and elsewhere. Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, for example, quickly called for “block[ing] the sale of all #Benandjerrys in the state and in any state-operated facility to align with our law.” Florida’s Ron DeSantis, self-described as America’s most pro-Israel governor, was also quick off the mark, instructing his state government to stop any purchases of Unilever products while Texas governor Greg Abbott called the move “disgraceful and an insult to America’s closest ally in the Middle East.” New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has meanwhile committed himself to stop eating Ben & Jerry’s ice cream.

If anyone does not have a problem with the behavior of Israel and its proxies in the United States I will attempt to explain. Wealthy Israel, which has been taking the United States taxpayer for a ride for over seventy years, is a major strategic liability for the US and a moral cesspit due to its genocidal policies towards the Palestinians and its incessant promotion of war within its region and beyond. Its president is now grossly hyperbolically referring to an ice cream company’s partial boycott as a “new form of terrorism.” In the current context, its Foreign Minister and Ambassador are also inter alia interfering in US politics and our judiciary, openly calling on individual American states to take steps to sanction and punish a Vermont based ice cream company which made a business decision based on both moral and legal considerations.

Worse still, many Americans who claim to be ethical but who perversely function as corrupted politicians and media whores are fully on board with punishing Ben & Jerry, which is a direct assault on the Bill of Rights and serves no national interest whatsoever. If there is anything that better illustrates the toxicity of the lopsided relationship with Israel than what is taking place right now it is difficult to imagine just what that might be. Hopefully the decision by Unilever will backfire on the critics, encouraging rather than discouraging other companies to divest in Israel or boycott what it produces. They will be joined by the labor unions, university student representative bodies and mainstream churches that have already denounced apartheid Israel and signed on to BDS. That Israel and its friends are terrified of the possible consequences of the Ben & Jerry boycott is in fact good news. Hopefully the charade of one set of rules for Israel and one set of rules for everyone else will end and Americans will at last be freed from a relationship that has brought nothing but grief since 1948.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Signs of COVID Injection Failure Mount

July 27th, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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

This suggests the wave among unvaccinated has peaked and that natural herd immunity has set in, while “vaccinated” individuals are actually becoming more prone to infection

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

100 fully injected crew members had tested positive onboard the British Defense aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth. The Navy ship has a case rate of 1 in 16 — the highest case rate recorded. This suggests vaccine-induced herd immunity is impossible, as these injections apparently cannot prevent COVID-19 even if 100% of a given population gets them

It is mathematically impossible for COVID shots to eliminate SARS-CoV-2 infection. The four available COVID shots in the U.S. provide an absolute risk reduction between just 0.7% and 1.3%. Meanwhile, the noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio across age groups is a mere 0.26%. Since the absolute risk that needs to be overcome is lower than the absolute risk reduction these injections can provide, mass vaccination simply cannot have a favorable impact

*

In recent weeks, a number of signs have emerged indicating the COVID-19 injections cannot put an end to COVID-19 outbreaks. In the July 15, 2021, video report above, Dr. John Campbell reviews data coming out of the U.K. On a side note, I do not agree with everything Campbell says in this video, such as promoting mask wearing, for example. It’s his data review that is of interest here.

As noted in the video, as of July 15, 87.5% of the adult population in the U.K. had received one dose of COVID-19 “vaccine” and 67.1% had received two. Yet symptomatic cases among partially and fully “vaccinated” are now suddenly on the rise, with an average of 15,537 new infections a day being detected, a 40% increase from the week before.

Meanwhile, the daily average of new symptomatic cases among unvaccinated is 17,588, down 22% from the week before. This suggests the wave among unvaccinated has peaked and that natural herd immunity has set in, while “vaccinated” individuals are becoming more prone to infection.

U.K. hospitals are confirming double-injected patients are part of the patient population being treated for active COVID infection, and two cities have issued public warnings to their residents, letting them know they may end up in the hospital even if they’ve been double-injected against COVID-19.

“There are currently 15 patients in hospital with COVID across the Trust; last month there were none,” The Yorkshire Post reported1 July 9, 2021. An undisclosed number of them had received two doses of COVID “vaccine.”

“The message I would like to share with you all is that some of their patients are double vaccinated,” Heather McNair, chief nurse at York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals, told the Post.2

“This is a disease that can still affect you and still make you poorly when you are double vaccinated. We have got a ward at the moment full of COVID patients in our hospital and that is not going away anytime soon.”

While the number of hospitalized COVID patients doubled in a single week, the total number was still well below the number reported in January 2021 — a statistic Amanda Bloor, accountable officer for the NHS North Yorkshire Clinical Commissioning Group, takes as proof that the injection program is “having the anticipated impact around reducing the risk of death and reducing serious illness.”

COVID Surges in Countries with Highest Injection Rates

I wouldn’t be so quick to assume lower hospitalization rates in the middle of summer are a sign that the injections are having a positive impact. We also have data3 showing that 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. This trend “is worrying me quite a bit,” Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology, said in a July 16, 2021, Tweet.4

daily new confirmed covid 19 cases per million people

share of people who received at least one dose of covid 19 vaccine

You can view more data in this thread, posted by Corona Realism.5 Cyprus, where more than 51% of residents have received the jab, now has the highest case count in the world. Interestingly, the outbreak on the British Navy ships — which I’ll cover further below — occurred shortly after a stopover in Cyprus.6

cyprus covid cases vs vaccinated population

Bhutan offers an interesting glimpse into the effects of mass COVID “vaccination”. They managed to get 64% of residents injected in just one week, starting March 27, 2021, and almost immediately, there was a rapid uptick in cases.

