Nota del autor

En octubre de 2010, fue invitado a la casa de Fidel Castro  en las afueras de La Habana para discutir la política exterior de Estados Unidos, los peligros de la guerra nuclear, la crisis económica global y el desarrollo del Nuevo Orden Mundial.

Estos encuentros, que se prolongaron durante varios días, dieron como resultado una amplia y fructífera conversación que fue publicada por Global Research y Cuba Debate.

Debo mencionar que  Fidel Castro era un ávido lector de Global Research. Sus escritos también aparecieron en  nuestro sitio web. 

Si bien Fidel comprendió completamente el papel insidioso de las ONG y las fundaciones filantrópicas en el apoyo a las operaciones encubiertas de injerencia de Washington dentro de Cuba, expresó su esperanza de que hubiera un cambio de rumbo con Obama, a quien tenía gran estima.

Cuando iniciamos nuestras discusiones un martes por la tarde, Fidel ya había leído por completo el libro de Bob Woodward titulado Obama’s Wars, que fue lanzado unos días antes en Washington (expedidos a La Habana en la valija diplomática). 

Cinco años después, en octubre de 2015, regresé a Cuba por invitación del  Centro de Investigaciones de Política Internacional (CIPI ), un centro de investigación y grupo de expertos afiliado al Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores.

Había una sensación de optimismo en el apogeo del segundo mandato de Obama. El tema de la conferencia fue analizar el proceso de transición geopolítica abierto por la reanudación de las relaciones diplomáticas entre Cuba y Estados Unidos.

Durante esa visita, me reuní con varios amigos y colegas (académicos, miembros del parlamento) que estaban muy conscientes del papel encubierto de Washington en la cooptación política. Expresaron su preocupación (octubre de 2015) porque se estaba gestando un llamado Golpe Blando , a saber, “Golpe suave”.

Las sanciones unilaterales nunca se abandonaron. En 2019, Donald Trump instauró el Título III de la Ley Helms Burton de 1996, que desató las sanciones económicas más severas contra Cuba desde que se introdujo el bloqueo por primera vez en 1962.

Tras el acceso de Biden a la Casa Blanca, el bloqueo se mantuvo a pesar del voto de la Asamblea General de la ONU  (184 a favor 3 en contra) exigiendo el fin del bloqueo económico de 60 años de Estados Unidos a Cuba.

La crisis del Covid-19

Pero hay otra cuestión importante que se ha pasado por alto en gran medida. La narrativa del covid-19, así como sus diversas políticas (incluyendo la vacuna) se han convertido en una parte integral de la política exterior de Estados Unidos bajo la administración de Biden.

La crisis de Covid tiene obvias implicaciones geopolíticas. Constituye un medio para desestabilizar países que no se ajustan a los dictados del capitalismo global. En toda América Latina es fuente de caos económico y social. También es un medio para desestabilizar a los gobiernos progresistas en todo el continente, incluidos Venezuela, Cuba y México.

En este sentido, el encierre del Covid-19 (confinamiento) de marzo de 2020 ordenado por las altas esferas del establecimiento financiero ha destruido literalmente la economía cubana, específicamente la industria turística, que es la principal fuente de divisas del país.

El “confinamiento”  y la vacuna Covid-19 se presentan a la opinión pública como un medio para proteger la vida de la población. Eso es una mentira descarada. 

El llamado  “confinamiento” covid-19 en fecha del 11 de marzo de 2020 que condujo al “cierre” simultáneo de 190 economías nacionales fue un acto deliberado de sabotaje económico, social y político.

Con respecto a Cuba, la crisis del Covid-19 ha causado estragos. Lo abarca todo. Se extiende más allá del régimen de sanciones de Estados Unidos que el gobierno cubano ha manejado de manera efectiva durante los últimos 59 años.

El  confinamiento Covid-19 ha debilitado las instituciones del país, ha creado divisiones sociales, ha empobrecido a la población de Cuba. También ha creado condiciones para una posible “revolución del color” (operación encubierta llevado por EEUU).

Sin embargo, al mismo tiempo, la legitimidad de la narrativa de Covid-19, que emana de Washington y Wall Street, ha sido aceptada y respaldada por el pueblo cubano y su gobierno.

Desafortunadamente, a pesar del fraude y las falsedades científicas ampliamente documentadas, la narrativa de Covid-19  ha sido respaldada por “progresistas” en toda América Latina. Esto, a su vez, ha llevado a declaraciones erróneas por parte de la Izquierda sobre las causas del movimiento de protesta en Cuba. El enfoque subyacente se centra únicamente en el bloqueo y el regimen de sanciones impuestos por EEUU como causa de la escasez de alimentos, la pobreza y el desempleo. Los devastadores impactos sociales y económicos del “confinamiento covid” que está socavando los logros de la Revolución Cubana no son motivo de análisis.

 

Michel Chossudovsky , Día de la Bastilla, 14 de julio de 2021

***

A la luz de los desarrollos recientes, incluida la erupción de movimientos de protesta, Global Research está volviendo a publicar mi artículo publicado en noviembre de 2016.

 

 

Michel Chossudovsky , Día de la Bastilla, 14 de julio de 2021

***

Al pueblo de Cuba: ¿Está Washington orquestando un “golpe blando”? La cooptación de los intelectuales cubanos

por Michel Chossudovsky

Noviembre de 2016

Al pueblo de Cuba:

La Revolución cubana representa un hito fundamental en la historia de la Humanidad, pues cuestiona la legitimidad del capitalismo mundial. En las principales regiones del mundo, la Revolución cubana ha sido fuente de inspiración en la lucha implacable contra la dominación neo-colonial y el imperialismo estadounidense.

Hoy el mundo se encuentra en una encrucijada crítica. En este momento de nuestra historia, la mayoría de los movimientos progresistas “auténticamente” comprometidos con el socialismo han sido destruidos y derrotados por Estados Unidos y la Organización del Tratado de Atlántico Norte (OTAN) a través de guerras, intervenciones militares, campañas de desestabilización, cambios de régimen, golpes de Estado, “golpes “blandos”.

Los movimientos progresistas así como “la Izquierda” en Europa Occidental y Estados Unidos, en gran medida han sido cooptados, financiados regularmente por fundaciones empresariales de élite.

El proyecto socialista en Cuba, sin embargo, prevalece a pesar del bloqueo económico impuesto por Estados Unidos, las operaciones de espionaje de la Agencia Central de Inteligencia (CIA, por sus siglas en inglés) y las triquiñuelas políticas.

Mientras el legado de Fidel Castro viva, no nos hagamos ilusiones, la intención de Washington no se restringirá solamente a la destrucción de la Revolución cubana, sino también buscará borrar la historia del socialismo.

Diseño diabólico elaborado en Washington

Actualmente hay indicios de que los políticos de Washington contemplan un “cambio de régimen” en Cuba. La administración Trump ha sido contundente en este sentido. Las repercusiones se harán sentir en toda América Latina.

Durante la campaña electoral, Trump “se comprometió a revertir la orden ejecutiva del presidente Obama presentada como “La normalización Estados Unidos-Cuba” (una misiva conformada por 12 páginas oficialmente conocida como “PPD-43”). (The Nation, Octubre 2017). Sin declaración alguna sobre el tema tras su inauguración presidencial, Trump aún no lleva a cabo la medida.

Es importante destacar la decisión de Trump de colocar a la doctora Judy Shelton al frente de la Fundación Nacional para la Democracia (NED, por sus siglas en inglés), un ‘think-tank’ financiado y encaminado a incentivar cambios de régimen. Como ex vicepresidente de la NED, Shelton estuvo “directamente involucrada en legitimar el otorgamiento de préstamos respaldados por Estados Unidos para la subversión en Cuba como parte de un plan que durante décadas ha buscado derrocar al gobierno de La Habana y ampliar la hegemonía estadounidense en la región caribeña”.

En cuanto a “La normalización Estados Unidos-Cuba” pensada por la administración de Trump, no cabe duda de que se trata de un intento de restauración del capitalismo a través de actos de sedición, infiltración, etc., combinados a su vez con la imposición de reformas económicas de tipo neoliberal, incluyendo una “poderosa medicina económica” que sería administrada por el Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI). El aspecto crucial es cómo es que Cuba y el pueblo cubano, en el contexto actual, van a responder a estas amenazas.

¿Cómo planea Washington llevar a cabo este plan? Fundamentalmente a través de:

1) Medidas que contribuyan a desestabilizar la economía cubana y su sistema monetario.

2) Procedimientos que conduzcan a una eventual incrustación de la economía cubana en el entramado del FMI, el Banco Mundial y la Organización Mundial de Comercio (OMC), incluida una serie de condicionamientos políticos que desmantelen los programas sociales en Cuba, el racionamiento de los bienes de consumo esenciales, etc.

3) Para alcanzar sus objetivos, Washington y sus aliados europeos han concebido durante años diversos mecanismos encubiertos de infiltración y cooptación con el fin de influir en los responsables políticos en el gobierno, los directivos de las empresas del sector público, así como en los intelectuales. En este sentido, Washington depende también de sus socios europeos que mantienen relaciones bilaterales con Cuba.

 

Fidel Castro Ruz y Michel Chossudovsky, Octubre de 2010

Este artículo se va a concentrar, fundamentalmente, en las actividades del ala derecha europea a través de fundaciones implicadas en el financiamiento de grupos de expertos y centros de investigación de origen cubano.

El objetivo es la cooptación de investigadores, académicos e intelectuales. El plan consiste en construir una “nueva normalidad” que abonará el camino para la incrustación del socialismo cubano en la lógica del capitalismo mundial. Mientras se mantiene la narrativa socialista, este proceso pretende en último término socavar la Revolución cubana, abriendo la puerta a la desregulación económica, la inversión extranjera y la privatización. El “visto bueno” de esta “nueva normalidad” entre los intelectuales cubanos es crucial para alcanzar el objetivo de la restauración capitalista.

Antecedentes: El intervencionismo de Estados Unidos

En los últimos años, las modalidades de intervencionismo de Estados Unidos han cambiado radicalmente: El impulso de la política exterior de Estados Unidos consiste en buena medida en la desestabilización de países soberanos a través de un proceso de “cambio de régimen” (también conocido como “revolución de color”). Este último consiste en la desestabilización de la economía local, la manipulación de las elecciones nacionales, la cooptación de intelectuales de izquierda, el soborno de líderes políticos, el financiamiento de los partidos de la oposición, violencia y apuntalamiento de los movimientos de protesta.

En América Latina, las dictaduras militares pro-estadounidenses han sido sustituidas por “democracias” pro-estadounidenses. A su vez, las reformas económicas neoliberales, bajo la dirección del Banco Mundial y el FMI, han servido para empobrecer a la población, produciendo así condiciones que favorecen la protesta, así como las luchas sociales y políticas.

Además del fraude en las elecciones en América Latina y el apuntalamiento de los movimientos de protesta, la cooptación de intelectuales de izquierda es financiada tanto por Estados Unidos, fundaciones europeas y Organizaciones No Gubernamentales (ONG), con fuertes vínculos con los aparatos de inteligencia estadounidense.

La Fundación Nacional para la Democracia (NED) creada en 1983 junto con otras fundaciones con sede en Estados Unidos ha tomado la batuta. Oficialmente, el mandato de la NED consiste en promover la democracia y los derechos humanos en los países en desarrollo.

Pero en realidad, la NED es un brazo no oficial de la CIA. Según el ex presidente de la NED, Carl Gershman:

“Sería terrible para los grupos democráticos de todo el mundo ser vistos como entes subvencionados por la CIA… no hemos tenido la capacidad de hacer esto, y es por eso que se ha creado la Fundación”.

En palabras del primer presidente de la NED, Alan Weinstein: “Mucho de lo que hacemos hoy ya se hacía hace 25 años por la CIA pero de forma encubierta” (The Washington Post, 22 de septiembre de 1991).

El Proyecto NED en Cuba: Intromisión a través de la “puerta trasera”

Mientras que la NED está prohibida en Cuba, no obstante realiza operaciones de financiamiento de modo indirecto -a través de fundaciones y diversas ONG ubicadas en Florida- en un gran número de los denominados “proyectos de la democracia”. Muchos de estos socios (localizados en Estados Unidos), que incluyen la Dirección Democrática Cubana (Directorio), el Instituto Cubano por la Libertad de Expresión y Prensa, y el Observatorio Cubano de Derechos Humanos, tienen vínculos con los servicios de inteligencia estadounidense. Históricamente, la NED ha funcionado a través de socios de la Unión Europea con vínculos bilaterales formales con Cuba.

En relación a Alemania, la Fundación Friedrich Ebert (vinculada al Partido Socialdemócrata), el Hans Böll Stiftung (Partido Verde) y la Hanns Seidel Stiftung (vinculada al ala derecha del Partido Demócrata Cristiano de Baviera (CSU)) mantienen acuerdos con Cuba.

Agente de Estados Unidos: La Fundación Hanns Seidel es un instrumento del ala derecha del partido CSU de Baviera

Este ensayo se centrará principalmente en el papel de la Fundación Hanns Seidel, haciendo referencia específicamente al papel que ha desempeñado en Cuba y Venezuela.

La Hanns Seidel Stiftung (HSS), a través de la derecha Baviera CSU, tiene una relación directa con el gobierno de Angela Merkel que, en muchos aspectos, es considerada un agente al servicio de Estados Unidos Históricamente, las actividades de la HSS han abarcado el apoyo a las políticas intervencionistas puestas en marcha por el ala derecha europea.

Muchas de las actividades de la HSS en los países en desarrollo así como en Europa del Este, se efectúan en colaboración con fundaciones estadounidenses, incluyendo la NED y la Fundación Open Society. La HSS también tiene vínculos con una gran variedad de grupos de pensamiento, incluyendo Chatham House (Instituto Real de Asuntos Internacionales) y el American Enterprise Institute. Es organizadora de conferencias, así como de programas de capacitación en colaboración con la OTAN, la Unión Europea y el gobierno alemán.

La Hanns Seidel Stiftung (HSS) ha intervenido en muchos países, de forma regular lo hace en colaboración con la NED y el Departamento de Estado de Estados Unidos. A principios de la década de 1990 participó en la llamada “revolución naranja” en Ucrania, provocando pobreza masiva y desestabilización de la economía ucraniana.

Más recientemente, la Hanns Seidel (HSS) ha construido fuertes vínculos con el régimen actual de Kiev, en gran parte con el fin de hacer frente a Moscú y llevar adelante la desestabilización de Donbass.

La HSS a través de su oficina de Washington realiza consultas de forma recurrente con el gobierno de Estados Unidos, el Congreso, grupos de expertos, incluidas las principales fundaciones asociadas.

La HSS actúa también en colaboración con fundaciones con sede en Estados Unidos, incluyendo la NED, la Fundación Ford y la Fundación Open Society.

HSS sigue manteniendo estrechos vínculos con el régimen de Kiev el cual, hay que decirlo, está integrado por dos bloques neonazis. La CSU y el HSS tienen vínculos informales con el servicio de inteligencia alemán, la Bundes Nachrichtendienst (BND).

Una de las principales actividades de la Fundación Hanns Seidel ha sido la cooptación de intelectuales de izquierda y académicos. Esto se ha llevado a cabo a través del financiamiento de grupos de pensamiento que están detrás de la toma de decisiones políticas clave así como de los institutos de investigación.

La Fundación Hanns Seidel en Venezuela

Es importante destacar que la Fundación Hanns Seidel (HSS) participó activamente en el financiamiento del candidato opositor Henrique Capriles Radonski en las elecciones de Venezuela el año 2012. Sus actividades se extienden mucho más allá de su apoyo a la candidatura de Capriles. En su informe trimestral, la HSS reconoce abiertamente su inconformidad con el proceso bolivariano. En este sentido, el HSS participó en la organización de una serie de conferencias en contra del gobierno [venezolano], en buena medida con el objetivo de defender el capitalismo de libre mercado (neoliberalismo) y desprestigiar al gobierno de Chávez. La HSS se utilizó también para crear vínculos con los partidos de derecha, incluyendo Copei y Primero Justicia.

Vale la pena señalar que hace más de 40 años, los partidos CDU y CSU (a la que la Fundación Hanns Seidel está afiliada) estaban involucrados en el otorgamiento de apoyos financieros a los protagonistas del golpe militar contra el presidente [de Chile] Salvador Allende. Y como consecuencia del golpe, luego proporcionaron ayuda económica al gobierno militar de Augusto Pinochet.

La HSS aún está involucrada en Venezuela, financiando una serie de proyectos. Su objetivo declarado es la desestabilización del gobierno bolivariano.

La Hanns Seidel, en representación de la CSU de Baviera, está metida además en el escenario político de varios países latinoamericanos como Ecuador, Colombia, Argentina y Bolivia. En Ecuador, la CSU a través la Hanns Seidel está cooperando con la Corporación Autogobierno y Democracia, la Fundación Acción y Desarrollo Comunitario (ACDECOM) y otras organizaciones de este tipo.

La Fundación Hanns Seidel en Cuba

Ahora voy a colocar el foco de atención en Cuba, centrándome en una actividad específica de la Fundación Hanns Seidel en la que yo estuve involucrado personalmente.

En octubre de 2015, fui invitado a participar en un evento internacional del Centro de Investigaciones de Política Internacional (CIPI), un centro de investigación y ‘think-tank’ que está afiliado al Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores. El tema de la conferencia fue analizar el proceso de transición geopolítica de cara a la normalización de las relaciones diplomáticas entre Cuba y Estados Unidos.

El evento llevaba el título: Transición geopolítica del poder global: Entre la cooperación y el conflicto

El evento fue financiado por la Hanns Seidel Stiftung. Se invitó a estudiosos de Europa Occidental, América Latina, África, Estados Unidos y Canadá.

Pocas semanas después de que acepté participar en el evento organizado por el CIPI, recibí un mensaje de la Fundación Hanns Seidel Stiftung informándome que el evento estaba siendo auspiciado por ellos y que estaban dispuestos a financiar la totalidad de mis gastos, incluyendo honorarios. El mensaje señalaba que iban a estar en contacto conmigo para tratar todos los asuntos relacionados con el contrato. También me pidieron que presentara una “propuesta de servicios” (oferta por mis servicios profesionales).

Yo estaba plenamente consciente de la historia detrás de la HSS, especialmente tenía conocimiento de la forma en que habían intervenido en las elecciones presidenciales de Venezuela de 2012 a favor de Capriles Radonski, con el fin de socavar en último término, a Hugo Chávez.

Me quedé muy sorprendido por el hecho de que la CIPI había solicitado fondos de la HSS. La intención de la HSS (actuando en nombre de la CSU de Baviera, un partido de derecha), en colaboración con sus organizaciones asociadas en Washington no era otro sino borrar del mapa el socialismo de Cuba. Todo esto a través de la cooptación de académicos e intelectuales cubanos para, después, dar paso a un proceso de transformación política de gran calado.

Respondí a la invitación HSS señalando tanto a ellos como a los organizadores del CIPI que yo mismo iba a ocuparme del financiamiento de mis gastos de viaje y alojamiento y que no veía ninguna necesidad de recibir financiamiento de parte de la HSS. Esta decisión generó confusión a lo largo de mi participación en la conferencia.

La conferencia de octubre en el año 2015

Lo que ocurrió: Hubieron muy buenas intervenciones de parte de destacados académicos y científicos cubanos y latinoamericanos sobre una gran variedad de temas de relevancia. Pero había varios hoyos negros en el programa [del evento], relacionados sin lugar a dudas con el hecho de que la HSS, vinculada a la CSU de Baviera, era quien estaba financiando el encuentro y, con ello, conseguido imponer sus propias condiciones.

1. Uno de los paneles de discusión tremendamente importante durante la conferencia fue el que abordó la realidad venezolana, centrándose en el futuro del gobierno bolivariano y su relación histórica con Cuba.

Sorprendentemente, ni un solo participante de Venezuela había sido invitado a la conferencia, con lo cual, se saboteó todo diálogo y debate entre los intelectuales de Cuba y Venezuela.

Todas las ponencias sobre Venezuela fueron de estudiosos de origen cubano.

Sin duda, la HSS había bloqueado la invitación de los intelectuales progresistas venezolanos comprometidos con la revolución bolivariana. El tema de la conferencia (es decir, la transición y la normalización con Estados Unidos) es de importancia crucial tanto para Cuba como para Venezuela.

Debe entenderse que, en el contexto actual, el futuro del socialismo cubano depende en gran medida del mantenimiento y la construcción de [buenas] relaciones entre Cuba y Venezuela en el marco de la revolución bolivariana. Así, la HSS se empeñó en negar diálogo político y debate entre los intelectuales de Cuba y Venezuela. El objetivo de la HSS era torpedear y debilitar la larga relación entre Cuba y el gobierno bolivariano de Venezuela. Irónicamente, nadie entre los organizadores y los participantes cubanos estaba al tanto de las triquiñuelas políticas que la Fundación Hanns Seidel había cometido en Venezuela.

En contraste, el panel de discusión sobre México incluyó cuatro distinguidos académicos de México. Había una delegación numerosa de mexicanos, así como de otros países de América Latina. Pero no se invitó a un solo venezolano.

2. En la sesión de la política exterior de Estados Unidos se incluyó al académico israelí Yossi Mekelberg, asociado con Chatham House, Instituto Real de Asuntos Internacionales (Reino Unido), un grupo de pensamiento de origen británico súper reaccionario, vinculado con el Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores (CFR, por sus siglas en inglés) con sede en Washington.

La ponencia del académico israelí puso de relieve una interpretación sesgada de lo que estaba ocurriendo en Siria y Palestina. La insurgencia terrorista comandada por Estados Unidos en Siria se presentó casualmente como una “guerra civil”, los palestinos fueron tachados de terroristas, y el presidente Bashar al Assad fue acusado de matar a su propia gente, de la misma forma que lo han venido acusando los medios de comunicación corporativos de Estados Unidos y el Reino Unido.

De acuerdo con Mekelberg, citado por la revista Newsweek, el ISIS “se parece” a los palestinos:

http://europe.newsweek.com/netanyahu-ramming-atttacks-isis-palestinians-inspired-541097?rm=eu

Los académicos cubanos que participaban en este panel de discusión no se tomaron ni siquiera la molestia de responder o expresar su desacuerdo.

La pregunta es ¿Por qué este individuo (afiliado a la Chatham House, de apoyo del régimen sionista de Tel Aviv) es invitado a la Cuba socialista por un centro de investigación asociado con el Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores de Cuba?

Históricamente, Cuba ha hecho patente su solidaridad con Palestina, lo mismo con las luchas de los pueblos de Siria e Irak, que actualmente son blancos de actos de agresión militar de parte de Estados Unidos y la OTAN.

¿Por qué no invitar a un experto socialista comprometido de origen palestino a debatir la política exterior de Estados Unidos? ¿O es que haberlo hecho contravenía las condiciones impuestas por el ala derecha de CSU de Baviera a través de la Fundación Hanns Seidel (HSS)?

3. Otro panel de discusión se centró en el tema de Ucrania. Entre los participantes se encontraba el presidente del Instituto Internacional para la Paz con sede en Viena, el profesor Hannes Swoboda, un (ex) miembro del Parlamento Europeo. Swoboda esbozó su apoyo a las operaciones de Estados Unidos y la OTAN en Europa del Este dirigidas en contra de Rusia, así como su respaldo al actual régimen de Kiev (integrado por dos bloques neonazis). Tampoco hubo reacción de parte de los intelectuales cubanos que participaron en esta discusión.

No lo olvidemos, el gobierno cubano ha expresado su solidaridad con el pueblo de Donbass y Crimea. A su vez, la gente de Donbass hizo expresa su solidaridad con Cuba y las enseñanzas de Fidel Castro (Véase más adelante). Pero nada de esto fue uno de los temas a discutir dentro de la conferencia organizada por el CIPI.

En palabras de Fidel Castro:

Cuba, que siempre ha destacado su solidaridad con el pueblo de Ucrania, y en los días difíciles de la tragedia de Chernóbil proporcionado atención médica a muchos niños afectados por la radiación nociva producto del accidente, siempre dispuesta a seguirlo haciendo, no puede dejar de expresar su repudio a la acción del gobierno anti-ruso, anti-ucraniano y pro-imperialista [Kiev]. (14 de julio de 2014)

Hannes Swoboda, invitado a Cuba por el CIPI es, ni más ni menos, un “anti-ruso, anti-ucraniano y pro-imperialista”. Como eurodiputado, inició (junto con otros diputados) las gestiones en el Parlamento Europeo para avalar las incursiones de la OTAN en contra de  Rusia, solicitando apoyo para el régimen ilegítimo Kiev. (Véase abajo)

Reflexiones finales: El legado de Fidel Castro                

Deseo sinceramente que los argumentos esgrimidos en el presente artículo sean puestos a discusión en Cuba. El gobierno cubano tiene por misión proteger los logros de la Revolución. En el contexto actual, esta no es una tarea sencilla. Como se ha señalado en la introducción, Washington tiene la intención no solamente de destruir la Revolución cubana, sino de borrar toda la historia del socialismo.

La intención de las fundaciones occidentales -operando directa o indirectamente, en nombre de Washington- no es otra sino la de producir grietas al interior de la sociedad cubana, a través de la infiltración y la cooptación, cuyo objetivo último es la restauración del capitalismo.

Estos mecanismos también se ven facilitados por el sistema de doble moneda en Cuba, situación que ha permitido a la Hanns Seidel y otras fundaciones europeas realizar pagos a grupos de pensamiento e institutos de investigación de origen cubano en moneda convertible (CUC).

El incremento de la “dolarización” entre los precios de consumo al por menor (expresado en CUC) propicia el empobrecimiento y las desigualdades sociales.

Los cubanos están muy conscientes de la escalada de esta crisis: las personas que obtienen ingresos en pesos convertibles CUC han ganado poder adquisitivo. Por el contrario, aquellos cuyos ingresos están denominados en pesos cubanos no convertibles, se han visto marginados de la economía de consumo en CUC.

La estrategia de amplio espectro ejecutada por Washington es la de poner en marcha medidas que contribuyan a desestabilizar la economía cubana y su sistema monetario, es decir, cualquier acción orientada a reintegrar a Cuba en una economía dolarizada mundial.

Las medidas de Washington contemplan además reintegrar a la economía cubana a la larga en el entramado del FMI, el Banco Mundial y la OMC, incluida la imposición de condicionalidades como parte de las políticas dirigidas hacia el desmantelamiento de los programas sociales de Cuba, el racionamiento de los bienes de consumo esenciales, etc.

Es decisivo poner un alto a todas estas iniciativas. El debate y la discusión sobre los mecanismos de la “normalización capitalista” son cruciales, tanto en Cuba como en el plano internacional.

Es que una narrativa revolucionaria en sí misma no puede soportar el legado de Fidel, a menos que esté respaldada por acciones concretas y políticas diseñadas cuidadosamente.

Los mecanismos de la restauración capitalista así como los distintos modos de interferencia política y de ingeniería social deben abordarse con firmeza y seriedad.

La batalla contra la guerra y el neoliberalismo sigue en pie.

Por la erradicación del neoliberalismo y la militarización que destruye las vidas de las personas,

Por la penalización absoluta de las guerras imperiales impulsadas por Estados Unidos,

Por un mundo de justicia social con una auténtica “responsabilidad de proteger” a los demás seres humanos,

Larga vida a Fidel Castro Ruz

Michel Chossudovsky

Artículo original en inglés:

fidelcastro 2

To the People of Cuba: Is Washington Preparing a “Soft Coup”? The Co-optation of Cuban Intellectuals, publicado el 6 de marzo de 2017.

Traducido por Ariel Noyola Rodríguez para el Centro de Investigación sobre la Globalización (Global Research).

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on Al pueblo de Cuba: ¿Está Washington orquestando un “golpe blando”? La cooptación de los intelectuales cubanos
  • Tags:

Space Odyssey 2021: The Big Failure

July 15th, 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.

***

On July 11, an outstanding news shook the world. The space race between two notorious millionaires Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson, was allegedly won by the latter. Branson went up into space nine days before Bezos. In response, Blue Origin refused to recognize Virgin Galactic’s voyage as a space flight.

Unfortunately, a closer look at such incredible news should make readers more disappointed than impressed. In fact, even despite the wide popularization in recent years, nothing has happened in the field of space exploration for decades, nothing other than large PR campaigns.

Today is July 12th, 2021. The end of the first quarter of the 21st century is approaching. The first satellite was launched more than 60 years ago, back in 1957. The first man went into space in 1961. Americans landed on the Moon in 1969.  A major breakthrough was made in 1977, when a space probe U.S. Voyager 2 was launched to study the outer planets and interstellar space beyond the Sun’s heliosphere. It reached Uranus back in 1986 and Neptune in 1989.

This series of revolutionary discoveries ended with decades of fiasco. What happened next? A small US satellite called New Horizon, which is almost twice as light as Voyager 2, was launched directly to Pluto only 25 years later, and reached it in 2015.

The real aim of this “historical mission” can be seen in the stuff that the probe was filled with. A place that could be used to install more scientific equipment on board of the New Horizon was used for displacement of:

  • a capsule with ashes of astronomer Clyde Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto,
  • a CD with 434,738 names of people who participated in the NASA campaign “Send Your Name to Pluto”,
  • two coins,
  • two US flags,
  • a fragment of the first inhabited private spacecraft Space Ship One,
  • a CD with photos of the device and its developers,
  • a US stamp of 1990 “Pluto: Not Yet Explored”.

What did those who sent this stuff into outer space think about? Did they expect that the American coin, flags and some ash would impress a potential outer space civilization, which might collide with this half-ton piece of metal somewhere beyond our galaxy? Obviously not. There are much less dummies in NASA than in the White House. Unfortunately, NASA reports to the White House, and not vice versa.

Sending trash to the outer space by the New Horizon was a large PR campaign, designed to shake up the information net on Earth. Indeed, the Voyager 2 was sent for scientific purposes. The New Horizon launched had two main goals:

  • money laundering;
  • shaking the global MSM.

Thus, today, there is nothing more than another campaign aimed at shaking of the global net, which serves as a bouncy castle for two representatives of the global oligarchy, Bezos and Branson, accompanied by Musk.

Branson, who published his famous book “Loosing My Virginity” back in 1998, finally built a super rocket and managed to rise it to an altitude of less then 100 km, making the second acrobat Bezos pitching a fit. What a sensational news in 2021!

Let’s remember the legendary epic “2001: a Space Odyssey”, filmed back in 1968 by Stanley Kubrick, such geniuses of science fiction as Arthur Clarke, Azik Azimov, Robert Heinlein, Stanislav Lem, Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, Ivan Efremov and others. All of them, who evaluated the potential directions of intensive mankind evolution in the second half of the 20th century, could not imagine that in 2021 Bezos&Branson PR would replace all really important achievements in the outer space exploration.

The social processes we are facing today are not an organic way of evolution, but they are deliberately moderated, since harnessing the energy of the solar system would dramatically change our reality. Overcoming of the closed system we are living in is the only way to achieve the real implementation of the ideal of universal equality, which socialists dreamed of in the second half of the 19th century.

The ability to go up into space not at someone’s own whim, but to achieve the common good, available to those who deserve it because of their knowledge, desires and physical capabilities and not because of their wallets, is what human progress is missing, while following the elite’s child play.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

Featured image is from South Front

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In a new ruling read out in a Dutch courtroom yesterday, the judge presiding in the trial of allegations against the Russian state, military command and four named soldiers for shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 revealed new details of the US evidence allegedly proving that a Russian missile caused the crash. The judge, Hendrik Steenhuis, then refused to allow the lawyers representing the Russian defence to cross-examine the man from the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) who, Steenhuis now says,  signed his name to the evidence and has been sought for questioning. According to Steenhuis, questioning him would be “pointless”.

The allegation that a US satellite recorded the launch of a Russian-made BUK missile and then tracked it to detonation against MH17 on July 17, 2014, began in Washington not long after the incident. It originated with then-Secretary of State John Kerry. Kerry has subsequently refused to substantiate his allegation. The US government has repeatedly refused to provide Dutch investigators of the crash with the satellite images. For the full story, read the book.

Left: Secretary of State John Kerry announced his claim to have seen US satellite images of the BUK attack on MH17 in Washington on July 20, 2014; he repeated the allegation in Australia on August 12, 2014. Centre:  the book refuting Kerry’s claim; it was published on October 1, 2020, and is available in Kindle and paperback.  Right: Dutch General Onno Eichelsheim whose military intelligence reports have contradicted Kerry’s allegations. In January of this year Eichelsheim was promoted to become chief of the Dutch Armed Forces.

There is explicit Dutch intelligence evidence available in the book that the US has been lying about what the satellite records show, and reason to believe they do not exist at all. This is because the classified US images have never been provided to the Dutch military intelligence agency MIVD which has requested them, nor to the Dutch police and prosecutors who have been trying to convict the Russians of premeditated murder in the shoot-down.

According to the MH17 trial record to date, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) in Washington sent a memorandum to MIVD in The Hague, dated August 23, 2016; this claimed to prove that a Russian-made and Russian-fired BUK (also known as SA-11A) missile destroyed the MH17 in flight above eastern Ukraine.  However, since that date in mid-2016, US officials have refused to allow the evidence of the satellite images, or the details of the secret memorandum from being repeated, tested, and verified by the Dutch investigators and judges who have been requesting the evidence for several years. Read more on Steenhuis’s court statement on this issue last month here.

*

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

All images in this article are from Dances with Bears

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on MH17 Trial Judge Reveals US Intelligence Switch — From Satellite Images Which Don’t Exist in Washington to Tapes and Videos Fabricated in Kiev
  • Tags: , , ,

Red Alert in Iraq… Time for the U.S. to Decide

July 15th, 2021 by Amro Allan

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

‘President Joe Biden may be nearly done with America’s two-decade military involvement in Afghanistan, but another nearby war zone, where U.S. troops have been based for almost as long, is threatening to become a major thorn in the White House’s side: Iraq’, says Foreign Policy in its Situation Report on July 8, 2021, entitled ‘Red Alert in Iraq’. This comes after two fairly heated weeks in Iraq and Syria, where an escalation in the resistance groups operations against American troops was noticeable, both in frequency and in nature.

For instance, on Wednesday, July 7, 14 rockets hit Ain al-Assad Air Base, the largest military installation in Iraq housing U.S. troops, wounding at least two American soldiers. Another suicide drone attack, a day before, targeted U.S. forces based in Erbil airport, not far from where the U.S. consulate is located. Also, there were multiple improvised explosive device (IED) attacks against convoys transporting U.S. military logistic supplies, that took place in various Iraqi towns and cities in recent weeks.

Meanwhile, in Eastern Syria, U.S. occupation forces were busy fending off suicide drone and rocket attacks targeting al-Omar oilfield and nearby areas. Al-Omar oilfield is the largest in the country, and It is invested with both the U.S. forces and their collaborators  the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

No American soldiers have been killed in these recent intense activities in Iraq and Syria. However, Michael Knights, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, explains ‘It’s already very intense. The strikes aren’t killing people, but they could, easily, if they want them to’, and he adds ‘The missile defences are quietly working quite well. But what we haven’t seen is determined efforts to kill Americans’.

Many analysts consider this escalation a retaliation for the second round of U.S. airstrikes under Biden’s administration on June 27. Those airstrikes used the pretext ‘Iran-backed militia’, although in reality, they targeted a static Iraqi-Syrian border position of the Iraqi security forces (Popular Mobilisation Forces) under Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi, killing four members of brigade 14 of the PMF.

While agreeing with this analysis in principle, I believe widening the scope would put the latest events in the broader context they deserve.

It is quite clear that Biden’s administration’s main foreign policy strategy, and indeed the U.S. establishment’s attitude in general of late, is to concentrate its overseas efforts on opposing the rise of China and Russia:  what Biden dubbed defending and strengthening democracy. This focus shift first took shape during Obama’s days in 2012 with his (unsuccessful) ‘Pivot to Asia’ policy and it has remained in principal a U.S. foreign policy objective since. But this shift naturally requires an improved allocation of U.S. resources.

Thus, when Biden came to power, he followed in the steps of his two predecessors in aiming to disengage from the ‘Middle East’ and West Asia in general as much as possible.

As the QUINCY Paper No. 7 entitled ‘Nothing Much to Do: Why America Can Bring All Troops Home From the Middle East’, published on June 24, 2021, poses the question ‘Three successive American Presidents — Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden — have pledged to end the post 9/11 wars and reunite U.S. soldiers with their families.

Yet, fulfilling that pledge has proven tougher than expected. Do U.S. interests in the region require so much of the U.S. military that full-scale withdrawals are not feasible?’. The paper argued that ‘the United States has no compelling military need to keep a permanent troop presence in the Middle East.

The two core U.S. interests in the region — preventing a hostile hegemony and ensuring the free flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz — can be achieved without a permanent military presence. There are no plausible paths for an adversary, regional or extra-regional, to achieve a situation that would harm these core U.S. interests. No country can plausibly establish hegemony in the Middle East, nor can a regional power close the Strait of Hormuz and strangle the flow of oil. To the extent that the United States might need to intervene militarily, it would not need a permanent military presence in the region to do so’.