In the first graph below, you see the extraordinarily rapid injection rate in Bhutan, going from zero to 64% in a matter of days. In the second graph, you can see the effect on cases in the weeks that followed. They went from near-zero cases at the outset of the injection campaign, to a high of more than 400 cases per million in the weeks following.

share of people who received at least one dose vaccine

biweekly confirmed covid 19 cases per million people

Case Counts Lowest in Low-‘Vaxxed’ Nations

On the flipside, we see the lowest number of positive COVID tests congregated in nations that also have the lowest rates of COVID “vaccine” uptake. While it’s not a 100% clear-cut correlation, it is a trend, and we also have to remember that the PCR tests have issues that complicate any attempt at data analysis.

biweekly changed in confirmed covid 19 cases

The main problem is that if you run the PCR test at too-high a cycle threshold (CT), you end up with an inordinate number of false positives.7,8,9 The CT refers to the point in the test where a positive result is obtained. A CT of 35 or higher will give you a 97% false positive rate.10

For maximum accuracy, you’d have to use a CT of 17.11 It’s unclear what all these countries are using, but it’s unlikely they’re using a CT below 20 as a matter of routine. This means most case counts around the world will be falsely elevated.

This is particularly true for unvaccinated individuals in the U.S., as their tests are recommended to be run at a CT of 40, whereas patients that have received a COVID injection will have their COVID tests run at a CT below 28. This makes it appear as though the case rate is higher among the unvaccinated, when in reality it’s just an artifact from highly biased testing and few of these falsely positive “cases” are actually sick.

Looking at the hospitalization rate for confirmed COVID-19 in the U.S.,12 we see that the number of people sick enough to require medical attention is nowhere near what it was during the winter months of 2021, and since only 5.9% of American adults had been injected with two doses as of February 21, 2021,13 we can conclude that the injections did not cause this rapid decline in hospitalizations.

new admissions of patients with confirmed covid 19 united states

The best explanation for the decline in both cases and hospitalizations after the rollout of COVID shots is the emergence of natural herd immunity from previous infections.

In a July 12, 2021, STAT News article,14 Robert M. Kaplan, Professor Emeritus at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, calculated that by April 2021, the natural immunity rate was above 55% in 10 U.S. states, and in most of those same states, new infections were in rapid decline as early as the end of 2020, at a time when only a tiny fraction of the population had received their shots.

CDC Doesn’t Track All Breakthrough Cases

We must also remember that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are artificially driving down case rates, hospitalization rates and death rates for “vaccinated” Americans by selectively tracking breakthrough cases. They only track and report breakthrough cases where the patient is hospitalized or dies.15 They do not count mild cases, even if they have a positive test result.

A number of media outlets have expressed concerns about this biased tracking and reporting. As noted in Harvard Health,16 the CDC’s strategy prevents us from ascertaining whether one injection is more or less effective than another. It can also hide manufacturing problems and prevent us from determining whether timing of the second dose might have a bearing on effectiveness, as well as a number of other things.

Business Insider17 pointed out that not tracking all breakthrough cases makes it more difficult to determine how dangerous the Delta variant really is. NPR expresses a similar view, stating that “Critics argue the strategy could miss important information that could leave the U.S. vulnerable, including early signs of new variants that are better at outsmarting the vaccines.”18

Even Complete ‘Vaccine’ Coverage Won’t Stop Infections

July 14, 2021, BBC News reported19 100 fully injected crewmembers had tested positive onboard the British Defense aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth. It’s unclear whether any of them actually have symptoms. According to British defense secretary Ben Wallace, mitigation efforts include mask wearing, social distancing and a track and trace system. He made no mention of actual treatment for acute infection.

Other warships are also reporting onboard outbreaks, although Wallace did not offer any details about them. The fleet is currently in the Indian Ocean and plans to continue the 28-week deployment, with Japan as their destination. BBC News said the queen and prime minister had been onboard the flagship shortly before it sailed.

This case offers a sobering view into the effectiveness of these gene modifying shots, as the HMS Queen Elizabeth now has a case rate of 1 in 1620 — the highest case rate recorded so far, that I know of. Yet 100% of the crew has been double-injected. This tells you that the vaccine-induced herd immunity narrative is a fairytale. These injections apparently cannot prevent COVID-19 even if 100% of a given population gets them!

Israeli Data Indicate Pfizer ‘Vaccine’ Failure

Data from Israel also offer a dismal view of COVID-19 injections. Israel used Pfizer’s mRNA injection exclusively, so this gives us a good idea of its effectiveness. Overall, it looks like an abysmal failure, as a majority of serious cases and deaths are now occurring among those injected with two doses. The following is a screenshot of graphs posted on Twitter.21

The red is unvaccinated, yellow refers to partially “vaccinated” and green fully “vaccinated” with two doses. The charts speak for themselves.

new hospitalizations

new severe covid 19 patients

deaths trend

Overall, it doesn’t appear as though COVID-19 gene modification injections have the ability to effectively eliminate COVID-19 outbreaks, and this makes sense, seeing how it’s mathematically impossible for them to do so.

The four available COVID shots in the U.S. provide an absolute risk reduction between just 0.7% and 1.3%.22,23 (Efficacy rates of 67% to 95% all refer to the relative risk reduction.) Meanwhile, the noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio across age groups is a mere 0.26%.24 Since the absolute risk that needs to be overcome is lower than the absolute risk reduction these injections can provide, mass vaccination simply cannot have a favorable impact.

CDC Tries to Hide COVID Jab Death Toll

They can, however, cause unnecessary deaths among otherwise healthy individuals. Tragically, the CDC is doing everything it can to hide just how great that death toll is. 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:25

“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:26

“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 19:27

“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. Yet here we are. We’re now living in a world where crucial public health data is being manipulated at every turn. For this reason, looking at larger trends such as those reviewed above may offer a more dependable picture of what the real-world consequences of these shots are.

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) recently posted more than 50 video presentations from the pay-for-view Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination held online October 16 to 18, 2020, and made them available to everyone for free.

The conference’s theme was “Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century” and it featured physicians, scientists and other health professionals, human rights activists, faith community leaders, constitutional and civil rights attorneys, authors and parents of vaccine injured children talking about vaccine science, policy, law and ethics and infectious diseases, including coronavirus and COVID-19 vaccines.

In December 2020, a U.K. company published false and misleading information about NVIC and its conference, which prompted NVIC to open up the whole conference for free viewing. The conference has everything you need to educate yourself and protect your personal freedoms and liberties with respect to your health.

Don’t miss out on this incredible opportunity. I was a speaker at this empowering conference and urge you to watch these video presentations before they’re censored and taken away by the technocratic elite.

*

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

Notes

1, 2 The Yorkshire Post July 9, 2021

3 PBS Our World in Data, Daily confirmed cases

4 Twitter Robert Malone July 16, 2021

5, 20 Twitter Thread Reader July 16, 2021

6 MSN July 14, 2021

7 The Vaccine Reaction September 29, 2020

8 Jon Rappoport’s Blog November 6, 2020

9 YouTube TWiV 641 July 16, 2020

10 Clinical Infectious Diseases September 28, 2020; ciaa1491

11 European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases April 27, 2020; 39: 1059-1061

12 CDC.gov, Interpretive Summary for July 16, 2021, Hospitalizations

13, 14 STAT News July 12, 2021

15 CDC COVID-19 Breakthrough Case Investigations and Reporting

16 Harvard Health June 3, 2021

17 Business Insider July 3, 2021

18 NPR June 2, 2021

19 BBC News July 14, 2021

21 Twitter Alex Berenson July 18, 2021

22 Medicina 2021; 57: 199

23 The Lancet Microbe July 1, 2021; 2(7): E279-E280

24 Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352

25 Wayback CDC Reported Adverse Events July 13, 2021

26 Wayback CDC Reported Adverse Events July 19, 2021

27 CDC Reported Adverse Events July 19, 2021, Now altered

Featured image is from Chemical Violence

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A U.K. member of Parliament has come forward writing a blistering op-ed for the Daily Mail.

Part whistleblower, part human rights activist, Graham Brady is calling out his own government’s ill-advised Covid mitigation policies, originating from fear, rather than sound public health science.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

US Attempting to Prevent China’s Technological Rise

July 27th, 2021 by Paul Antonopoulos

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill banning scientists from receiving government funding if they are also involved in any Chinese-funded project. Washington’s move is part of the U.S.’ overall strategy of technological confrontation with China.

In the late 2000’s, China adopted the 1000 Talents Program to actively recruit world-class scientists to work in the country. Under the program, such professionals are offered very attractive working conditions: wages equal or even higher than in developed Western countries, visa exemptions for family members, a high degree of scientific freedom, and reduced bureaucracy and reporting.

Initially, the program was mainly aimed at Chinese scientists who trained and worked abroad. According to the American consulting organization Marco Polo, for every 10 people of Chinese origin who attended university and received advanced degrees in the U.S., nine stayed there to work for more than five years. Thus, the 1000 Talents Program was originally intended to provide Chinese scientists with working conditions at least equal to those in the U.S. However, the program was later extended to top scientists of other nationalities.

But the program is facing pressure, with Harvard University Professor Charles Lieber awaiting trial in the U.S. as prosecutors claim that he hid from the government that he was working for China as part of the 1,000 Talents Program. The scientist denies his guilt.

According to Bloomberg, the bill that was introduced by Republican Randy Feenstra is aimed at combating some countries’ supposedly unfair policies in attracting talented professionals. The bill also received support because the U.S. had previously passed the Innovation and Competition Act, which included a government investment of $250 billion into basic research and advanced technology.

The Act is designed to increase the competitiveness of the U.S. in science and technology, keeping the country in the lead. Therefore, Feenstra’s bill proposes that in order to be in charge of distributing funding, the National Science Foundation must ban cooperation with other countries. In addition to China, the document also mentions Russia, Iran and North Korea. However, the U.S.’ main goal is to limit cooperation with China, the main economic and technological rival of the U.S.

On the one hand, it is true that limiting contact between scientists will hinder China’s development in the short term. However, from a strategic point of view, this will not bring any benefit to the U.S. Major American companies, especially those in the Silicon Valley, were built with foreign talent. In fact, the U.S. has traditionally been a technological leader as it has been able to attract the best minds from around the world.

Marco Polo researchers analysed the most successful articles on artificial intelligence cited and presented in 2019 in scientific journals and at leading conferences. Among the papers presented at the industry’s largest annual event – Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, more than half of the papers are authored by scientists from U.S. research institutions and companies like Google, Microsoft Research, Stanford University, Carnegie Mellon University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Of these, 30% of the research was done by Chinese scientists.

Although China has a long way to go in becoming the world’s technological leader, as former Google CEO Eric Schmidt (who now heads the U.S. Artificial Intelligence Commission) said, China is closing the gap with the U.S. much faster than expected. Schmidt believes that the U.S. can maintain its advantage over China only if it unites with Japan and South Korea.

It begs the question though whether the U.S. can make Japan and South Korea overcome their centuries-long animosity to focus on China. For now, this seems like an unlikely prospect, even amidst the “Olympic Spirit.”

In fact, there is even the potentiality that China will seek to strengthen cooperation with South Korea and Japan in these fields. For Tokyo and Seoul, China is their most important trading partner despite geopolitical challenges. In 2019, a quarter of South Korea’s total exports went to China. For Japan, China is the second largest export market – accounting for 20% of Japan’s total exports.

Moody’s predicts that under the five-year plan, China will increase research and development spending by 7% per year. Japanese and South Korean partners, according to Moody’s projections, will hugely benefit from China’s technology development strategy.

Although the U.S. is attempting to contain China’s rapid technological advancements, decades of relying on foreign expertise has weakened the American talent pool, opening opportunities especially for Chinese and Indian researchers. With China able to offer equal conditions, or in many cases even superior to the West, the Asian country’s rise to technological dominance continues unabated despite cynical actions by the U.S. like the Innovation and Competition Act.

*

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

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The Biden Administration has signaled its next move as part of the White House’s full court press to pressure Americans into taking COVID-19 vaccines.