The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, to be presumably fully completed by September 2021, was the first manifestation of Biden’s drawdown policy from West Asia. However, when it came to Iraq and Syria, the equations were quite different.

Despite Biden’s pledge to return to the JCPOA in his election campaign, there was an assessment that was widely spread between Iranian officials which says that the Biden administration would capitalise on Trump’s ‘maximum pressure’ policy to extract concessions from Iran, before re-joining the JCPOA. Those concessions are related to two aspects:

  • Change in Iran’s foreign policy, especially its support for resistance groups in the region. This is to  the benefit of the Zionist entity, which remains a core influence on U.S. foreign policy.
  • Imposing restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missiles programme.

This American approach became apparent after Biden took office, and during the latest Vienna talks to salvage the nuclear deal. However, contrary to Biden’s false assumptions, the Americans found out that Iran will not give them any concessions, and that it meant what it said when Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei stated back in 2015 ‘We negotiated with the U.S. on the nuclear issue for specific reasons. The Americans performed well in the talks, but we didn’t and we won’t allow negotiation with the Americans on other issues’.

This has put the Americans in a quandary. Biden found that he could not withdraw from Iraq and Syria without getting guarantees from Iran and the Axis of Resistance related to the security of the Zionist entity, as the Axis of Resistance will never offer any guarantees at the expense of the Palestinians’ inalienable rights. Nor could Biden maintain the same level of American involvement in the ‘Middle East’ indefinitely. As this would be at the expense of the main U.S. foreign policy strategy, “Facing the Chinese challenge”, according to the terminology the  U.S. uses.

Furthermore, this American quandary has deepened after the battle of the ‘Sword of Jerusalem’ exposed many of the Zionist Entity’s [Israel]  weaknesses tactically and strategically in the face of the Axis of Resistance.

Based on this overview, we can expect a fairly heated summer for the U.S. occupation forces in the region, as from the Axis of Resistance point of view, the negotiations for the American withdrawal from the ‘Middle East’ and West Asia in general are not open-ended.

And it seems that the U.S. needs a nudge to decide whether: to start a meaningful and peaceful drawdown, with minimal losses; or risk a new ‘Middle East’ all-out war by trying to impose its sovereign will on the whole region.

And I believe, based on the Americans’ experience of the past two decades, that the consensus within the U.S. institutes is that the latter option would be highly costly. Not to mention that based on the current balance of powers in the region, as we read them, the outcome is not guaranteed to be in the favour of the U.S., nor in the favour of  “Israel” its closest ally.

*

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

Amro Allan ( [email protected]), is an independent Palestinian writer and Political researcher. He writes for various Arabic news outlets, some of which are Al-Akhbar newspaper, Al-Mayadeen Satellite News Channel, Arabi 21, and Rai Al-Youm.

Featured image: U.S. transfers an airfield to Iraqi government forces in 2020. Credit: public domain

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Dr. Leana Wen, CNN analyst and Distinguished Fellow at the Fitzhugh Mullan Institute of Health Workforce Equity at George Washington University, has caused a stir due to her recent declaration on CNN that “it needs to be hard for people to remain unvaccinated.” With France implementing a mandatory “health pass” and private companies like Morgan Stanley requiring vaccinations for employees to return to work, we can expect more protests and challenges around the world. Those cases are likely to focus on whether mandatory requirements are based on medical or political imperatives. Wen’s comment is likely to be repeated in many filings as another case of “saying the quiet part out loud.” She appears to advocate measures defined to coerce people to take vaccinations due to the continuing refusal of a sizable number of people.

Wen is a well-known medical analyst and the former head of Planned Parenthood. She is a visiting professor at George Washington University.

Wen made clear that health measures should be used to make life hard for people who refuse the vaccine so that they yield to public demands: “[b]asically, we need to make getting vaccinated the easy choice.” In the Washington Post, Wen also called for “Biden to make the case for vaccine requirements.”

There is already open pressure from the White House on private companies to require vaccinations. Morgan Stanley responded by doing just that this week. They can likely do so. The most serious challenges could come from those with religious objections. However, even if they are allowed to work remotely, Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman stated in July that “If you want to get paid New York rates, you work in New York. None of this, ‘I’m in Colorado…and getting paid like I’m sitting in New York City. Sorry, that doesn’t work.” The message could not be clearer that working remotely will come at a penalty.

The Biden White House is clearly concerned that making vaccines mandatory will cause not just court challenges but a public backlash. However, such mandatory programs have been upheld. As I discussed in a column last year, there is a 1905 case where the Supreme Court upheld a state mandatory vaccination program of school children for small pox in Massachusetts. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), the Court found that such programs are the quintessential state power rather than a federal power. It also held that “every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.” States are allowed to subject citizens to restraints to protect “general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State.”

The fear is that, as with social media companies carrying out censorship of political and social viewpoints, companies will now serve as surrogates for the state on vaccinations. The Administration would prefer to do precisely what Wen advocated: ratchet up the private penalties and difficulties for anyone who wants to remain unvaccinated.

The problem is when you have leading analysts arguing for such measures as coercive devices. While there is considerable deference on such matters, the courts could take note of such demands to make life hard on those who are not “getting with the program.”

As of July 11, a total of 159,266,536 Americans have been fully vaccinated. That is 48 percent of the country’s population. When you consider the extremely high rate of vaccination for those over 65, the percentage of adults under 65 is even smaller. Despite all of the press and bizarre reward systems, the government is clearly hitting a wall with many people declining the vaccines.  (For the record, I took the vaccine and all of my family has been vaccinated).

That is a sizable number of voters and the Democrats are leery of openly forcing vaccines before the 2022 election. That is why the push is to make life more difficult through private companies. However, if these measures are viewed as designed to coerce, courts may be more scrutinizing of the public health necessity for the measures.

*

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

Featured image is a Facebook screenshot via Jonathan Turley

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

We have previously covered the story of Dr. Charles Hoffe, the brave doctor who has been practicing medicine for 28 years in the small, rural town of Lytton in British Columbia, Canada.

After he had administered about 900 doses of the Moderna experimental mRNA COVID-19 injections, he sounded the alarm over the severe reactions he was observing in his patients who chose to get the shot (he chose NOT to get it himself), which included death.

The result of him sounding the alarm was a gag order issued against him by the medical authorities in his community. He defied this gag order and was interviewed by Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson on her show where he sounded the alarm. See: Canadian Doctor Defies Gag Order and Tells the Public How the Moderna COVID Injections Killed and Permanently Disabled Indigenous People in His Community

His punishment for going public to warn others on the dangers of these experimental shots was that he was relieved from hospital duty and lost half of his income: Canadian Doctor Removed from Hospital Duty after Speaking out about COVID “Vaccine” Side Effects

Last week, Dr. Hoffe was interviewed again by Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson, and he continues to share his findings with the public regarding the experimental COVID-19 shots.

Dr. Hoffe is truly a hero today, risking not only his reputation, but probably his very life to bring important information regarding the COVID-19 shots that the Globalists who control the corporate media and social media are trying very hard to censor.

In this latest interview, Dr. Hoffe states that the blood clots that are being reported in the corporate media as being “rare” are anything but rare, based on his own testing of his own patients who had recently received one of the shots.

The blood clots we hear about which the media claim are very rare are the big blood clots which are the ones that cause strokes and show up on CT scans, MRI, etc. The clots I’m talking about are microscopic and too small to find on any scan. They can thus only be detected using the D-dimer test.

Using this test with his own patients, Dr. Hoffe claims that he has found evidence of small blood clots in 62% of his patients who have been injected with an mRNA shot.

He states that these people are now permanently disabled, and they will no longer “be able to do what they used to do.”

These people have no idea they are even having these microscopic blood clots. The most alarming part of this is that there are some parts of the body like the brain, spinal cord, heart and lungs which cannot re-generate. When those tissues are damaged by blood clots they are permanently damaged.

His warning is very dire: “These shots are causing huge damage and the worst is yet to come.”

This is an 8 minute clip from the original interview, and we have posted it on our Bitchute channel and Rumble channel.

Is Canada Finally Starting to Pay Attention to these Dissenting Doctors Sounding the Alarm?

Dr. Hoffe is not the only doctor to sound the alarm over serious side effects from the COVID-19 shots.

Last month we covered the press conference given in Ontario at Parliament Hill that was arranged by MP Derek Sloan and featured four other Canadian doctors who were also being censored over what they are seeing and reporting regarding the COVID-19 shots. See: Canadian Politician Derek Sloan Uses Parliament Hill to Give Voices to Censored Doctors and Scientists Blowing the Whistle on COVID-19 Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity

Are these public testimonies from doctors who dare to question the official narrative in the face of tremendous censorship, ridicule, and even threats starting to make a difference in Canada?

Maybe.

Yesterday there was a Press Release from the COVID-19 Immunity Task Force in Canada. This group is comprised of:

experts from across Canada in matters related to serologic surveillance, immunology, virology, infectious diseases, public health, and clinical medicine. It also includes ex-officio members representing agencies of the Government of Canada, including the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and the office of the Chief Scientific Advisor to the Prime Minister, as well as representatives of Provincial-Territorial Ministries of Health, and McGill University (host of the Secretariat). (Source.)

This is the first time I have ever seen in any country a group with ties to government health agencies admit that there are seriously injured individuals from the COVID-19 shots, and that strategies need to be developed to deal with their injuries.

Some injuries have been acknowledged in the U.S. by the FDA, but the only action they have taken is to add warnings to the shots – nothing about how to treat the victims and their injuries.

To be sure, this group in Canada keeps stating the official narrative that “the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccination continue to outweigh the risks” while supplying no underlying data or studies to prove this statement, but the fact that they are even admitting that there are people injured by the shots that need help, is huge.

The Government of Canada, through its COVID-19 Immunity Task Force (CITF) and Vaccine Surveillance Reference Group (VSRG), is investing approximately $800,000 for a study that aims to further improve Canada’s identification and response to adverse events people may experience following COVID-19 vaccination across 10 provinces. This study is an extension of an existing vaccine safety program that provides important public health information about adverse events following immunization (AEFI) for all vaccines authorized for use in adults and children.

Let’s hope this is not just another excuse to spend money with no results, but that something substantive could come out of such a study, that quite possibly was motivated by the honest physicians in Canada who risked their careers and lives to bring the truth to the public.

*

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

Featured image is from Health Impact News

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Brianne Dressen, who accumulated more than $250,000 in medical bills after participating in AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine clinical trial, is collaborating with two U.S. Senators to get help for others injured by COVID vaccines.

A Utah woman and two U.S. senators are teaming up to get answers from federal health agencies about life-altering injuries people have experienced after receiving a COVID vaccine.

Brianne Dressen is a preschool teacher from Utah who was injured after participating in AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine clinical trial in November 2020. She has accumulated more than $250,000 in medical bills as a result of injuries she believes were caused by the vaccine.

Dressen said within one hour of being vaccinated she had tingling down her arm. By the time she got home her vision was blurry and doubled. Her sensitivity became so severe that she had to wear earmuffs and sunglasses all the time.

That’s when things took a turn for the worse. “Things progressed quickly,” Dressen said. She experienced neurological decline, but no one could explain why. After a neurological scan, doctors said it looked as if she had multiple sclerosis (MS).

According to Mayo Clinic, MS is a potentially disabling disease of the brain and spinal cord where the immune system attacks the protective sheath (myelin) that covers nerve fibers and causes communication problems between the brain and the rest of the body.

Dressen lost the use of her legs, as her symptoms worsened. After running several MRI’s, CT scans and lumbar punctures, doctors still had no answers, ABC4 News reported.

Dressen said she spent months teaching herself how to walk, eat and form sentences again — all while she traveled in search of answers.

“The hospital didn’t know what was going on … none of the neurologists that I saw knew what was going on,” Dressen said. “I called the test clinic several times and they had no idea what was going on.”

Dressen spoke with others who are dealing with the same symptoms after getting vaccinated, and she wants people injured by COVID vaccines to get help.

“I want the CDC to do the right thing and communicate with the medical community so these people can get help,” Dressen said. “I want the public to be able to have the full picture so they can make an informed decision.”

Senators demand answers from CDC, FDA and vaccine makers

Dressen, along with other people who said they were injured by vaccines but “repeatedly ignored” by the medical community, participated late last month in a news conference held by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).

Following the news conference, Johnson and Utah Sen. Mike Lee wrote a letter to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stating the agencies had ignored requests for assistance and answers from families injured by COVID vaccines.

The Senators wrote:

“The very existence of these infirmities is financially, physically and emotionally debilitating for the afflicted individuals and their families. These individuals have previously expressed to both CDC Director Walensky and Food and Drug Administration Acting Commissioner Woodcock that they desire answers and assistance. Thus far, their requests have been ignored or gone without a substantive response.”

Lee and Johnson said widespread lack of acknowledgement of adverse events following receipt of a COVID vaccine has made it nearly impossible for some individuals to obtain the medical treatment they need, and that risks must be disclosed to the medical community and general public.

“If any of the COVID-19 vaccines truly cause adverse events of the severity noted above, even in a small percentage of cases, these risks must be disclosed, particularly to the medical community so that healthcare professionals are properly informed and may provide necessary treatment, care, and information to the general public as they weigh the risks and benefits of being vaccinated,” the Senators wrote.

In the letter, Lee and Johnson asked the FDA and CDC about the adverse events suffered during clinical trials, disclosed in the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization Memorandum for the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines, as well as reported injuries from the U.S. AstraZeneca trial.

Lee and Johnson asked whether the CDC is working with physicians and researchers at the FDA, National Institutes of Health or other medical research bodies to provide the various individuals who experienced adverse effects vaccine treatment and care.

According to the most recent VAERS data, between Dec. 14, 2020, and July 2, 2021, a total of 438,441 total adverse events were reported to VAERS, including 9,048 deaths and 41,015 serious injuries.

Obtaining federal compensation for COVID vaccine injuries is rare

As The Defender reported July 8, people facing huge medical bills after being injured by a COVID vaccine have few options beyond what their own health insurance covers, because a federal law shields vaccine makers from liability.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 and U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Russell Bruesewitz et al v. Wyeth et al, guaranteed vaccine manufacturers, doctors and other vaccine administrators have almost no legal accountability or financial liability in civil court when a government recommends or mandates a vaccine that causes permanent injury or death.

In 2005, Congress passed the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP), which authorizes the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to issue a declaration providing immunity from tort liability for claims of loss caused by medical countermeasures (e.g., vaccines, drugs, products) against diseases or other threats of public health emergencies.

On Feb. 4, 2020, HHS invoked the PREP Act when it declared COVID-19 to be a public health emergency. On Jan. 21, HHS amended the act, extending the liability shield to include additional categories of qualified persons authorized to prescribe, dispense and administer COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In exchange for immunity for vaccine makers, under the PREP Act, the federal government pledged compensation for adverse reactions to COVID treatments and vaccines through a program called the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), run by HHS.

As The Defender reported July 1, since the CICP program’s inception in 2010, only 29 claims have been paid, with an average payout of around $200,000. The other 452 claims (91.4%) were denied. Ten claims won approval but were deemed ineligible for compensation.

Only about 8% of people who applied to the CICP with vaccine injuries in the past received payouts, and there are no protections from the U.S. legal system.

HHS forced to post data related to the CICP

HHS last month agreed to post data related to the CICP, thanks to an investigation by Atlanta television news station, 11Alive, an affiliate of WXIA-TV.

For nine months, 11Alive’s investigative team reported on the lack of transparency within the CICP. Last month, the government released data on the CICP requested by 11Alive and agreed to make the data available to the public.

As of July 1, the CICP reported 1,165 claims filed. According to its website, the CICP has not compensated any COVID-19 claims. Two COVID-related claims were denied because the applicant couldn’t prove the countermeasure caused their injury. One claim was associated with intubation, the other the vaccine. Almost all of the claims are still waiting to be medically reviewed.

“I think people sometimes have a distrust in government and people think that the government is hiding things from them when they’re not being transparent,” said Melissa Wasser with Project on Government Oversight. “The public has a right to know this information, especially with all of the government resources being used.”

The CICP website outlines the parameters of the program, which provides compensation for medical expenses, lost employment income and survivor death benefits as “the payer of last resort,” covering only what remains unpaid or unpayable by other third parties, such as health insurance.

Under the CICP program, attorney fees are not covered. There is no court, judge or right to appeal. Those who believe they’ve suffered an injury from a COVID vaccine only have one year from the date of injury to file a claim.

*

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

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Featured image is from CHD

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi is on a Central Asian loop all through the week. He’s visiting Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. The last two are full members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, founded 20 years ago.

The SCO heavyweights are of course China and Russia. They are joined by four Central Asian “stans” (all but Turkmenistan), India and Pakistan. Crucially, Afghanistan and Iran are observers, alongside Belarus and Mongolia.

And that leads us to what’s happening this Wednesday in Dushanbe, the Tajik capital. The SCO will hold a 3 in 1: meetings of the Council of Foreign Ministers, the SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group, and a conference titled “Central and South Asia: Regional Connectivity, Challenges and Opportunities.”

At the same table, then, we will have Wang Yi, his very close strategic partner Sergey Lavrov and, most importantly, Afghan Foreign Minister Mohammad Haneef Atmar. They’ll be debating trials and tribulations after the hegemon’s withdrawal and the miserable collapse of the myth of NATO “stabilizing” Afghanistan.

Let’s game a possible scenario: Wang Yi and Lavrov tell Atmar, in no uncertain terms, that there’s got to be a national reconciliation deal with the Taliban, brokered by Russia-China, with no American interference, including the end of the opium-heroin ratline.

Russia-China extract from the Taliban a firm promise that jihadism won’t be allowed to fester. The endgame: loads of productive investment, Afghanistan is incorporated to Belt and Road and – later on – to the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU).

The SCO’s joint statement on Wednesday will be particularly enlightening, perhaps detailing how the organization plans to coordinate a de facto Afghan peace process farther down the road.

In this scenario, the SCO now has the chance to implement what it has been actively discussing for years: that only an Asian solution to the Afghan drama applies.

Sun Zhuangzhi, executive director of the Chinese Research Center of the SCO, sums it all up: the organization is capable of coming up with a plan mixing political stability, economic and security development and a road map for infrastructure development projects.

The Taliban agree. Spokesman Suhail Shaheen has stressed, “China is a friendly country that we welcome for reconstruction and developing Afghanistan.”

On the Silk Road again

After economic connectivity, another SCO motto encouraged by Beijing since the early 2000s is the necessity to fight the “three evils”: terrorism, separatism and extremism. All SCO members are very much aware of jihadi metastases threatening Central Asia – from ISIS-Khorasan to shady Uighur factions currently fighting in Idlib in Syria, as well as the (fading) Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU).

The Taliban is a way more complex case. It’s still branded as a terrorist organization by Moscow. Yet on the new, fast-evolving chessboard, both Moscow and Beijing know the importance of engaging the Taliban in high-stakes diplomacy.

Wang Yi has already impressed upon Islamabad – Pakistan is a SCO member – the need to set up a trilateral mechanism, with Beijing and Kabul, to advance a feasible political solution to Afghanistan while managing the security front.

Here, from China’s point of view, it’s all about the multi-layered China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), to which Beijing plans to incorporate Kabul. Here is a detailed CPEC progress update.

Building blocks include the deal struck between China Telecom and Afghan Telecom already in 2017 to build a Kashgar-Faizabad fiber optic cable system and then expand it toward a China-Kyrgyzstan-Tajikistan-Afghanistan Silk Road system.

Directly connected is the deal signed in February among Islamabad, Kabul and Tashkent to build a railway that in fact may establish Afghanistan as a key crossroads between Central and South Asia. Call it the SCO corridor.

All of the above was solidified by a crucial trilateral meeting last month among China-Pakistan-Afghanistan Foreign Ministers. Team Ghani in Kabul renewed its interest in being connected to Belt and Road – which translates in practice into an expanded CPEC. The Taliban said exactly the same thing last week.

Wang Yi knows very well that jihadism is bound to target CPEC. Not Afghanistan’s Taliban, though. And not the Pakistani Taliban (TTP), as quite a few CPEC projects (fiber optics, for instance) will improve infrastructure in Peshawar and environs.

Afghanistan in trade connectivity with CPEC and a key node of the New Silk Roads could not make more sense – even historically, as Afghanistan was always embedded in the ancient Silk Roads. Crossroads Afghanistan is the missing link in the connectivity equation between China and Central Asia. The devil, of course, will be in the details.

The Iranian equation

Then, to the West, there’s the Iranian equation. The recently solidified Iran-China strategic partnership may eventually lead to closer integration, with CPEC expanded to Afghanistan. The Taliban are keenly aware of it. As part of their current diplomatic offensive, they have been to Tehran and made all the right noises towards a political solution.

A map shows the route of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. Photo: Wikimedia Commons/ Wanishahrukh

Their joint statement with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif privileges negotiations with Kabul. The Taliban commit to refrain from attacking civilians, schools, mosques, hospitals and NGOs.

Tehran – an observer at the SCO and on the way to becoming a full member – is actively talking to all Afghan actors. No fewer than four delegations were visiting last week. The head of Kabul’s team was former Afghan Vice President Yunus Qanooni (a former warlord, as well), while the Taliban were led by Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai, who commands their political office in Doha. This all implies serious business.

There are already 780,000 registered Afghan refugees in Iran, living in refugee villages along the border and not allowed to settle in major cities. But there are also at least 2.5 million illegals. No wonder Tehran needs to pay attention. Zarif once again is in total synch with Lavrov – and with Wang Yi, for that matter: a non-stop war of attrition between the Kabul government and the Taliban could lead only to “unfavorable” consequences.

The question, for Tehran, revolves around the ideal framework for negotiations. That would point to the SCO. After all, Iran has not participated in the snail-paced Doha mechanism for over two years now.

A debate is raging in Tehran on how to deal practically with the new Afghan equation. As I saw for myself in Mashhad less than three years ago, migration from Afghanistan – this time from skilled workers fleeing the Taliban advance – may actually help the Iranian economy.

Aerial view of Mashhad. Photo: Wikipedia

The director general of the West Asia desk at Iran’s Foreign Ministry, Rasoul Mousavi, goes straight to the point:  “The Taliban yield” to the Afghan people. “They are not separated from Afghanistan’s traditional society, and they have always been part of it. Moreover, they have military power.”

On the ground in western Afghanistan, in Herat – linked by a very busy highway corridor across the border to Mashhad – things are more complicated. The Taliban now control most of Herat province, apart from two districts.

Legendary local warlord Ismail Khan, now in his mid-70s, and carrying an overloaded history of fighting the Taliban, has deployed militias to guard the city, the airport and its outskirts.

Yet the Taliban have already vowed, in diplomatic talks with China, Russia and Iran, that they are not planning to “invade” anyone – be it Iran or the Central Asian “stans.” Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen has been adamant that cross-border trade in different latitudes, from Islam Quilla (in Iran) to Torghundi (in Turkmenistan) and across northern Tajikistan will “remain open and functional.”

That non-withdrawal withdrawal

In a fast-evolving situation, the Taliban now control at least half of Afghanistan’s 400 districts and are “contesting” dozens of others. They are policing some key highways (you can’t go on the road from Kabul to Kandahar, for instance, and avoid Taliban checkpoints). They do not hold any major city, yet. At least 15 of 34 regional capitals – including strategic Mazar-i-Sharif – are encircled.

Afghan news media, always very lively, have started to ask some tough questions. Such as: ISIS/Daesh did not exist in Iraq before the 2003 US invasion and occupation. So how come ISIS-Khorasan emerged right under NATO’s noses?

Within the SCO, as diplomats told me, there’s ample suspicion that the US deep state agenda is to fuel the flames of imminent civil war in Afghanistan and then extend it to the Central Asian “stans,” complete with shady jihadi commandos mixed with Uighurs also destabilizing Xinjiang.

This being the case, the non-withdrawal withdrawal – what with all those remaining 18,000 Pentagon contractors/mercenaries, plus special forces and CIA black op types – would be a cover, allowing Washington a new narrative spin: the Kabul government has invited us to fight a “terrorist” re-emergence and prevent a spiral towards civil war.

The protracted endgame would read like win-win hybrid war for the deep state and its NATO arm.

Well, not so fast. The Taliban have warned all the “stans” in no uncertain terms about hosting US military bases. And even Hamid Karzai is on the record: enough with American interference.

All these scenarios will be discussed in detail this Wednesday in Dushanbe. As well as the bright part: the – now very feasible – future incorporation of Afghanistan to the New Silk Roads.

Back to the basics: Afghanistan returns, in style, to the heart of the 21st Century New Great Game.

*

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

This article was originally published on Asia Times.

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: The Great Game: This lithograph by British Lieutenant James Rattray shows Shah Shuja in 1839 after his enthronement as Emir of Afghanistan in the Bala Hissar (fort) of Kabul. Rattray wrote: ‘A year later the sanctity of the scene was bloodily violated: Shah Shuja was murdered.’ Photo: Wikipedia

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The following commentary reflects on how China is slowly catching up to the USA in terms of AI technology and moving away from informatized warfare to intelligentized warfare. China is no longer in a position of technological inferiority and is slowly making its presence felt in the world.

China is no longer in a position of technological inferiority but instead sees itself as close to catching up with and overtaking the United States in AI. The USA still trots on its idea of yesterday as if it were still the new thing – something called “ informatized” (信息化) warfare. China is conceptually already beyond the US. China now implements “intelligentized” (智能化) warfare.

1. Quantum Computing

Quantum computing can solve combinations. Let’s say that a code-key has 1 trillion possibilities and only one solution. A supercomputer spending 1 microsecond to check each possibility will spend about one week to find the one solution on average. A quantum computer can do it in about 1 second. Quantum computing will create unbreakable codes and communication. Even against other quantum computers. And quantum-seals will prove if a message (for example, sensor data or an electronic combat order) has been tampered with. Quantum computing will make it possible to crack all codes and messages in existence today within the realm of non-quantum technologies. A quantum superpower can protect its networks – and overtake or deceive combat platforms, sensors (including in space, air, and oceans), combat units, nodes, and the combat-HQ of the opponent. In addition, quantum computing will revolutionize other sciences, including chemistry and material sciences relevant for militaries. Quantum computing will also revolutionize power management and logistics – including the military.

In military conceptualization, C4ISR stands for Command, Control, Communications, Computers (C4) Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR). Quantum computing code technologies can overtake the opponents’ C4ISR and civilian infrastructure, disturb it, disable it, destroy it, or turn the opponent’s forces against him. Without firing a shot. Quantum computing will bring encryption, AI, and everything else computing up to a level so high that it is still incomprehensible by human imagination.

China, in May 2021, announced that the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) had developed the World’s most advanced quantum computer. When we compare the measurements of the three P’s – People, Products, and Processes – in quantum computing, it is clear that China comes out number one. The USA is in second place.  

2. Artificial Intelligence

China is also already the World-leader in AI. This year, China announced Wu Dao 2.0 – by far the most advanced AI system in the World – ever. China is also by far the World’s leader in the production of AI research papers. The USA is number two, and India stands third. Patents are essential but a problematic measure because a lot of AI depends upon how you apply it. China will also be wary of disclosing all its tech secrets through patent filing. The USA has a law to secretly confiscate all foreign patents and give them to its own US military industry. At the same time as the USA secretly appropriates patents and Intellectual Property (IP), the USA shouts up about others “copying” and “spying” on the USA. The USA, through the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 (Publ. L. 82-256) also prevents own military relevant patents from being filed.

According to the China AI Development Report, July 2018 (CAIDR), China is the global leader in AI investments, with 60% of total AI investments 2013-Q12018 (the USA less than 30%). The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) was by 2018 the research institution with the World’s highest concentration of AI talent, with 1,244 researchers. Number two was NASA with 103 (CAIDR fig. 2-35). Having AI talent concentrated is a considerable advantage, which does not preclude intense competition between teams. China is betting big by opening high profile AI research institutions. For instance, in 2018, China established the Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence (BAAI). Outside China, the most significant private companies represent a spread-out of AI talent on IBM (538), Microsoft (341), Google (256), Tata of India (189), and Siemens (176) (CAIDR fig. 2-37). China is now on its way to becoming the first global superpower for Artificial Intelligence. 

3. Intelligentized warfare

No doubt, with quantum computing and AI, China is excellently positioned to become a World leader in using computing science, also for military purposes. And China reveals advanced conceptual thinking beyond what the USA can do by developing frontier-breaking new military concepts like “intelligentized” warfare. So, what is “intelligentized” warfare? It is an open-ended idea – an idea with enormous power. This idea will develop so fast that we might as well ourselves start to build on it. So let me, therefore, present my perspective on it.

For example, wide beyond “autonomous” systems, “intelligentized “warfare also includes:

Intelligence-enhanced sensor-networks. AI is already needed to map changes in satellite images. Add to this the challenge of data-fusion, creating and interpreting a full real-time map of events across the electromagnetic spectrum, across space, air, land, and sea assets – plus other sources like media, political and popular events etc. For instance, Google’s “Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone” (GDELT 2.0) monitors media in 65 languages in the whole World, translates it, categorizes all events, counts, quotes, people, organizations, social media posts, locations, themes, analyze images, videos, and 2,300 emotions, and places this in a global context – within 15 minutes. Such AI-supported analyses of the World of politics, public units, ethnic and social units can then be further analyzed for strengths or weaknesses on a specific issue for a country like BRI and China.

Add the above capability to analyze global speech, topics, and tones and sender-receiver in all languages when secretly tapping into the totality of all global electronic communication (like the USA does, ref. Edward Snowden).

AI can then analyze and manipulate social and political events and decisions at all levels, including distortion of messages or inserting fake messages. AI systems can simulate the voicing, text style, and even video of any person pretending to be that person. Sender- receiver believe they communicate with each other – but in reality, both communicate with a CIA controlled AI system, which changes their communication without any of them knowing. That can bring down governments, either through fracture or by engineered “color revolution”. This is only a small beginning. 

Cyber-security will real-time be mapped onto the same situational picture. And keep in mind that several threats today move so fast and in such complex ways that they will not be perceptible to the human mind (at least not before it is too late). 

To understand this complexity, we must have two dimensions in mind: First is speed. At hypersonic speed, there will be little or no time for the human mind to react. The second is complexity and cognition. Some political, media, economic, and military developments do not move that fast. But they are so complex that the human mind, limits of education, and imagination (!) result in immense problems combining such diverse fields to a comprehensive picture – and hence simply understand it and act constructively.

This drives a need for AI and automatization of the whole battle-understanding, which becomes ever more challenging to comprehend fully on ALL levels. From the individual fighters to units, groups, divisions, armies, to the top-most grand strategic level across combat, economy, culture, information, propaganda, counter-propaganda on own and opposite populations and units. 

*

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

This article was originally published on USANAS Foundation.

Karsten Riise is a Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has a university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from Copenhagen University. He is the former Senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden. 

Featured image is from Gerd Altmann via USANAS Foundation

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

As winter turned to spring, many in the United States breathed a sigh of relief because the pandemic picture seemed to be getting better. People flooded social media with vaccination pics as case counts trended down and news outlets mused about just how great summer would be—reunions, restaurant dinners, and travel finally made safer. But with the remnants of Fourth of July barbecue still baked onto America’s patio grills, Pfizer and BioNTech, the makers of one of the most powerful COVID-19 vaccines, decided to bring a big, sopping wet blanket to the social reopening that news outlets have started to call “hot vax summer.”

Pfizer’s chief scientific officer Mikael Dolsten told Reuters that six months after getting the Pfizer shot, “there likely is the risk of reinfection as antibodies, as predicted, wane.” The company planned to ask the US government to authorize a third shot of its near-miraculous vaccine and even test a new vaccine specifically tailored to the new highly contagious delta variant of the coronavirus causing the pandemic.

White House officials worried the announcement would drive vaccine skepticism if people thought the shots were good only for six months. World Health Organization officials lashed out at Pfizer for recommending boosters when health care workers and others in much of the world couldn’t even get a first shot, much less a controversial third shot of the vaccine. And scientists questioned whether the boosters were even necessary.

With less than 50 percent of the United States fully vaccinated, and the low-hanging fruit of the country’s vaccine drive (e.g., everyone who posted a picture of their vaccine card on social media) mostly vaccinated, the Biden administration and state and local officials are struggling to boost coverage, including in areas where vaccine hesitancy can run high.

Despite lotteries and scholarship giveaways, and even as cases start to tick up in many states, vaccination trend lines are creeping down.

“You know what would really help?” Ashish K. Jha, dean of Brown School of Public Health, tweeted. “Ensuring the 25M who have 1 shot get their 2nd. And [e]nsuring the 100M eligible who have zero shots get their first. That would help keep everyone safe”

Other experts question whether boosters are even necessary. “At this point I see no evidence to support recommending them,” Emory University expert Carlos del Rio tweeted.

As part of its push for booster shots, Pfizer cited Israeli data showing that after six months, its vaccine was less effective at preventing both infection and symptomatic disease. On July 5, the government reported vaccine’s effectiveness at preventing infection and symptomatic disease had fallen to 64 percent, while in May, the government reported the Pfizer vaccine was 95 percent effective at preventing infection, hospitalization, and severe disease, according to Reuters. Some scientists questioned the Israeli data’s limitations, but the government there has already started giving Pfizer booster shots to patients with compromised immune systems.

Pfizer has suggested a reduction in antibodies to the coronavirus as a reason a booster shot is needed, but the immune system has more than one trick up its sleeve. In addition to antibodies that help the body identify pathogens, the body also produces memory B cells, for example, which exist in bone marrow and bodily organs and can produce new antibodies after an exposure. These cells can persist for years. “Antibody response is not the only measure of immune protection,” Leana S. Wen, a former health commissioner for Baltimore, told The New York Times.

If the US government changes course and recommends boosters, the move would likely put even more wind in Pfizer’s already billowing financial sails. The company reported a more than $1 billion increase in net income in the first three months of the year as compared to 2020 and has projected it would sell $26 billion of COVID-19 vaccination doses in 2021. John P. Moore, an immunologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, told The Washington Post he worried that Pfizer was making an opportunistic pitch. Boosters may be necessary, he said, “but to say we need it now and give the public the impression the vaccines are failing and something needs to be done as a matter of urgency. … The time isn’t now,” he said.

With booster shots representing a potential market of somewhere between $11 and $37 billion for Pfizer, according to a Bloomberg Intelligence analysis, and hints that the company’s discounted pandemic pricing may come to end (currently shots cost the US government $19.50, but the company has said a more typical price might be as high as $175), Pfizer clearly has a financial incentive to push boosters.

Pfizer didn’t answer a question about whether the profit motive was driving its push for boosters, instead telling the Bulletin in a statement that the company has  “a sense of urgency in staying ahead of the virus.” It’s a sentiment, the statement said, that the US government also shared. For now, at least, the federal government is keeping its excitement over boosters in check. “Americans who have been fully vaccinated do not need a booster shot at this time,” the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration said in joint statement. So for now, in the United States at least, the hot vax summer goes on.

*

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

Matt Field is an associate editor at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Before joining the Bulletin, he covered the White House, Congress, and presidential campaigns as a news producer for Japanese public television. He has also reported for print outlets in the Midwest and on the East Coast. He holds a master’s degree in journalism from Northwestern University.

Featured image is from Pixabay

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland held a phone conversation with the Head of the Ukrainian President’s Office Andriy Yermak to discuss what the National News Agency of Ukraine reported was the situation in Belarus. The two were described as having “expressed concern” over developments in Ukraine’s northern neighbor. A nation doesn’t want Nuland to be concerned, much less gravely concerned over its internal affairs given her political track record.

Unlike her telephone conversation with then U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt in 2014 in which she dictated the composition of a post-coup government in that nation weeks before the event, the above conversation has not been recorded and placed on YouTube yet, so its exact contents remain unknown.

It is to be hoped that Yermak was duly deferential to the highest-ranking member of the U.S. Foreign Service, as he would never have been granted the position he currently holds by his personal friend President Volodymyr Zelensky but for Nuland’s deft coup plotting of seven years ago. Before nepotism gained him his current position, he had been appointed Presidential Aide for Foreign Policy Issues shortly after Zelensky took office. Yermak, also an attorney, had been a film producer when he met Zelensky, at the time general producer of the TV channel Inter. Somehow one imagines the prospect of a Ukrainian television miniseries with a title like “The Battle for the Soul of Belarus” or “Free at Last, Released from the Bonds of Despotism” or, better yet, “Rock ‘n Roll Revolution” with a soundtrack by U2, Rage Against the Machine and Nicki Minaj.

What is known of his conversation with Nuland, the pastry peddlar of Maidan Square and patron saint of the seven-year war in the Donbass, is a brief account of it related by Ukraine’s presidential press secretary, Serhiy Nykyforov:

“Andriy Yermak and Ms. Victoria Nuland discussed the situation in Belarus and expressed concern about what is happening there now. They also discussed some security issues related to Russia’s West-2021 exercises and moved on to the topic of Ukraine.”

The joint Belrusian-Russian exercise (Zapad in Russian) is a routine one and Ukraine has no reason to fear anything from it; but Ukrainian officials, including Zelensky, for months have been prophesying, like a blind Greek soothsayer of the time of Sophocles, a threat to the very existence of Ukraine emanating from Belarus. Ukraine has a population almost five times the size of Belarus’ and armed forces trained to meet NATO standards in addition to military equipment provided by the U.S. and other alliance members.

The government of Belarus recently closed its border with Ukraine, accusing the latter of allowing arms to be smuggled into the country for Western-backed “protesters.” The sort of peaceful protesters that set over a hundred Ukrainian policemen on fire with gas bombs in Kiev in 2014, burning several to death. Their efforts were noted, appreciated and rewarded by Nuland and John McCain, who dispensed snacks to the CANVAS-trained perpetrators between bouts of hurling Molotov cocktails at unarmed law enforcement personnel.

By the way, the government of President Viktor Yanukoych was overthrown only thirteen months before a scheduled presidential election. Surely Nuland, McCain and their friends in the National Endowment for Democracy and other “democracy enhancement” organizations could have delivered the desired result short of setting much of the Ukrainian capital on fire, overthrowing an internationally-recognized head of state and plunging the nation into endless war; with the indispensable assistance of bomb-wielding “youth activists” as in 2004 and 2014, of course.

But a standard color revolution would have had disadvantages. Campaign slogans from approved candidates like Vote for Me and Join NATO or Support Us or We’ll Burn Your Country to the Ground don’t always appeal to targeted demographics. At least not sufficiently to motivate them to walk to the polling station on a rainy afternoon. Besides, rigging an election in 2015 might not have guaranteed a festering war with ethnic Russians in the Donbass and an excuse for further NATO buildup in the Black Sea – much less the opportunity of war with Belarus.

For the likes of Nuland with her Bachelor of Arts in Something or Other (BASOO), film producer Yermak and his boss, comedian Zelensky (Did you hear the one about the hooker and the mushroom cloud?), politics and war are just so, like, boring without a little panache. A little flair. Éclat. Some fireworks. Taunting a neighbor with the world’s second-largest nuclear arsenal by overthrowing the government of its only ally in Europe would do the trick. Now you’re talking. F*ck the world!

*

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

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Southern African Development Community (SADC) with support from the Addis Ababa based African Union Commission (AUC) have together set July 15 the beginning of the deployment of the joint regional military troops in Mozambique.

According to the statement released by SADC, the mission has as its objective, to support the Republic of Mozambique in the fight against acts of terrorism and extremist violence, in addition to supporting the country in restoring the rule of law in the affected areas of Cabo Delgado province.

Rwanda, at the official request from the Government of Mozambique, is contributing a 1,000-person force contingent from its National Defence Force (RDF) and Rwanda National Police (RNP).

Major General Innocent Kabandana is heading the Joint Force made up of 700 soldiers from the Rwanda Defence Force (RDF) and 300 officers from the Rwanda National Police (RNP). Kabundana, a former commander of Rwandan Special Forces, with experience in fighting rebel groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In 2020, he was appointed commander of the Rwanda Military Academy at Gako.

Rwanda and Mozambique are neighbors with a common border and members of the regional bloc. Rwandan troops to Mozambique primarily aim to help the country combat the escalating insurgency. According to the Rwandan government, the troops will join forces with Mozambique and the standby force from the SADC region.

The deployment is based on the good bilateral relations between Rwanda and Mozambique, following the signing of several agreements between the two countries in 2018. The deployment is also grounded in Rwanda’s commitment to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine and the 2015 Kigali Principles on the Protection of Civilians, according to the statement by the Government of Rwanda.

It is not yet clear who will lead the SADC Standby Force, and the force needs to have its legal status signed. The South African Defence Minister, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, has vehemently expressed absolute dissatisfaction that Rwanda had deployed its troops into Mozambique before SADC forces arrived, because it was expected that Rwanda would have gone in under a SADC mandate.

“It is regrettable that this dispatch takes place before the deployment of Sadc troops, because whatever the bilateral relations between Rwanda and Mozambique, one would expect Rwanda to go to Mozambique in the context of a mandate given by heads of state in the SADC region,” Mapisa-Nqakula said, added “a situation over which we have no control.”

Mozambique’s Minister of Defence, Jaime Neto, denies the move was meant to undercut SADC’s intervention efforts.

“At the ministerial level, we may not always have concrete information on what has been dealt with but Cabo Delgado is a privileged subject for heads of state at the level of SADC region and obviously at our level it’s up to us to take decisions from consultations that occurred out at the level of the heads of state.”

But the controversy about the operation has not ended there. The president of the Mozambican National Resistance (Renamo – the main opposition party in Mozambique) criticized the deployment of Rwandan military personnel in Mozambique, further describing it as “illegal” and that the Mozambican parliament and other countries in the SADC region should have been told in advance, it implies the unilateral decision taken the president on Rwandan force.

“The Rwandan military are in the country illegally, given the fact that the Assembly of the Republic was not informed and that other countries that are part of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) were themselves taken by surprise,” Ossufo Momade told a local media at the end of a visit to Cabo Delgado province, northern Mozambique.

Several official reports indicated that the Rwandan military and police are going to work closely with Mozambique Armed Defence Forces (FADM) and with the regional force from the Southern African Development Community (SADC) in designated sectors of responsibility, support efforts to restore security by conducting combat and security operations, as well as stabilization and security-sector reform (SSR). The forces will only return home once its mission is accomplished.

Moussa Faki Mahamat, the Chairperson of the African Union Commission (AUC), highly commended and described it “as a strong and concrete act of African solidarity” on the part of the Rwandan Government and the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

The forces are to be based in Cabo Delgado Province, Mozambique. That region has suffered from what is, always referred to as acts of terrorism. Beginning in October 2017, armed extremists linked to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) launched an insurgency in the Cabo Delgado region of Mozambique. On March 24, the militants again seized Palma in northern Mozambique.

The European Union has also adopted a decision setting up an EU military training mission in Mozambique (EUTM Mozambique). The EUTM Mozambique mission will last 28 months and be headed by the Portuguese Army Brigadier-General Nuno Lemos Pires. The aim of the mission is to train and support the Mozambican armed forces in protecting the civilian population and restoring safety and security in the Cabo Delgado province.

According to the media release of the European Council, the EU’s Integrated Approach to the crisis in Cabo Delgado, in conjunction with support for peacebuilding, conflict prevention and dialogue support, humanitarian assistance and development cooperation, and the promotion of the Women, Peace and Security Agenda.

In his letter of 3 June 2021, the President of Mozambique, Filipe Nyusi, welcomed the deployment of an EU military training non-executive Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) mission in the country. The mandate of the mission will initially last two years.

SADC (Southern African Development Community) has authorized Mozambique to seek support from other friends, said Nyusi, according to Radio Mozambique.

“We took a long time to think, to organize and to plan. The foreign contingents will be under Mozambican command.”

Nyusi has historically been resistant to foreign boots on his grounds. Defending Mozambique is the exclusive responsibility of Mozambicans, he insisted. Friends can help, but sooner or later, they would return to their own countries, and it would be up to Mozambicans to guarantee security.

Nyusi, himself a former defence minister, had for long shied away from asking for foreign military intervention to fight the armed militants, instead relying on private military companies. He strongly believes that the violence is linked to the mineral wealth discovered in Cabo Delgado, particularly in Palma district, where there are enormous offshore deposits of natural gas. Those behind the terrorism are arranging the war in order to control the wealth.

The first large-scale insurgency broke out in Mozambique’s northeast in 2017. Since then, the rebels have stepped up attacks. The latest March 24 heinous attack left more than 2,800 deaths, according to several reports, and about 714,000 people displaced, according to government sources. According to the United Nations, more than 900,000 people are under severe food insecurity in Cabo Delgado, and host communities are in urgent need of shelter, protection and other services.

With an approximate population of 30 million, Mozambique is endowed with rich and extensive natural resources but remains one of the poorest and most underdeveloped countries in the world. It is one of the 16 countries, with a collective responsibility to promote socio-economic and political and security cooperation, within the Southern African Development Community (SADC) created in 1980.

*

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

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

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The SADC “Comes to the Rescue” of the Government of Mozambique, Dispatches Standby Force
  • Tags: , ,

Renewing a Lifeline for the Hapless in Syria’s Idlib

July 15th, 2021 by Michael Jansen

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The UN Security Council’s unanimous decision to extend the organisation’s use of the Bab Al Hawa crossing on the Syrian-Turkish border by six months, with another six-month extension if approved by the secretary general, has renewed a lifeline for the hapless civilians living in Syria’s Idlib province. The UN will continue to ferry food and medical supplies across that frontier, and coordinate and fund the flow of supplies provided by relief agencies. It is estimated that 1,000 loaded lorries cross every month into Syria. Three-quarters of the 3-plus million people residing in north-west Syria depend on foreign aid, 85 per cent of which, reportedly, enters through this crossing.

Russia and the US were at loggerheads over Bab Al Hawa. Moscow sought to close this crossing, arguing that all aid should be channelled through government-held crossings since maintaining Bab Al Hawa violates Syrian state sovereignty. Russia is correct. Most countries, including the US, would reject the imposition by the UN or another external agency of an entry point that would allow the free flow of goods into their territory outside government control. Particularly, if the goods were destined for an area held by an inveterate enemy.

After all, Hay’at Tahrir Al Shamm the takfiri group  which holds north-west Idlib province, has tried to overthrow the Syrian government, is crushing rival factions and is trying to set up a separate state in Idlib and adjacent tracts of territory.

Washington wanted to open another two crossings, one into the north-west and the other into the north-east which would supply the US-backed Kurdish held area, comprising 25 per cent of Syria. There had, originally, been four crossings, three of which the Russians had insisted on closing down. Russia compromised by holding back its veto on Bab Al Hawa.

This has, of course, angered humanitarian agencies which had called for the opening of all four, making their job easier. US President Joe Biden, reportedly, raised this issue when he met his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Geneva last month.

While the humanitarian significance of Bab al-Hawa is all too obvious. The majority of the 3.5 million Syrians who live in Idlib and other northern areas depend on it for food, medical supplies and shelter. But donors think of the politico-military importance of this crossing. By providing for the population of Idlib, UN and the Western donors stabilising the reign of Hay’at Tahrir Al Sham, which is an off-shoot of Al Qaeda and has established its base in Idlib, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean. This could expose the backyard of Europe to takfiri infiltration and should pose a dilemma for Western politicians but does not.

Perhaps, the intention of the Western powers is to use leverage provided by Tahrir Al Sham to exert pressure on the Syrian government to capitulate to Western demands. So far this has failed. Western powers adopted such a policy earlier when they refused to tackle Daesh while it campaigned in western Iraq, capturing major Sunni cities before conquering the Syrian city of Raqqa in 2014 and sweeping across the border to occupy Iraq’s second city, Mosul, and 40 per cent of that country.

Founded as Jabhat al-Nusra in December 2012, by Abu Mohammad Al Julani, Tahrir Al Sham is a sibling of Daesh and no less ambitious. The two are the most successful of the takfiri groups which were born in Iraq after the US occupation and crossed the border into Syria to wage war on the Damascus government. The Jabhat was meant to the Syrian branch of Daesh. But once Daesh itself entered the Syrian conflict, it attempted to dominate the Jabhat which declared independence and became Al Qaeda’s official arm in Syria.

Like Daesh, the Jabhat attacked minority religious groups in Syria — Christians, Druze and Alawites, as well as Sunnis who did not subscribe to its beliefs or submit to its rule. Unlike Daesh which not only fights the Syrian government but also has a mission to strike at the West, Julani’s objective has been confined to overthrowing the Syrian government. Julani was ordered by Al Qaeda chief Ayman al- Zawahiri not to mount attacks in the West. Nevertheless, the Jabhat has been designated a “terrorist” group since 2012.

Although Julani allegedly severed ties with Al Qaeda, Zawahiri dispatched key aides to join the Jabhat’s leadership. His priority was for the group to capture enough strategic Syrian territory to establish a permanent Al Qaeda power base. This is precisely what it has done.

In 2017, the Jabhat, which had undergone multiple name changes, rebranded itself as Hay’at Tahrir Al Sham and since then has asserted control of most of Idlib. The group seeks to turn Idlib into a separate entity governed exclusively by Tahrir Al Sham, which has ordered rival factions to dissolve and their fighters to join its ranks or leave Idlib. Al though pledged not to mount operations in the West, Tahrir Al Sham has celebrated such attacks by Daesh and other takfiri factions . Tahrir Al Sham is, after all, the child of Al Qaeda and sibling of Daesh. Perhaps Tahrir Al Sham has adopted the practice of Takiyya, dissimulation as a means of self-protection, until the group is powerful enough to export both adherents and ideology from its base in northwest Syria.

*

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

Assange to be ‘Moved Around’ Sine Die

July 15th, 2021 by Ray McGovern

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Very bad news for those who still care about freedom of the press and what the fate of Julian Assange means for the artifact-First Amendment added to the U.S. Constitution 240 years ago. The UK High Court just announced it will hear the US appeal of a lower court decision against extraditing Julian Assange.

Godot is likely to arrive before the US/UK finish the legal pantomime denying Assange his freedom.

The High Court decision solidifies Britain’s status as a US vassal state – the 800-year legacy of the Magna Carta be damned. Giving obsequious hypocrisy a bad name, the High Court’s announcement comes a week and half after the prime witness for the latest indictment of Assange recanted his testimony.

It should come as no surprise that British “Justice” officials are following the detailed “Washington Playbook” approach that was exposed by WikiLeaks itself in Feb. 2012.

Some readers may recall that WikiLeaks-revealed confidential emails from the US private intelligence firm Stratfor mentioned that the US already had a secret indictment against the WikiLeaks founder. Bad enough.

Inspector Javert

What also showed up in the Stratfor emails was the unrelenting, Inspector-Javert-type approach taken by one Fred Burton, Stratfor’s Vice-President for Counterterrorism and Corporate Security. (Burton had been Deputy Chief of the Department of State’s counterterrorism division for the Diplomatic Security Service.)

Here’s Javert – I mean Burton:

“Move him [Assange] from country to country to face charges for the next 25 years. But seize everything he and his family own, to include every person linked to Wiki.” [my comment: “country to country”, or – equally effective – court to court]

“Pursue conspiracy and political terrorism charges and declassify the death of a source, someone which could link to Wiki.”

“Assange is a peacenik. He needs his head dunked in a full toilet bowl at Gitmo.”

“Take down the money. Go after his infrastructure. The tools we are using to nail and de-construct Wiki are the same tools used to dismantle and track al-Qaeda.”

“Bankrupt the arsehole first; ruin his life. Give him 7-12 years for conspiracy.”

“Assange is going to make a nice bride in prison. Screw the terrorist. He’ll be eating cat food forever … extradition to the US is more and more likely.”

Nice people – once sworn under oath “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic”. Since comparisons are invidious, apologies to “Javert” and Victor Hugo.

Meanwhile Back at Belmarsh

It is not clear whether the likes of Fred Burton have been able to dictate the menu for Julian Assange (but who would be surprised?). What is clear is that, unless a major grassroots campaign can gather more steam, and soon, Julian is likely to be moved from court to court, prison to prison – all under color of law – until they destroy what is left of him. It is a sad pantomime, a mockery of justice. Talk about Les Miserables!

As UN Rapporteur for Torture Nils Melzer has pointed out, Julian Assange is being subjected to psychological torture – in full view of the rest of the world. And, as reprehensible as this crime is – still more is at stake for democracies, which cannot exist without a free media.

Last Saturday Julian Assange “celebrated” his 50th birthday in London’s high-security Belmarsh Prison. I was asked to record a message to be loud-speakered at the demonstration in support of Julian before the prison that day. Here is the recording. For those lacking appreciation for my singing, the 8-minute talk is transcribed here.

*

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

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President’s Daily Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Featured image: Julian Assange court sketch, October 21, 2019, supplied by Julia Quenzler.

Graphene Meets RNA Technology, for Cancer Vaccines

July 15th, 2021 by Jon Rappoport

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

As soon as Operation Warp Speed was announced, I made it clear that one of the prime goals was: winning approval for experimental RNA technology.

RNA tech had never gotten a green light prior to the COVID vaccine. Why? Because it was highly dangerous. Generally speaking, massive inflammatory response was the issue: the body attacks itself.

But RNA tech allows new vaccines to be developed faster, easier, and cheaper. Therefore, researchers could claim to discover new viruses at the drop of a hat (without authentic proof), and pharma companies could develop new vaccines (aka genetic RNA treatments) overnight.

It became Bill Gates’ and Tony Fauci’s mission to drag an RNA COVID vaccine across the finish line to emergency-use approval, come hell or high water. They were determined to crack open the marketplace for a flood of RNA medical products.

In yesterday’s, article, I highlighted the arrival of a “miracle” substance, graphene, trumpeted as the core of a whole new frontier in medicine.

For example, Merck is using it to research the creation of IMPOSED nerve responses in the body, in order to knock out a whole host of “disease conditions.”

Of course, the acknowledged toxicity of graphene nanoparticles is underplayed; in particular, their tendency to cause lung infections.

And now graphene and RNA tech meet, in new research into cancer vaccines. As they say, what could possible go wrong?

The reference is “In Situ Transforming RNA Nanovaccines from Polyethylenimine Functionalized Graphene Oxide Hydrogel for Durable Cancer Immunotherapy,” 2/17/21, ACS Publications.

Here is an excerpt from the optimistic abstract: “Messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine is a promising candidate in cancer immunotherapy…Here, we report an injectable hydrogel formed with graphene oxide (GO) and polyethylenimine (PEI). The released nanovaccines can protect the mRNA from degradation and confer targeted delivering capacity to lymph nodes…”

The scramble is now underway to deploy both RNA genetic tech and graphene in all sorts of medical “innovations.”

You don’t get just one danger; you get two.

And here is a third wrinkle. According to conventional vaccine theory, the injected RNA would cause cells of the body to produce a protein unique to cancer tumors. The immune system would attack this protein and, up the road, be prepared to destroy cancer before it could gain a foothold.

It’s possible that researchers from the old failed US viral cancer project of the 1960s and 70s could now rewrite history, get in line, and say, “We never failed. Robert Gallo DID discover two cancer viruses, which also have unique proteins. Let’s develop an RNA-graphene injection that empowers the immune system to attack these viruses…”

I mention this because those failed cancer researchers went on to claim a new virus called HIV caused a condition called AIDS. And like COVID, the “causative virus” was never isolated, never proved to exist.

HIV and SARS-CoV-2 are both phantom fantasies. And in both cases, the drug/vaccine treatments are massively destructive.

The medical cartel at work.

*

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

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Recent attention has focussed on the detrimental health impacts of graphene nanoparticles contained in the face mask as well as in the mRNA vaccine as documented in a scientific study by a groups of Spanish researchers.

This study was originally published in 2016.

Abstract

Due to their unique physicochemical properties, graphene-family nanomaterials (GFNs) are widely used in many fields, especially in biomedical applications. Currently, many studies have investigated the biocompatibility and toxicity of GFNs in vivo and in intro.

Generally, GFNs may exert different degrees of toxicity in animals or cell models by following with different administration routes and penetrating through physiological barriers, subsequently being distributed in tissues or located in cells, eventually being excreted out of the bodies.

This review collects studies on the toxic effects of GFNs in several organs and cell models. We also point out that various factors determine the toxicity of GFNs including the lateral size, surface structure, functionalization, charge, impurities, aggregations, and corona effect.

In addition, several typical mechanisms underlying GFN toxicity have been revealed, for instance, physical destruction, oxidative stress, DNA damage, inflammatory response, apoptosis, autophagy, and necrosis. In these mechanisms, (toll-like receptors-) TLR-, transforming growth factor β- (TGF-β-) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) dependent-pathways are involved in the signalling pathway network, and oxidative stress plays a crucial role in these pathways. In this review, we summarize the available information on regulating factors and the mechanisms of GFNs toxicity, and propose some challenges and suggestions for further investigations of GFNs, with the aim of completing the toxicology mechanisms, and providing suggestions to improve the biological safety of GFNs and facilitate their wide application.

Read the full report 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.

***

Former Obama administration Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Tuesday on CNN’s “OutFront” that Americans who have not received a coronavirus vaccine should not be allowed to work or have access to children and be limited on where they are allowed to go.

Sebelius said,

“We’re in a situation where we have a wildly effective vaccine, multiple choices, lots available, free of charge, and we have folks who are just saying I won’t do it. I think that it’s time to say to those folks, it’s fine if you don’t choose to get vaccinated. You may not come to work. You may not have access to a situation where you’re going to put my grandchildren in jeopardy. Where you might kill them, or you might put them in a situation where they’re going to carry the virus to someone in a high-risk position.”

She continued,

“That’s, I think the point where we are, is freedom is one thing, but freedom when you harm others like secondhand smoke and issues that we’ve dealt with very clearly in the past you can’t drive drunk. You can drink, but you can’t drive drunk because you can injure other people. You can’t smoke inside of a public place where you can give cancer to someone else in spite of their never having been a smoker.”

Sebelius added,

“So I think we’re reaching that point in the United States where those of us who are vaccinated, I want to take off my mask. I want to be able to live my life with vaccination, and right now, I’m being impinged on by people who say I don’t want to get vaccinated. It’s fine. I want them to maybe have a limitation on where they can go and who they can possibly infect.”

*

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

Featured image is by Ali Raza from PxHere.

Time to Stop Sending Canadian Troops to Haiti

July 15th, 2021 by Yves Engler

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

During times of instability in Haiti, progressives both in the Caribbean nation and abroad often fear impending US military intervention. This makes sense, given Washington’s long history of deploying soldiers to shape Haitian affairs.

Since President Jovenel Moïse was assassinated Wednesday the Haiti Information Project has reported that combat vessel USS Billings is in Santo Domingo on the other side of the island. They also published photos of two US C-20 military aircraft unloading passengers and gear at the Toussaint Louverture Airport in Port-au-Prince. A video appears to show plainclothes men, reportedly Special Forces, being met by US embassy representatives.

But, what about Canadian Forces? While I have yet to find evidence of any Canadian deployment, it’s important for progressives to be vigilant considering this country’s history of using or threatening to use force to influence Haitian politics.

Amidst a February 2019 general strike that nearly toppled Moïse, heavily-armed Canadian special forces were videoed patrolling the Port-au-Prince airport. The Haiti Information Project suggested that they helped family members of Moïse’s corrupt, repressive and unpopular government flee the country.

On February 29, 2004, JTF2 commandos took control of the airport from which Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide was bundled (“kidnapped” in his words) onto a plane by US Marines and deposited in the Central African Republic. According to AFP, “about 30 Canadian special forces soldiers secured the airport on Sunday [Feb. 29, 2004] and two sharpshooters positioned themselves on the top of the control tower.” Reportedly, the elite fighting force entered Port-au-Prince five days earlier ostensibly to protect the embassy. The JTF2 deployment was part of the Canada/France/US campaign to destabilize and overthrow Haiti’s elected government. According to the military’s account of Operation PRINCIPAL, “more than 100 CF personnel and four CC-130 Hercules aircraft … assisted with emergency contingency plans and security measures” during the week before the coup.

For the five months after Aristide was ousted five hundred Canadian soldiers joined US and French forces in protecting Haiti’s foreign installed regime. A resident of Florida during the preceding 15 years, Gerard Latortue was responsible for substantial human rights violations. There is evidence Canadian troops participated directly in repressing the pro-democracy movement. A researcher who published a report on post-coup violence in Haiti with the Lancet medical journal recounted an interview with one family in the Delmas district of Port- au-Prince: “Canadian troops came to their house, and they said they were looking for Lavalas [Aristide’s party] chimeres, and threatened to kill the head of household, who was the father, if he didn’t name names of people in their neighbourhood who were Lavalas chimeres or Lavalas supporters.” Haiti and Afghanistan were the only foreign countries cited in the Canadian Force’s 2007 draft counterinsurgency manual as places where Canadian troops participated in counterinsurgency warfare. According to the manual, the CF had been “conducting COIN [counter-insurgency] operations against the criminally-based insurgency in Haiti since early 2004.”

After a deadly earthquake rocked Haiti in 2010 two thousand Canadian troops were deployed while several Heavy Urban Search Rescue Teams were readied but never sent. According to an internal file, Canadian officials worried that “political fragility has increased the risks of a popular uprising, and has fed the rumor that ex-president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, currently in exile in South Africa, wants to organize a return to power.” The government documents also explain the importance of strengthening the Haitian authorities’ ability “to contain the risks of a popular uprising.” To police Haiti’s traumatized and suffering population 2,050 Canadian troops were deployed alongside 12,000 US soldiers and 1,500 UN troops (8,000 UN soldiers were already there). Even though there was no war, for a period there were more foreign troops in Haiti per square kilometer than in Afghanistan or Iraq (and about as many per capita).

Canadian soldiers were part of the UN mission in the country between 2004 and 2017. A handful of Canadian military officials filled senior positions in the MINUSTAH command structure, including Chief of Staff. 34 Canadian soldiers were quietly dispatched to Haiti during the final six months of 2013.

Canada’ military involvement in Haiti dates to the previous century. Canadian troops joined the US led operation immediately after 20,000 troops descended on the country in 1994. Afterwards Canada took command of the UN force and about 750 Canadian soldiers were on the ground. At a 1996 NATO summit Prime Minister Jean Chrétien was caught on an open microphone saying, “he [US President Bill Clinton] goes to Haiti with soldiers. The next year, Congress doesn’t allow him to go back. So he phones me. Okay, I send my soldiers, and then afterward I ask for something in return.”

According to the 2000 book Canadian Gunboat Diplomacy, Canadian vessels have been sent to Haiti on multiple occasions. In response to upheaval in the years after Jean Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier fled Haiti warships were deployed in 1988 and 1987. Another vessel was deployed in 1974. This time, reports military historian Sean Maloney, “Canadian naval vessels carried out humanitarian aid operations to generate goodwill with the Haitian government so that Haiti would support Canadian initiatives in la Francophonie designed to limit French interference in Canadian affairs.”

As Francois ‘Papa Doc’ Duvalier’s first mandate came to an end in May 1963, the country was gripped with upheaval.When Haitian military officers accused of plotting against Duvalier fled into the Dominican Embassy in Port-au-Prince there was a major diplomatic incident between Duvalier and Dominican President Juan Bosch. Fearing forces sympathetic to Cuba may take advantage of the instability to grab power, HMCS Saskatchewan, a British vessel and seven US warships approached Haiti’s coast (three other Canadian ships stood by). The next year HMCS Saskatchewanwas again sent to Haiti to ensure Duvalier did not move towards Cuba.

‘Canada’ intervened militarily in previous centuries as well. In November 1865 HMS Galatea bombed Cap-Haitien in support of a Haitian political leader battling an opponent. Based in Halifax and Bermuda, the British frigate was part of the Empire’s North America and West Indies Station. Two decades later Halifax based HMS Canada was dispatched to Haiti on two occasions over six-months.

British/Canadian forces also sought to crush the Haitian slave revolution. Britain’s primary naval base in North America, Halifax played its part in London’s efforts to capture one of the world’s richest colonies (for the slave owners). Much of the Halifax-based squadron arrived on the shores of the West Indies in 1793 and a dozen Nova Scotia privateers captured at least 57 enemy vessels in the West Indies between 1793 and 1805. A number of prominent Canadian-born (or based) individuals fought to capture and re-establish slavery in Saint Domingue (Haiti). First Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, John Graves Simcoe, led the British invasion of Saint Domingue in 1796. As Governor, Simcoe re-instated slavery in areas he controlled.

Canada has a long history of intervening militarily in Haiti. Amidst the current instability, we should seek to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

*

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

Featured image is from Yves Engler

Does the Constitution Mean What It Says?

July 15th, 2021 by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

“No person … shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” — Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Abdulsalam al-Hela is a 53-year-old Yemeni cleric who has been incarcerated by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station in Cuba since 2004. He has not been charged with any crime. His case has a long and complex legal history, but it is instructive to all who believe that the Constitution means what it says.

Hela is represented by competent counsel who have filed numerous petitions in his behalf asking the courts to compel the government to comply with the Constitution and justify his confinement. The underlying constitutional principles here are due process and habeas corpus. The obligations of complying with both are imposed upon the federal government by the Constitution.

Due process — which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment — means that every person confined or charged by the government is absolutely entitled to a notice of the charges against him, a fair hearing on those charges before a neutral judge and jury, and the right to appeal any adverse decision to other fair and neutral judges. Hela is also entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. It permits all confined persons to ask a judge to compel the government to justify the confinement.

When Hela asked for due process and habeas corpus relief in federal district court in Washington, D.C. — the judicial venue for all Guantanamo Bay detainees — a district court judge denied his petition because the government has called Hela an enemy combatant and the president, the court ruled, has the lawful power to confine him for the duration of whatever hostilities he and the U.S. were engaged in.

But the government acknowledges that Hela was not engaged in any hostilities. Moreover, the United States itself is no longer engaged in hostilities in the Middle East, though presidents Donald Trump and Joseph Biden have, from time to time, sent missiles into that scorched-earth part of the world just to remind the folks there who still claims to be king of the hill.

Hela appealed the district court’s denial of habeas corpus and due process relief to the federal appellate court in Washington, D.C. A panel of three judges from that court chose not to address due process directly and instead denied Hela’s application for habeas. It did so not because the president — Trump, at the time — claims the power to confine foreign supporters of foreign groups violently at odds with the U.S., but for the historically novel reason that Hela has no property in the U.S. and is not confined here.

This is not only an absurd rationale, as the Constitution imposes no property requirement as a precondition to the use of habeas corpus, but it also defies several Supreme Court opinions that hold that wherever the government goes lawfully and permanently, the Constitution goes with it. Stated differently, the court has ruled that the government must uphold basic human and constitutional rights for all those it confines for more than a passing period, including those at Guantanamo Bay.

Why is this case important?

Hela is obviously an unsympathetic figure. The government says that as a cleric, he used words — which, if used in the United States, would have been protected by the First Amendment — to encourage young people to join militias that either did or could have attacked American troops. But the courts have never upheld confinement without charge for the mere use of words. Nor have they condoned a 17-year confinement without so much as the filing of any charges.

One can conclude that the government lacks evidence with which to charge and prosecute Hela. If that is so, it must let him go. This is basic constitutional law. But you would not know that from the position taken by the Biden Department of Justice.

According to The New York Times, DOJ lawyers debated privately for weeks over whether Hela has due process rights. The deadline for the DOJ’s response to Hela’s appeal was last Friday. No surprise, the DOJ filed its brief to the court under seal but then leaked certain parts to the press.

The leaks revealed that lawyers at the DOJ could not agree if the word “person” in the Fifth Amendment means “every person” or “every American person.” And so, in this monumental case, in which a federal appellate court negated long-recognized constitutional rights based on a novel and unconstitutional theory, the Biden Department of Justice remained mute. The Times also reported that Attorney General Merrick Garland recused himself from the case entirely because he once sat on the federal appeals court in Washington, though not on the panel that rejected Hela’s appeal.

What’s going on here? We have another political Department of Justice. But this one is afraid to take an unpopular stance — even though such a stance is dictated by the Constitution and the plain meaning of its words.

The DOJ’s failure to attack the made-up-out-of-thin-air property or physical presence requirement is not just a failure of nerve or a cover for the White House; it is a failure of the DOJ’s obligation to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, no matter how obscure or unpopular the object of that defense may be.

The whole idea that rights can be turned off like a light switch and those in whose hands we have reposed the Constitution for safekeeping can get away with doing nothing when this happens is sadly consistent with the lack of fidelity to the Constitution so regularly displayed by those in government today.

I have asked this question before, without answer: Why do we repose the Constitution for safekeeping into the hands of those who subvert it?

*

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

Featured image is by Ichigo121212 at Pixabay

Failure of Umpires: The 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre

July 15th, 2021 by Anthony Cherry

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

One of the worst racial pogroms in U.S. history might have been prevented if city and state leaders had done their jobs responsibly

The parallels to our own time unfortunately resonate—as government leaders continue to provide a cover for criminal activity and grant impunity to the perpetrators of atrocities

For years, the story of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre was suppressed, left out of history books and school curricula and ignored in the media. Many people who grew up in Tulsa said that they had never heard about the massacre, even though it took place in their own backyard.

As living witnesses and participants died off, the horrific events were belatedly rediscovered—and due to pressure from local Black leaders like Vanessa Hall Harper, the City of Tulsa allowed for the excavation of grave sites to try to determine precisely how many people had been killed.

Then on the 100th anniversary, the President of the United States visited Tulsa, and major media featured stories about the massacre and television networks aired films about it.

The Tulsa Race Massacre is now thought of by many people as a parable about America’s dark racial history, and the need to transcend it—a goal that appears uncertain in the era of Charlottesville and Donald J. Trump.

There is another moral to the story of the Tulsa Race Massacre, though, that is equally resonant today but has not been widely recognized.

A probe into the events of 1921 reveals the miserable failure of public officials tasked with the responsibility of protecting the public and upholding the rule of law in society.

Instead of trying to protect the Black community, Tulsa law enforcement and city officials, along with state authorities and the U.S. Army, gave carte blanche to, and even assisted, white vigilantes as they attacked and destroyed Black Tulsa.

The perpetrators of the mob violence were subsequently granted impunity: not one white person was ever prosecuted for murder, torture, looting or arson, even though those crimes were amply documented.

Blacks were also not allowed to return to their community, as the city took over their land and insurance companies deprived them of compensation.

While it is easy to attribute the failure of government officials at that time to the racism of the Jim Crow era, the parallels to today unfortunately are salient.

A new generation of leaders still protects the powerful when they violate the law while refusing to afford protection for their constituents from predation.

In just the last few years, government officials have helped cover up for rogue law enforcement agents who killed innocent citizens, such as Breonna Taylor and Laquan McDonald, and enacted laws that oppress minority groups and help further marginalize the poor. They also failed to hold powerful corporations and public officials accountable for massive war crimes on the international stage along with offenses like perjury.

The Obama administration tellingly refused to prosecute Bush administration officials for torture, Wall Street executives for financial fraud that helped crash the economy, and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper for lying to Congress about the extent of U.S. government surveillance—which was itself illegal.

The implications of the failure of government officials—whether liberal or conservative—to serve as arbiters of justice is ultimately as significant today as it was in 1921.

In both cases, the victims of major crimes were never afforded restitution, and impunity of the perpetrators ensured that they or their heirs could act again.

Overview of the Tulsa Race Massacre 

On the last weekend of May 1921, a white mob burned down the Greenwood District where African-Americans had achieved some prosperity and established a Black Wall Street despite living under segregation.

Tulsa at the time was a new city that had sprung up because of an oil boom.

A large Black population had come to the Oklahoma territory beginning in the 1830s as the slaves of Native Americans who had been relocated there under Andrew Jackson’s Indian removal policy, and because of the offer of land allotments to freed slaves after the Civil War.

Oklahoma land rush

Guthrie Oklahoma during land rush. [Source: Britannica.com]

The white community was resentful of the success of Black Wall Street and fact that Blacks who worked for whites were spending their money in Black-owned businesses.

At least 300 Blacks were killed in the pogrom, and 1,000 Black homes, businesses and churches were razed and plundered by some 15,000 white citizens, law enforcement officials, and military personnel.

The massacre began because of an allegation of sexual assault of a young white woman by a Black man, Dick Rowland.

On the morning of May 30, 1921, Sarah Page, 18, a white elevator operator, was alone in an elevator with Rowland, aged 19, in a downtown building. There is much speculation but little evidence as to why they were alone or what transpired in that closed intimate space, but we do know that Page screamed and then Rowland fled the scene.

A picture containing text, building, outdoor, road Description automatically generated

Downtown building where Page-Rowland encounter took place. [Source: tulsaworld.com]

Oral accounts of the incident circulated among the city’s white community and became more exaggerated with each telling. Tulsa police arrested Rowland the following day, a Tuesday, and began an investigation.

The Tulsa Tribune, the city’s afternoon daily newspaper, reported that Rowland had attempted to rape Page and published a now-lost editorial about the incident titled “To Lynch Negro Tonight.”

When a white lynch mob formed to get Rowland, a Black rescue party, made up mostly of Black World War I veterans, mobilized to try to protect him.

Image on the right: Inflammatory article in Tulsa Tribune. [Source: tulsaworld.com]

Text Description automatically generated

The sensational reporting of the Tulsa Tribune spurred a confrontation between the Black rescue party and the white lynch mob around the courthouse.

Both groups were heavily armed.

When a white man attempted to disarm a Black veteran, shots were fired and people on both sides of the racial divide died immediately.

The outnumbered Blacks began retreating to the Greenwood Avenue business district. Many Black Tulsans fled for safety, but some with military experience stayed, opting to stand their ground and defend their community from an oncoming angry mob.

Fighting erupted along the Frisco railroad tracks, but Black defenders were eventually overpowered by superior numbers and firepower as angry whites descended on the Black enclave in Greenwood.

One eyewitness wrote: “All night long they could be heard firing from both sides, while the Whites were marshalling more than 5,000 men who had surrounded the Negro section to make an early attack in the morning on more than 8,000 Negroes.

As daylight approached, the Whites were given a signal by a whistle, and the dirty, cowardly outrage took place. All of this happened while innocent Negroes were slumbering and did not have the least idea that they would fall victims of such brutality.