It seems the White House intends to strongarm the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) into fully approving COVID vaccines, while completely dismissing evolving safety and efficacy concerns in the process.

It began during a CNN town hall this week, when President Biden appeared to let it slip (in difficult to comprehend language) that he was pushing for full FDA approval before the end of the year.

Fully authorizing the COVID vaccines will allow for the government to hop over legal and regulatory hurdles that come from their current status under emergency use authorization. The Biden Administration seems to believe full approval will act as a mandate for further draconian, top down policies from the federal government, the likes of which may include vaccine passports and compulsory vaccination for much of public and private industry.

In an article earlier this week, state-corporate press organ NBC News attempted to tee up the case for vaccine mandates. Several Obama and Biden “health” officials went on the record for the piece to make it clear they wanted to make life as difficult as possible for “unvaccinated” Americans.

“The official regulatory sign off would remove a significant legal and public relations barrier for businesses and government agencies that want to requirevaccinations for their employees and customers, former health officials from the Biden and the Obama administrations said,” the NBC article states.

Andy Slavitt, a former Biden Administration official who infamously advertised a mask that he claimed could “deactivate” the coronavirus, told NBC News:

“I think once the vaccines go through full FDA approval, everything should be on the table, and I think that everything will be on the table at the level of municipalities, states, employers, venues, government agencies.”

The FDA is not in fact an independent regulatory agency. It is simply another executive branch agency that falls under the umbrella of the Department of Health and Human Services. While the FDA is tasked with ensuring the safety of drugs that have prospects for the open market, the reality remains that politicians and pharmaceutical companies regularly steer and manipulate the FDA as they please.

The revolving door between Big Pharma and the Government Health is very much on display at the FDA today. Patrizia Cavazzoni, the FDA’s new top drug regulator, worked for two decades in Big Pharma (including a stint at Pfizer) before entering her government role in 2019. In fact, it is the norm, not an aberration, for Big Pharma executives to have a resume stuffed with Big Pharma consulting and employment gigs. Recent FDA chiefs, such as Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieband Obama FDA chief Robert Califf, have resumes stuffed with examples of the constant revolving door between lobbying, government, and pharmaceutical companies.

The notion that mRNA vaccines have proven, *long term* safety and efficacy standards for the masses is simply not possible to prove at this time. Real world data (as opposed to Big Pharma studies) out of Israel, Malta, the UK, and elsewhere show that the vaccines have not exactly demonstrated much of an ability to prevent infection, contrary to the early claims made by pharmaceutical companies and Government Health institutions.

The bottom line: The White House is seeking to use the reputation of the FDA to force more Americans to take COVID vaccines, and they’ve made it clear that this is entirely about politics, and not science. The government agency that gave us the disaster that is the food pyramid is not an independent body, nor is it any kind of authority on science and health. The FDA is just another bureaucracy, with the primary interested parties being the White House and Big Pharma.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Politics over Science: Biden Admin Signals Intent to Force FDA Approval of COVID Vaccines
  • Tags: , ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

We are witnessing an epic global struggle for freedom, and the outcome of that struggle is going to greatly shape what our world is going to look like in the years ahead.  Ultimately, one of the most fundamental rights that we have is the right to make our own health decisions.  If someone else has the authority to make those decisions for you, then you aren’t really free.  This pandemic has transformed the debate over health freedom into the most hotly contested political issue on the entire planet, and the intensity seems to have been turned up a few more notches in recent days.  As governments around the world have begun instituting new lockdowns, new mandates and new “health passports”, we have seen huge eruptions of anger all over the world.

For example, over the weekend there was an enormous health freedom protest in London

Thousands have gathered today Saturday, July 24, in London’s Trafalgar Square to protest against the lockdown rules and COVID-19 vaccinations. A wide range of speakers is attending the event, including well-known British conspiracy theorist, Kate Shemirani, who spoke to the crowd. Demonstrators are angry about the recent move which will see vaccine passports becoming compulsory in England to access nightclubs and other packed venues.

At the same time, there were also massive protests in the heart of Paris

French anti-riot police fired tear gas Saturday as clashes erupted during protests in central Paris against COVID-19 restrictions and a vaccination campaign, television reported.

Police sought to push back demonstrators near the capital’s Gare Saint-Lazare railway station after protesters had knocked over a police motorbike ridden by two officers, television pictures showed.

Images showed a heavy police presence on the capital’s streets. Scuffles between police and demonstrators also broke out on the Champs-Elysees thoroughfare, where tear gas was fired and traffic was halted, the pictures showed.

On the other side of the globe, we continue to see violent protests in Sydney and other major Australian cities

Thousands of people took to the streets of Sydney and other Australian cities on Saturday to protest lockdown restrictions amid another surge in cases, and police made several arrests after crowds broke through barriers and threw plastic bottles and plants.

The unmasked participants marched from Sydney’s Victoria Park to Town Hall in the central business district, carrying signs calling for “freedom” and “the truth.”

Millions upon millions of people are fed up and are refusing to accept any more violations of their fundamental rights.

But of course there are millions of others that are eagerly embracing the tyrannical measures that have been implemented by national governments around the globe.

In the end, the scale is going to tip one way or the other, and the outcome is going to greatly shape the direction of humanity’s future.

So let us hope that freedom wins.

Right now, the corporate media continues to work very hard to generate as much panic as possible.  Earlier today, I found it quite comical when one news outlet ran a story about how authorities are now warning us that COVID can be spread by flatulence

The official advice is to open a window to increase ventilation and slow the spread of Covid, but now there could be an added incentive – the virus may also be spread by flatulence.

Ministers have privately pointed to evidence that Covid could be spread by people breaking wind in confined spaces such as lavatories. One said they had read “credible-looking stuff on it” from other countries, although government scientists are yet to produce a paper on the matter.

The source said there had been evidence of a “genomical-linked tracing connection between two individuals from a [lavatory] cubicle in Australia.”

You better run out and do as they say, because someone sitting in the next bathroom stall may have gas.