At the signal of the whistle, more than a dozen airplanes went up and began to drop turpentine bombs upon the Negro residences, while the 5,000 Whites, with machine guns and other deadly weapons began firing in all directions.”[1]

The Greenwood District was pillaged and burned to the ground. Crop duster airplanes were used to drop makeshift bombs onto buildings. Torchlights were used with gasoline to raze the Black settlement. The National Guard—under the direction of J. Patrick Hurley, who was later appointed as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ambassador to China—carried a cutting edge, high caliber machine gun through the streets of North Tulsa.

What Role Did Airplanes Play in the Tulsa Race Massacre? - HISTORY

Greenwood District on fire during the massacre. [Source: history.com]

Black Tulsans made haste to flee the city to safety, but many Black men, women, and children were killed by the mob. Women dragged their children while running for their lives. Whites, who had gathered overnight from all over the region, fired at them as they ran. Black hospitals, with the sick and injured inside, were burned as many Blacks died in the flames.

Text Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Photo of one of many victims of the massacre. [Source: wikipedia.org]

Several Black Tulsans were tied to the backs of automobiles and dragged through the streets while bullets were being fired into their bodies. As the fighting progressed, the remaining Blacks were captured and rounded up by the National Guard to be placed in an internment camp in a downtown convention hall.

Most Blacks were taken prisoner. After more than 400 homes had been cleared of their Black owners, the burning and looting continued.

The Greenwood District, also derogatorily referred to as Little Africa, was pillaged, and burned to the ground. Hundreds of innocent and defenseless citizens were slaughtered. Not only was Tulsa’s legacy tarnished, but a huge volume of Black life, liberty, and property was lost that day.

Police Complicity and Terrorism

The Tulsa Race Massacre was a state-sponsored massacre.

Tulsa’s law enforcement, local, and state government employed intimidation, coercion, and violence to instill terror in Black Tulsans to the ends of political and economic exploitation. Black Tulsans tried to take up arms and defend themselves against their own government, but to no avail.

Oklahoma Assistant Attorney General Kathryn Van Leuven—the first female in her position in the country—launched an investigation into Tulsa law enforcement just months before the massacre and reported that the police department suffered from corruption, incompetence and a gross lack of resources. Poor local law enforcement made mob rule inevitable.

The police chief at the time of the Tulsa Race Massacre, John Gustafson, had worked as a spy for private detective agencies that infiltrated labor and leftist groups, and had a reputation for condoning lynching under his jurisdiction.

Tulsa County Sheriff Willard McCullough warned that Gustafson had been connected with the criminal underworld—snitches and crooks—and that he would “have no other kind of men on his force, and that such a police force would be a menace to the City of Tulsa.”

These words proved to be prophetic.

Neither the sheriff nor Chief Gustafson made a serious effort to disperse the white crowd that gathered to witness or participate in the lynching of Dick Rowland.

The arrival of approximately 200 armed Blacks, including World War I veterans in the midst of an angry white lynch mob 2,000-strong proved too much for the ill-trained and ill-prepared peacekeepers of Tulsa County.

The entire Tulsa police force was never called to the scene, and the few present were ill-equipped for the pending threat of mob violence. While the sheriff made a diligent effort to protect the life of Dick Rowland, no law enforcement agency made any effort to disarm or disperse the white rioters.

Once the violence erupted, Captain George H. Blaine of the Tulsa Police Department broke into McGee’s Hardware Store (Black-owned) and dealt out guns to white rioters. Gustafson deputized the same whites from the mob to help murder and inter the city’s Black populace.

On June 2, 1921, Adjutant General Charles Barrett of the Oklahoma National Guard declared that these special officers were chiefly instrumental in inciting the outbreak and did most of the shooting. Twenty years later, Barrett wrote that “they became as deputies the most dangerous part of the mob” and were the heart of Greenwood’s incendiaries.

Tulsa police congregate outside main police headquarters on the eve of the massacre. [Source: tulsaworld.com]

Mayor T.D. Evans—a Failed Umpire

Tulsa’s Mayor at the time of the massacre, T.D. Evans (1920-1922), had been a Judge who, in November 1917, convicted 17 members of the anarcho-syndicalist Industrial Workers of the World (IWW, aka “Wobblies”) of not owning a war bond—a conviction that smacked of political and ideological retaliation.

Because the war effort consumed so much oil, Tulsa stood to gain economically from it and any opposition to it was viewed as a threat to prosperity and success. Oil industry executives also hated the Wobblies because of the threat of strikes that might dampen their profits.

After the trial, the “Wobblies” were placed in police cars and delivered into the custody of the Black Robes of Liberty, a vigilante group affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), which drove the Wobblies outside of town, tied them to trees, and horse-whipped them and poured boiling tar on their backs.

A picture containing text, newspaper Description automatically generated

Newspaper headline detailing torture of Wobblies and founding of Tulsa’s Klan out of the incident. [Source: thislandpress.com]

An investigation by the National Civil Liberties Bureau determined that one of the main perpetrators of the torture was Tulsa’s police chief, Ed Lucas.

A Republican lawyer and wealthy real estate investor, Evans won the mayoralty on a platform of building a pipeline to bring fresh water to Tulsa. He was also sympathetic to the local KKK.

After the violence, Mayor Evans publicly blamed North Tulsa for the destruction, charging 55 Black Tulsans with inciting a riot.

He further disbanded the Executive Welfare Department in charge of post-riot “humanitarian” efforts—accusing it of challenging his authority—and replaced it with friends, cronies, and real estate business partners—among them members of the KKK—who made up the Reconstruction Committee or Real Estate Exchange.

No Black Tulsans sat on the exchange, which decided not to raise any funds to aid the rebuilding of Black Wall Street and to relocate survivors of the massacre further north.

The exchange in turn schemed to transfer Black lands, resources, and wealth into the coffers of some of the wealthiest white Tulsans through a plan to rezone the burned district into an industrial zone and by constructing a profitable railroad station on the smoldering remains of “Little Africa.”

Local real estate groups saw the destroyed district as lucrative for future industrial use and Blacks as an obstacle to the economic development of the city.

After a low-ball attempt by Evans’s committee of speculators to purchase the land from the massacre victims backfired, a maneuver was made to rezone the district as part of city fire limits.

This ordinance made it financially impossible for most Black Tulsans to rebuild their homes. Mayor Evans rejected the Chamber of Commerce’s suggestion to help Blacks rebuild on their own land and actively worked to relocate Black Tulsans to temporary shacks that could be easily condemned when railroad plans were ready.

Evans showed undeniable hostility toward Blacks as he tried to prevent the Red Cross from distributing emergency tents for Black families during the winter of 1921 and halted all incoming donations for rebuilding the Black district.

His overtly predatory business tactics against some of his most vulnerable constituents classify his actions as nothing less than a betrayal of his office.

In the end, Mayor Evans’s and his cronies’ plan to rezone Black Wall Street was thwarted thanks to the efforts of Black attorney Buck Colbert Franklin (1897-1960), whose son John Hope Franklin became a pioneering Black historian.

Franklin’s successful lawsuit against the city won the votes of three Oklahoma Supreme Court justices who agreed that the fire ordinance supported by Evans was unconstitutional and took private property without due process.

Land-grab efforts persist today as gentrification and eminent domain efforts continue to relocate poor, Black, and Brown families from profitable areas in North Tulsa.

White Supremacy and the Breakdown of Law and Order

The KKK operated in the open at the time of the Tulsa Race Massacre and counted some of the most prominent Tulsans as its members.

Ku klux klan kkk racism south

Members of the Ku Klux Klan ride through Tulsa in 1923. [Source: wpr.org]

Foremost among these was Wyatt Tate Brady, a pioneer Tulsa developer and Oklahoma’s first Democratic Party national committeeman, who served as a guiding member of Evans’s real estate exchange.

According to descendants of survivors of the Tulsa Race Massacre, Brady helped coordinate the attack on Greenwood from his mansion in downtown Tulsa, setting up a war room in his house replete with maps.

At one point, he reported for “Guard duty” and oversaw the killing of five Blacks, including one who had been dragged from a car with a rope around his neck.

Just three years before the massacre, Tulsa had hosted the largest reunion of Confederate veterans after city leaders raised $100,000 to cover the cost of the event.

W. Tate Brady—whose father had fought with the Confederacy—was the primary organizer of the reunion. Its committee members included judges, ministers, and influential names that are still widely recognized in Tulsa.

Diagram Description automatically generated

[Source: thislandpress.com]

Alfred L. Brophy, Professor of Law at the University of Alabama and author of Rebuilding the Dreamland, argues that the massacre represents a complete breakdown of law in early Oklahoma. “City and state law officials are largely to blame for the destruction of the Greenwood community,” he said, because of their endorsement of the violence by the white mob and failure to hold any of the perpetrators accountable for their actions.

According to Brophy, two separate understandings of the definition of law existed prior to these events: Whites interpreted the law to subjugate Blacks, while Blacks interpreted the law as the most prudent avenue to equal treatment.

As mayors and sheriffs participated in the lynching of Black men, however, Blacks’ confidence in the law weakened, and they were prompted to arm themselves in self-defense—something the white community could never accept.

James S. Hirsch, in his book Riot and Remembrance, argues that Tulsa’s reputation as a haven for bandits—along with white supremacists—contributed to the aura of lawlessness that lay behind the race massacre.

According to Hirsch, Tulsa’s lawless nature was so beneficial to its economy that local law enforcement was encouraged not to uphold the law and therefore chaos thrived. Citizens were assaulted and lynched without a single arrest or prosecution, as “whites established racism as a custom and wrote it into law.” When Tulsa Blacks tried to assert their rights, they were put back into their place, which is what the race massacre was all about.

Long Pattern of Racist Terrorism

The Tulsa Race Massacre followed a long pattern throughout the southern U.S. of racist terrorism and vigilantism that was abetted by state authorities and law enforcement officials.

Two years earlier in Elaine, Arkansas, the governor had called in local troops to assist a white mob that had attacked Black sharecroppers who tried to organize a union. The troops were “under order to shoot to kill any negro who refused to surrender immediately”; they killed at least 200.

UA Little Rock releases virtual exhibit to commemorate history of Elaine Massacre - News

[Source: ualr.edu]

Steve Green was a Black field hand in Arkansas at the turn of the 20th century. In 1910, Green and his employer, William Sidle, had a labor dispute of an unclear nature. Steve quit his position on Sidle’s farm and moved his family to work on another farm just a few miles away.

Steve’s former employer promptly alerted his prospective employer that Green was not permitted to work for anyone else, only Sidle.

When Sidle showed up to physically collect Green, a scuffle ensued. Steve’s former employer shot him three times. Green was somehow still able to reach a firearm and return fire, killing his former boss.

Despite clear evidence of self-defense, white-owned newspapers claimed it was senseless murder. Green’s character was publicly trashed. A white lynch mob began forming.

Fearing overwhelming threats of violence from white vigilantes in his small Arkansas community, Green fled to Chicago where he was later apprehended by local authorities there.

Facing extradition from Chicago back to Arkansas, Green attempted suicide while in custody but failed. He later begged law enforcement authorities for the means to take his own life so that he would not have to go home and face the horrors of being ritualistically tortured and lynched by a white mob of vigilantes.

Famous Chicago anti-lynching crusader, Ida B Wells caught wind of Green’s plight and invested in his physical and legal defense. She hired a team of Black lawyers to protect his legal rights, and relied on a tight-lipped network of anti-lynching activists to physically protect him.

Ultimately, Green was exonerated of all charges. This was a rare victory that encouraged Blacks to become more assertive with their legal defense on behalf of groups such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and in defending their communities from white intimidation and terrorism.

Lynching 

Though not a sectional crime per say, the great majority of lynchings in the United States took place in the southern and border states, Oklahoma included.

Until the late 1800s, lynching was used to punish alleged criminals by both Black and white lynch mobs. Following the end of the Civil War and the birth of the KKK, lynching became racialized.

In 1918, the NAACP began lobbying Congress to legislate against lynching on the federal level, but their efforts failed in the U.S. Senate in 1922.

Lynchings of Laura Nelson and her son, Okemah, Oklahoma. [Source: wikipedia.org]

Lynchings involved public spectacle, ritualistic torture and, in the case of Laura Nelson’s lynching in Okemah, Oklahoma, rape. Black bodies were often beaten by multiple members of the mob. Burning at the stake was common. Black men accused of any transgression, especially against white women, would often have their genitals cut off while still alive.

Lynchings were sometimes family events where lucky participants could walk away with a piece of mutilated Black body (finger, ear, or other appendage) as a souvenir. Steve Green would have rather taken his own life than experience this.

Many of the lynchings took place with the help of or due to the negligence of local law enforcement agencies and individuals. White vigilantes often removed their victims from jail cells with little to no resistance from officials.

Mobs carried out inhumane torture rituals on helpless Blacks. White law enforcement officers had an unfortunate history of either refusing or being unable to help. Knowing that the law offered little to no security, some Blacks saw fit to protect their own lives, sometimes with lethal force.

Tulsans Decide to Defend Themselves

Black Tulsans were very familiar with the story of Steve Green due to both Black and white media coverage.

Black Tulsans were not only reading white newspapers, but also Black papers, The Tulsa Star and Black Dispatch out of Oklahoma City.

Non-violence versus self-defense in the face of mob violence became a popular news topic. More stories of Black courage when faced with white lynch mobs flooded the media.

Blacks were also reading stories of Black self-defense closer to home. An increase in the number of local and national news stories of resistance to the culture of lynching led Black Tulsans to rush to the aid of Dick Rowland in June 1921.

They thought they could save Rowland as they had Jim Adkinson, who had been accused of sexually assaulting a white woman in Okmulgee, Oklahoma, in October 1920. In his case, the sheriff was forced to intervene and vowed to protect Adkinson’s right to a fair trial after more than 1,000 African-Americans armed themselves and protected him from a white lynch mob.

Thanks to the vigilance of the Black community, Adkinson survived to see his trial and was found not guilty.

Perhaps the most influential display of Black self-defense leading up to the burning of Greenwood was John McShane’s escape from police custody in April 1921.

Less than two months before the Tulsa Race Massacre. John McShane had been arrested in Muskogee, Oklahoma, after winning a fistfight with a white man. Upon learning of rumors of the Klan coming for McShane, a group of armed Black men executed a sensational rescue.

A deputy was shot in the process of freeing McShane, but many Black Oklahomans saw this sensational escape as empowering in the fight against racial terror. This event was still very fresh in the minds of Black Tulsans when things came to a head on Black Wall Street.

When the threat of Dick Rowland’s lynching became imminent in June 1921, Black men, mostly World War I veterans in the Greenwood community, saw it as their noble masculine duty to protect the young man from mob violence. Rowland had also been accused of sexually assaulting a white woman and a white lynch mob was demanding that the sheriff hand him to the crowd.

The group of Black men who chose to defend Rowland’s life had also been motivated and inspired by the local and national trend of self-defense in the face of white racialized violence and the breakdown of local law enforcement. The impunity accorded to white vigilantes was a feature of the Jim Crow era that led to catastrophes like the Tulsa Race Massacre.

Failure to Overcome Its Demons

As strong an effort as there has been to commemorate the victims of those horrible events long ago, the City of Tulsa has as of yet refused to provide reparations to Tulsa’s Black community—a situation which is now in litigation.

Tulsa reparations efforts part of global movement to address deep-rooted oppression faced by Black citizens | Race Massacre | tulsaworld.com

Black Tulsans demand reparations in front of Tulsa City Hall in March 2021. [Source: tulsaworld.com

The city has also refused to rename the Brady district—a flourishing commercial area replete with nightclubs, restaurants, and a ballpark built directly on the ruins of Black Wall Street.[2]

As the centennial commemorations were being prepared this year, Oklahoma’s Republican-dominated state legislature passed House Bill 1775, which outlaws public school teachers from teaching how racism played a role in shaping American society.

The chair of the Oklahoma City Public Schools Board of Education, Paula Lewis, characterized HB 1775 as “an outright racist and oppressive piece of legislation.”

Former State Senator Anastasia Pittman (D) stated that “the suppression of education is oppression. Every student has a right to know their historical experience and contributions and HB 1775 took that away.”

The absurdity of the new law was explained by Devin J. Veney, a Black history teacher at Carver Middle School in Tulsa, who said that it would restrict him from teaching students what happened on Greenwood Avenue—the very street where his school is situated.

Neither the city of Tulsa nor the state and country where it rests has changed as much as people would like to think since the dark weekend 100 years ago when Black Wall Street was destroyed.

Not only do racial divisions linger, but so do deep class divisions and the “good ol’ boys club” mentality of government leaders, which prevents our society from overcoming its demons and evolving into a more humane place.

*

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

Anthony Cherry is a James Madison Fellow and received his Master’s degree in History at the University of Tulsa. He teaches history at Holland Hall School in Tulsa. Before that he taught at Booker T. Washington High-School. Anthony can be reached at [email protected].

Notes

1. Mary E. Jones Parrish, Events of the Tulsa Disaster (Tulsa: John Hope Franklin Center for Reconciliation, 1923, 2009), 48.

2. In 2013, after activists had raised an outcry that the Brady district was named after W. Tate Brady, the City Council decided to rename Brady Street to M.B Brady Street after Mathew Brady, a famous civil war photographer who had no connection to Tulsa. Many felt this was a way to avoid renaming the street and district.

Featured image: Ruins of the Greenwood District, known as Black Wall Street, following the Tulsa Race Massacre. Whites refused to allow its reconstruction. [Source: publicintegrity.org]

Global Research PDF Collection: 6 PDF Books for 1 Price

July 15th, 2021 by Global Research

Purchase six e-books from Global Research Publisher’s PDF collection at a discounted price. Download your order as a zipped folder straight to your computer and avoid shipping and handling costs.

Special Offer: Global Research PDF Collection – 6 PDF Books for 1 Price

Product Type: PDF

List Price: $53.85

Special Price: $39.00

CLICK HERE TO ORDER

 

 

The Global Research PDF Collection includes:

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity (PDF) (Click title to order individual PDF)

Author: Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN Number: 978-0-9879389-0-9

Year: 2015

Product Type: PDF File

America’s hegemonic project in the post 9/11 era is the “Globalization of War” whereby the U.S.-NATO military machine —coupled with covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime change”— is deployed in all major regions of the world. The threat of pre-emptive nuclear war is also used to black-mail countries into submission.

This “Long War against Humanity” is carried out at the height of the most serious economic crisis in modern history.

It is intimately related to a process of global financial restructuring, which has resulted in the collapse of national economies and the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.

The ultimate objective is World conquest under the cloak of “human rights” and “Western democracy”.

The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order (PDF) (Click title to order individual PDF)

Author: Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN Number: 978-0973714708

Year: 2003

Product Type: PDF File

In this new and expanded edition of Chossudovsky’s international best-seller, the author outlines the contours of a New World Order which feeds on human poverty and the destruction of the environment, generates social apartheid, encourages racism and ethnic strife and undermines the rights of women. The result as his detailed examples from all parts of the world show so convincingly, is a globalization of poverty.

This book is a skilful combination of lucid explanation and cogently argued critique of the fundamental directions in which our world is moving financially and economically.

In this new enlarged edition – which includes ten new chapters and a new introduction — the author reviews the causes and consequences of famine in Sub-Saharan Africa, the dramatic meltdown of financial markets, the demise of State social programs and the devastation resulting from corporate downsizing and trade liberalisation.

The Dirty War on Syria: Washington, Regime Change and Resistance (PDF) (Click title to order individual PDF)

Author: Tim Anderson

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-7-7

Year: 2016

Product Type: PDF File

The Dirty War on Syria has relied on a level of mass disinformation not seen in living memory. In seeking ‘regime change’ the big powers sought to hide their hand, using proxy armies of ‘Islamists’, demonising the Syrian Government and constantly accusing it of atrocities. In this way Syrian President Bashar al Assad, a mild-mannered eye doctor, became the new evil in the world.

As western peoples we have been particularly deceived by this dirty war, reverting to our worst traditions of intervention, racial prejudice and poor reflection on our own histories. This book tries to tell its story while rescuing some of the better western traditions: the use of reason, ethical principle and the search for independent evidence.

 

 


Click to order


America’s “War on Terrorism” (PDF) (Click title to order individual PDF)

Author: Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN Number: 0-9737147-1-9

Year: 2005

Product Type: PDF File

In this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky’s 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by “Islamic terrorists”. Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.

According to Chossudovsky, the “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.

 

The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century (PDF) (Click title to order individual PDF)

Authors: Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall, Editors

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-3-9

Year: 2010

Product Type: PDF File

In all major regions of the world, the economic recession is deep-seated, resulting in mass unemployment, the collapse of state social programs
and the impoverishment of millions of people. The meltdown of financial markets was the result of institutionalized fraud and financial manipulation. The economic crisis is accompanied by a worldwide process of militarization, a “war without borders” led by the U.S. and its NATO allies.

This book takes the reader through the corridors of the Federal Reserve, into the plush corporate boardrooms on Wall Street where far-reaching financial transactions are routinely undertaken.

Each of the authors in this timely collection digs beneath the gilded surface to reveal a complex web of deceit and media distortion which serves to
conceal the workings of the global economic system and its devastating impacts on people’s lives.

Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (PDF) (Click title to order individual PDF)

Author:Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-3-9

Year: 2011

Product Type: PDF File

The world is at a critical crossroads. The Fukushima disaster in Japan has brought to the forefront the dangers of worldwide nuclear radiation.

Coinciding with the onset of the nuclear crisis in Japan, a new regional war theater has opened up in North Africa, under the disguise of a UN sponsored “humanitarian operation” with the mandate to “protect civilian lives”.

These two seemingly unrelated events are of crucial importance in understanding both the nuclear issue as well as the ongoing US-NATO sponsored war, which has now extended its grip into Libya.

This E-Book strives to forcefully reverse the tide of war, challenge the war criminals in high office and the powerful corporate lobby groups which support them.


 Special Offer: Global Research PDF Collection – 6 PDF Books for 1 Price

Product Type: PDF

List Price: $53.85

Special Price: $39.00

CLICK HERE TO ORDER

Selected Articles: The mRNA COVID Vaccine Is Not a Vaccine

July 15th, 2021 by Global Research News

White House to Ask SMS Carriers to Monitor Vaccine ‘Misinformation’ in Private Text Messages

By Megan Redshaw, July 14, 2021

The Biden administration and allied groups, including the Democratic National Committee (DNC), are “planning to engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS [Short Message Service] carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines sent over social media and text messages,” according to a report today in Politico by White House correspondents Natasha Korecki and Eugene Daniels.

Face Masks Contain Graphene, A Poisonous Substance

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 14, 2021

The wearing of the face mask started in the immediate wake of the official announcement of the covid-19 lockdown on March 11, 2020. Worldwide, people have been instructed to wear the mask for more than a year. And then one year later, we are told that in some cases it may contain a poisonous substance. On April 2, 2021 Health Canada acknowledged the presence of graphene nano particles inside the face mask allegedly to protect our health as well as prevent the spread of the “deadly virus”.

Miami Mayor Says the US Should Consider Bombing Cuba

By Dave DeCamp, July 14, 2021

In the wake of anti-government demonstrations in Cuba, many US officials are calling for Washington to intervene. The mayor of Miami has gone as far to suggest that the US should consider bombing Cuba.

Belt & Road: The China-Laos-Thailand Corridor

By Joseph Thomas, July 14, 2021

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) reaches out in all directions, across Central Asia into Europe, up into Russia, through the seas and oceans of Asia, out to Africa and of course, deep into Southeast Asia.

“Fit for 55”: The EU Green Deal and the Industrial Collapse of Europe

By F. William Engdahl, July 14, 2021

On July 14, the EU Commission presents its “Fit for 55” green agenda. While the title sounds more like an ad for a middle-ager health studio, it will be the most draconian and destructive de-industrialization program ever imposed outside of war.

“The Fog of Uncertainty”: An Opportunity for the Citizen in Every War

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, July 14, 2021

Who still doubts that we have been at war for over a year? In the Third World War of a super-rich and power-hungry “elite” against us citizens. But war, according to the notorious Prussian Major General and military strategist Carl von Clausewitz, is “the realm of uncertainty”.

The Right to be Let Alone: What to Do When COVID Strike Force Teams Come Knocking

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, July 14, 2021

A federal COVID-19 vaccination strike force may soon be knocking on your door, especially if you live in a community with low vaccination rates. Will you let them in? More to the point, are you required to open the door?

The Hidden Hand of the US Blockade Sparks Cuba Protests

By Medea Benjamin and Leonardo Flores, July 14, 2021

Protests erupted in various Cuban cities the weekend of July 11 over dire economic conditions and a surge in Covid-19 cases. They are the biggest protests to hit Cuba in three decades, and they may well continue in the coming weeks. They come on the heels of artists’ protests in Havana at the end of 2020, and have extended to many parts of the island.

The mRNA COVID Vaccine Is Not a Vaccine

By Makia Freeman, July 14, 2021

It’s NOT a vaccine. The mRNA COVID vaccine now being militarily deployed in many nations around the world, is NOT a vaccine. I repeat: it is not a vaccine. It is many things indeed, but a vaccine is not one of them. We have to awaken to the fact that the COVID scamdemic has rapidly accelerated the technocratic and transhumanistic aspects of the New World Order (NWO) to the point where people are blindly lining up to get injected with a “treatment” which is also a chemical device, an operating system, a synthetic pathogen and chemical pathogen production device.

American Dauphin: Cognitive Dissonance in the White House Imperial Palace

By Luciana Bohne, July 14, 2021

The people and democracy have ever since been at best distant cousins in most of the world’s liberal-styled democracies. Flash forward to 15 February 2003. Fifteen million people march across the world protesting the impending Anglo-American attack against Iraq on the pretext that its alleged WMDs threaten world peace. The Bush dynastic dauphin calls this mass mobilization against his war a “focus group.”

Takeaways for Russia, India from Merkel’s US Visit

By M. K. Bhadrakumar, July 14, 2021

The alliance is no longer adequate to pin Germany “down” on the dissection table. The multipolarity in world politics creates space for a powerhouse like the reunified Germany to raise its head above the parapet of big-power politics. Germany has outgrown the NATO as a rising world power. 

When Football Did Not Come Home

July 15th, 2021 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

They were in with a shot.  The English team, deliriously floating on chants of Football’s Coming Home, had made it to their first major tournament final since 1966.  The UEFA European Football Championship would be decided at Wembley against an Italian side unblemished by defeat since September 2018.  But the English, coached by the much admired Gareth Southgate, succumbed in that most cruel of deciders: the penalty shootout. 

In English footballing history, the penalty shootout has been responsible for a string of famous defeats.  In 1990, the national side lost to the West German juggernaut in the semi-final of the World Cup.  In the European Championship in 1996, the result was repeated, with the Germans again winning.  Southgate will have particularly vivid memories of that: he was one of the players who missed.  The shelf of defeat was beginning to sag.   

Then came the European Championships of 2020, delayed by the global pandemic.  England were fortunate in their draw and, unlike many of their opponents, played most of their matches on home soil.  But their record proved impressive, with Southgate’s side keeping a clean sheet till the semi-final against Denmark.  It became clear that Southgate had created a team unit as opposed to a team of stars bristling with contesting egos.   Previous footballing practices extolled celebrity within the team, with predictable consequences.  “Beckhamisation”, named after the recognisable former England captain and Manchester United player David Beckham, did much to create estrangement within the ranks between the celebrities and the foot soldiers. 

The success of Southgate’s team also did much to tease out discussions about English identity and a supposedly new form of progressive Englishness. “In England we have spent a bit of time being a bit lost as to what our modern identity is,” observed Southgate prior to the 2018 World Cup.  “I think as a team we represent that modern identity and hopefully people can connect with us.”  The UK Migration Museum even declared that, “Without players with at least one parent or grandparent born overseas, England would be down to just 3 players.”

The draining final played on July 11 finished with each side having scored a goal.  In the penalty shootout, the steely discipline of the Italians resolved the match in their favour.  Pundits spent hours debating England’s tactics against the Italian goalkeeper, as if it mattered.  Should the tender-aged Bukayo Saka have taken the fifth penalty kick as opposed to a more seasoned player?  Was Southgate being too bookish in sticking to the original line up of players? 

But the defeat did more than produce the usual rivers of commentary on tactical slips and fortuitous blunders.  Darker demons were released from the froth of despair.  Vengefully, they focused on matters of race, scalding and unsparing about those who had failed to score.  A torrent of abuse was released upon Marcus Rashford, Jadon Sancho and Saka, a vicious, smouldering kind that has come to typify social media commentary.  Natalie Elphicke, Conservative MP for Dover and Deal, heaped scorn on Rushford in a private WhatsApp group.  “They lost – would it be ungenerous to suggest that Rashford should have spent more time perfecting his game and less time playing politics?”  

A mural of Rashford in Withington, Manchester, was defaced with obscenities.  In appealing for information on the incident, Chief Superintendent Paul Savill warned that hate crime would not be tolerated and was “not welcome in this city.”  Notes of support were placed across the mural like plastering bands of reassurance across cuts and bruises. 

Team captain Harry Kane took to Twitter to praise the three players who had the courage to take the penalty and should be celebrated for that fact. “They deserve support & backing not the vile racist abuse they’ve had since last night.  If you abuse anyone on social media you’re not an @England fan and we don’t want you.” 

On the issue of condemning racial abuse, certain players found the messages from the Johnson government jarringly insincere. The pot of identity was again being stirred and the result was increasingly ugly.  Home secretary Priti Patel received a sharp barb from English footballer Tyrone Mings for having previously refused to condemn fans who had booed the England team in taking the knee in protesting against racism.  In his opinion, Patel had undercut her own case. “You don’t get to stoke the fire at the beginning of the tournament by labelling our anti-racism message as ‘Gesture Politics’ and then pretend to be disgusted when the very thing we’re campaigning against, happens.” 

It was not just that the home secretary had voiced her view against such displays of “gesture politics”.  She also saw little problem in the conduct of the fans: “That’s the choice for them, quite frankly.”  The hordes were duly summoned.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has also been known to dabble with the race card, penning pieces of some notoriety and doing his bit of stoking from time to time.  London radio presenter James O’Brien noted one article in particular mocking Islamic dress.  “In the three weeks after the ‘letterboxes’ article was published in August 2018, 42 per cent of offline Islamophobic incidents reports ‘directly referenced Boris Johnson and/or the language used in his column.” 

Labour’s opposition leader Keir Starmer was even more explicit in Parliament, accusing Johnson of giving racism “the green light” and engaging in his own culture war.  “And I’ll tell you the worst kind of gesture politics, putting an England shirt on over a shirt and tie whilst not condemning those booing”.

Johnson has promised to take “practical steps to ensure that the Football Banning order regime is changed so that if you were guilty … of racist abuse online of footballers then you will not be going to the match, no ifs, no buts, no exemptions and no excuses.”

The government was also seeking other handy alibis.  As usual, social media platforms were walked into those roles to provide ammunition.  Johnson claimed to have had a firm word with representatives from social media at his Downing Street residence on July 13, warning that he would “legislate to address this problem in the Online Harms Bill, and unless they get hate and racism off their platforms, they will face fines amounting to 10% of their global revenues.”  The more astute comment in this move was made by former Premier League player Anton Ferdinand: sort out your own house first.  And that house is in severe need of tidying.

*

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

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

Featured image is from UEFA Twitter

The Nuclear Race Accelerates

July 15th, 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.

***

At the Redzikowo base in Poland, work has begun on the installation of the Aegis Ashore system, at a cost of more than $180 million. It will be the second U.S. missile base in Europe, after that of Deveselu in Romania became operational in 2015. The official function of these bases is to protect, with the “shield” of SM-3 interceptor missiles, the U.S. forces in Europe and those of European NATO allies from “current and emerging ballistic missile threats from outside the Euro-Atlantic area”.

In addition to the two land installations, four ships equipped with the same Aegis system, deployed by the U.S. Navy at the Spanish base of Rota, cross the Mediterranean, Black Sea and Baltic Sea. The U.S. Navy has about 120 destroyers and cruisers armed with this missile system.

Both ships and Aegis land installations are equipped with Lockheed Martin’s Mk 41 vertical launchers: vertical tubes (in the body of the ship or in an underground bunker) from which the missiles are launched. Lockheed Martin itself, illustrating the technical characteristics, documents that it can launch missiles for all missions: anti-missile, anti-aircraft, anti-ship, anti-submarine and attack against land targets. Each launch tube is adaptable to any missile, including “those for long-range attack,” including the Tomahawk cruise missile. It can also be armed with a nuclear warhead.

It is therefore impossible to know which missiles are actually in the vertical launchers of the Aegis Ashore base in Romania and which will be installed in the one in Poland. Nor which missiles are on board the ships that cross the limits of Russian territorial waters. Not being able to check, Moscow takes for granted that there are also nuclear attack missiles. Same scenario in East Asia, where Seventh Fleet Aegis warships cross in the South China Sea. The main US allies in the region – Japan, South Korea, Australia – also have ships equipped with the US Aegis system.

This is not the only missile system the US is deploying in Europe and Asia. In his speech at the George Washington School of Media and Public Affairs, General McConville, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, stated last March that the U.S. Army is preparing a “task force” with “long-range precision fire capability that can go anywhere, consisting of hypersonic missiles, medium-range missiles, precision strike missiles” and that “these systems are capable of penetrating anti-aircraft barrage space. The general pointed out that “we plan to deploy one of these task forces in Europe and probably two in the Pacific.”

In such a situation, it is not surprising that Russia is accelerating the deployment of new intercontinental missiles, with nuclear warheads that, after ballistic trajectory, glide for thousands of kilometers at hypersonic speed. Nor is it surprising to hear the news, published by the Washington Post, that China is building over one hundred new silos for intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. The arms race takes place not so much on the quantitative level (number and power of nuclear warheads) as on the qualitative one (speed, penetrating capacity and geographical location of nuclear carriers). The response, in case of attack or presumed attack, is increasingly entrusted to artificial intelligence, which must decide the launch of nuclear missiles in a few seconds. It increases the possibility of a nuclear war by mistake, risked several times during the Cold War.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, adopted by the United Nations in 2017 and entered into force in 2021, has so far been signed by 86 states and ratified by 54. None of the 30 NATO and 27 EU countries (except Austria) have ratified or even signed it. In Europe, only Austria, Ireland, Malta, San Marino and the Holy See have signed and ratified it. None of the nine nuclear countries – the United States, Russia, France, Great Britain, Israel, China, Pakistan, India and North Korea – has ratified or even signed 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.

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: Aegis Ashore deckhouse (Public Domain)


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

WWIII Scenario

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Yesterday afternoon, in what would have otherwise been breaking news of Watergate proportions, the Food and Drug Administration acknowledged the growing menace of experimental Covid-19 “vaccines” by attaching warning labels on Johnson & Johnson’s boosters. If we had a government that worked for the American people and actually cared about our interests, the “vaccines” would have been pulled off the market immediately the same way the “vaccine” called Pandemrix was discontinued after killing 47 people.

Alas, our government has been hijacked by corporations so the most they are willing to do is slap warning labels on Johson & Johnson’s “vaccines”. The FDA will have you believe that they did this out of an abundance of caution, but the truth is that no one will read these warning labels because they are not products that people can purchase over-the-counter. I’ve seen people get jabbed; health professionals don’t avail the boxes the vials are packaged in. To the contrary, folks who get “vaccinated” are not even given the full risk profiles of these snake oils that being pumped in their arms and causing thousands of deaths and injuries.

The warning labels that no one will be able to read are exactly what I and countless others have been ringing the alarm over only to be dismissed as “anti-vaxxers” and “conspiracy theorists”. People who are getting injected with Johnson & Johnson’s “vaccines “are developing a rare yet deadly autoimmune disease called Guillain-Barré syndrome. A neurological disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks and damages nerve cells with the potential of causing paralysis and death, Guillain-Barré syndrome is a debilitating ailment that is showing up in more and more people who got “vaccinated” for Covid-19.

This horrific development is not a fluke occurrence, they knew about this potential all along but chose to suppress this information from the wider public in order to increase the “vaccine” participation rate. When they tested mRNA “vaccines” on lab animals in the past, specifically ferrets and cats, they were eventually wiped out when they developed a lethal autoimmune condition called Antibody-Dependent Enchancment (ADE). What I feared all along is that people who get jabbed and acquire synthetic antibodies will eventually develop ADE when their antibodies wear off.

The emergence of Guillain-Barré syndrome in “vaccinated” people could very well be the canary in a coalmine of what awaits us this autumn. A couple of months ago I wrote an article titled “Sudden Adult Death Syndrome: Conditioning Us to Accept an Upcoming ‘Vaccine’ Holocaust”. I hope and pray I am wrong because I have family members who are “vaccinated” but I’m bracing for the worst-case scenario. Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security is currently injecting immigrants in detention centers with Johnson & Johnson’s “vaccines” knowing full well they could be condemning people to their deaths. The spirit of Josef Mengele is alive and well in America, UK, France and beyond.

What has become abundantly clear is that our government and the establishment writ large are no longer trusted sources when it comes to these experimental “vaccines” or really anything else. If you are thinking about getting jabbed, before you make a decision that is irreversible, do your due diligence before you end up paralyzed or worse. There are some who will condemn me for being a scaremonger, but time has vindicated people like me and revealed people in positions of authority to be sheep in wolves clothing. Don’t fall for fear tactics and peer pressure, your life is precious and it should not be sacrificed at the altar of biotech corporations.

*

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

Teodrose Fikremariam is the co-founder and editor of the Ghion Journal. Prior to launching the Ghion Journal, he was a political organizer who once wrote a speech idea in 2008 that was incorporated into Barack Obama’s South Carolina primary victory speech. He is originally from Ethiopia and a direct descendent, seven generations removed, of one of Ethiopia’s greatest Emperors Tewodros II.

Featured image is from Ghion Journal

All Global Research articles 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 domestic consequences of the global economic crisis caused by the world’s uncoordinated response to COVID-19 are being exploited as a cover for carrying out a US-backed Color Revolution attempt in Cuba, meaning that while some demonstrators might have legitimate grievances as do most of their peers across the world during this difficult time, there also are undoubtedly some who are actively trying to take advantage of this in order to overthrow their government.

Cuba’s back in the news after protests unexpectedly broke out in the capital. The participants claim that they’re demonstrating in response to their deteriorating socio-economic conditions caused by their government’s response to COVID-19 while the government accused them of being part of a US-backed plot to carry out a Color Revolution. The truth, like always, likely lies somewhere in the middle since the situation is much more complicated than either side portrays it as. It’s also made all the worse by American officials, including US President Biden, putting pressure on their Cuban counterparts for self-interested political reasons.

The island nation’s decades-long socio-economic challenges are the direct result of the US’ unilateral sanctions policy whereby it also threatens to impose so-called “secondary sanctions” against a wide array of foreign entities that might decide to do business in Cuba. The Cuban people, led by their country’s communist party, have valiantly persevered during this difficult time but the toll is still impossible to ignore. Observers also can’t dismiss the long-term psychological impact of the US’ pernicious information warfare campaign on shaping the youths’ perceptions of their future.

What’s happening right now is that COVID-19 exacerbated Cuba’s socio-economic problems and consequently created the pretext for Color Revolution “sleeper cells” to hit the streets. It would be amiss to accuse everyone who’s protesting of being a so-called “American agent” since the grievances that they have are legitimate ones that are presently shared by most of the global population to a certain extent. Nevertheless, the issue is that some of the demonstrators are blaming their government and in particular its communist ideology as being responsible for their woes, which isn’t an accurate assessment of the facts.

Those individuals are either connected to the US in some way or are at the very least behaving as its “useful idiots”, which suddenly transforms their superficially socio-economic protests into a pressing security threat considering their regime change intent. Official US statements might also hint at another wave of sanctions against the island nation strategically timed to further worsen the situation there in order to catalyze a self-sustaining cycle of unrest per the basics of Color Revolution theory. Deteriorating living standards might naturally prompt more protests, some of which could turn riotous and provoke the security services to respond.

The state’s defense of public order and the rule of law could then very easily be misportrayed through edited footage as being supposed evidence of so-called “unprovoked attacks against peaceful unarmed pro-democracy protesters”, which could then be the basis upon which more sanctions are imposed. Even so, however, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the government’s last days are near. They and the people that they represent survived much worse during the 1990s following the collapse of Cuba’s Soviet patron. There’s no reason to predict that the government will fall if the US imposes more sanctions and continues meddling in its affairs.

What’s most worrisome, however, is how the youths’ perceptions might continue to be shaped by the latest events. The US’ infowar modus operandi is to gradually sow the seeds of doubt into the minds of young people in every country whose government doesn’t fully comply with America’s diktats. Cuba’s been their target for decades, but it wasn’t until the information-communication technology (ICT) revolution of the 1990s onward that this began to have somewhat of a noticeable effect in Cuba. As the internet continues to proliferate and more young people become exposed to US narratives, some of them might lose faith in their country’s system.

It’s this demographic that’s the vanguard of every Color Revolution attempt even if they’re sometimes led by older folks, a few of whom might remain in the shadows but all of which are somehow or another tied to the US in the Cuban context. Realistically speaking, there’s only so much that the Cuban government can do for its people considering the crippling sanctions circumstances and the black swan event of COVID-19. No state’s response to the virus has been perfect and everyone across the world has suffered in some way. It’s delusional to imagine that everything would have been perfect in Cuba had it not been for the communists.

To the contrary, everything has developed as much as it has precisely because of those same communists who liberated Cuba from the US’ neo-imperialist grasp. The country used to be little more than a large plantation with a few brothels and casinos thrown in for American tourists’ entertainment. Although it has yet to reach Western socio-economic developmental levels, it’s still done fairly well for itself and survived so long despite all the odds, especially when remembering that it’s literally in what the US considers its own “backyard”. It’s this revolutionary spirit of principled resistance that kept Cuba going for as long as it has.

As such, it’s only natural that the US has aggressively targeted those ideals for decades. It’s thus far failed, but the global economic crisis brought about by COVID-19 created the perfect pretext for trying yet again, albeit under a different cover. Instead of being motivated by purely ideological pursuits like before, “sleeper cells” can now somewhat more plausibly claim to be driven by objectively existing socio-economic grievances, though misportrayed as the sole fault of the communists while ignoring the US sanctions factor. Washington wants to mislead as many youth as possible in order to indirectly assemble a critical mass of anti-government protesters.

With this insight in mind, there’s no doubt that the current events are indicative of a US-backed Color Revolution, but the protests are also inspired by the global economic crisis caused by COVID-19. Not everyone who’s upset with the status quo and particularly with what might be their declining living standards is an “American agent”, but those who defy the law and shout regime change slogans are at the very least “useful idiots” of their country’s nemesis. The situation is also being exploited by the US to threaten more sanctions, and it’s possible that it might become a partisan issue ahead of next year’s midterm elections too.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

Belt & Road: The China-Laos-Thailand Corridor

July 14th, 2021 by Joseph Thomas

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Belt & Road: The China-Laos-Thailand 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.

***

Wer zweifelt noch daran, dass wir uns seit über einem Jahr im Krieg befinden? Im Dritten Weltkrieg einer superreichen und machtgierigen „Elite“ gegen uns Bürger. Doch Krieg ist nach Auffassung des berühmt-berüchtigten preußischen Generalmajors und Militärstrategen Carl von Clausewitz „das Gebiet der Ungewissheit“. Damit birgt jeder Krieg für den Bürger eine Chance. Er muss sie nur ergreifen. George Orwell war der Auffassung:

„Die Moral, die aus diesem Albtraum gezogen werden soll, ist eine einfache: Lass es nicht geschehen! Es hängt ab von dir!“ (1) 

Nebel des Krieges – Fog of War 

Der Begriff „Nebel des Krieges“ bezeichnet die Tatsache, dass kriegsrelevante Informationen aufgrund verschiedener Umstände immer eine gewisse Unsicherheit und Unvollständigkeit aufweisen (2). Er taucht erstmals bei Carl von Clausewitz (1780 bis 1831) auf. In seinem Hauptwerk „Vom Kriege“ beschreibt er die strategische Notwendigkeit, Entscheidungen unter Zeitdruck mit unvollständigen Informationen nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen zu treffen:

„Der Krieg ist das Gebiet der Ungewissheit; drei Vierteile derjenigen Dinge, worauf das Handeln im Kriege gebaut wird, liegen im Nebel einer mehr oder weniger großen Ungewissheit. Hier ist es also zuerst, wo ein feiner, durchdringender Verstand in Anspruch genommen wird, um mit dem Takte seines Urteils die Wahrheit herauszufühlen.“ (3)

Seine Theorien über Strategie, Taktik und Philosophie hatten in allen westlichen Ländern großen Einfluss auf die Entwicklung des Kriegswesens und werden bis heute an Militärakademien gelehrt. Auch im Bereich der Unternehmensführung sowie im Marketing finden sie Anwendung.

„The Fog of War“ war auch ein preisgekrönter US-amerikanischer Dokumentarfilm, der Im Jahr 2003 mit dem Untertitel „Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara“ erschien. In einer deutschen Zusammenfassung des Films in „google.com“ heißt es:

„Grob geschätzt wurden 160 Millionen Menschen im 20. Jahrhundert getötet. Es war eines der gewalttätigsten in der Geschichte der Menschheit. Der Film legt uns nahe, dieses tragische Jahrhundert näher zu betrachten, als Anhaltspunkt dafür, wie wir eine Wiederholung im 21. Jahrhundert vermeiden können. (…).“ (4)

Wohlan, schreiten wir zur Tat! Auch angesichts des satanischen Masterplans Eugenik der machtgierigen „Elite“ sowie der psychologischen Kriegsführung gegen die Zivilgesellschaft können wir gemeinsam eine Wiederholung oder gar Verschlimmerung der gewalttätigen Geschichte in unserem Jahrhundert verhindern: Wenn wir es nicht geschehen lassen!

Psychological Operations (PSYOP) 

Es ist bittere Realität, dass im gegenwärtigen Krieg gegen uns Bürger alle möglichen Methoden und Maßnahmen zur Beeinflussung unseres Verhaltens und unserer Einstellungen angewandt werden: die Moral wird gestört und vermindert, der Wille zerbrochen und die Wahrnehmung verfälscht. Im NATO-Sprachgebrauch hat sich der Begriff „Psychological Operations“ (PSYOP) durchgesetzt als Paralleldisziplin zu MEDIAOPS (Media Operations), worunter im zivilen Sprachgebrauch „Public Relations“ / Medienarbeit zu verstehen ist. PSYOPS und MEDIAOPS sind Teilgebiete von INFOOPS (Informational Operations) (5).

Als Beispiel für die systematische Zerstörung der menschlichen Psyche werden im Folgenden die Techniken der Nötigung, des Zwangs und der Wahrnehmungsprogrammierung dargestellt, die der Psychologe Dr. Albert Biedermann 1956 unter dem Titel „Bidermanns Diagramm des Zwangs“ zusammenfasste. Mit diesen Techniken sollen das Denken, der Wille und die Selbstachtung der Menschen zerstört werden. Militärs haben damit (falsche) Geständnisse von Kriegsgefangenen erzwungen. Unter dem Begriff „Mind Kontroll“ werden sie seit vielen Jahren an Einzelpersonen und Gruppen praktiziert (6).

Da man im Internet schnell fündig wird, werden die sieben Maßnahmen zur Brechung des Willens und der Erzeugung von Gehorsam von Dr. Biedermann nur kurz aufgezählt. Doch bereits dadurch werden vielen Lesern die offensichtlichen Parallelen zu den illegitimen „Notstands-Maßnahmen“ der heutigen Politik deutlich werden:

  1. Isolation

Isolation bedeutet, einem Menschen jede soziale Unterstützung durch Mitmenschen zu entziehen, um so die Fähigkeit, Widerstand zu leisten zu durchbrechen. Siehe „Social Distancing“.

  1. Monopolisierung der Wahrnehmung

Es wird nur noch eine Meinung, die Mainstream-Meinung akzeptiert und geduldet und jede davon abweichende Meinung diffamiert oder der Zugang dazu blockiert.

  1. Induzierte Erschöpfung und Entkräftigung

Erschöpfung schwächt die geistige und körperliche Widerstandsfähigkeit. Indem Ängste geschürt und Umstände von ständiger Unsicherheit geschaffen werden, wird einem jegliches Gefühl von Sicherheit und Stabilität genommen.

  1. Androhen von negativen Folgen, Strafen und Gewalt bei Nichteinhaltung von Regeln

Bedrohungen von außen schaffen Angst und Verzweiflung. Der einzelne Mensch hat keine Entscheidungsmacht mehr.

  1. Gelegentliche Zugeständnisse

Zum Beispiel lautet ein Versprechen: Wenn sich genügend Menschen haben impfen lassen, dann können wir vielleicht zurück zur alten Normalität.

  1. Demütigung und Erniedrigung

Durch die Androhung harter Strafen auf unsinnige Maßnahmen und die Diffamierung derjenigen, die sich nicht an die Regeln halten, verliert der Mensch immer mehr den Mut zum Widerstand.

  1. Das Opfer von Täter abhängig machen

Je mehr die Wirtschaft und die materiellen Lebensgrundlagen zerstört werden, desto mehr werden die Bürger abhängig von den Zuwendungen des Staates. Je abhängiger das Opfer vom Täter, je höriger wird es.

George Orwell: „Lass es nicht geschehen! Es hängt ab von dir!“

Ein englisches Cartoon aus der Stummfilmzeit um die 1920er-Jahre ließ mich schließlich aufatmen: „An Early Warning Cartoon ‚How To Take Over The World‘“. Ein Cartoon mit der Vorwarnung „Wie man die Welt übernimmt“ (7). Bereits vor 100 Jahren zeigte man den neuzeitlichen Machthabern, welche infame Methoden dazu geeignet sind, die Welt und ihre Menschen in Besitz zu nehmen.

Das muss doch den letzten Zweifler davon überzeugen, dass die heute angewandten politischen „Notfall-Maßnahmen“ altbekannte Disziplinierungs- und Herrschaftsmittel sind, die der aufgeklärte Bürger mit ein bisschen Mut unterlaufen kann. Untermalt wurden die einzelnen Schritte durch eine Grafik und entsprechende Musik:

  1. Setze eine Grippe als Waffe ein
  2. Überschwemme Zeitung und Radio mit dem Tod
  3. Schließe Geschäfte und Kirche
  4. Nutze die Gesetzesvollstrecker, um abweichende Meinungen zu unterdrücken
  5. Stelle die Kranken und Toten zur Schau
  6. Injiziere einen Impfstoff, um die Arbeitsscheuen zu sterilisieren und die Alten einzuschläfern
  7. Die Leute, denen die Banken gehören, besitzen nun auch die Krankenhäuser
  8. Das ist ihr Plan, um DICH zu besitzen

Nach dem Cartoon wurde ein kurzer Interviewausschnitt von George Orwell (1903 bis 1950) eingeblendet. Darin prophezeit er wohl gegen Ende seines Lebens eine düstere Zukunft:

„Wenn Sie ein Bild der Zukunft wollen, stellen Sie sich einen Stiefel vor, der unaufhörlich in ein menschliches Gesicht trltt. Die Moral, die aus diesem Albtraum gezogen werden soll, ist eine einfache: Lass es nicht geschehen! Es hängt ab von dir! (8) 

Die Chance nutzen!

Der Aufforderung George Orwells ist nicht viel hinzuzufügen.

Kommt man noch einmal auf die eingangs zitierten Worte des Militärstrategen Carl von Clausewitz zurück, so ist zu konstatieren, dass im Nebel des Krieges nicht nur das Militär zuerst seinen feinen, durchdringenden Verstand in Anspruch zu nehmen hat, um mit dem Takte seines Urteils die Wahrheit herauszufinden. Es ist auch die Aufgabe jedes Bürgers, die Wahrheit herauszufinden, damit der Albtraum ein Ende findet.

Zwar behauptet ein freier Denker nie, er verfüge über die Wahrheit. Für den freien Geist gibt es eine unbegrenzte Anzahl von zu entdeckenden und dem Wandel unterworfenen Wahrheiten. Wahr ist für ihn, was nicht dogmatische Fessel ist und die Menschen nicht in Gläubige und in Nichtgläubige oder Andersgläubige trennt, sondern dem Zusammenleben der Menschen nützt und ihr Einvernehmen fördert.

Was jedoch im Moment in unserer Gesellschaft passiert, widerspricht ganz und gar der menschlichen Natur, schadet dem Zusammenleben und zerstört das Einvernehmen. Deshalb werden die Bürger aufwachen, noch bevor man ihr menschliches Bewusstsein ferngesteuert lahmlegt. Noch immer haben sich Diktaturen mit der Zeit überlebt, weil die Machthaber den unbedingten Lebenswillen und die Widerstandskraft der Bürger unterschätzten.

*

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

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel ist Diplom-Psychologe und Erziehungswissenschaftler.

Fussnoten: 

[1] Warnte ein altes Cartoon uns vor?

[2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebel_des_Krieges

[3] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebel_des_Krieges

[4] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War

[5] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologische_Kriegsführung

[6] https://www.inspiriert-sein.de/systematische-zerstoerung-menschlichen-psyche-biedermanns-diagramm-des-zwangs

[7] Warnte ein altes Cartoon uns vor?

[8] Warnte ein altes Cartoon uns vor?

All Global Research articles 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 wake of anti-government demonstrations in Cuba, many US officials are calling for Washington to intervene. The mayor of Miami has gone as far to suggest that the US should consider bombing Cuba.

In an interview with Fox News on Tuesday, Mayor Francis Suarez argued in favor of US military intervention and listed examples of previous US wars that involved airstrikes. When asked if he is suggesting that the US bomb Cuba, Suarez said,

“What I’m suggesting is that option is one that has to be explored and cannot be just simply discarded as an option that is not on the table.”

“And there’s a variety of ways the military can do it. But that’s something that needs to be discussed and needs to be looked as a potential option in addition to a variety of other options that can be discussed,” he added.

In a separate interview with Fox Business News on Tuesday, Suarez again argued for US military invention.

“The US has intervened in Latin America in numerous occasions and has been very successful,” he said. Echoing the Cold War, Suarez said Cuba is a threat to the US because it is “exporting communism throughout the hemisphere.”

Luckily, it doesn’t appear that the Biden administration has any plans to invade or bomb Cuba. The State Department said Tuesday that it is looking at ways to “support” the Cuban people but is downplaying the impact of the decades-old US embargo on Cuba.

*

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 public domain

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The Biden administration and allied groups, including the Democratic National Committee (DNC), are “planning to engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS [Short Message Service] carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines sent over social media and text messages,” according to a report today in Politico by White House correspondents Natasha Korecki and Eugene Daniels.

The initiative is part of the administration’s attempt to get more people vaccinated for COVID after failing to reach its goal of having 70% of American adults receive at least one vaccine dose by July 4.

“We are steadfastly committed to keeping politics out of the effort to get every American vaccinated so that we can save lives and help our economy further recover,” White House spokesperson Kevin Munoz said, according to Politico. “When we see deliberate efforts to spread misinformation, we view that as an impediment to the country’s public health and will not shy away from calling that out.”

Politico’s Korecki tweeted this:

Politico did not clearly define what the administration meant by “monitoring” of text messages, including if messages would be flagged or if they would be prevented from being delivered.

The media outlet also did not clarify how the administration or social media platforms would determine what exactly constitutes “misinformation.”

Critics were quick to condemn the administration’s latest move. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a constitutional lawyer, tweeted this:

This isn’t the first time the White House signaled its intent to work with social media platforms to monitor or suppress information it believes will deter people from getting the vaccine.

As The Defender reported in February, the White House asked Big Tech giants Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet Inc.’s Google to “clamp down on chatter that deviates from officially distributed COVID-19 information,” according to the New York Post and other news reports.

Reuters reported that Biden, concerned that “fear about taking the vaccine has emerged as a major impediment” to his administration’s pandemic plan, wants help from the social media moguls to keep “misinformation” from going viral.

Biden’s door-to-door vaccine campaign

The Biden administration faced backlash last week after President Biden announced plans to ramp up the federal government’s efforts to get more Americans vaccinated by going “door-to-door” to encourage Americans to get vaccinated.

In response, critics accused the administration of “tyrannical” government overreach. But Dr. Anthony Fauci, Biden’s chief medical advisor, replied Sunday accusing them of misinterpreting Biden’s program.

“The big misinterpretation that Fox News or whomever else is saying is that they are essentially envisioning a bunch of federal workers knocking on your door, telling you you’ve got to do something that you don’t want to do,” said Fauci.

“That’s absolutely not the case, it’s trusted messengers who are part of the community doing that — not government officials,” he added. “So that’s where I think the disconnect is.”

White House press secretary Jen Psaki offered similar pushback in a White House press briefing July 9, when asked about South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster’s push for the state’s Department of Health to prohibit “‘door-to-door’ tactics in the state’s ongoing vaccination efforts.”

Last week South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, in a letter to the South Carolina Board of Health and Environmental Control, wrote:

“Enticing, coercing, intimidating, mandating or pressuring anyone to take a vaccine is a bad policy that will deteriorate the public trust and confidence in the state’s efforts.”

McMaster said he was going to prohibit the state health agency from using the administration’s targeted tactics.

Psaki responded to McMaster’s letter, saying it was a disservice to the country to provide “inaccurate disinformation at a moment when we’re still fighting a pandemic” and that “the failure to provide accurate public health information, including the efficacy of vaccines and the accessibility of them to people across the country, including South Carolina, is literally killing people, so maybe they should consider that.”

Psaki said the administration has “engaged with local community groups and pastors to handle door-to-door sharing of information with neighbors about the vaccines” for months.

According to Politico, the Biden administration has teamed up with the COVID Collaborative, which describes itself as a “diverse and comprehensive team of experts, leaders and institutions in health, education, and the economy” which works to “develop consensus recommendations, and engage with local, state and national leaders.”

The collaborative, an initiative of the Office of American Possibilities, charted vaccine hesitancy by zip code and is working to convince people to get vaccinated as part of the door-to-door campaign.

The COVID Collaborative has partnerships with the CDC Foundation, which partners with Pfizer and the Pfizer Foundation. It also has partnerships with The American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, The Rockefeller Foundation, National Association of Manufacturers (which also partners with Pfizer), and numerous organizations that receive funding from pharmaceutical companies that  manufacture COVID vaccines.

COVID Collaborative co-founder John Bridgeland said his group had already seen a shift on the ground with people shutting doors “in their faces because they don’t want to get vaccinated.”

Bridgeland’s biggest concern is that “these lies convince communities [who] are already wary of the vaccines, creating sects of the country where the virus just bounces among the unvaccinated.”

*

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

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Featured image is from CHD

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on White House to Ask SMS Carriers to Monitor Vaccine ‘Misinformation’ in Private Text Messages
  • 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.

***

After meeting with Pfizer executives Monday, U.S. regulators said they are still not ready to recommend COVID vaccine booster shots.

“Nothing has really changed,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNN’s Chris Cuomo after the meeting.

Pfizer executives met privately with U.S. senior scientists and regulators Monday evening to press their case for quick authorization of COVID booster vaccines amid pushback from federal health agencies who last week said the extra doses are not needed.

Officials said after the meeting that more data — and possibly several more months — would be needed before regulators could determine whether booster shots were necessary.

During the 1-hour online virtual meeting, Pfizer’s chief scientific officer briefed top doctors in the federal government, including: Fauci; Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health; U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy; Dr. Janet Woodcock, acting commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Assistant Secretary for Health Dr. Rachel Levine; and Dr. David Kessler, chief science officer of the Biden administration’s COVID response team.

The meeting was largely seen as a courtesy after Pfizer’s announcement last week that it would seek Emergency Use Authorization for its booster shot led to unusual pushback from the FDA and CDC.

The two agencies responded to Pfizer’s news in a joint statement, issued last week by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in which they said fully vaccinated Americans don’t need boosters right now and the science is lacking.

“The CDC and the FDA said that based on the data that we know right now, we don’t need a boost,” Fauci told CNN Monday. “That doesn’t mean that that won’t change. We might need, as a matter of fact, at some time to give boosters either across the board or to certain select groups, such as the elderly or those with underlying conditions,” Fauci said.

Officials said any recommendations about booster shots are likely to be scaled, even within age groups. For example, if booster shots are recommended, they might go first to nursing home residents who received their vaccines in late 2020 or early 2021, while elderly people who received their first shots in the spring might have a longer wait, The New York Times reported.

Then there is the issue of what kind of booster will be needed: a third dose of the original vaccine, or a shot tailored to the Delta variant.

“It was an interesting meeting,” Fauci said. “They shared their data. There wasn’t anything resembling a decision. This is just one piece of a much bigger puzzle, and it’s one part of the data, so there isn’t a question of a convincing case one way or the other.”

Pfizer called the meeting “productive”:

“We had a productive meeting with U.S. public health officials on the elements of our research program and the preliminary booster data in our ongoing trials. Both Pfizer and the U.S. government share a sense of urgency in staying ahead of the virus that causes COVID-19, and we also agree that the scientific data will dictate next steps in the rigorous regulatory process that we always follow.”

Pfizer said it would be publishing “more definitive data in a peer-reviewed journal and continuing to work with regulatory authorities to ensure that our vaccine continues to offer the highest degree of protection possible.”

According to The New York Times, HHS, which convened the meeting, issued its own statement reiterating the administration’s stance. “At this time, fully vaccinated Americans do not need a booster shot,” the agency said.

An HHS spokesperson told CNN the CDC and FDA take laboratory data, clinical trial data, cohort data — which can include data from specific pharmaceutical companies, but do “not rely on those data exclusively.”

The administration is prepared for booster doses if the science demonstrates they are needed, the spokesperson added, and will continue to review any new data as it becomes available.

Prior to Monday’s meeting, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, former FDA commissioner and current board member at Pfizer, told CBS News updated efficacy numbers from the Israeli Ministry of Health led Pfizer to seek Emergency Use Authorization for a booster dose of its COVID vaccine.

Israel’s health ministry said in a statement last week it had seen the efficacy of Pfizer’s vaccine drop from more than 90% to about 64% as the Delta variant spread.

As a result, Israel started administering a third dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine to immunocompromised people and heart transplant patients — despite the vaccine’s link to heart inflammation.

WHO says Pfizer should focus on improving access to vaccine, not boosters

World Health Organization (WHO) officials insisted there was not enough evidence to show the need for third doses of COVID vaccines. They said Pfizer should concentrate instead on improving vaccine access around the world, The Guardian reported.

The WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said grotesque vaccine disparities were driven by “greed.”

“We are making conscious choices right now not to protect those in need,” Ghebreyesus said, adding that people who have yet to receive a single dose should be prioritized. He  called on Pfizer and Moderna to “go all out to supply COVAX, the Africa Vaccine Acquisition Task Team and low- and middle-income countries.”

Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, chief WHO scientist, said:

“At this point … there is no scientific evidence to suggest that boosters are definitely needed.”

Swaminathan said the WHO would make recommendations on booster shots “based on the science and data, not on individual companies declaring that the vaccines should now be administered as a booster dose.”

Dr. Michael Ryan, WHO emergencies chief, suggested if rich countries decide to administer booster shots rather than to donate them to the developing world, “we will look back in anger and I think we will look back in shame.”

Pfizer stands to make billions from boosters

Pfizer stands to benefit financially if booster doses are needed, according to The Motley Fool which wrote: “The more COVID vaccine doses are required, the higher the companies’ sales will be and the better its vaccine stocks will likely perform.”

According to YAHOO Finance, Pfizer has recently experienced an increase in support from the world’s most elite money managers. Among these funds, Diamond Hill Capital held the most valuable stake in Pfizer — worth $407.3 million at the end of the fourth quarter.

In second place was New York-based hedge fund Two Sigma Advisors, which amassed $387.2 million worth of shares. Citadel Investment Group and AQR Capital Management — an investment management firm dedicated to delivering results for its clients — became one of the largest hedge fund holders of the company.

In terms of the portfolio weights assigned to each position, Healthcare Value Capital allocated the biggest weight to Pfizer.

Specific money managers include Marshall Wace LLP, which invested $56.1 million in the company at the end of the quarter, and Steven Boyd’s Armistice Capital, which made a $43.5 million investment in the stock during the quarter.

Other funds with brand new Pfizer positions are Charles Clough’s Clough Capital Partners, Michael Rockefeller and KarláKroeker’s Woodline Partners, and Phill Gross and Robert Atchinson’s Adage Capital Management.

As The Defender reported July 9, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has said for months a booster would likely be needed within a year of the initial two-dose inoculation — followed by annual vaccinations, even as public health officials and academic scientists said it wasn’t clear yet when a booster would be needed.

Booster shots for COVID are expected to serve as a key revenue driver in the years to come for Pfizer and its primary rival in the U.S., Moderna. Pfizer in May projected global sales of its COVID vaccine to reach $26 billion in 2021.

The company has also been frank that its current pricing — $19.50 per dose in the U.S. — is temporary. On an earnings call in February, Frank A. D’Amelio, Pfizer’s executive vice president of global supply, assured investors the company sees the vaccine market evolving as the pandemic wanes, and will likely be able to charge more per dose than it was getting under pandemic supply deals.

D’Amelio said a more typical price for a vaccination was $150 or $175 per dose.

Pfizer has been working on two different booster strategies it anticipates could carry sales beyond the immediate pandemic need: a third 30 mg dose of its current vaccines and an updated vaccine that targets the South African variant.

The company said it would begin testing a booster shot specifically programmed to combat the Delta variant in August, reaffirming concerns by scientists who predicted in April that pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, would create a vaccine treadmill with continuous booster shots targeted at emerging variants — which is music to the ears of investors.

*

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

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The College of Charleston is amending is policies regarding Covid-19 vaccinations for students this summer and fall after parents voiced concerns to the school – and to the office of South Carolina attorney general Alan Wilson.

Documents obtained by this news outlet reveal that Wilson’s office was inundated with inquiries regarding the school’s policies – which would have required unvaccinated students to subject themselves to monthly Covid-19 testing or face unspecified sanctions.

Specifically, the school initially required any unvaccinated student who failed to fill out a university-mandated form attesting to their status “be placed in a monthly Covid-19 required testing protocol.”

In a letter to CofC president Andrew Hsu dated yesterday (July 6, 2021), Wilson wrote that the school’s policies “could be read to imply that an unvaccinated student (who) refuses to participate in a survey and monthly testing protocols may be subject to a reprimand, the harshness of which is unclear.”

According to Wilson, state lawmakers have banned “any state institution from requiring Covid-19 vaccinations” – although some state agencies appear to be flouting this ban.

“As state law makes clear, no state institution may mandate Covid-19 vaccinations or retaliate against those that choose not to receive a vaccination,” Wilson wrote in his letter (.pdf). “I strongly urge the college to review and revise its proposed Covid-19 policy to ensure that it complies with state law. The college should clarify that while it may encourage vaccinations, there will be no reprimand, punishment or adverse consequence for any student (who) exercises their individual right not to receive a vaccination.”

On Wednesday morning – less than 24 hours after receiving Wilson’s letter – the college announced it was updating its policies.

According to an email obtained by this news outlet from the parent of a CofC student, the school acknowledged that its policy requiring monthly testing resulted in “a few questions from students and families regarding requirements around vaccines and testing.”

That’s putting it charitably …

I spoke to one parent this week who expressed concern that “the potential health risks of an experimental vaccine that has not been fully approved by the FDA outweigh the health benefits for a healthy 19-year-old at this time.” This parent indicated they were willing to keep an open mind as to the efficacy of the vaccine, but in the meantime the CofC vaccination policy “imposes a de-facto vaccine passport, which is banned in South Carolina.”

According to the school, no such passport is being required.

“As has always been the case, students are not required to be vaccinated in order to enroll or attend the College of Charleston or participate in any campus activities,” the email updating the school’s polices noted, although it added that school officials would continue to “strongly encourage all students to get vaccinated in order to assist in the College’s Covid-19 mitigation efforts.”

The key shift in policy contained in the missive?

According to the updated guidance, unvaccinated students will no longer be “required to participate in monthly testing protocols” – although “given the social nature and high density of a college campus, public health experts strongly encourage monthly testing for those individuals, at a minimum.”

The school said it would offer “voluntary weekly testing” in an effort to help “facilitate this effort.”

In a letter to Wilson accompanying the school’s updated guidance, president Hsu personally assured the attorney general that “no student will have any adverse consequence for making the personal choice not to be vaccinated.”

“I feel confident that with this message the college’s position is very clear,” Hsu wrote in his letter (.pdf).

It is clear … now.

I suspect Wilson’s letter on this subject will receive significant airplay across South Carolina in the months to come as numerous state agencies – and political subdivisions of the state – grapple with the legality of their proposed vaccine policies. In the meantime, Covid-19 cases and related hospitalizations and deaths continues to fall off the map in the Palmetto State – while the number of vaccinated South Carolinians continues to climb.

According to the latest data from the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), 48.8 percent of South Carolinians over the age of 12 have received at least one vaccine dose while 43 percent have “completed” the vaccination process. These numbers lag behind the rest of the nation, though. Nationally, 64.4 percent of Americans over the age of 12 have gotten at least one shot, while 55.6 percent are “fully vaccinated.”

*

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.

Will Folks is the founding editor of the news outlet you are currently reading. Prior to founding FITSNews, he served as press secretary to the governor of South Carolina and before that he was a bass player and a dive bar bouncer. He lives in the Midlands region of the state with his wife and seven children. And yes, he has LOTS of hats (including the above-pictured Carolina Mudcats’ lid).

Featured image is from FITSNews

All Global Research articles 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.

***

To no avail, the water pump wheezes tonight. Iraq, the land between two rivers, is thirsty. Barely a few drops drip from the kitchen faucet in my family’s residence in Baghdad.

The power is off, too, and private diesel generators roar deep into the night. The tranquility that used to lullaby Baghdad’s alleys, allowing its residents to sleep during the hot summer nights on rooftops, has long gone. So has the safety that enabled them to do so in a now-distant lifetime, hardly visible beyond the thick plumes of smoke rising from a violent past that – in the collective memory of Iraqis – continues to burn.

“Iraq’s night is long,” the late Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish once wrote in a poem for his Iraqi peer, Saadi Youssef. In his own prophetic poem, “A Vision”, Youssef wrote:

“This Iraq will reach the ends of the graveyard / It will bury its sons in open country / Generation after generation / And it will forgive its despot.” *

More than two decades have passed since the late Youssef wrote those lines in 1997, and Iraq still buries its sons, generation after generation.

As the last military choppers rape their way through the skies of Baghdad back to their military camps, and the lilting echo of the last Quran verse recited in nearby mosques fades away in grim alleys, where anguished mothers sob for lost sons, news arrives of the day’s fair share of death.

It is during the night that reports of air strikes, terrorist assaults and militia rocket attacks arrive. This lawlessness is enabled by the same lethal failure that pushes miserable youths to hang themselves, or to leap from the highest bridges in towns that, despite being bombed by western armies, rarely appear on TV screens in the West.

Western opportunists

Growing up in Iraq is traumatising. To be an Iraqi writer is life-threatening. I watch the daily repertoire of deadly misery, but for an endless series of assassinations and intimidation, I opt to stifle my pen. It leaves me suffocated, shouting aloud inside my head words I cannot write.

In today’s Iraq, one needs to live by the saying “eat and chirp”. Those dissatisfied with living on crumbs and who stray from the herd are mowed down in broad daylight, executed by “unknown” gunmen under the gaze of CCTV cameras at their doorsteps.

An Iraqi woman standing next to her maryred son's portrait in Baghdad on 25 February, 2021 (Photo by Nabil Salih)

An Iraqi woman standing next to her maryred son’s portrait in Baghdad on 25 February 2021 (Photo by Nabil Salih)

This thuggery makes me think twice before writing a single word on Iraq – if a platform even considers a native’s perspective worthy of publishing in the first place.

Iraq, after all, is a dream destination for many western opportunists drooling over the prospects of the next opening in the Global South. Not only are we, inferior humans, unable to travel and work in their countries as easily, but we are unable to find equal opportunities in our own lands, too.

They build their careers not only on our suffering, but also on our insights, tips and evocative stories. While these indolent tourists, who are usually detached from the streets, occupy jobs usually inaccessible to us, and write divisively from the safety of bureaus in a ghetto on the Tigris banks, we local writers pray that our emails merit a reply from equally clueless foreign Middle East editors.

But judging by the recycled, boring “hit” stories they deem “great”, the latter seem to have struggled to write a postcard during their time “on the ground” without the help of local “colleagues” they keep in their shadow.

Stranger in Baghdad

So when writing becomes both dangerous and an unattainable luxury, I walk. Every evening, I put on a pair of beaten shoes and wander the alleys of Baghdad alone.

What today’s Iraq has to offer stabs me in the eyes, leaving me muted. How do I conjure adequate words in the presence of such tragedy?

The streets on which I flicked marbles with my friends and scurried under bullets no longer seem familiar. Or am I the stranger here? I do feel like one in Baghdad, a city where militiamen and fine-suited crooks grow rich, and dead youth stare from billboards at the living who will soon follow them to the Najaf cemetery, either in coffins or in the company of coffined relatives or friends – all thanks to war criminals of Donald Rumsfeld’s ilk.

With a heavy heart, I walk the streets of Baghdad, bitter to have arrived too late to see the city I love in its glamour, and grateful to have lived a few peaceful days in its bosom before war destroyed it.

How happy and naive and hungry we were before Kanan Makiya and his friends danced to the bombardment of Iraq! The “liberation” his ilk cheered for entailed dropping cluster bombs on my family’s garden in Baghdad, where in previous years, my friends and I had chased a nylon football in bare feet, with joyful hearts. We were oblivious to a war that was holding a sickle over the gates of Iraq, to hordes of warmongering columnists in New York salivating at the imminent sight of fireworks over Baghdad.

I remember huddling with my family in my late grandmother’s room when the bombing started. On one of those nights, we received a telephone call from my aunt, telling us to keep a bucket of clean water and pieces of cloth handy in case of a chemical attack on Baghdad.

Endless bombs

Of course, the sons and daughters of the Green Zone’s democracy knights, who decorated their Christmas trees abroad while we starved under genocidal UN sanctions, have rosy childhood memories.