Here in the United States, we are now being told that more mandates and more lockdowns are coming because “this pandemic is spiraling out of control yet again”

“More mitigation is coming. Whether it’s masking, or whether it’s closures or whether it’s your kids having to return to virtual learning, that is coming,” the Trump administration surgeon general told CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday.

“And it’s coming because this pandemic is spiraling out of control yet again. And it’s spiraling out of control because we don’t have enough people vaccinated.”

In fact, we are already starting to see some local governments put new mandates into place.

For instance, a new mask mandate has just been announced in St. Louis and St. Louis County

Faced with a rising tide of COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations, St. Louis and St. Louis County leaders announced Friday that they will reinstate a mask requirement, for vaccinated and unvaccinated residents alike.

As more mandates are instituted by local governments around the country, it is inevitable that we will see widespread protests break out just like we are seeing in other countries.

Meanwhile, other “pestilences” continue to make headlines as well.  A drug-resistant “superbug” that is “resistant to all existing treatments” is causing quite a bit of alarm for U.S. health officials at this moment…

Cases of a deadly fungal infection resistant to all existing treatments have been spreading through nursing homes and hospitals in the United States for the first time, health officials said.

In the past we have seen isolated cases, but now we are being told that it looks like this “superbug” is spreading pretty easily from person to person

“This is really the first time we’ve started seeing clustering of resistance” in which patients seemed to be getting the infections from each other, said Dr Meghan Lyman, a medical officer at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

If that wasn’t bad enough, scientists have recently confirmed cases of the Bubonic Plague “in animals and fleas” in six different Colorado counties…

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment says there have been laboratory-confirmed reports of plague in animals and fleas from six counties.

One of the six counties with confirmed plague is LaPlata County, where a 10-year-old resident died from causes associated with the plague. Laboratory testing has since confirmed the presence of plague in a sample of fleas collected in the county, according to CDPHE.

For even more examples like this, please see my previous article entitled “4 ‘Pestilences’ That Everyone Should Be Keeping An Eye On Right Now”.

As I have stated before, I believe that we have entered a new era of great pestilences.  Scientists all over the globe are constantly playing around with deadly diseases, and in many instances they are actually attempting to make them even deadlier.

With that in mind, it chilled me to the core to read that 33 ancient viruses were recently discovered “trapped in the ice of the Tibetan Plateau”

Glaciers can preserve all sorts of relics from the distant past. So could they also be home to a pandemic from prehistoric times as well? It’s possible. A team from The Ohio State University has discovered a collection of viruses that have never been seen before in the ice of a glacier in China.

Scientists say the viral samples date back nearly 15,000 years and may reveal how pathogens evolve over the centuries. Of the 33 viruses found trapped in the ice of the Tibetan Plateau, the team considers 28 to be completely novel. About half of them also seem to have survived specifically because of the freezing conditions.

Now these ancient viruses will be “brought back to life”, and it is inevitable that scientists around the world will start playing around with them.

So what happens when there is an “accident” and one of those ancient viruses gets released?

We live at a time of incredible stupidity, and our stupidity is going to end up getting a whole lot of people killed.

*

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

Michael Snyder has published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News which are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe.

Featured image is from Pixabay

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A man who died in a motorcycle accident was counted among the COVID-19 related deaths in the state, leading to questions about whether the state’s reported coronavirus death rates are accurate, according to Fox 35 Orlando.

Fox 35 inquired with Orange County Health Officer Raul Pino, MD, about two COVID-19 deaths that were reported among individuals in their 20s last week. The Florida Department of Health said COVID-19 can be listed as the immediate or underlying cause of death, but instances such as trauma, homicide and motor-vehicle accidents are supposed to be excluded from the COVID-19 death rates.

On July 18, the state removed the motorcyclist’s death from the list of COVID-19 fatalities. In Florida, medical examiners certify all COVID-19 deaths.

*

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The Grayzone reports from Nicaragua on the 42nd anniversary of the Sandinista revolution. Nicaraguans discuss their improved quality of life, President Ortega condemns the dictatorial US “empire that wants to dominate all countries,” and Vice President Murillo declares poverty an imperialist “crime against humanity.”

42 years after the victory of the Sandinista revolution, Nicaraguans are still celebrating the gains of the leftist movement, and hoping to take the transformative process to another stage.

This July 19, tens of thousands of Nicaraguans flooded downtown Managua, the capital, to show their support for the revolution and the national government that since 2007 has been led by the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN).

An ocean of Nicaraguans filled the streets bearing red and black bandanas, waving FSLN flags, and chanting revolutionary slogans.

The celebration lasted for an entire week, culminating with speeches by President Daniel Ortega and Vice President Rosario Murillo, who emphasized gains of the revolution like free universal healthcare and education for all citizens, new high-quality infrastructure, the empowerment of women and the youth, as well as an assertive stance on the global stage.

Ortega used his speech on July 19 to announce a 5% increase in government spending on social programs, and a corresponding 5% increase in the salaries of public workers.

Murillo vowed to accelerate the government’s war on poverty, linking it to the “diabolical imperialist threat” posed by US intervention. Stressing that underdevelopment of the Global South is an “imperialist imposition that has been used to dominate, divide, diminish,” the Nicaraguan vice president called poverty a “crime against humanity.”

Highlighting Washington’s decades-long war on the Sandinistas, Ortega railed against US imperialism, calling the “yanqui empire” a global dictatorship obsessed with destroying Nicaragua, Russia, China, and any country in its way, led by “rulers who want to impose their hegemony, who want to make themselves owners and lords of the planet, who even want to take over the universe.”

nicaragua july 19 2021 avenida bolivar

While tens of thousands of Nicaraguans filled Managua to commemorate the revolution, international media outlets blasted out fake news.