They weren’t submitted to humanitarian starvation imposed by western officials yet to be held accountable for the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, nor did they hear the deafening sounds of “liberatory” bombing that scarred the face of Baghdad.

But I did, and I still have bombs going off inside my head.

After former US President George W Bush announced “mission accomplished” in 2003, every day carried news of tragedy in Iraq. Images of women beating their chests in mourning of sons torn apart on the streets became constantly present on our TV screens.

Off the screen, I would wake up to Abrams tanks cruising down our street at hysterical speeds, and walk past camouflaged gunmen and rotten corpses on my way to school.

Both my father and my uncle were abducted by gunmen from rival armed groups. Later, both families received death letters, and we were both forcibly displaced from our homes.

Those years have engraved indelible images of carnage on the inner walls of my memory, and they haunt me as I stroll the streets of Baghdad at night.

Bodies of the dead

In my childhood alley, the elegant houses with luscious gardens of palms and Ziziphus trees have long disappeared, along with the familiar faces. In place of each house, three or four, or even more, ugly apartments have sprung up – an erasure of the city’s architectural identity, and a burden on the water and electricity grids.

From the labyrinth of my neighbourhood, I make my way to a nearby bridge. There, on a distant afternoon, someone in an orange jumpsuit was hanged from the railing. His lifeless body swayed in the air as speeding cars zipped by beneath his dangling feet.

We were young then, myself and friends now scattered around the globe, and we watched the spectacle from a vacant lot where once, on another distant afternoon, gunmen dumped the corpses of two women onto piles of garbage.

Time flies, I think to myself. We are grownups and traumatised now. The stray dogs who fed on the dead bodies littering my neighbourhood alleys must be dead by now, I suspect. But who knows? I know that the little girl whose father’s car was blown up on this same bridge was still young.

It was one of the loudest bombings I’d ever heard, and I have heard so many in my life. The explosion killed the father that day, and tore the daughter’s body in two. My neighbour, who now lives in exile after gunmen held him and his family members at gunpoint in their own kitchen, found the lower part of the girl’s body in the trunk of the family’s charred, blue Volkswagen.

It is painful to be Iraqi. Even the streets of memory are littered with the bodies of our dead.

I think of the little girl as I make my way home, and I wish her a good night. I hope she has toys and friends up “there”, where hopefully no bombs need to go off, and she never looks down to see what’s happening to the rest of us here, in an Iraq that still buries its sons in open country, generation after generation.

*

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.

Translated from Arabic by Khaled Mattawa.

Nabil Salih is an independent writer, journalist and photographer from Baghdad. His writings and photography appear in Al Jazeera English, Jadaliyya and Open Democracy. He is an incoming MA in Arab Studies (MAAS) candidate at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies in Georgetown University.

Featured image: An Iraqi man walks the streets of Baghdad on 25 January 2021 (Nabil Salih)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Iraq’s Streets Are Littered with the Memories of Our Dead
  • Tags: ,

Takeaways for Russia, India from Merkel’s US Visit

July 14th, 2021 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

All Global Research articles 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 caveat must be added to the famous line by Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay, NATO’s first Secretary General and Winston Churchill’s chief military assistant during the Second World War, that the purpose of the Alliance was “to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”. 

The alliance is no longer adequate to pin Germany “down” on the dissection table. The multipolarity in world politics creates space for a powerhouse like the reunified Germany to raise its head above the parapet of big-power politics. Germany has outgrown the NATO as a rising world power. 

Quite obviously, Germany’s lack of enthusiasm for NATO’s eastward expansion blocked Washington’s agenda for Ukraine and Georgia’s induction into the alliance as full members. Berlin doesn’t want to complicate Europe’s relations with Russia. Ukraine and Georgia were not invited even as ‘observers’ to the recent summit in Brussels despite the 2008 Bucharest summit’s formal decision on their membership. 

At the end of the day, Germany also moderated the Biden administration’s push to drag the alliance to the Asia-Pacific. Curiously, last Monday, within 3 weeks of the European summit with the US and the NATO and G7 summits, Chinese President Xi Jinping had a three-way video call with the French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel where he expressed the hope that China and Europe would expand cooperation to better respond to global challenge.  

This has been the third such ‘summit’ in the past 3 months and reinforces Beijing’s belief that European countries have not tied themselves to the US chariot and although there are many similarities in terms of values and systems between the US and the EU, the latter is attaching more importance to strategic autonomy. read more 

Indeed, the latest efforts by Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron to organise another EU-Russia summit would have also caused irritation in Washington. read more 

Therefore, the big question surrounding Merkel’s forthcoming visit to Washington on Thursday will be how far Washington wields power to make Germany sacrifice for the US hegemony anymore. The salience of the visit will be that it illuminates the diversity and flexibility of Germany’s thoughts on global issues. 

Merkel’s July 15 visit to the White House marks only the third time a foreign leader will have met with Biden in Washington since he became president — and, she is the first European leader to do so. White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said on Friday that Biden hopes to affirm “deep and enduring” ties between the NATO allies while also tackling some areas of disagreement.

A deal on Nord Stream 2? 

Psaki called it an “official working visit” aimed at shoring up the partnership between the two countries and identifying ways to further strengthen cooperation, while an official in Berlin said, “From the German perspective, this will be a working visit.” 

The laundry list is long — Biden’s decision to end the forever Afghan war, Covid-19, trade issues, Nord Stream 2. In practical terms, the Nord Stream 2, will be a heavily loaded issue, given its profound impact on German-Russian relations for decades to come, Europe’s energy security, Moscow’s current tensions with the European Union and the US’ trans-Atlantic leadership itself. 

On Sunday, the managing director of Nord Stream 2 AG, which is running the pipeline project, and its German chief executive Matthias Warnig disclosed in an interview with the Handelsblatt newspaper that the construction is 98% completed by now and may be finished already in August. 

According to Warnig, three months will be needed to receive various certificates and undergo trials. The process has already kicked off in respect of the pipeline’s first line that has already been completed. Our goal is “to commission [the project] already this year,” he noted. 

Importantly, Warnig said he was convinced gas transit via Ukraine from Russia would be continued after 2024.

“Transit via Ukraine will still be part of Russian gas transportation to Europe even after 2024. I have not a slightest doubt,” he stressed. [Significantly, Merkel invited Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky to visit Berlin today in the run-up to her US trip.]

In May, the Biden administration took a nuanced step to waive sanctions on the Swiss-based Nord Stream 2 AG and its German CEO. The waiver gives Berlin and Washington three more months until mid-August to reach an agreement on Nord Stream 2. read more 

President Putin exuded confidence in a TV interview last month when he said that

“it was already pointless to resist the construction of the pipeline and to impose sanctions. Because we have already completed it, the first branch is ready. It seems like [the US] has abandoned these sanctions.” 

The question of what to do with the pipeline still could prove the first big headache for the next German government. Merkel pushed back at the heavy US pressure to abandon the project but she is retiring in September. Polls suggest that the elections to the Bundestag in September may yield big gains for the Green Party which opposes the Nord Stream 2 project. read more

Suffice to say, the Biden-Merkel meeting could provide important momentum for getting to a deal on Nord Stream 2. Berlin hopes to resolve the issue by August and on his part, Biden is also eager to improve ties with Germany, which is a key ally to deal with major global issues of climate change, post-pandemic economic recovery and relations with Iran and China.

TRIPS waiver a bridge too far?

From the Indian perspective, there is going to be keen interest on the outcome of the Biden-Merkel talks in regard of the contentious issue of a temporary waiver of intellectual property rights for the Covid-19 vaccines being considered by World Trade Organisation [WTO] members to help end the pandemic. 

Last October, India and South Africa had floated the proposal to waive IP rights at the WTO’s Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights [TRIPS] Council. 

The Biden administration has expressed backing for the waiver. But Germany poured cold water on the idea, maintaining that the greatest constraints on production of vaccines were not intellectual property but increasing capacity and ensuring quality. A German statement in May said, “The protection of intellectual property is a source of innovation and must remain so in the future.” 

Evidently, European industry’s heavyweights — home to major players such as BioNTech and AstraZeneca — resist the waiver. In early June, the European Commission, under German influence,  submitted an alternative plan to the WTO, proposing other measures such as limits on export restrictions, and the compulsory licensing of the patents in some circumstances. read more

However, the ground beneath the feet somewhat shifted on June 10 when the European Parliament backed the TRIPS waiver in relation to COVID-19 vaccines, treatments, and equipment. The European Parliament amendment was passed by 355 votes to 263, with 71 abstentions, largely following left-right lines, with leftists such as the Socialists and Democrats backing the waiver and those on the right opposing it. read more

Of course, the Commission is not bound by the European Parliament’s amendment but the vote sends a strong political message nonetheless: Europe is gradually shifting to the pro-waiver camp. Meanwhile, Germany is increasingly lonely in its opposition to the waiver, as France flipped lately and crossed over to the patent-suspension camp.

The tide seems to be turning, although there is still a long way to go, as the waiver camp also has multiple voices and appearances such as France’s can be deceptive.

Merkel may have got unexpected support from an influential quarter in Washington when World Bank President David Malpass [a Trump administration nominee, by the way] waded into the controversy, saying ”We don’t support that [TRIPS waiver] for the reason that it would run the risk of reducing the innovation and the R&D in that sector.” 

To be sure, on Friday, when asked if Biden would seek to convince Merkel to support the patent waiver, Psaki was evasive. She would only say Biden is a “strong proponent” of the waiver, while Psaki went on to add, “It’s one tool in our toolbox.  There are a number of others, including increasing manufacturing.” That sounded closer to Merkel’s thinking.

*

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.

On the Brink in 2026: U.S.-China Near-War Status Report

July 14th, 2021 by Michael T. Klare

All Global Research articles 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’s the summer of 2026, five years after the Biden administration identified the People’s Republic of China as the principal threat to U.S. security and Congress passed a raft of laws mandating a society-wide mobilization to ensure permanent U.S. domination of the Asia-Pacific region. Although major armed conflict between the United States and China has not yet broken out, numerous crises have erupted in the western Pacific and the two countries are constantly poised for war. International diplomacy has largely broken down, with talks over climate change, pandemic relief, and nuclear nonproliferation at a standstill. For most security analysts, it’s not a matter of if a U.S.-China war will erupt, but when.

Does this sound fanciful? Not if you read the statements coming out of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the upper ranks of Congress these days.

“China poses the greatest long-term challenge to the United States and strengthening deterrence against China will require DoD to work in concert with other instruments of national power,” the Pentagon’s 2022 Defense Budget Overview asserts. “A combat-credible Joint Force will underpin a whole-of-nation approach to competition and ensure the Nation leads from a position of strength.”

On this basis, the Pentagon requested $715 billion in military expenditures for 2022, with a significant chunk of those funds to be spent on the procurement of advanced ships, planes, and missiles intended for a potential all-out, “high-intensity” war with China. An extra $38 billion was sought for the design and production of nuclear weapons, another key aspect of the drive to overpower China.

Democrats and Republicans in Congress, contending that even such sums were insufficient to ensure continued U.S. superiority vis-à-vis that country, are pressing for further increases in the 2022 Pentagon budget. Many have also endorsed the EAGLE Act, short for Ensuring American Global Leadership and Engagement — a measure intended to provide hundreds of billions of dollars for increased military aid to America’s Asian allies and for research on advanced technologies deemed essential for any future high-tech arms race with China.

Imagine, then, that such trends only gain momentum over the next five years. What will this country be like in 2026? What can we expect from an intensifying new Cold War with China that, by then, could be on the verge of turning hot?

Taiwan 2026: Perpetually on the Brink

Crises over Taiwan have erupted on a periodic basis since the start of the decade, but now, in 2026, they seem to be occurring every other week. With Chinese bombers and warships constantly probing Taiwan’s outer defenses and U.S. naval vessels regularly maneuvering close to their Chinese counterparts in waters near the island, the two sides never seem far from a shooting incident that would have instantaneous escalatory implications. So far, no lives have been lost, but planes and ships from both sides have narrowly missed colliding again and again. On each occasion, forces on both sides have been placed on high alert, causing jitters around the world.

The tensions over that island have largely stemmed from incremental efforts by Taiwanese leaders, mostly officials of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), to move their country from autonomous status as part of China to full independence. Such a move is bound to provoke a harsh, possibly military response from Beijing, which considers the island a renegade province.

The island’s status has plagued U.S.-China relations for decades. When, on January 1, 1979, Washington first recognized the People’s Republic of China, it agreed to withdraw diplomatic recognition from the Taiwanese government and cease formal relations with its officials. Under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, however, U.S. officials were obligated to conduct informal relations with Taipei. The act stipulated as well that any move by Beijing to alter Taiwan’s status by force would be considered “a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States” — a stance known as “strategic ambiguity,” as it neither guaranteed American intervention, nor ruled it out.

In the ensuing decades, the U.S. sought to avoid conflict in the region by persuading Taipei not to make any overt moves toward independence and by minimizing its ties to the island, thereby discouraging aggressive moves by China. By 2021, however, the situation had been remarkably transformed. Once under the exclusive control of the Nationalist Party that had been defeated by communist forces on the Chinese mainland in 1949, Taiwan became a multiparty democracy in 1987. It has since witnessed the steady rise of pro-independence forces, led by the DPP. At first, the mainland regime sought to woo the Taiwanese with abundant trade and tourism opportunities, but the excessive authoritarianism of its Communist Party alienated many island residents — especially younger ones — only adding momentum to the drive for independence. This, in turn, has prompted Beijing to switch tactics from courtship to coercion by constantly sending its combat planes and ships into Taiwanese air and sea space.

Trump administration officials, less concerned about alienating Beijing than their predecessors, sought to bolster ties with the Taiwanese government in a series of gestures that Beijing found threatening and that were only expanded in the early months of the Biden administration. At that time, growing hostility to China led many in Washington to call for an end to “strategic ambiguity” and the adoption of an unequivocal pledge to defend Taiwan if it were to come under attack from the mainland.

“I think the time has come to be clear,” Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas declared in February 2021. “Replace strategic ambiguity with strategic clarity that the United States will come to the aid of Taiwan if China was to forcefully invade Taiwan.”

The Biden administration was initially reluctant to adopt such an inflammatory stance, since it meant that any conflict between China and Taiwan would automatically become a U.S.-China war with nuclear ramifications. In April 2022, however, under intense congressional pressure, the Biden administration formally abandoned “strategic ambiguity” and vowed that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would prompt an immediate American military response. “We will never allow Taiwan to be subjugated by military force,” President Biden declared at that time, a striking change in a longstanding American strategic position.

The DoD would soon announce the deployment of a permanent naval squadron to the waters surrounding Taiwan, including an aircraft carrier and a supporting flotilla of cruisers, destroyers, and submarines. Ely Ratner, President Biden’s top envoy for the Asia-Pacific region, first outlined plans for such a force in June 2021 during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. A permanent U.S. presence, he suggested, would serve to “deter, and, if necessary, deny a fait accompli scenario” in which Chinese forces quickly attempted to overwhelm Taiwan. Although described as tentative then, it would, in fact, become formal policy following President Biden’s April 2022 declaration on Taiwan and a brief exchange of warning shots between a Chinese destroyer and a U.S. cruiser just south of the Taiwan Strait.

Today, in 2026, with a U.S. naval squadron constantly sailing in waters near Taiwan and Chinese ships and planes constantly menacing the island’s outer defenses, a potential Sino-American military clash never seems far off. Should that occur, what would happen is impossible to predict, but most analysts now assume that both sides would immediately fire their advanced missiles — many of them hypersonic (that is, exceeding five times the speed of sound) — at their opponent’s key bases and facilities. This, in turn, would provoke further rounds of air and missile strikes, probably involving attacks on Chinese and Taiwanese cities as well as U.S. bases in Japan, Okinawa, South Korea, and Guam. Whether such a conflict could be contained at the non-nuclear level remains anyone’s guess.

The Incremental Draft

In the meantime, planning for a U.S.-China war-to-come has dramatically reshaped American society and institutions.  The “Forever Wars” of the first two decades of the twenty-first century had been fought entirely by an All-Volunteer Force (AVF) that typically endured multiple tours of duty, in particular in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. was able to sustain such combat operations (while continuing to maintain a substantial troop presence in Europe, Japan, and South Korea) with 1.4 million servicemembers because American forces enjoyed uncontested control of the airspace over its war zones, while China and Russia remained wary of engaging U.S. forces in their own neighborhoods.

Today, in 2026, however, the picture looks radically different: China, with an active combat force of two million soldiers, and Russia, with another million — both militaries equipped with advanced weaponry not widely available to them in the early years of the century — pose a far more formidable threat to U.S. forces. An AVF no longer looks particularly viable, so plans for its replacement with various forms of conscription are already being put into place.

Bear in mind, however, that in a future war with China and/or Russia, the Pentagon doesn’t envision large-scale ground battles reminiscent of World War II or the Iraq invasion of 2003. Instead, it expects a series of high-tech battles involving large numbers of ships, planes, and missiles. This, in turn, limits the need for vast conglomerations of ground troops, or “grunts,” as they were once labeled, but increases the need for sailors, pilots, missile launchers, and the kinds of technicians who can keep so many high-tech systems at top operational capacity.

As early as October 2020, during the final months of the Trump administration, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper was already calling for a doubling of the size of the U.S. naval fleet, from approximately 250 to 500 combat vessels, to meet the rising threat from China. Clearly, however, there would be no way for a force geared to a 250-ship navy to sustain one double that size. Even if some of the additional ships were “uncrewed,” or robotic, the Navy would still have to recruit several hundred thousand more sailors and technicians to supplement the 330,000 then in the force. Much the same could be said of the U.S. Air Force.

No surprise, then, that an incremental restoration of the draft, abandoned in 1973 as the Vietnam War was drawing to a close, has taken place in these years. In 2022, Congress passed the National Service Reconstitution Act (NSRA), which requires all men and women aged 18 to 25 to register with newly reconstituted National Service Centers and to provide them with information on their residence, employment status, and educational background — information they are required to update on an annual basis. In 2023, the NSRA was amended to require registrants to complete an additional questionnaire on their technical, computer, and language skills. Since 2024, all men and women enrolled in computer science and related programs at federally aided colleges and universities have been required to enroll in the National Digital Reserve Corps (NDRC) and spend their summers working on defense-related programs at selected military installations and headquarters. Members of that Digital Corps must also be available on short notice for deployment to such facilities, should a conflict of any sort threaten to break out.

The establishment of just such a corps, it should be noted, had been a recommendation of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, a federal agency established in 2019 to advise Congress and the White House on how to prepare the nation for a high-tech arms race with China. “We must win the AI competition that is intensifying strategic competition with China,” the commission avowed in March 2021, given that “the human talent deficit is the government’s most conspicuous AI deficit.” To overcome it, the commission suggested then, “We should establish a… civilian National Reserve to grow tech talent with the same seriousness of purpose that we grow military officers. The digital age demands a digital corps.”

Indeed, only five years later, with the prospect of a U.S.-China conflict so obviously on the agenda, Congress is considering a host of bills aimed at supplementing the Digital Corps with other mandatory service requirements for men and women with technical skills, or simply for the reinstatement of conscription altogether and the full-scale mobilization of the nation. Needless to say, protests against such measures have been erupting at many colleges and universities, but with the mood of the country becoming increasingly bellicose, there has been little support for them among the general public. Clearly, the “volunteer” military is about to become an artifact of a previous epoch.

A New Cold War Culture of Repression

With the White House, Congress, and the Pentagon obsessively focused on preparations for what’s increasingly seen as an inevitable war with China, it’s hardly surprising that civil society in 2026 has similarly been swept up in an increasingly militaristic anti-China spirit. Popular culture is now saturated with nationalistic and jingoistic memes, regularly portraying China and the Chinese leadership in derogatory, often racist terms. Domestic manufacturers hype “Made in America” labels (even if they’re often inaccurate) and firms that once traded extensively with China loudly proclaim their withdrawal from that market, while the streaming superhero movie of the moment, The Beijing Conspiracy, on a foiled Chinese plot to disable the entire U.S. electrical grid, is the leading candidate for the best film Oscar.

Domestically, by far the most conspicuous and pernicious result of all this has been a sharp rise in hate crimes against Asian Americans, especially those assumed to be Chinese, whatever their origin. This disturbing phenomenon, which began at the outset of the Covid crisis, when President Trump, in a transparent effort to deflect blame for his mishandling of the pandemic, started using terms like “Chinese Virus” and “Kung Flu” to describe the disease. Attacks on Asian Americans rose precipitously then and continued to climb after Joe Biden took office and began vilifying Beijing for its human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Hong Kong. According to the watchdog group Stop AAPI Hate, some 6,600 anti-Asian incidents were reported in the U.S. between March 2020 and March 2021, with almost 40% of those events occurring in February and March 2021.

For observers of such incidents back then, the connection between anti-China policymaking at the national level and anti-Asian violence at the neighborhood level was incontrovertible. “When America China-bashes, then Chinese get bashed, and so do those who ‘look Chinese,’” said Russell Jeung, a professor of Asian American Studies at San Francisco State University at that time. “American foreign policy in Asia is American domestic policy for Asians.”

By 2026, most Chinatowns in America have been boarded up and those that remain open are heavily guarded by armed police. Most stores owned by Asian Americans (of whatever background) were long ago closed due to boycotts and vandalism, and Asian Americans think twice before leaving their homes.

The hostility and distrust exhibited toward Asian Americans at the neighborhood level has been replicated at the workplace and on university campuses, where Chinese Americans and Chinese-born citizens are now prohibited from working at laboratories in any technical field with military applications. Meanwhile, scholars of any background working on China-related topics are subject to close scrutiny by their employers and government officials. Anyone expressing positive comments about China or its government is routinely subjected to harassment, at best, or at worst, dismissal and FBI investigation.

As with the incremental draft, such increasingly restrictive measures were first adopted in a series of laws in 2022. But the foundation for much of this was the United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021, passed by the Senate in June of that year. Among other provisions, it barred federal funding to any college or university that hosted a Confucius Institute, a Chinese government program to promote that country’s language and culture in foreign countries. It also empowered federal agencies to coordinate with university officials to “promote protection of controlled information as appropriate and strengthen defense against foreign intelligence services,” especially Chinese ones.

Diverging From the Path of War

Yes, in reality, we’re still in 2021, even if the Biden administration regularly cites China as our greatest threat. Naval incidents with that country’s vessels in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait are indeed on the rise, as are anti-Asian-American sentiments domestically. Meanwhile, as the planet’s two greatest greenhouse-gas emitters squabble, our world is growing hotter by the year.

Without question, something like the developments described above (and possibly far worse) will lie in our future unless action is taken to alter the path we’re now on. All of those “2026” developments, after all, are rooted in trends and actions already under way that only appear to be gathering momentum at this moment. Bills like the Innovation and Competition Act enjoy near unanimous support among Democrats and Republicans, while strong majorities in both parties favor increased funding of Pentagon spending on China-oriented weaponry. With few exceptions — Senator Bernie Sanders among them — no one in the upper ranks of government is saying: Slow down. Don’t launch another Cold War that could easily go hot.

“It is distressing and dangerous,” as Sanders wrote recently in Foreign Affairs, “that a fast-growing consensus is emerging in Washington that views the U.S.-Chinese relationship as a zero-sum economic and military struggle.” At a time when this planet faces ever more severe challenges from climate change, pandemics, and economic inequality, he added that “the prevalence of this view will create a political environment in which the cooperation that the world desperately needs will be increasingly difficult to achieve.”

In other words, we Americans face an existential choice: Do we stand aside and allow the “fast-growing consensus” Sanders speaks of to shape national policy, while abandoning any hope of genuine progress on climate change or those other perils? Alternately, do we begin trying to exert pressure on Washington to adopt a more balanced relationship with China, one that would place at least as much emphasis on cooperation as on confrontation. If we fail at this, be prepared in 2026 or soon thereafter for the imminent onset of a catastrophic (possibly even nuclear) U.S.-China war.

*

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

Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is the five-college professor emeritus of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and a senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association. He is the author of 15 books, the latest of which is All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon’s Perspective on Climate Change. He is a founder of the Committee for a Sane U.S.-China Policy.

Has Biden Botched Diplomacy with Iran?

July 14th, 2021 by Daniel Larison

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The Biden administration’s effort to reenter the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is languishing, and there is an increasing likelihood that the nuclear deal won’t be salvaged:

Hopes for a quick re-entry to the accord that Donald Trump abandoned have dimmed after six rounds of negotiations in Vienna, with little sign of when a seventh might start.

If that happens, it will not only be a major, avoidable foreign policy failure for Biden, but it will also reward Iran hawks for their years of sabotage. A collapse of the JCPOA would be a significant setback for the cause of nonproliferation, and it would send a message that the U.S. is incapable of making and honoring agreements even when they are extremely favorable to our side. It hasn’t happened yet, and administration officials may manage to stave off a complete collapse before the end of the summer, but it is worth considering how things reached this sorry state. It is not entirely the Biden administration’s fault, but they do bear a large part of the blame for letting things get to this point.

The administration’s main mistakes have been wasting too much time up front, refusing to offer any sanctions relief, and publicly entertaining the so-called “longer and stronger” follow-on agreement that no one truly thinks is possible. The Israeli government threw a wrench in the works with its campaign of assassination and sabotage, which then prompted the Iranian reaction that opponents of the deal have sought to use to discredit the agreement. Iran’s move to end implementation of the Additional Protocol clearly hasn’t helped matters, and that is a consequence of the Israeli attacks. Iranian demands for a “guarantee” that the U.S. won’t betray them again are impossible to meet (any such guarantee would be meaningless and non-binding in any case), since we all know that the next administration could easily throw the agreement in the trash again.

All of these things have contributed to the current problem, but it is the administration’s unwillingness to provide any sanctions relief and to take the most basic step of formally rejoining the agreement that have made it much more difficult to save the agreement. That unwillingness is driven at least in part by fear of being attacked by domestic hawkish critics and regional clients. No doubt Biden would have been attacked for taking the initiative in rejoining the agreement and lifting sanctions, but he did not spare himself from these attacks by dragging his feet and now he risks botching things. It is unclear to what extent Biden administration officials genuinely support the absurd “longer and stronger” agreement idea, but it hasn’t gained them anything with their domestic critics and it has helped to undermine the effort to rejoin the agreement.

Keeping all of the Trump-era “maximum pressure” sanctions in place has been the major error that may very well end up dooming that effort. For all intents and purposes, Biden has been continuing Trump’s Iran policy, and it has had the same predictable results. Had Biden begun by making significant changes to that policy by winding down the economic war that the U.S. has waged on the Iranian people, the nuclear deal’s chances of survival would be much better. As things stand now, the administration now has to salvage their salvage operation before time runs out later this year.

*

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.


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

As the human population grows, so does our demand for food, and soy is one of the key crops meeting that demand. Found in far more than tofu, soy is the largest source of protein for animal feed (such as cattle) and the second-largest source of vegetable oil globally after palm oil.

The largest soy importer, China, saw a 2,000% increase in soy imports over the past two decades, with the majority going to feed cattle to meet the Chinese population’s increasing meat consumption.

“As long as the whole market is increasing meat consumption and developing countries are getting wealthier per capita and they’re changing their diets, we’re going to see soybean expand,” Matt Hansen, a professor in the Department of Geographical Sciences at the University of Maryland, told Mongabay.

Rising global soy production has led to the clearing of forests, especially in the tropics. More than half of the world’s soy is grown in South America, and between 2000 and 2019, the production of the crop on the continent has doubled, according to new research published in the journal Nature Sustainability.

Deforestation for soy in the Amazon. Photo by Rhett A. Butler for Mongabay.

Deforestation for soy in the Amazon. Photo by Rhett A. Butler for Mongabay.

The researchers used satellite imagery to identify areas of soy cultivation. Guided by this data, five teams drove around the continent to verify the extent of farms across all the biomes where soy is grown: the Amazon Rainforest, the Atlantic Forest, the Cerrado scrubland, the Chaco dry forest, the Chiquitania savanna, the Pampas grassland, the Pantanal wetland, and the Caatinga thorn-scrub forest.

The study reveals that soybean coverage in South America increased from 26.4 million hectares (65.2 million acres) in 2001 to 55.1 million hectares (136.2 million acres) in 2019, an area larger than the state of California. Most of this expansion happened in Brazil, which saw a 160% increase in the area of soybean cultivation, and Argentina, with a 57% increase in area.

Over the past three decades, human impact on natural land cover in South America has averaged 8.1 million hectares (20 million acres) per year, which is equivalent to 21.6 soccer fields per minute. Roughly 40% of all landmass in South America has been impacted by human activity since 1985.

But tracking the rates of deforestation is just one part of the story, said Hansen, a co-author of the study. Knowing what land uses replace cleared forests can help clarify the economic underpinnings of deforestation. This data allows us to ask what crops or practices are causing deforestation.

“If you know what the underlying causes are and where the new frontiers are,” Hansen said, “you can start making plans around changing the story if the story is a bad one.”

The story in South America is that livestock pasture often comes first, followed by soy. Soybean farms are typically planted on old cattle pastures, and as soy encroaches, pasture is forced into new frontiers.

“Pasture actually acts like a sponge,” Hansen said, “it soaks up this soybean demand.”

As pasture frontiers march onward, so does soy, expanding from areas of traditional cultivation. In Argentina, soy is moving south into the Chaco. In Paraguay, soy farms threaten the Atlantic Forest. Soy is also replacing the Chiquitania forest of Bolivia and the Campos grasslands in Uruguay.

And in the Amazon, where soy has expanded the most, the moving frontier of pasture drives both deforestation and fires, which are set to clear deforested lands.

This interplay between beef and soy is simple to see, Hansen says, when you make a map of deforestation, land use and fires over time. This kind of data can help clarify what really is going on when things like a big fire year or the politicization of land use and commodities occur.

For example, when the fires in the Amazon caught international attention in 2019, France, the largest buyer of Brazilian soy flour in the European Union, said it would ban imports of soybean driving deforestation and subsequent fires.

One of the first major fires of 2021, detected on the southern edge of the Brazilian Amazon. Fires are set to clear lands for pasture. Image courtesy of MAAP.

However, this new research found that only 5% of forest loss was driven directly by soybean, meaning that the time between forest clearing and soy cultivation was less than three years. Most of this direct soybean-driven deforestation occurred in the Cerrado and in the Brazilian Amazon.

Soy farmers are not starting fires, Hansen says. “We’ve been out in the field with farmers who work really hard to use cover crops to build up organic layers in their soil to make their soil more productive and they hate fire … Fire is horrible for them. It destroys the soil.”

Yet soy remains an indirect driver of deforestation and fire, and the interplay of land use is the number one point, Hansen says. Policies addressing deforestation have to consider multiple commodities at once.

“If soybean is replacing all of this cattle production land,” Hansen said, “well then where’s that cattle production being displaced?”

The public outcry over clear-cutting for soy cultivation led many large transnational companies, including Cargill, Bunge and Amaggi, to sign the voluntary Amazon Soy Moratorium, which banned direct conversion of the Amazon Rainforest for soy cultivation.

A recent study suggests that, between 2006 and 2016, deforestation was 35% lower than it would have been without the moratorium. But critics say this discounts the effects of indirect deforestation and spillover into other biomes. Because the moratorium only protects the Amazon, soy farms have moved into surrounding areas like the Cerrado savanna.

“The soy moratorium is a good example of a solution for one commodity in one place, but it covers only one biome, ignoring deforestation in the Cerrado and also the role of beef,” Vivian Ribeiro, a data scientist for Trase, told Mongabay.

Trase works to map the supply chains of commodities such as soy, beef and palm oil from where they are grown to the final buyer. This allows buyers to determine if their goods came from an area with deforestation.

Cattle ranching is the primary cause of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon today, with much of the meat exported. Photo by Rhett A. Butler.

Increasingly, companies are making private commitments to source from zero-deforestation supply chains. This is a promising strategy, Ribeiro says, but in order to work, the market needs to be more transparent. The goal is for companies to report that they are not sourcing from deforestation and to prove reliable monitoring, verification and reporting systems. “Transparency is the top thing,” she says.

“So what we’re trying to communicate to these actors is that by buying the product from some specific places, you’re exposed to deforestation,” Ribeiro said. “So if you really want, you can change the source of your production from a place associated with a lot of recent deforestation, which is basically the same as supporting deforestation.”

Previously Trase relied on regional, private, or governmental monitoring, but there were gaps in time coverage and for certain biomes. The data used in the Nature Sustainability study allows Trase and others to look at soy expansion using a standardized format on a continental scale, Ribeiro said.

Beyond these zero-deforestation commitments, Hansen says, we also need to designate “no-go zones” or areas of nature that are off-limits to any kind of development: ecosystems that exist to regulate climate, protect biodiversity, support Indigenous people, and for their own intrinsic value.

“Sometimes you have to say, ‘we’re not going to let any commodity go in,’” Hansen says. “I think that would be a better way to look at 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.

Liz Kimbrough is a staff writer for Mongabay. Find her on Twitter @lizkimbrough_

Featured image: Soy farm in Maranhao, Brazil. Image courtesy of Matt Hansen.

All Global Research articles 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.

***

France seems to have admitted its defeat in Mali. Last Friday, President Emmanuel Macron announced the closing of military bases and the withdrawal of troops from the African country, ending a long journey of occupation and conflicts that seriously damaged the entire structure of French foreign policy. After decades of interventionism, Paris recognizes its current inability to deal with African problems with a strategy of permanent occupation in the Sahel.

For months, Macron had been stating that France would no longer play a central role in the fight against terrorism in North Africa. Now, finally, the closing of the military bases has been announced, which will result in the withdrawal of more than 2,000 French soldiers. This ends the so-called “Operation Barkhane”, which was a military mission marked by a tactic of permanent occupation of the Sahel countries by French troops, aiming to impede terrorist militias from advancing after the success of the Operation Serval – which expelled terrorists from Mali in 2013, leading the state to regain control over its territory with the support of French forces.

Despite the victory in Operation Serval, the French occupation was a terrible strategic choice, which had serious consequences for the French armed forces. Having to deal with a vast territory, facing terrorist organizations and without the support of local authorities which are totally unstable and weak due to the security chaos, French troops have not managed to obtain satisfactory results in the Sahel, especially in Mali, which is currently under a politically troubled situation and sees terrorism increasing exponentially day by day. The size of the Malian territory was perhaps the main responsible for the failure of the French occupation policy: without the military personnel necessary to neutralize all strategic points, European forces became powerless in the face of the advance of terrorism, leading to the current scenario in the region.

Faced with this situation, Macron’s attitude was simple: withdraw troops and avoid further expenses and waste of material and human resources. Between the end and the beginning of 2021, almost all French facilities will be closed in Mali. The process of closing the bases will begin in the north of the country. Subsequently, the bases of Kidal, Tessalit and Tombouctou will also be deactivated, thus extinguishing the main key points in the fight against illegal armed groups currently working in the Malian territory.

By the beginning of next year, troops will have been reduced by half and will be restricted to regions that are not strategic for combating terrorism, which indicates that they will probably only act in the security of specific points, such as diplomatic and international organizations’ facilities. Furthermore, it was announced that relations with the armies of the Sahel G5 countries – Mali, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mauritania, and Niger – will be focused on supplying material, training, and consultancy, with no real joint combat operations. The work of fighting the militias will be exclusively destined to the forces of the local governments. Obviously, these armies do not have force enough to deal with such a threat alone, which indicates a terrible future for the region.

The French government, however, apparently will try to reorganize its strategy in Africa, with a radical change in its focus of attention: troops are being displaced from the Sahel to be relocated to other parts of the continent. It seems that the focus of action from now on will be the Gulf of Guinea. In the same speech in which he announced the withdrawal of troops from Mali, Macron stated: “Our enemies have abandoned their territorial ambition in favor of spreading their threat not only across the Sahel, but across all of West Africa (…) implies increased pressure on all the Gulf of Guinea countries, which is already a reality (…) We are going to reorganize ourselves in line with this need to stop this spread to the south, and it will lead to a reduction of our military footprint in the north”. However, no information on how these operations to the south will take place have been provided yet, raising suspicions about the French plans.

It is necessary to remember that a strong critical view about the French presence in Africa has been developing within French territory itself. With an increasingly Islamic population, allied to liberal humanitarianism of native people, the classification of operations in Africa as neo-colonialism tends to grow, which leads public opinion to support the withdrawal of troops. The reason Macron wants to leave the Sahel goes beyond the mere material issue, there is also an attempt to obtain popular support for the next elections. Furthermore, even the far-right parties of French politics tend to be against operations in Africa, as they consider combating terrorism within France a priority. So, it does not make sense that Macron will actually invest in a strategy of changing focus and reallocating troops at the present time.

What seems to be happening is a “freezing” in the French strategy for Africa, with which Paris tries to keep alive, but inactive, its historical ties with the region. The main bases in Mali will be deactivated and soldiers will be relocated to the south. But there will still be some soldiers, at an insignificant level, in Mali and the troops, in the same sense, will not have enough strength to prevent the advance of terrorism in the south. With this, Paris manages to maintain its presence in Africa in a “cold”, inactive, and inexpressive way, saving resources and pacifying French public opinion. This is an interesting strategic scenario, as it allows Macron’s successor – or Macron himself – to reorganize the strategy for Africa more efficiently after the election period and the stabilization in military spending.

On the other hand, the terrorists will not wait for a French return and the withdrawal of troops will mean an immediate advance of the militias, which will continue to expand across the entire African continent, controlling vast regions and forming small local caliphates. For any African country, the French plans do not matter so much, and the withdrawal of troops practically means that Paris recognizes its defeat. This will lead them to try to sign international cooperation agreements with other countries, such as Russia, China and Middle Eastern States. These countries tend increase their presence in Africa in the near future, and this leads us to believe that, above a strategic element, there is in fact a “French defeat” in the Sahel, considering that Paris will be giving space to the actions of other powers in that region that historically “belong” to France. What Macron is trying to do is rein in his losses and create a scenario that will allow the French presence to resurface later.

*

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.

***

One of the rare honest statements by Bill Gates was his remark in early 2021 that if you think covid measures are bad, wait until the measures for global warming. The European Union is in the process of imposing, top-down, the most draconian measures to date, that will effectively destroy modern industry across the face of the 27 states of the European Union. Under cute names such as “Fit for 55” and European Green Deal, measures are being finalized in Brussels by unelected technocrats that will cause the worst industrial unemployment and economic collapse since the crisis of the 1930s. Industries such as automobile or transport, power generation and steel are on the chopping block, all for an unproven hypothesis called manmade global warming.

While most EU citizens have been distracted by endless restrictions over a flu-like pandemic called covid19, the technocrats at the EU Commission in Brussels have been preparing a program of planned dis-integration of the EU industrial economy. The convenient aspect of an unelected supranational group far away in Brussels or Strasbourg is that they are not accountable to any real voters. They even have a name for it: Democratic Deficit. If the measures about to be finalized by the EU Commission under German President Ursula von der Leyen and Vice President for Global Warming Dutch technocrat Frans Timmermans, are enacted, here is a hint of what will happen.

Fit for 55”

On July 14, the EU Commission presents its “Fit for 55” green agenda. While the title sounds more like an ad for a middle-ager health studio, it will be the most draconian and destructive de-industrialization program ever imposed outside of war.

Fit for 55 will be the central framework of new laws and rules from Brussels to reduce CO2 emissions dramatically, using schemes such as carbon taxes, emission caps and cap and trade schemes.

In April 2021 the EU Commission announced a new EU climate target: Emissions to be reduced by 55 percent by 2030 compared to 1990, up from the 40 percent as previously agreed. Hence the cute name “Fit for 55.” But the industry and workforce of the EU states will be anything but fit if the plan is advanced. Simply said, it is technocratic fascism being imposed without public debate on some 455 million EU citizens.

This Fit for 55 is the first time in the world that a group of countries, the EU, officially imposes an agenda to force an absurd “Zero” CO2 by 2050 and 55% less CO2 by 2030. EU Green Deal czar, Commissioner Frans Timmermans said in May, “We will strengthen the EU Emissions Trading System, update the Energy Taxation Directive, and propose new CO2 standards for cars, new energy efficiency standards for buildings, new targets for renewables, and new ways of supporting clean fuels and infrastructure for clean transport.” In reality it will destroy the transport industry, steel, cement as well as coal and gas fuel electric generation.

Here are major parts of the sinister Fit For 55.

Cars and Trucks

A major target of the EU Green Deal will be measures that will force internal combustion engine vehicles– gasoline or diesel cars and trucks—to adhere to such punitive CO2 emission limits that they will be forced off the roads by 2030 if not sooner. The plan will change the current target of a 37.5% reduction in vehicle CO2 emissions by 2030 to a rumored zero emissions by 2035.

On July 7 a coalition of trade unions, transport industry companies and suppliers including the European Trade Union Confederation and the European Automobile Manufacturers Association, wrote an urgent appeal to EU Green Czar Frans Timmermans. They stated, “…we want to see industrial transformation and innovation in Europe, rather than de-industrialisation and social disruption.” The letter pointed out that the EU has no plans for a so-called “Just Transition” for the EU auto industry including no new skills training for displaced workers: “Currently, there is no such framework for the 16 million workers in our mobility eco-system, and notably Europe’s automotive sector which is a powerhouse of industrial employment.”

This is no minor issue as the transition from internal combustion engine cars and trucks to E-autos will mean a huge unprecedented disruption to the present auto supplier chains. The letter points out that EU-wide, the auto sector has 8.5% of all European manufacturing jobs and in 2019 produced nearly 10% of GDP in Germany alone, along with 40% of the country’s research and development spending. The EU today makes up more than 50% of the world’s exports of auto products. They point out that the transition to zero CO2 vehicles will mean a loss of at least 2.4 million skilled, high-wage jobs across the EU. Entire regions will become depressed. The letter points out that Brussels has yet to even map the consequences for the auto sector of the Green Deal.

In April German EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen indicated July Fit for 55 could extend a draconian carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS) from beyond power plants or industry to cover road transport and buildings in a “polluter pays” add on. The tie to the ETS will automatically force financial penalties on drivers or home owners beyond the present carbon taxes despite a very limited impact of some 3% on emissions. This, on top of tighter auto emission standards, will deal a killer blow to consumers and industry. When the French government imposed such a carbon tax in 2018 it triggered the Yellow Vests national protests and forced Paris to withdraw it.

Steel

The drastic EU plan contains new provisions that will mean drastic change for the energy-intensive EU steel and cement industries. Steel is the second biggest industry in the world after oil and gas. Currently the EU is the second largest producer of steel in the world after China. Its output is over 177 million tons of steel a year, or 11% of global output. But the Timmermans plan will introduce new measures that ostensibly penalize steel imports from “dirty” producers, but that in fact will make EU steel less competitive globally. Leaks of the EU plan indicate that they plan to eliminate current free ETS pollution permits for energy-intensive industries such as steel or cement. That will deal a devastating blow to both essential industries. They call it the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. As the Center for European Policy Network points out, EU steel exporters will “not receive any compensation for the discontinuation of the free allocation. As a result, they suffer considerable competitive disadvantages compared to their competitors from third countries.“

Coal Carbon Taxes

The EU’s new 55% climate target for 2030 implies a near-complete coal phase-out by 2030 in the whole EU. This will hit Germany, far the largest EU coal power user. The German government, already with the world’s most expensive electric power owing to the Merkel Energiewende transition to unreliable solar and wind that will see the last nuclear power plant closed in 2022, has just recently dropped its plan to phase out coal by 2038. It will phase out far earlier, but for obvious political reasons in an election year, has not revealed its new “zero coal” date.

The absurdity of believing the EU, especially Germany, will be able to achieve zero coal by 2030, replacing not even with natural gas, but rather unreliable solar and wind, is already clear. On January 1, 2021 as part of the Government mandate on coal power reduction, 11 coal-fired power plants with a total capacity of 4.7 GW were shut down. That phase out lasted eight days as several of the coal power plants had to be reconnected to the grid to avoid blackouts due to a prolonged low-wind period. The shut coal plants were ordered to operate on reserve status at the cost of the consumers. The Berlin government commission that drafted the coal phase-out plan included no power industry representatives nor any power grid experts.

With the new element of the destructive EU Commission Fit for 55 plan, the heart of European industry, Germany, is pre-programmed not only for severe industrial unemployment in steel, cement and auto sectors. It is also pre-programmed for power blackouts such as that that devastated Texas in early 2021 when wind mills froze. In 2022 in Germany, as noted, the last nuclear plant along with other coal power will be closed, removing 3% of the power. An added 6,000 wind turbines also will exit due to age, for a total cut of 7%. Yet planned addition of new wind and solar doesn’t come close to replace that, so that by 2022 Germany could have a shortfall of between 10% and 15% in capacity on the generation side.

WEF Great Reset and EU Green Deal

The hard thing for ordinary sane citizens to grasp with this EU Fit for 55 and the Davos Great Reset or the related UN Agenda 2030 globally, is that it is all a deliberate technocratic plan for dis-integration of the economy, using the fraudulent excuse of an unproven global warming danger that claims– based on dodgy computer models that ignore influence of our sun on Earth climate cycles– that we will see catastrophe by 2030 if the world does not slash harmless and life-essential CO2 emissions.

The ever-active Davos World Economic Forum as part of its Great Reset is also playing a significant role in shaping the EU Commission’s Europe Green Deal. In January 2020, the World Economic Forum at its Annual Meeting in Davos brought together leaders from industry and business with Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans to explore how to catalyze the European Green Deal. The July 14 unveiling by Brussels is the result. The WEF supports the CEO Action Group for the European Green Deal to get major corporations behind the Brussels dystopian plan

*

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

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. 

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

Featured image is from NEO


seeds_2.jpg

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Who still doubts that we have been at war for over a year? In the Third World War of a super-rich and power-hungry “elite” against us citizens. But war, according to the notorious Prussian Major General and military strategist Carl von Clausewitz, is “the realm of uncertainty”. Thus, every war holds an opportunity for the citizen. He only has to seize it. George Orwell believed:

“The moral to be drawn from this nightmare is a simple one: Don’t let it happen! It depends on you!”(1)

Fog of War – Fog of War

The term “fog of war” refers to the fact that information relevant to war always has a certain uncertainty and incompleteness due to various circumstances (2). It first appeared in Carl von Clausewitz’s (1780 to 1831) work. In his main work “On War”, he describes the strategic necessity of making decisions under time pressure with incomplete information to the best of one’s knowledge and conscience:

“War is the field of uncertainty; three-fourths of those things on which action in war is built lie in the mist of a more or less great uncertainty. Here, then, it is first where a fine, penetrating mind is called upon to feel out the truth with the tact of its judgment.” (3)

His theories on strategy, tactics and philosophy had a great influence on the development of warfare in all Western countries and are still taught at military academies today. They are also applied in the field of business management as well as in marketing.

“The Fog of War” was also an award-winning US documentary film released in 2003 with the subtitle “Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara”. A German summary of the film in “google.com” states:

“Roughly 160 million people were killed in the 20th century. It was one of the most violent in human history. The film suggests that we take a closer look at this tragic century as a clue to how we can avoid a repeat in the 21st century. (…).” (4)

Come on, let’s get to work! Even in the face of the satanic master plan of eugenics of the power-hungry “elite” as well as the psychological warfare against civil society, together we can prevent a repetition or even a worsening of violent history in our century: If we don’t let it happen!

Psychological Operations (PSYOP)

It is a bitter reality that in the current war against us citizens, all kinds of methods and measures are used to influence our behaviour and attitudes: morale is disturbed and diminished, the will is broken and perception is distorted. In NATO parlance, the term “Psychological Operations” (PSYOP) has become established as a parallel discipline to MEDIAOPS (Media Operations), which in civilian parlance means “public relations” / media work. PSYOPS and MEDIAOPS are sub-disciplines of INFOOPS (Informational Operations) (5).

As an example of the systematic destruction of the human psyche, the techniques of coercion, compulsion and perceptual programming, which the psychologist Dr. Albert Biedermann summarised in 1956 under the title “Bidermann’s Diagram of Coercion”, are presented below. These techniques are designed to destroy people’s thinking, will and self-respect. Military personnel have used them to force (false) confessions from prisoners of war. Under the term “mind control” they have been practised on individuals and groups for many years (6).

Since one can quickly find what one is looking for on the internet, the seven measures for breaking the will and producing obedience are only briefly listed by Dr. Biedermann. But already this will make clear to many readers the obvious parallels to the illegitimate “emergency measures” of today’s politics:

  1. Isolation

Isolation means depriving a person of all social support from fellow human beings in order to break through the ability to resist. See “social distancing”.

  1. Monopolisation of perception

Only one opinion, the mainstream opinion, is accepted and tolerated and any opinion that differs from it is defamed or access to it is blocked.

  1. Induced exhaustion and debilitation

Exhaustion weakens mental and physical resilience. By stoking fears and creating circumstances of constant insecurity, one is deprived of any sense of security and stability.

  1. Threats of negative consequences, punishments and violence for non-compliance with rules.

Threats from outside create fear and despair. The individual no longer has any decision-making power.

  1. Occasional concessions

For example, one promise is: If enough people got vaccinated, then maybe we can go back to the old normal.

  1. Humiliation and degradation

By threatening harsh punishments for nonsensical actions and defaming those who do not play by the rules, people increasingly lose the courage to resist.

  1. Making the victim dependent on the perpetrator

The more the economy and material livelihoods are destroyed, the more the citizens become dependent on the benefits of the state. The more dependent the victim is on the perpetrator, the more obedient he or she becomes.

George Orwell: “Don’t let it happen! It depends on you!”

An English cartoon from the silent film era around the 1920s finally made me breathe a sigh of relief: “An Early Warning Cartoon ‘How To Take Over The World'”. (7). Already 100 years ago, the modern rulers were shown what infamous methods are suitable for taking over the world and its people.

This must convince the last doubter that the political “emergency measures” used today are old-fashioned means of discipline and domination that the enlightened citizen can subvert with a little courage. The individual steps were accompanied by a graphic and appropriate music:

  1. use flu as a weapon
  2. flood the newspaper and radio with death
  3. close shops and church
  4. use law enforcers to suppress dissent
  5. display the sick and the dead
  6. inject a vaccine to sterilise the work-shy and put the old to sleep
  7. the people who own the banks now own the hospitals.
  8. this is their plan to own YOU

After the cartoon, a short interview excerpt by George Orwell (1903 to 1950) was inserted. In it, he probably predicts a bleak future towards the end of his life:

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot incessantly kicking a human face. The moral to be drawn from this nightmare is a simple one: don’t let it happen! It depends on you! (8)

Seize the opportunity!

There is not much to add to George Orwell’s exhortation.

If we return to the words of the military strategist Carl von Clausewitz quoted at the beginning of this article, it must be stated that in the fog of war it is not only the military that must first call upon its fine, penetrating intellect in order to find out the truth with the tact of its judgement. It is also the task of every citizen to find out the truth so that the nightmare may come to an end.

To be sure, a free thinker never claims that he has the truth. For the free mind, there is an unlimited number of truths to be discovered and subject to change. For him, truth is what is not a dogmatic shackle and does not divide people into believers and non-believers or those of other faiths, but rather benefits the coexistence of people and promotes their understanding.

However, what is happening in our society at the moment goes completely against human nature, harms coexistence and destroys harmony. That is why citizens will wake up even before their human consciousness is paralysed by remote control. Dictatorships have never survived over time because those in power underestimated the unconditional will to live and the resilience of the citizens.

*

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

Dr Rudolf Hänsel is a graduate psychologist and educationalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

(1) Warnte ein altes Cartoon uns vor?

(2) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebel_des_Krieges

(3) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebel_des_Krieges

(4) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War

(5) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologische_Kriegsführung

(6) https://www.inspiriert-sein.de/systematische-zerstoerung-menschlichen-psyche-biedermanns-diagramm-des-zwangs

(7) Warnte ein altes Cartoon uns vor?

(8) Warnte ein altes Cartoon uns vor?

Dear readers,

Running an independent counter-current news media in 2021 at the height of an unfolding World crisis is no easy feat.

Independent media and freedom of expression are threatened. The ultimate goal is the silencing of any voice of opposition to the mainstream narrative.

We find ourselves dedicating mounting time and resources to navigating our way through a maze of biased search engine algorithms. The message is nonetheless getting out. Despite online censorship, yesterday, we ended up with more than 100,000 page views, reaching people all over the World.

To confront the “Big Lie” and ensure “Truth in Media”, Global Research needs your support!

On GlobalResearch.ca, the viewpoints put forth are intent upon building dialogue and understanding.

We publish articles by a wide variety of specialists dotted all over the globe including journalists and scholars, political analysts and historians, medical doctors and scientists, ex-military and intelligence personnel, to name but a few.

Our commitment is to make our articles and videos available to the broadest possible readership, on a non-commercial basis, without the need for a login for paid subscribers. You can help us in this project by making a financial contribution below, or by sharing our articles far and wide via social media, e-mail lists, blog sites, etc.

To reverse the tide we need your help. We thank you for your support!

If you value Global Research, please consider becoming a member or making a donation by clicking below.

To send your donation by mail, kindly send your cheque or international money order, in US$, Can$ or Euro, made out to CRG, to our postal address: click here for details.

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

Letter to Physicians: Four New Scientific Discoveries Regarding the Safety and Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccines

By Doctors for COVID Ethics, July 13, 2021

Rapid and efficient memory-type immune responses occur reliably in virtually all unvaccinated individuals who are exposed to SARS-CoV-2. The effectiveness of further boosting the immune response through vaccination is therefore highly doubtful. Vaccination may instead aggravate disease through antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).

Post-COVID Vaccine Deaths Are Not Being Autopsied – Why?

By Ethan Huff, July 13, 2021

Dr. Jane Orient, M.D., the executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), wants to know why the medical system is refusing to perform autopsies on the bodies of people who died not long after getting “vaccinated” for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19).

Graphene Sensors Read Low-frequency Neural Waves Associated with Distinct Brain States

By Tom Foley, July 13, 2021

Graphene Flagship scientists have developed a sensor based on CVD graphene that detects brain signals in a wide frequency band, from extremely low frequencies to high frequency oscillations. The sensor is biocompatible and could be used to measure and predict brain states. Furthermore, the graphene sensors could be used in chronic implants due to their high stability in the brain.

President Joe Biden Announces Door to Door Pursuit to Inoculate Millions of Americans Within Their Own Homes

By Renee Parsons, July 13, 2021

As if the conflict between American parents, their public school districts and CDC requirements were not already enough to create a firestorm of unpredictable proportions, pretend President Joe Biden has dramatically increased the stakes by announcing an imminent door to door pursuit to inoculate millions of Americans within their own home.

The War Economy Must End. Where Do These Aegis Naval Destroyers Go?

By Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, July 13, 2021

Aegis also carry SM-3 interceptor missiles whose job is to take out any retaliatory strikes after the US launches a first-strike attack on China or Russia. (So-called ‘missile defense’.) SM-3 missiles are not nuclear – they are called ‘kinetic’ which means they crash into the other missiles and they both explode.

FDA to Add Warning to J&J Vaccine of ‘Serious but Rare’ Autoimmune Disorder

By Megan Redshaw, July 13, 2021

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will announce a new warning on Johnson & Johnson’s COVID vaccine saying the shot is linked to Guillain–Barré syndrome. In April, the agency added a warning about blood clotting disorders to the J&J shot.

The Miami-Haiti Connection: Another Mercenary, Another Day

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, July 13, 2021

This weekend we found out that the Colombian men arrested in connection with the assassination of Haitian president Jovenel Moïse may have been hired by a Florida private security company with Venezuelan connections. Furthermore, they might have been deployed on behalf of an Haitian ex-pat in Miami who wanted to replace Moïse as president.

NATO Chief Meets with Egyptian, Israeli Foreign Ministers at Alliance Headquarters

By Rick Rozoff, July 13, 2021

On June 12 NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg met with Israeli Foreign Minister and Alternate Prime Minister Yair Lapid at the military bloc’s headquarters in Brussels. Stoltenberg praised Israel as “one of NATO’s most engaged and capable partners,” one of over twenty years’ standing, and a member of the bloc’s Mediterranean Dialogue military partnership.

Video: Electromagnetic Properties of the Vaccine: The Magnet Challenge. We Want Answers

By Not On The Beeb, July 13, 2021

We want answers! 100s of people prove the magnet challenge in this compilation. This collection of videos is a glimpse of the 1000s worldwide discovering they have been magnetic and we demand answers. Is there a substance in the vaccine vial which triggers this phenomenon?

Why Human Rights in China and Tigray, but Not in Haiti, Palestine or Colombia?

By Black Alliance for Peace, July 13, 2021

U.S. President Joe Biden and the Democrats have been playing the “Black Lives Matter” tune on their fiddle. Biden even raised the issue of Black Lives Matter during his presidential campaign. But, just days after Biden was sworn into office, his administration lent support for the Haitian dictator, Jovenel Moïse, who stayed in office past his term to the dismay of the Haitian people, who flooded the streets in protest.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Four New Scientific Discoveries Regarding the Safety and Efficacy of COVID-19 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.

***

“Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent.”—Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis

A federal COVID-19 vaccination strike force may soon be knocking on your door, especially if you live in a community with low vaccination rates. Will you let them in?

More to the point, are you required to open the door?

The Biden Administration has announced that it plans to send federal “surge response teams” on a “targeted community door-to-door outreach“ to communities with low vaccination rates in order to promote the safety and accessibility of the COVID-19 vaccines.

That’s all fine and good as far as government propaganda goes, but nothing is ever as simple or as straightforward as the government claims, especially not when armed, roving bands of militarized agents deployed by the Nanny State show up at your door with an agenda that is at odds with what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis referred to as the constitutional “right to be let alone.”

Any attempt by the government to encroach upon the citizenry’s privacy rights or establish a system by which the populace can be targeted, tracked and singled out must be met with extreme caution. These door-to-door “visits” by COVID-19 surge response teams certainly qualify as a government program whose purpose, while seemingly benign, raises significant constitutional concerns.

First, there is the visit itself.

While government agents can approach, speak to and even question citizens without violating the Fourth Amendment, Americans have a right not to answer questions or even speak with a government agent.

Courts have upheld these “knock and talk” visits as lawful, reasoning that even though the curtilage of the home is protected by the Fourth Amendment, there is an implied license to approach a residence, knock on the door/ring the bell, and seek to contact occupants. However, the encounter is wholly voluntary and a person is under no obligation to speak with a government agent in this situation.

Indeed, you don’t even need to answer or open the door in response to knocking/ringing by a government agent, and if you do answer the knock, you can stop speaking at any time. You also have the right to demand that government agents leave the property once the purpose of the visit is established. Government officials would not be enforcing any law or warrant in this context, and so they don’t have the authority of law to remain on the property after a homeowner or resident specifically revokes the implied license to come onto the property.

When the government’s actions go beyond merely approaching the door and knocking, it risks violating the Fourth Amendment, which requires a warrant and probable cause of possible wrongdoing in order to search one’s property. A government agent would violate the Fourth Amendment if he snooped around the premises, peering into window and going to other areas in search of residents.

It should be pointed out that some judges (including Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch) believe that placing “No Trespassing” signs or taking other steps to impede access to the door is sufficient to negate any implied permission for government agents or others to approach your home, but this view does not have general acceptance.

While in theory one can refuse to speak with police or other government officials during a “knock and talk” encounter, as the courts have asserted as a justification for dismissing complaints about this police investigative tactic, the reality is far different. Indeed, it is unreasonable to suggest that individuals caught unaware by these tactics will not feel pressured in the heat of the moment to comply with a request to speak with government agents who display official credentials and are often heavily armed, let alone allow them to search one’s property. Even when such consent is denied, police have been known to simply handcuff the homeowner and conduct a search over his objections.

Second, there is the danger inherent in these knock-and-talk encounters.

Although courts have embraced the fiction that “knock and talks” are “voluntary” encounters that are no different from other door-to-door canvassing, these constitutionally dubious tactics are highly intimidating confrontations meant to pressure individuals into allowing police access to one’s home, which then paves the way for a warrantless search of one’s home and property.

The act of going to homes and taking steps to speak with occupants is akin to the “knock and talk” tactic used by police, which can be fraught with danger for homeowners and government agents alike. Indeed, “knock-and-talk” policing has become a thinly veiled, warrantless exercise by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into “talking” with heavily armed police who “knock” on their doors in the middle of the night.

“Knock-and-shoot” policing might be more accurate, however.

“Knock and talks” not only constitute severe violations of the privacy and security of homeowners, but the combination of aggression and surprise employed by police is also a recipe for a violent confrontation that rarely ends well for those on the receiving end of these tactics.

For example, although 26-year-old Andrew Scott had committed no crime and never fired a single bullet or threatened police, he was gunned down by police who knocked aggressively on the wrong door at 1:30 am, failed to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shot and killed Scott when he answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense. The police were investigating a speeding incident by engaging in a middle-of-the-night “knock and talk” in Scott’s apartment complex.

Carl Dykes was shot in the face by a county deputy who pounded on Dykes’ door in the middle of the night without identifying himself. Because of reports that inmates had escaped from a local jail, Dykes brought a shotgun with him when he answered the door.

As these and other incidents make clear, while Americans have a constitutional right to question the legality of a police action or resist an unlawful police order, doing so can often get one arrested, shot or killed.

Third, there is the question of how the government plans to use the information it obtains during these knock-and-talk visits.

Because the stated purpose of the program is to promote vaccination, homeowners and others who reside at the residence will certainly be asked if they are vaccinated. Again, you have a right not to answer this or any other question. Indeed, an argument could be made that even asking this question is improper if the purpose of the program is merely to ensure that Americans “have the information they need on how both safe and accessible the vaccine is.”

Under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, an agency should only collect and maintain information about an individual as is “relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency.” In this situation, the government agent could accomplish the purpose of assuring persons have information about the vaccine simply by providing that information (either in writing or orally) and would not need to know the vaccination status of the residents. To the extent the agents do request, collect and store information about residents’ vaccination status, this could be a Privacy Act violation.

Of course, there is always the danger that this program could be used for other, more nefarious, purposes not related to vaccination encouragement. As with knock-and-talk policing, government agents might misuse their appearance of authority to gain entrance to a residence and obtain other information about it and those who live there. Once the door is opened by a resident, anything the agents can see from their vantage point can be reported to law enforcement authorities.

Moreover, while presumably the targeting will be of areas with demonstrated low vaccination rates, there is no guarantee that this program would not be used as cover for conducting surveillance on areas deemed to be “high crime” areas as a way of obtaining intelligence for law enforcement purposes.

We’ve been down this road before, with the government sending its spies to gather intel on American citizens by questioning them directly, or by asking their neighbors to snitch on them.

Remember the egregiously invasive and intrusive American Community Survey?

Unlike the traditional census, which collects data every ten years, the American Community Survey (ACS) is sent to about 3 million homes per year at a reported cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Moreover, while the traditional census is limited to ascertaining the number of persons living in each dwelling, their ages and ethnicities, the ownership of the dwelling and telephone numbers, the ACS is much more intrusive, asking questions relating to respondents’ bathing habits, home utility costs, fertility, marital history, work commute, mortgage, and health insurance, among other highly personal and private matters.

Individuals who receive the ACS must complete it or be subject to monetary penalties. Although no reports have surfaced of individuals actually being penalized for refusing to answer the survey, the potential fines that can be levied for refusing to participate in the ACS are staggering. For every question not answered, there is a $100 fine. And for every intentionally false response to a question, the fine is $500. Therefore, if a person representing a two-person household refused to fill out any questions or simply answered nonsensically, the total fines could range from upwards of $10,000 and $50,000 for noncompliance.

At 28 pages (with an additional 16-page instruction packet), the ACS contains some of the most detailed and intrusive questions ever put forth in a census questionnaire. These concern matters that the government simply has no business knowing, including questions relating to respondents’ bathing habits, home utility costs, fertility, marital history, work commute, mortgage, and health insurance, among others. For instance, the ACS asks how many persons live in your home, along with their names and detailed information about them such as their relationship to you, marital status, race and their physical, mental and emotional problems, etc. The survey also asks how many bedrooms and bathrooms you have in your house, along with the fuel used to heat your home, the cost of electricity, what type of mortgage you have and monthly mortgage payments, property taxes and so on.

However, that’s not all.

The survey also demands to know how many days you were sick last year, how many automobiles you own and the number of miles driven, whether you have trouble getting up the stairs, and what time you leave for work every morning, along with highly detailed inquiries about your financial affairs. And the survey demands that you violate the privacy of others by supplying the names and addresses of your friends, relatives and employer. The questionnaire also demands that you give other information on the people in your home, such as their educational levels, how many years of school were completed, what languages they speak and when they last worked at a job, among other things.

While some of the ACS’ questions may seem fairly routine, the real danger is in not knowing why the information is needed, how it will be used by the government or with whom it will be shared.

Finally, you have the right to say “no.”

Whether police are knocking on your door at 2 am or 2:30 pm, as long as you’re being “asked” to talk to a police officer who is armed to the teeth and inclined to kill at the least provocation, you don’t really have much room to resist, not if you value your life.

Mind you, these knock-and-talk searches are little more than police fishing expeditions carried out without a warrant.

The goal is intimidation and coercion.

Unfortunately, with police departments increasingly shifting towards pre-crime policing and relying on dubious threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports aimed at snaring potential enemies of the state, we’re going to see more of these warrantless knock-and-talk police tactics by which police attempt to circumvent the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement and prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Here’s the bottom line.

These agents are coming to your home with one purpose in mind: to collect information on you.

It’s a form of intimidation, of course. You shouldn’t answer any questions you’re uncomfortable answering about your vaccine history or anything else. The more information you give them, the more it can be used against you. Just ask them politely but firmly to leave.

In this case, as in so many interactions with government agents, the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments (and your cell phone recording the encounter) are your best protection.

Under the First Amendment, you don’t have to speak (to government officials or anyone else). The Fourth Amendment protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. And under the Fifth Amendment, you have a right to remain silent and not say anything which might be used against you.

You can also post a “No Trespassing” sign on your property to firmly announce that you are exercising your right to be left alone. If you see government officials wandering around your property and peering through windows, in my opinion, you have a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Government officials can ring the doorbell, but once you put them on notice that it’s time for them to leave, they can’t stay on your property.

It’s important to be as clear as possible and inform them that you will call the police if they don’t leave. You may also wish to record your encounter with the government agent. If they still don’t leave, immediately call the local police and report a trespasser on your property.

Remember, you have rights.

The government didn’t want us to know about—let alone assert—those rights during this whole COVID-19 business.

After all, for years now, the powers-that-be—those politicians and bureaucrats who think like tyrants and act like petty dictators regardless of what party they belong to—have attempted to brainwash us into believing that we have no right to think for ourselves, make decisions about our health, protect our homes and families and businesses, act in our best interests, demand accountability and transparency from government, or generally operate as if we are in control of our own lives.

But we have every right, and you know why?

Because as the Declaration of Independence states, we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights—to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness—that no government can take away from us.

Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped the government from constantly trying to usurp our freedoms at every turn. Indeed, the nature of government is such that it invariably oversteps its limits, abuses its authority, and flexes its totalitarian muscles.

Take this COVID-19 crisis, for example.

What started out as an apparent effort to prevent a novel coronavirus from sickening the nation (and the world) has become yet another means by which world governments (including our own) can expand their powers, abuse their authority, and further oppress their constituents.

The government has made no secret of its plans.

Just follow the money trail, and you’ll get a sense of what’s in store: more militarized police, more SWAT team raids, more surveillance, more lockdowns, more strong-armed tactics aimed at suppressing dissent and forcing us to comply with the government’s dictates.

It’s chilling to think about, but it’s not surprising.

In many ways, this COVID-19 state of emergency has invested government officials (and those who view their lives as more valuable than ours) with a sanctimonious, self-righteous, arrogant, Big Brother Knows Best approach to top-down governing, and the fall-out can be seen far and wide.

It’s an ugly, self-serving mindset that views the needs, lives and rights of “we the people” as insignificant when compared to those in power.

That’s how someone who should know better such as Alan Dershowitz, a former Harvard law professor, can suggest that a free people—born in freedom, endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, and living in a country birthed out of a revolutionary struggle for individual liberty—have no rights to economic freedom, to bodily integrity, or to refuse to comply with a government order with which they disagree.

According to Dershowitz, who has become little more than a legal apologist for the power elite, “You have no right not to be vaccinated, you have no right not to wear a mask, you have no right to open up your business… And if you refuse to be vaccinated, the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm.”

Dershowitz is wrong: as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, while the courts may increasingly defer to the government’s brand of Nanny State authoritarianism, we still have rights.

The government may try to abridge those rights, it may refuse to recognize them, it may even attempt to declare martial law and nullify them, but it cannot litigate, legislate or forcefully eradicate them out of existence.

*

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 Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Protests erupted in various Cuban cities the weekend of July 11 over dire economic conditions and a surge in Covid-19 cases. They are the biggest protests to hit Cuba in three decades, and they may well continue in the coming weeks. They come on the heels of artists’ protests in Havana at the end of 2020, and have extended to many parts of the island. But their scale has been exaggerated by the Western press and by Cuban Americans who have been predicting, for 60 years, the imminent fall of the Cuban government.

Media outlets like The New York Times wrote about “hundreds of Cubans” while Reuters described them as thousands. In either case, Cuba has a population of 11 million people. The protests pale in comparison, both in terms of turnout and in state repression, to mass mobilizations that have rocked Colombia, Haiti, Chile, Ecuador and other Latin American countries over the past few years—or even Portland, Oregon, or Ferguson, Missouri. Moreover, U.S. media have paid little attention to the counter protesters, who have gone out into the streets to express their support for the government and Cuban Revolution. This includes Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel, who marched in the streets of Havana after denouncing the protests as an attempt to “fracture the unity of the people.”

The protests should also be understood in the context of a brutal economic war waged by the United States against the island nation for more than 60 years. This was laid out clearly by the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in 1960, when he explicitly called for “denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.” This strategy has failed in its goal of regime change for decades, and it is unlikely to be successful now.

There is no denying that Cubans are facing very severe conditions at the moment. The country has been hit by blackouts, as well as shortages of medicine, food and other basic necessities. The food shortages haven’t led to hunger or famine, but people have to wait in long lines to obtain goods—often at inflated prices—and their diet is extremely limited.

In terms of health, even basic medicines and equipment like syringes are difficult to acquire. Additionally, there has been an increase in Covid-19 cases, particularly in the city of Matanzas. However, this surge—as onerous as it is on the people of Matanzas—should also be kept in perspective. Cuba, a nation of roughly 11 million people, has had fewer than 240,000 cases of Covid-19 and 1,537 deaths. By comparison, Ohio, which has a similarly sized population, has had 1.1 million cases and more than 20,000 deaths. Despite the shortages, Cuban health policies have protected the population from the worst of the pandemic. With 139 deaths from Covid-19 per million population, Cuba places among the best performers in the hemisphere, miles ahead of the 1,871 deaths per million in the United States. Furthermore, Cuba has already proven that two of the five Covid-19 vaccines that it is developing are successful in preventing coronavirus infections and has vaccinated over two million people with their locally produced vaccines.

The shortages are being used by proponents of regime change to accuse the Cuban government of failing its citizens. Even the Biden White House called on Cuba’s authorities to “hear their people and serve their needs at this vital moment rather than enriching themselves.” It is unclear who Biden thinks has been “enriching themselves” in Cuba, but any criticism of Cuba that does not include a thorough analysis of the internationally condemned U.S. blockade will miss the most important factor in why Cubans are currently undergoing such hardships.

While the blockade has been in place for over six decades, it was tightened in significant ways under the Trump administration’s policy of “maximum pressure.” This strategy targeted Cuba’s tourism, energy and other key economic sectors. It even restricted the amounts of money Cuban Americans can send home and closed the Cuban branches of Western Union, the main vehicle for sending remittances. These policies have had a disastrous impact on the Cuban economy, especially when the Covid-induced shutdown of the tourist industry has deprived the island of billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. For its part, the Biden administration has been “reviewing” its Cuba policy for six months, all the while continuing Trump’s strategy of economic warfare that is designed precisely to create the shortages Cubans are now experiencing.

U.S. economic warfare on Cuba has always been coupled with other strategies to overthrow the Cuban government. These include assassination attempts, support for terrorists (like Luis Posada Carriles, who blew up a Cuban airliner in 1976, killing 73 people), an attempted invasion and millions of dollars spent on “soft” power. For example, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) spends about $20 million a year funding dissident groups in Cuba. The U.S.-funded Office of Cuba Broadcasting, which runs the opposition networks Radio and TV Martí, has over 100 employees and an annual budget of about $28 million, broadcasting an endless stream of anti-government propaganda.

This propaganda extends to social media, where the hashtag #SOSCuba began trending in Florida days before the protests began. This suggests that there was a coordinated campaign to target the Cuban government and blame it for the hardships the Cuban people are facing. It is also reminiscent of a scandal that broke in 2020, when CLS Strategies, a company with State Department ties, was found to have flooded social networks with harmful fake news about leftist governments in Latin America.

This social media campaign appears to be working, but not in Cuba. Instead, it has riled up the anti-Cuba lobby and its supporters in Florida. Miami Mayor Francis Suarez has gone so far as to call for U.S. intervention. The truth is that what happens in Florida will likely have more of an impact on the Cuban people than what happens in Cuba itself.

While the protests are very unlikely to topple the Cuban government, they could have the potential to disrupt important progress being made to pressure the Biden administration into lifting the Trump-era sanctions and re-engaging with Cuba, just as the Obama administration did. For example, in March, 80 members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to President Biden urging him to end restrictions on travel and remittances without delay. Right now, a group of Cuban Americans, led by high school teacher and war veteran Carlos Lazo, is walking from Miami to Washington, D.C., to call for an end to the embargo. And as part of this anti-blockade pressure, thousands of Americans have donated about $500,000 to buy syringes for Cuba’s Covid-19 vaccinations.

This grassroots and political pressure might be derailed by a right-wing agenda that will seek to further punish Cubans in the name of saving them. It would not be surprising to see President Biden cave to the right and maintain the cruel sanctions. Judging by the White House statement, President Biden is putting crass political calculations that deal with domestic politics ahead of the well-being of 11 million Cubans.