Spanish corporate news wire EFE falsely claimed, “Few celebrate Nicaragua’s revolution on its anniversary number 42.” In reality, although they did not receive any coverage in the mainstream foreign press, there were demonstrations this July in support of the Sandinista Front all across Nicaragua, in most the country’s departments and major cities, including Masaya, Estelí, Boaco, Rivas, Chinandega, Jinotega, Matagalpa, Granada, Leon, Chantales, Carazo, and beyond.

The onslaught of disinformation, spread shamelessly by Western corporate outlets, is part of the unconventional warfare that has been waged against Nicaragua and its leftist government, since the Sandinistas returned to power through a series of democratic elections beginning in 2006.

In 2018, the United States backed a violent coup attempt aimed at overthrowing the FSLN and the party’s President Daniel Ortega. For months, right-wing bands waged a campaign of sabotage to destabilize the country, erecting barricades that battered the economy, while hunting down Sandinista activists in their homes and on the street.

The putsch fizzled out in July 2018. But just when it was on the path to recovery, Nicaragua encountered a new series of stumbling blocks.

nicaragua july 19 2021 avenida bolivar crowd

In 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic ravaged the world, further damaging Nicaragua’s economy. The US-funded anti-Sandinista opposition exploited the health crisis to launch another bid to sabotage the government.

As if this were not enough, that November, Central America was hit by not one but two hurricanes, Eta and Iota.

Despite the many obstacles, Nicaragua is still moving forward. The Sandinista government guarantees free, socialized, high-quality healthcare and education for all of its citizens.

And while Nicaragua is the second-poorest country in the western hemisphere (after Haiti), it has some of the strongest social programs in the region, as well as excellent public infrastructure, on par with that of much richer Latin American countries.

The Sandinistas have also heavily emphasized the role of women in leadership positions. It passed laws requiring government offices to be split at least 50-50 between men and women, leading to the fifth-highest level of gender equality in the entire world, and the highest in Latin America.

The government’s gains are especially impressive when considering that Nicaragua’s neighbors in the so-called Northern Triangle – Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala – are wracked by catastrophic violent crime rates, making them some of the most violent nations on Earth that aren’t officially at war.

Compared to its neighbors, Nicaragua is an oasis of stability and peace. And many Nicaraguans attribute their relative security to the Sandinista Front.

According to a survey taken this May by the mainstream polling firm, M&R Consultores, 76% of Nicaraguans feel their country has progressed in the 14 years of rule of the Sandinista Front. 73% say the government gives them hope, 69% personally approve of President Daniel Ortega, and 63% believe their families will have better lives and jobs with the FSLN staying in power.

When I walked around downtown Managua on the week of July 19, the wellspring of popular support was palpable.

nicaragua sandinista revolution anniversary 2021

“Thanks to the Sandinista Front and Comandante Ortega, my children can go to college for free, and the public schools are excellent,” said a middle-aged woman. “When I was a child, in the neoliberal period, we had to bring our own desks to school, and there were holes in the walls.”

“We have various new hospitals, and they’re free,” a man effused. “Before you would go and pay a lot, and they would just give you a pill.”

As I strolled down Avenida Bolívar a Chávez (the main street in the capital, where monuments to Venezuelan anti-imperialist leaders Simón Bolívar and Hugo Chávez had been erected), I spoke with dozens of people who had gathered to celebrate the revolution.

“The roads were horrible before Comandante Ortega returned,” recalled an elderly man. “It was just earth and mud outside my house. Now I have good roads all around my neighborhood.”

“I remember the neoliberal era. We had nothing. They privatized everything. They pillaged the country,” a woman lamented. “Before the Sandinista Front came back, we didn’t even have electricity or water. It went out every day.”

Many women emphasized the role the Sandinista Front has played in empowering them and their family members.

Several Nicaraguans also recognized me and stopped to show gratitude to The Grayzone for reporting on their struggle. “Thank you for telling the truth about what is going on,” a young Sandinista activist said. “The other media outlets say so many lies. They are all lies.”

sandinistas nicaragua july 19 2021 managua

Before Covid-19 broke out, Managua was the site of massive rallies each July 19, in which hundreds of thousands of Sandinista supporters filled downtown Managua to celebrate. At The Grayzone, we have reported on these enormous popular celebrations, which essentially amount to multi-day parties in the streets.

Both last year and this year, however, the government cancelled the official July 19 celebration, over health concerns due to Covid-19. (I also reported on the 41st anniversary of the revolution in 2020, from inside Managua.)

Yet these cancellations did not stop the hardcore base of the Sandinista Front from filling the streets of  Managua in celebration.

The night before the anniversary, on July 18, tens of thousands of Nicaraguans filled Managua’s Plaza La Fe.

Sandinista revolution anniversary July 18 2021

A long line of cars stretched all the way down Avenida Bolívar. Sandinistas were willing to sit in hours of traffic to attend.

Nicaragua July 18 2021 avenida bolivar

During a midnight fireworks launch, Nicaraguans blasted revolutionary music from their cars, and partied into the early morning.

Sandinista anniversary July 18 2021 plaza la fe

The enthusiasm that many Nicaraguans felt toward the Sandinista Front was tangible. One woman displayed a leg tattoo of President Daniel Ortega.

nicaragua sandinista ortega tattoo

While tens of thousands of Nicaraguans filled Managua’s Plaza La Fe and Avenida Bolívar on the night of July 18, many more held large community parties, called vigilias, in working-class barrios.

I attended a large gathering in the blue collar neighborhood of San Antonio, where young people mingled with elders and danced to a blend of reggaeton, rap, and música testimonial – revolutionary songs sang in unison and celebrating the Sandinista Front’s victories.

Revelers constantly stopped me to thank me for “reporting what is actually happening” in their country, complaining that the pro-Sandinista majority is ignored by foreign corporate media outlets, which instead act as mouthpieces for the elite right-wing opposition.

Sandinista revolution vigilia San Antonio 2021

An older man related to me the story of how he had left Nicaragua to study in Germany, and later worked in the United States, but later decided to return home because he wanted to support the revolutionary process.

“I have seen the poverty and homeless in the United States, and it is horrible, it is barbaric in a country with so much wealth,” he said.

Another Sandinista supporter exclaimed to me, “We want to thank the people of the United States who support the Sandinista Popular Revolution. The people of the US are not the same as the government; we know that!”

The older man had been involved in the armed struggle in the 1970s, and said that during the ’80s, he met many US activists who arrived in Nicaragua to help build the revolution.

Sandinista revolution 2021 vigilia San Antonio

The vigilia in San Antonio was organized by local Sandinista activists, who put a series of poster boards outside of the event, highlighting what they consider to be the most important gains of the revolution.

“The revolution is health for everyone,” read one, showing photos of the socialized healthcare system and new hospitals built under the FSLN government.

nicaragua sandinista vigilia health

“The revolution is: free, high-quality education,” read another poster. It included images of new school infrastructure, a state-of-the-art technological training center, and the free school supply program.

nicaragua sandinista vigilia education

“The revolution is: building road infrastructure and dignified homes,” the boards continued, displaying the Sandinistas’ highly subsidized public housing initiative.

nicaragua sandinista vigilia infrastructure

And last but not least was a sign emphasizing, “Without the participation of women, there is no revolution!”

nicaragua sandinista vigilia women

After days of community celebrations of the anniversary across Nicaragua, President Daniel Ortega and Vice President Rosario Murillo delivered speeches in Plaza de la Revolución, in the heart of Managua.

Ortega proceeded to his speech down Avenida Bolívar, standing through the open roof of his presidential vehicle and waving at the thousands of Nicaraguans who had rallied to commemorate the revolution.

ortega car crowd july 19 2021

The president’s security team reportedly did not support the decision, but Ortega insisted on greeting his supporters.

ortega car crowd july 19 2021 night

Nicaraguan President Ortega: US empire wants to dominate the world and suppress all other powers

Although Nicaragua is a small country of 6 million people, its Sandinista government punches above its weight on the international stage.

In the 2021 celebration, Ortega made it clear that anti-imperialism is at the forefront of the FSLN’s revolutionary program.

The “world is more and more shaken by the desires of the North American rulers, who want to impose their hegemony, who want to make themselves owners and lords of the planet, who even want to take over the universe,” the Nicaraguan president declared. “That is how far their plans go. Because they have atomic bombs, because they have lots of money.”

“And they can’t understand that that era, where imperialism had a period that was temporary, but a period of hegemony, when the balance between the Soviet Union and the United States was broken, that that moment of hegemony that it had, it was a few seconds, and that disappeared,” Ortega said.

“Now the peoples of the world are fighting; the North American people are fighting, bravely, the North American people are fighting, and the peoples of Europe are also fighting,” he continued.

“Those countries that still dream of imposing their colonialist, neocolonialist policies in the world, they are simply outside of reality. That is no longer possible.

“When the universe was created, and in the universe, Earth came up, there was never any god that said, ‘The yanquis are going to be the owners of the world.’ Not in Africa, not in Asia, not in our American lands where are ancestors were, our roots. There were a multitude of gods worshiped by different cultures, and not one god said ‘We must submit ourselves to the yanqui empire.’”

Free public health “clinics and hospitals are for all Nicaraguan families,” not just Sandinistas

In a particularly memorable moment, Ortega argued that Nicaraguan opposition supporters were themselves victims.

“There are even those Nicaraguan families that, for diverse reasons, aren’t able to understand what is the struggle for dignity, for justice, which has to do with their own material realities, and those families are also victims,” he said. “I mean, the people who oppose us, because there are people who oppose us, as a result of the ferocious propaganda that there is, and they are in misery.”

“But when they see that they are passing a new highway, they are happy. And they are not upset because it was the Government of the People-as-President that is building that road,” Ortega continued. “And when a clinic is being built, and when a hospital is being built, as dozens of hospitals have been built in these years [of the Sandinista government], clinics for women, the doors are open for all Nicaraguan families.”

“They are not clinics or hospitals only for Sandinista families. They are clinics and hospitals for all Nicaraguan families!” Ortega emphasized.

He then announced a 5% increase in government spending on social programs, including a 5% raise for public sector workers.

Ortega also stressed the importance of housing the population. “We will continue giving property titles until all Nicaraguans in our homeland have a house, a lot, a place to live, a farm,” he said.

Since 2007, the Sandinista government has given poor and working-class Nicaraguans more than 501,000 property deeds, in both urban and rural areas, Ortega emphasized. This is important because it ensures that Nicaraguans are secure in their homes, and have legal protections so they cannot be displaced by wealthy landlords, corporations, or developers that want to steal and exploit the land they live on.

“When the property is recorded in the [government] registry, there are no latifundia-style thieves who can steal that property from the peasants,” the Nicaraguan president reassured.

Ortega: Coup-plotters provoked Nicaraguan police with violence and wanted them to shoot back

In his discussion of the violent 2018 coup attempt, Daniel Ortega praised the national police for “resisting the provocations, the bullet wounds, the deaths.” He specifically highlighted the officers in the city of Masaya, who were under siege for weeks by heavily armed extremist coup-mongers.

“How difficult it was in that moment to have to tell those comrades there not to shoot back, not to resist, to endure it, not to shoot, while the terrorists were firing bullets, with funding from the yanquis and the oligarchy, attacking every day,” Ortega said.

“It was a provocation. They wanted the police to react, so they could say it was a massacre,” the president continued, explaining the strategy of the US-backed putsch. “The police were simply following orders to resist without firing any bullets, which are the most difficult orders to follow, when an institution is being attacked, when a command is being attacked.”

Ortega’s comments recalled an op-ed published in the New York Times by a US government-backed anti-China activist, titled “A Hong Kong Protester’s Tactic: Get the Police to Hit You.” The unusually candid 2019 article explained how Western-sponsored insurgents employed “aggressive nonviolence to provoke the authorities,” based on a strategy called “Marginal Violence Theory,” which uses “the most aggressive nonviolent actions possible to push the police and the government to their limits.”

But as The Grayzone has reported, the tactics Nicaragua’s opposition employed in 2018 were anything but non-violent.

Ortega: US empire is “crazy” and “wants to dominate all countries”

“This is a complex struggle, because it is a struggle that involves the global interests of the empire that wants to dominate all countries,” Daniel Ortega continued in his speech.

The US empire “wants to suppress other powers, instead of getting along with the powers it wants to suppress them. It wants to suppress the Russian Federation; it wants to subordinate it. It wants to suppress, it wants to subordinate the People’s Republic of China. They’re crazy! They’re crazy!” he said.

The US empire “wants to suppress powers, and they want to suppress nations as well, like Nicaragua,” Ortega went on. “We are a strategic point, and that is where the yanqui persecution of Nicaragua comes from, because here there is a giant resource, which is a canal through Nicaragua.”

And US government officials “don’t want, they have never wanted, as long as Nicaragua has existed, they have imposed treaties so that Nicaragua would not sign any agreement with any country of the world, even European countries, if they don’t authorize it. They gave themselves the right over our land. Because there were traitorous sell-out governments, and they gave themselves the right to say to the Europeans, here you cannot enter, here we will decide the canal, we the United States, the yanqui empire.”

“We are in the middle of that battle, in that struggle, and it is a struggle, yes, one in which we are advancing,” Ortega said.

“Simply, what I can say is that, despite the empire’s attempts to destroy our country, here is Nicaragua, on its feet, firm and moving forward,” the president declared. “Despite the fact that they have tried to destroy the economy, they have killed, spreading terror, they have put into practice terrorism in Nicaragua, they have laundered billions of dollars in Nicaragua to spread terrorism.”

“And there they are doing the calculations where they are carrying out investigations into the infamous foundations, and millions of dollars are showing up here, millions there, and we are talking about millions of dollars to be used to try to destroy the Nicaraguan people. And they have failed.”

Sandinista women lost arms hands revolution Ortega

Sandinista women who lost their hands and arm in the revolutionary struggle, honored by President Daniel Ortega on the 42nd anniversary celebration (Photo credit: Canal 6)

While on stage for the anniversary celebration, Ortega honored two female guerrilla fighters who had lost their arms or hands in the Sandinista armed struggle. He also praised the revolutionaries who in the 1980s fought the CIA-trained Contras, which he referred to as “the yanqui government’s mercenaries, criminals, terrorists.”

Before his speech, Ortega grabbed a giant Nicaraguan flag and declared, “This flag does not have and will not have any stars!” It was a symbolic denunciation of the US government’s desperate attempt to try to reimpose control over Nicaragua.

Ortega was also referencing a popular Sandinista song called Soberanía (Sovereignty), which went viral in Nicaragua this July, and was performed on stage at the celebration. The tune has become a unifying anthem for the Sandinista Front’s 2021 electoral campaign. Its lyrics read as follows:

Sovereignty in my land is written in large letters

And not in ink but rather in blood, throughout history

Here we do not want foreign interference

It will never be the same when a Nicaraguan speaks compared to someone outside

Outside, outside they can say what they want

But if you are here in Nicaraguan land, respect my flag

The blue and white flag, which does not have a star

Here all countries have their ambassadors

But some of those those men do not respect diplomacy

And there is one, with his arrogance, who makes his way in the White House

And if he wants to speak, he should abandon his position

And he will see how short his time on this Earth lasts

I am not speaking about war, it is only a demand

That he can speak his BS, but outside the country

Outside, outside they can say what they want

But if you are here in Nicaraguan land, respect my flag

The blue and white flag, which does not have a star

For which Sandino raised up the Red and Black [flag]

Nicaraguan VP: Poverty is a ‘crime against humanity’ imposed by imperialism

In her speech at the 42nd anniversary event, Vice President Rosario Murillo also strongly condemned “the most brutal aggressions of North American imperialism” and the “diabolical imperialist threat.”

Murillo also put an emphasis on the need to “continue fighting against poverty, that imperialist imposition that has been used to dominate, divide, diminish.”

The Vice President declared, “We fight against poverty, which is hatred, which is a crime against humanity, and we fight so that its promoters stop those hatreds that they impose with methods that are considered novel or unconventional, but we refuse to refer to them as ‘soft’ or ‘color [revolutions],’ because nothing is light or easygoing or colorful in the shameless and dark minds in the dens where the colonialists and imperialists of the planet plot their crimes.”

This July, the Sandinista Front launched a new five-year National Plan to Fight Against Poverty, especially dedicated to further developing the country and raising living standards for working-class people.

William Grigbsy, a prominent Nicaraguan radio host whose daily program Sin Fronteras (Without Borders) is influential within the Sandinista movement, reflected on Murillo’s speech, emphasizing that the vice president referred to poverty as a “crime against humanity.”

“To me, this is one of the most powerful things that Rosario said,” Grigsby commented. “Poverty is an imperialist imposition. It is the maximum expression of capitalism. Poverty is an imposition; it is not something that we are because we want to be, or because we are stupid, as some people say. No brother, they have imposed it on us, creating the rules to impoverish us, to make us poor, and to live with that terrible scourge that is poverty

Grigsby emphasized the country’s contrast with Haiti: “It is a nation that has so much wealth. But they are pillaging it. The copper, the other minerals, it is being stolen, by the Canadians, the yanquis, the French, and they keep plundering it, in the north of Haiti. They are the owners. They even own the police.”

Grigsby added, “It is the same that has been done against us, that has been against the Salvadoreans, the Hondurans, the Mexicans, any country. They have pillaged these countries and imposed the crime against humanity they call poverty.”

*

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.

Ben Norton is a journalist, writer, and filmmaker. He is the assistant editor of The Grayzone, and the producer of the Moderate Rebels podcast, which he co-hosts with editor Max Blumenthal. His website is BenNorton.com and he tweets at @BenjaminNorton.

All images in this article are from The Grayzone unless otherwise stated