But by continuing the sanctions, Biden may well find himself dealing with a Cuban migration crisis. Over the past few months, the U.S. Coast Guard has reported an increase in the number of rafts sailing from Cuba to Florida. Nearly 500 would-be migrants have been returned to Cuba by U.S. authorities in 2021, compared to 49 people last year. As long as the Cuban economy continues to be battered by U.S. sanctions, more Cubans will attempt the treacherous overseas journey. This has the potential to become a crisis that will damage the Biden administration, given its recent focus on deterring migration.

With the stroke of a pen, Biden could lift all of the coercive measures that Trump put in place. This would save Cuban lives, and it could begin to reset Biden’s foreign policy on the more diplomatic path that Obama finally started to embrace in his second term, but which Biden has so far rejected toward Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, China and other self-inflicted problem areas in U.S. foreign policy.

*

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.

Medea Benjamin, cofounder of CODEPINK, is the author of several books on Cuba, including No Free Lunch: Food and Revolution in Cuba Today.

Leonardo Flores is a Latin American policy analyst and campaigner with CODEPINK.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China Opens the SCO Pathway to Kabul, India Should Go Along

The War Economy Must End. Where Do These Aegis Naval Destroyers Go?

July 13th, 2021 by Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Another great banner made by ARRT! (Artist Rapid Response Team) here in Maine.

ARRT! is led by long-revered artist/activist Natasha Mayers who has been a regular at the protests at Bath Iron Works (BIW) where naval Aegis destroyers are built.

The banner was conceived with these questions in mind: Where do these destroyers go when they leave Bath? How do they impact the rest of the world politically and environmentally?

 

 

BIW Aegis destroyers do not actually carry nuclear weapons. They carry cruise missiles that could be outfitted with nuclear warheads. They are primarily first-strike attack weapons.

Aegis also carry SM-3 interceptor missiles whose job is to take out any retaliatory strikes after the US launches a first-strike attack on China or Russia. (So-called ‘missile defense’.) SM-3 missiles are not nuclear – they are called ‘kinetic’ which means they crash into the other missiles and they both explode.

In Maine most people just think about BIW as a jobs engine but the impact of these warships is far more than just jobs. If we were really concerned about creating jobs we’d be building commuter rail systems at BIW as well as tidal power systems to help us deal with climate crisis.

The war economy must end

Since WW II the US economy has been running on endless war.

We are excited about taking this new banner out to BIW for one of our upcoming bi-monthly vigils so the sailors and shipbuilders can gaze upon it. We want them to think about the political dimension of their ‘mission’ and also the environmental impacts of these warships.

There will be a ‘christening’ ceremony held at the shipyard in the coming weeks as they prepare to launch one of the six destroyers they are currently working on. Our current small vigils are warm-up acts for the bigger public rally. We’ll let you know when a date is set for the destroyer ‘christening’.

We all pay for this

So how do we get the public to step up (even with knees shaking) and answer this fundamental question – Do you really support this?

Empire is so over.

Please….help speak out against the madness.

Our only hope for survival is to turn America away from complicity with corruption, endless war, and climate crisis.

*

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.

***

As if the conflict between American parents, their public school districts and CDC requirements were not already enough to create a firestorm of unpredictable proportions, pretend President Joe Biden has dramatically increased the stakes by announcing an imminent door to door pursuit to inoculate millions of Americans within their own home.  The prospect of a simultaneous national at-your-front-door mandatory vaccination program represents a massive Fourth Amendment assault that threatens the future of our Constitutional republic.  As appears to have been the case since Covid was first identified, politics continues to guide public health decisions rather than the science.

The immunization effort includes the utilization of a spike protein bioweapon under the guise of what is more commonly referred to as a Covid 19 vaccination which is still classified by the FDA as an untested Emergency Use Authorization in order to facilitate public usage.

As if Biden’s announcement was not enough to cause great clanging alarm bells, WH press secretary Jan Psaki removed any doubt as to the government’s true agenda. Her follow up to Biden’s announcement included reference to the creation of ‘strike forces’ which removed any benign appearance from what may be shaping up to be the implementation of a nation-wide militarized deployment.

“Dr. Fauci has addressed this a number of times and has conveyed that ‘herd immunity’ is kind of an outdated term. So we had set a goal of reaching 70% of adults by July 4th and we reached that goal of adults 27 and older by that date.  We’ll continue to press to reach it and we will in the next couple of weeks for adults over the age of 18.  Our work doesn’t stop there and we are going to continue to press to get 12-18 year olds vaccinated…to continue to work with communities where there’s lower vaccination rates.  That’s one of the reasons we initiated these strike forces to go into communities and work with them to determine what they need; to take a localized specific approach that works with elected officials and communities.” 

With only 47.9% of Americans fully vaccinated against Covid (approximately 157.9 million), the government failed to meet Dr. Fauci’s 70% target of vaccinated Americans – which necessitated the vaccination of children.  Biden provided no other details on exactly how the deed would be accomplished other than to suggest his ‘outreach team,’ later referred to as “surge response teams,” will consist of CDC officials, FEMA and other health related agencies as they initially focus on ‘targeted communities’ in 1000 American counties which had achieved only a 30% vaccination rate.  As part of the HHS Department, a Community Corps has already been dispatched to provide Covid information to unvaccinated residents.

Meanwhile, in a recent CNN interview, US Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra threw kindling on a smoldering fire when he told CNN that it is ‘absolutely the government’s business to know who has been vaccinated.”  Becerra went on to condescend to Americans who pay the bills and who have suffered the consequences of the Federal government’s surrender to Fauci and Big Pharma when he suggested that “Perhaps we should point out that the federal government has had to spend trillions of dollars to try to keep Americans alive during this pandemic, so it is absolutely the government’s business.” Further totally missing the impending crisis, he suggested that “knocking on a door has never been against the law” as Republican governors begin to line up in opposition to a door to door visit from the Federal  government.

Becerra declared that his comments had been “wildly out of context” as he later tweeted that “government has no database tracking who is vaccinated” which is not a factual statement.   Each vaccinatee has received a preliminary id card just as the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has sent out multiple solicitations to Colorado’s unvaccinated residents.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Co) questioned “Door to door to vaccinate Americans this year… door to door to confiscate guns next year?”

Abandoning Herd Immunity

When Dr. Tony Fauci conveniently abandoned the herd immunity concept as no longer a goal and that a vaccination rate of 70% – 85% was required to conquer Covid, he inexplicably continued to ignore natural immunity. Herd immunity occurs when enough people become immune to a contagious disease thereby limiting further spread of the disease. What Fauci ignored is that undercounting or removing the number of Americans who possess natural immunity is considered a scientific error of omission.  While infection disease professionals estimate that 60% of the population needs to have been exposed for herd immunity to be reached, Johns Hopkins has estimated that 80% – 85% of American adults have acquired natural immunity.

Fauci’s view has remained critically unexamined by the old guard medical, political and media establishments as his speculation justified the need to include a mandatory vaccination policy for children.   The failure to acknowledge natural immunity has led to a government policy of indiscriminate vaccinations.

In early March, a California Department of Public Health report said that only 8.7% of the state’s population had ever tested positive for Covid-19 while at least 38.5% of the population had the coronavirus antibodies. Adjusting for cases between now and then, and accounting for the amount of time it takes for the body to make antibodies, it can be estimated that as many as half of Californians have natural immunity today. The same report found that 45% of people in Los Angeles had Covid-19 antibodies.

Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment which reads, in part, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” was originally taken from the British maxim that ‘every man’s house is his castle.’

More than any other amendment, the Fourth is a direct consequence of pre-revolution Colonial America when the British parliament enacted the Quartering Act in 1774 which allowed royal governors, rather than colonial governments, to ‘quarter’ British soldiers.  Colonists were further enraged by having a ‘standing foreign’ army quartered among a civilian population which they saw as a usurpation of American liberty. Upon the eve of what became the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson was tasked with preparing the list of grievances against King George III which became the Declaration of Independence. Those 27 grievances were ultimately culled into the Bill of Rights and adopted into the U.S. Constitution.

As in Katz v. United States (1967), the Supreme Court held that Fourth Amendment protections extend to intrusions on the privacy of individuals as well as their physical locations and that “.. to claim protection of the Amendment depends not upon a property right in the invaded place but upon whether… there was a reasonable expectation of freedom from governmental intrusion.”

While it is true that radical, challenging times like what we are living through today can bring a sense of despair against seemingly insurmountable odds, it is also true that such dire straits can bring out the most courageous, encourage the best from each of us and that such difficult, profound situations require each to rise to their highest, their most authentic potential in the name of truth, justice and integrity.

*

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.

Renee Parsons served on the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and as president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, staff in the Office of the Colorado State Public Defender, an environmental lobbyist for Friends of the Earth and a staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found at [email protected].

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A Bill to stop the UK government selling arms to Israel has been introduced in the Commons by Labour MP Richard Burgon. The East Leeds MP is sponsoring the Israel Arms Trade (Prohibition) Bill. Currently Labour policy does not support the BDS movement, but during the recent conflict between Israel and Gaza, MPs have increasingly called for an arms embargo against Israel.

The move also comes amid growing protests against British companies that are involved with the Israeli manufacture of arms and military equipment such as Elbit Systems and Ferranti Technologies that produce mass intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance systems (C4ISR) including military drones (UAS), as used in the Occupied Palestinian Territories to control a population of more than 3 million civilians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem – part of an illegal settlement program that deliberately violates UN Security Council Resolution 2334 that was passed by Britain and 13 other UNSC member states in December 2016.

Britain’s involvement in helping Israel violates the demands of the UN Security Council, of which we ourselves are a permanent member, brings the entire United Nations and the Security Council into disrepute and ridicule.

Introducing the Bill with a video on Twitter, Mr Burgon said:

“Over the last five years the Conservative Government has approved hundreds of millions of pounds or arms sales to Israel. Those arms are used in the continued persecution of the Palestinian people as we’ve seen recently in Israel’s brutal war on Palestine. That has to stop. This Bill is all about stopping it.”

The Bill would amend the 2008 Export Control Order which includes a list of countries that the UK Government does not trade arms with. It would “prohibit the sale of arms to Israel and the purchase of arms from Israel”.

The Bill states:

“The UK Government must not authorise for sale, provide licences for sale, or otherwise directly or indirectly sell or authorise the sale of, any arms to Israel. “Any arms export licence that includes Israel as a destination for sale from the UK is revoked insofar as it applies to Israel. “No new arms export licence that includes Israel as a destination for sale from the UK may be created.”  

The Bill defines Israel as including “Israeli military, police and border police”. It has been cosponsored by Green MP Caroline Lucas, Plaid Cymru MP Liz Saville Roberts and SNP MP Tommy Sheppard. No date has yet been scheduled for a Second Reading.

Britain’s bilateral arms trade with Israel that violates UNSCR demands for the mass repatriation of all illegal settlers back to Israel, is likely to implicate Britain in being accessory to war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank and/or crimes against humanity. The IDF soldiers continue today to routinely kill hundreds of unarmed men, women and children, every year, who protest at their borders for the return of their lands and homes violently stolen in 1948 by the armed gangs of LEHI and IZL Zionist terrorists who fought against the British and killed and slaughtered the civilian population of Palestine.

Unlike Germany, no reparations were ever offered or made for the extensive loss of life and land, and unlike Germany, Israel continues these crimes even today.

Much of the military equipment used by the IDF being made in Britain and exported with full government approval. The Bill is intended to remedy both this injustice and the shocking stain on British government morality and political judgement.

*

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.

***

A biocompatible implant based on graphene safely measures and predicts brain states.

Graphene Flagship scientists have developed a sensor based on CVD graphene that detects brain signals in a wide frequency band, from extremely low frequencies to high frequency oscillations. The sensor is biocompatible and could be used to measure and predict brain states. Furthermore, the graphene sensors could be used in chronic implants due to their high stability in the brain.

The study was conducted by scientists at Graphene Flagship partners the Catalan Institute of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (ICN2), the Microelectronics Institute of Barcelona (CSIC), CIBER-BBN and ICREA, Spain, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Germany, and the University of Manchester, UK, in collaboration with Graphene Flagship partner Multi Channel Systems GmbH, Germany.

The consortium showed that graphene-based sensors grant access to an elusive low-frequency region of brain activity. Current methods to detect brain waves use metallic electrodes, which are ineffective at measuring very low-frequency activity – known as the ‘infra-slow’ region. Thanks to graphene’s sensitivity, scientists can now easily gather information from this region and paint a better picture of animals’ brain activity. This could form the basis for new types of neurotherapeutic medical technology.

Using a technology developed by ICN2 and the Microelectronics Institute of Barcelona, in the framework of the Graphene Flagship and the BrainCom European projects, Graphene Flagship scientists built an array of transistors that record and transmit activity information when implanted into the brain. The sensor has small channels on the surface: when they make contact with brain tissue, the electrical signals within the brain cause small changes in conductivity. These changes produce a signal and are recorded to create a brain activity ‘fingerprint.’

“With our array of devices, based on CVD graphene, we can record signals from the infra-slow region with very high accuracy,” Jose Garrido, from Graphene Flagship partner ICN2, Spain, explains. “In the brain, there is a correlation between lower and higher frequencies of brain activity, so the lower frequencies tend to dictate what the higher frequencies look like. We demonstrated that, by measuring the infra-slow activity, with frequencies below a tenth of a hertz, we can decode the ‘brain states’ of an animal.” Garrido believes this technology could lead to new treatments for brain disorders like epilepsy, as certain characteristic signal patterns could reveal ‘brain states’ likely to lead to seizures.

To test the device, they implanted it into the brain of a freely behaving rat, monitoring it continuously. The signals were transmitted wirelessly using a miniaturized electronic headstage developed by the industrial partner Multichannel Systems. The scientists found that the signal characteristics measured during different types of brain activity, such as during periods of high activity or during sleep – the so-called ‘brain states’ – correlated very well to the infra-slow signals decoded by the graphene-based implant.

Furthermore, Kostas Kostarelos and colleagues at Graphene Flagship partner the University of Manchester, UK, tested the biocompatibility of the devices. They found no inflammation, other than that expected to occur from the device’s implantation, over the entire 12-week duration of their tests, and the device did not degrade over this period.

“It is very remarkable to see that we can properly identify and correlate the animals’ brain states with the measured infra-slow activity,” Garrido says. Now, the next step will be to explore commercial applications. “We are already collaborating with some companies interested in this technology, and we aim to translate it into a product – and, beyond that, take it into clinics and hospitals,” he concludes.

Serge Picaud, Deputy Leader of the Graphene Flagship’s Biomedical Technologies Work Package, comments: “Novel technologies are always a vector for new discoveries. In this case, graphene sensors have granted us access to the infra-slow brain waves. Recording them in animal models and patients will demonstrate whether we can actually rely on these new measurements for precise diagnostics and treatment options in patients with serious brain diseases like epilepsy.”

Andrea C. Ferrari, Science and Technology Officer of the Graphene Flagship and Chair of its Management panel, adds:

“The Graphene Flagship recognised the potential of graphene and layered materials for biological applications early on. This remarkable work brings us closer to applications in this area, with a novel tool enabled by the unique properties of graphene.”

*

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.

Tom Foley is Science Writer and Communications Coordinator for the Graphene Flagship.

Sources

Garcia-Cortadella, Ramon, et al. “Graphene active sensor arrays for long-term and wireless mapping of wide frequency band epicortical brain activity.” Nature communications 12.1 (2021): 1-17.

Featured image is from Graphene Flagship

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Graphene Sensors Read Low-frequency Neural Waves Associated with Distinct Brain States
  • Tags: ,

Accelera la corsa nucleare

July 13th, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

Nella base di Redzikowo in Polonia sono iniziati i lavori per l’installazione del sistema Aegis Ashore, con una spesa di oltre 180 milioni di dollari. Sarà la seconda base missilistica Usa in Europa, dopo quella di Deveselu in Romania divenuta operativa nel 2015.

La funzione ufficiale di queste basi è proteggere, con lo «scudo» dei missili intercettori SM-3, le forze Usa in Europa e quelle degli alleati europei della Nato dalle «attuali ed emergenti minacce di missili balistici provenienti dall’esterno dell’area Euro-Atlantica».

Alle due installazioni terrestri si aggiungono quattro navi dotate dello stesso sistema Aegis, che, dislocate dalla U.S. Navy nella base spagnola di Rota, incrociano nel Mediterraneo, Mar Nero e Mar Baltico. La US Navy ha circa 120 cacciatorpediniere e incrociatori armati di questo sistema missilistico.

Sia le navi che le installazioni terrestri Aegis sono dotate di lanciatori verticali Mk 41 della Lockheed Martin: tubi verticali (nel corpo della nave o in un bunker sotterraneo) da cui vengono lanciati i missili.

La stessa Lockheed Martin, illustrandone le caratteristiche tecniche, documenta che esso può lanciare missili per tutte le missioni: anti-missile, anti-aereo, anti-nave, anti-sottomarino e di attacco contro obiettivi terrestri. Ogni tubo di lancio è adattabile a qualsiasi missile, tra cui «quelli per l’attacco a lungo raggio», compreso il missile da crociera Tomahawk. Esso può essere armato anche di testata nucleare.

Non si può quindi sapere quali missili vi siano realmente nei lanciatori verticali della base Aegis Ashore in Romania e quali saranno installati in quella in Polonia. Né quali missili vi siano a bordo delle navi che incrociano ai limiti delle acque territoriali russe. Non potendo controllare, Mosca dà per scontato che vi siano anche missili da attacco nucleare.

Stesso scenario in Asia Orientale, dove navi da guerra Aegis della Settima Flotta incrociano nel Mar Cinese Meridionale. Anche i principali alleati Usa nella regione – Giappone, Corea del Sud, Australia – hanno navi dotate del sistema Usa Aegis.

Questo non è l’unico sistema missilistico che gli Usa stanno schierando in Europa e in Asia. Nel suo intervento alla George Washington School of Media and Public Affairs, il generale McConville, capo di stato maggiore dell’Esercito degli Stati uniti, ha dichiarato lo scorso marzo che lo US Army sta preparando una «task force» dotata di «capacità di fuoco di precisione a lungo raggio che può arrivare ovunque, composta da missili ipersonici, missili a medio raggio, missili per attacchi di precisione» e che «questi sistemi sono in grado di penetrare lo spazio dello sbarramento anti-aereo». Il generale ha precisato che «prevediamo di schierare una di queste task force in Europa e probabilmente due nel Pacifico».

In tale situazione, non c’è da stupirsi che la Russia stia accelerando lo schieramento di nuovi missili intercontinentali, con testate nucleari che, dopo la traiettoria balistica, planano per migliaia di km a velocità ipersonica.

Né c’è da stupirsi della notizia, pubblicata dal Washington Post, che ha Cina sta costruendo oltre cento nuovi silos per missili balistici intercontinentali a testata nucleare. La corsa agli armamenti si svolge non tanto sul piano quantitativo (numero e potenza delle testate nucleari) quanto su quello qualitativo (velocità, capacità penetrante e dislocazione geografica dei vettori nucleari). La risposta, in caso di attacco o presunto tale, viene sempre più affidata all’intelligenza artificiale, che deve decidere il lancio dei missili nucleari in pochi secondi. Aumenta la possibilità di una guerra nucleare per errore, rischiata più volte durante la guerra fredda.

Il Trattato sulla proibizione delle armi nucleari, adottato dalle Nazioni Unite nel 2017 ed entrato in vigore nel 2021, è stato finora firmato da 86 Stati e ratificato da 54.

Nessuno dei 30 paesi della Nato e dei 27 della Ue (salvo l’Austria) l’ha ratificato e neppure firmato. In Europa vi hanno aderito solo. Austria, Irlanda, Malta, San Marino e Santa Sede. Nessuno dei nove paesi nucleari – Stati uniti, Russia, Francia, Gran Bretagna, Israele, Cina, Pakistan, India, Nord Corea – l’ha ratificato e neppure firmato.

Manlio Dinucci

Errata corrige

Nella versione della rubrica uscita in edicola il 13 luglio 2021 per un refuso è saltata all’ultimo paragrafo la notizia che l’Austria è l’unico paese europeo ad aver ratificato il trattato.

All Global Research articles 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. Food and Drug Administration will announce a new warning on Johnson & Johnson’s COVID vaccine saying the shot is linked to Guillain–Barré syndrome. In April, the agency added a warning about blood clotting disorders to the J&J shot.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is will announce a new warning on Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) COVID vaccine saying the shot has been linked to Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS), a “serious but rare” autoimmune disorder. The Washington Post attributed the news to “four individuals familiar with the situation.”

According to The New York Times, the chances of developing GBS after receiving the J&J shot is three to five times higher than would be expected in the general population in the U.S.

About 100 preliminary reports in the U.S. of GBS have been detected after receiving J&J’s vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said in a statement to CNN today. Most cases were reported about two weeks after vaccination, mostly in men 50 and older.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is expected to discuss the GBS cases during an upcoming meeting, the CDC said.

GBS is a rare neurological disorder in which the body’s immune system mistakenly attacks part of its peripheral nervous system — the network of nerves located outside of the brain and spinal cord — and can range from a very mild case with brief weakness to paralysis, leaving the person unable to breathe independently.

While the cause of GBS is not fully known, it often follows infection with a virus and has been linked to other vaccines.

The FDA has concluded the benefits of the vaccine outweigh any danger, but will include the proviso in fact sheets about the drug for providers and patients.

“It’s not surprising to find these types of adverse events associated with vaccination,” said Dr. Luciana Borio, former acting chief scientist at the FDA. The data collected so far by the FDA, Borio said, suggest the vaccine’s benefits “continue to vastly outweigh the risks.”

Reports of GBS are rare, the CDC said, “but do likely indicate a small possible risk of this side effect following” the J&J vaccine.

Federal officials identified the 100 suspected cases of GBS among recipients of the J&J shot through the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) — a federal monitoring system that relies on patients and health care providers to report adverse effects of vaccines.

According to the most recent data from VAERS, between Dec. 14, 2020 and July 2, there were 398 reports of GBS with 187 of cases attributed to Pfizer, 159 to Moderna and 76 cases to J&J.

No link has been found between GBS and mRNA COVID vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna despite reports in VAERS.

The VAERS database indicates onset of GBS symptoms after the J&J vaccine within about three weeks of vaccination, The New York Times reported. One recipient, a 57-year-old man from Delaware who had suffered both a heart attack and a stroke within the last four years, died in early April after he was vaccinated and developed GBS.

As The Defender reported July 8, a third grade teacher developed GBS three weeks after receiving J&J’s COVID vaccine. Stacie [last name unknown] went to the emergency room several times after getting the shot because she was experiencing numbness of the lower extremities, but was sent home when tests were inconclusive.

The numbness continued to progress and Stacie eventually lost her ability to stand and walk. She was then hospitalized and diagnosed with GBS.

Gary Spaulding was an active landscaper who experienced a severe headache after receiving J&J’s COVID vaccine, causing him to go to the emergency room. Doctors immediately diagnosed Spaulding with Lyme Disease. Treatment was started, but numbness and tingling in his extremities progressed. After doctors initiated tests to determine the cause of the escalating series of symptoms, Spaulding was diagnosed with GBS.

Doctors believe Spaulding’s immune system, which was fighting Lyme Disease, was overstimulated by the COVID vaccine causing it to attack the myelin — the protective insulation that surrounds nerves, including those in the brain and spinal cord.

Treatment was immediate and successful in arresting the progression of the disease, but not before Spaulding was almost completely paralyzed.

In April, The Defender reported on a Texas teenager diagnosed with GBS a few weeks after his first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. The teen said he believed the vaccine was to blame, according to a local Houston news channel KPRC2 report.

“I wanted to get the vaccine,” said Wyatt McGlaun, a high school senior from The Woodlands. “I felt it was the right thing to do. I wanted to travel and enjoy my last summer before college.”

A few weeks after receiving the vaccine, McGlaun became weak and had difficulty walking. He was admitted to CHI St. Luke’s Health where he was diagnosed with GBS. News reports did not disclose which vaccine the teen received.

J&J linked to blood-clotting disorders

This is the second time J&J’s COVID vaccine has been linked to a severe adverse reaction. On April 13, federal officials temporarily paused the J&J shot after confirming health officials were investigating six cases of blood clots in the U.S.

During the April 23 meeting, the ACIP said it had found 15 women diagnosed with rare blood clots, including three who died. Only two of the women were older than 50, with the risk highest in women ages 30 to 39.

The CDC advisory safety committee said the link between blood clots and J&J’s COVID vaccine was “plausible,” but concluded the vaccine’s benefits still outweigh the risks and recommended the vaccine for persons 18 years of age and older in the U.S. under the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

On April 26, the FDA amended it’s EUA for the J&J vaccine to reflect the risk of rare blood clots and said vaccinations could resume immediately.

*

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

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Featured image is from CHD

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

CNN ran a broadcast Thursday with its own medical analyst Dr. Jonathan Reiner declaring that it is “time to start mandating” coronavirus vaccines for all Americans to counter people opting not to take the shots.

CNN host Erin Burnett said to Reiner “when you look at this in the broader context, there’s still a third of the eligible population in the United States that hasn’t got a single dose.”

“Given where things are going, is it time to move on from saying please to mandating?” Burnett asked.

Reiner replied

“I do think it’s time to start mandating vaccines. And I think that the private industry and private organizations will do that.”

“At GW university, where I work, starting in fall, you can’t be on campus unless you’re fully vaccinated,” Reiner added.

He continued,

“We’re at the part of the pandemic now where the problem in this country is that 150 million Americans are not vaccinated. Half of that number is less than 18 years of age. But let’s look at the adults. Seventy-five-million adults have chosen not to get vaccinated. That choice has consequences.”

Reiner noted that the government cannot physically force vaccinations on people (for now), but advocated making it basically impossible for those who choose not to take it to live their lives normally.

“Now, we can’t force you to take a jab in the arm,” Reiner said, adding “But there are many jobs, perhaps, that can prevent you from working if you decide not to get vaccinated. So I think we need to be more proactive, and we will see industry take the lead in this.”

Watch the video here.

Earlier in the day, CNN hosted Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, who said that “it is absolutely the government’s business” to know if Americans have been vaccinated.

In a telling statement, Becerra said

“We want to give people the sense that they have the freedom to choose, but we hope they choose to live.”

Meanwhile, over at MSNBC they took things a step further with anchor Chris Hayes declaring that everyone who has scepticism about the efficacy of vaccines and opts not to take them are “cowardly.”

Hayes blamed the ‘right wing media’, proclaiming

“You saw some of it there, people of the most conservative parts of the country turning against the vaccine. The leaders of this movement are cowardly. They refuse to have the courage of their convictions. They will not come out and say they are against the vaccine. Instead, they take this straw-man stance saying they’re just against anyone trying to promote the vaccine or heaven forbid mandate it.”

He continued,

“So on the ‘Fox & Friends’ and others on the right say they don’t want anybody try to convince them to take the shot. They don’t want it mandated. They just want it out there. What they’re saying is you don’t want people to get the vaccine. Come out and say it, but they won’t say it. Because that means you want people to die. Those are the options right now.”

Watch the video here.

Tucker Carlson, whom MSNBC’s Hayes also targeted in his rant, said Thursday that the Biden administration is “no longer pro-choice” when it comes to vaccines.

“It’s so obviously unnecessary that it’s vindictive, and it makes you wonder, what is this really about?” Carlson said, adding “Medical privacy, physical autonomy, the right to control the medicines you take. These are the pillars of medical ethics, officially, or were. They no longer are.”

“Tony Fauci has declared [these pillars of medical ethics] merely a political statement,” Carlson continued.

The host further noted,

“They’re telling you that you’ll wind up in a government database if you don’t comply, and that government agents could be showing up and knocking on your door. What is happening? What is this about?”

Watch the video here.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, who declared earlier this week that the Biden administration is to send “strike forces” to people’s homes to ensure children get vaccinated, decreed Thursday that criticism of the plan is a “disservice to 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.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video 

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Dr. Jane Orient, M.D., the executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), wants to know why the medical system is refusing to perform autopsies on the bodies of people who died not long after getting “vaccinated” for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19).

All last year, we were told by the government and media that every single death, no matter the actual cause, was a result of “covid.” That was before the “vaccines” made their appearance, of course.

Now, despite prolific evidence that the injections are causing mass disease and death, the medical system is refusing to acknowledge this fact and is still blaming all deaths on “covid.”

There is a systematic refusal among those calling the shots to even consider that Fauci Flu shots might be spreading the “variants” and causing some people to drop dead from various known side effects. And Dr. Orient wants answers.

“Thousands of healthy people are dying unexpectedly, but our public health agencies are assuring us that their deaths were not caused by the COVID jab,” Dr. Orient wrote in a commentary for WND.

“The toll of post-vaccine deaths has reached nearly 7,000, according to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). It’s the best system we’ve got, even though it misses 90% or more of the actual events.”

Dr. Orient has only seen one post-injection autopsy conducted so far

Of the tens of thousands of deaths that have been reported in conjunction with the Trump Vaccines, only one that Dr. Orient knows about involved an actual autopsy, as opposed to a questionable and easily manipulated “death certificate.”

That particular patient had received just one dose of the mRNA injection from Pfizer and BioNTech and died before receiving the second. Despite testing “positive” on a phony PCR test for SARS-Cov-2, this person showed no actual signs of infection.

On the other hand, the body of a 45-year-old mother who died of heart issues and brain swelling following her jab, which required in order for her to start a new job at Johns Hopkins University, will probably not be getting an autopsy, even though it is obvious that she died from the injection.

“There will be tears and flowers, but probably no autopsy – and no pause in the shots demanded for mothers and potential mothers if they want to work at JHU,” Dr. Orient says.

Even though Dr. Orient received her medical training long before CT and MRI scans existed, she says that she and her colleagues were still expected to try to come up with an accurate diagnosis with every patient. That is no longer the case in the age of the Chinese Virus.

“We had to call the medical examiner, who would decide whether an autopsy was indicated,” she says. “Anything potentially related to the death, such as pill bottles, was evidence.”

“If an injection had been given, the vial would be recovered if possible. With vaccines, one is supposed to record the lot number, so it would be possible to check a sample for contaminants.”

Compare this to now, when people dying in car accidents or from gunshot wounds are being listed in the official records as “covid deaths.” We have entered the age of pseudoscience hell, where nothing is real, everything is fake, and most people just go along with it like all is well.

“Unfortunately, autopsy rates have fallen from 25% to less than 5% over the past four decades,” Dr. Orient laments, noting that once again money is playing a huge role in the decision-making process. “It never was a revenue producer for anyone except malpractice attorneys.”

*

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

Sources

WND.com

NaturalNews.com

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In order to understand why so many people around the globe, including healthy young people, are suddenly suffering from inflamed hearts just after being vaccinated for Covid-19, we have to zero in on the source of this dangerous inflammation. When blood clots form in deep veins, it’s called deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and this can occur if something damages the blood vessel lining or makes the blood clot more easily. After this happens once, usually more blood clots are on the way. Most medical doctors in America are completely “stumped” and can’t figure out what causes blood clots. They could easily start by examining blood vessels for mRNA-produced “proteins” that the vaccines, through cell re-education, are spreading throughout the body of the recently Covid-vaccinated victims.

We can now understand, thanks to Covid-vaccine scientists who recently blew the whistle, that a higher-than-usual blood clot risk exists for these cases of inflammation of the heart, as it’s over-worked to push blood past all these “road blocks” of proteins, prions and disease-mimicking fragments floating around in the blood channels, sticking to inner walls of vessels, causing damage and severe inflammation.

Covid-19 mRNA vaccines instruct your cells to produce unlimited proteins and prions that clog the blood and CAUSE heart inflammation

There’s a combination of inflammation and coagulation occurring in the vessels that triggers venous thromboembolism (VTE). This is why all the Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers skipped clinical trials and got “emergency use authorization” for the shots, because they are considered by the FDA and CDC as “medical experiments,” and this is still going on right now. It’s one huge medical experiment that causes blood clots, heart inflammation and death, but all the MDs are just baffled and discombobulated.

What a mystery, huh? Couldn’t be the untested, unsafe, prion-creating China Flu jabs, now could it? No person or entity is ever allowed to even ask that question in America.

The MDs and virologists will all still cast blame on anything but the vaccines, including autoimmune disorders like Crohn’s or Lupus. Soon they’ll be blaming the “Delta Variant” of Covid instead of blaming the vaccines.

Your blood, if you’ve been Covid-19 mRNA inoculated, is now slowly clogging and coagulation to try to “defend” itself from the proteins your own cells are now creating – ones that mimic deadly virus strains of China Flu. Your blood that flows past these clots can also add to the clot, making the clots bigger and more dangerous, compounding the coagulation factor. Then inflammation increases and the chance of a heart attack skyrockets.

The answer to the confounding “mystery” of heart inflammation right after Covid-19 vaccination

This is the answer to the “mystery” of why perfectly healthy young adults, all around the world, suffer heart inflammation within days of being Covid-19 ‘vaccinated’. Even the protein payload in the non-mRNA vaccines can cause inflammation and clotting, so none of the “vaxxers” are safe. The CDC lied, again.

Of course the heart is inflamed if major veins are clogged up with virus-mimicking proteins that stick together and to the inner walls of the blood vessels. Of course the entire human body is suffering from massive inflammation when the immune system recognizes it’s under CONSTANT attack by an army of mutated virus-looking fragments.

Visit CovidVaccineReactions.com if you already got a toxic Covid jab or two and you are experiencing side effects, blood clots or other adverse events. Then tune your internet frequency to Pandemic.news for updates on these crimes against humanity being delivered under the guise of inoculation. Also visit Visit PharmaDeathClock for more information and validated statistics about the tragedies along the Allopathic “train” on which 200 million Americans ride.

*

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

Sources

Pandemic.news

NaturalNews.com

TruthWiki.org

LabBlog.UofMhealth.org

NaturalNews.com

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

Doctors Can Vaccinate Kids in DC Without Parental Knowledge

July 13th, 2021 by Barbara Loe Fisher

All Global Research articles 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 Council of the District of Columbia disempowered parents by enacting a law that made it illegal for a doctor, insurance company or school administrator to divulge a child’s vaccination history in records that can be seen by the child’s mother or father

The law denies basic parental rights to protecting their child from vaccine injuries and to have the tools and knowledge necessary to monitor them for signs of a potentially life-threatening vaccine reaction that requires immediate medical treatment

It also violates vaccine safety provisions of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, a federal law that confirmed vaccine injuries and deaths are real and made preventing vaccine reactions a national priority

Additionally, it violates informed consent rights of both parents and their child while doctors, other vaccinators and anyone else involved in the vaccine decision have no liability if the child is injured

If you want to protect parental and informed consent rights, register for the free online NVIC Advocacy Portal to stay up to date on vaccine laws being proposed in your state

*

Watch the video here.

This past year, we have seen many lawmakers in the U.S. and other countries vote to eliminate or severely restrict civil liberties in the name of the public health.1,2,3 One of the most outrageous legislative actions violating parental and human rights took place in Washington, D.C., in November 2020 when city council officials gave doctors the power to vaccinate children as young as 11 years old and hide what they did from parents.4,5,6,7,8

The D.C. mayor refused to veto the bill9,10 and, in January 2021, the U.S. Congress sat on its hands11,12 and gave tacit approval to enactment of the most dangerous child vaccination law in America.

In a breathtaking violation of medical ethics and several federal laws, the new vaccine concealment law in Washington, D.C., allows doctors to extract “informed consent” from young children too immature to know what informed consent13 means or what a vaccine reaction looks and feels like.14,15,16

The D.C. city council majority, with only three members dissenting, cruelly disempowered parents by voting to make it illegal for a doctor, insurance company or school administrator to divulge a child’s vaccination history in records that can be seen by the child’s mother or father.17

Parents Won’t Have Information to Protect Child From Injury

An 11-year-old child does not know or understand his or her personal health history but most parent do. If a child has experienced previous vaccine reactions, has severe allergies or other health conditions that could increase vaccine risks,18,19 parents kept in the dark will not have a way to protect their child from further harm.

Parents who don’t know which vaccines their children have been given will not be able to monitor them for signs of a potentially life-threatening vaccine reaction that requires immediate medical treatment.20 If the child is injured or dies after vaccination, parents will not know they must apply to the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) before the filing deadline expires.21

Parents will not know their insurance company has been billed for vaccines. Parents will not know that a school the child attends is in possession of their child’s secret vaccination records even when there is a vaccine exemption for religious belief reasons on file with the school.

This blatant violation of a parent’s moral right and legal responsibility to make medical risk decisions on behalf of a minor child was endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics22 and pushed through by the D.C. city council, while the mayor and the US Congress looked the other way.

Washington, DC, Vaccine Concealment Law Violates Federal Laws

First, D.C.’s vaccine concealment law violates vaccine safety provisions of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, a federal law that confirmed vaccine injuries and deaths are real and made preventing vaccine reactions a national priority.

Parents of DPT vaccine-injured children secured vaccine safety provisions in the 1986 Act, which directs doctors and other medical workers to give parents written vaccine benefit and risk information BEFORE a child is vaccinated23 and also mandates that vaccine providers record which vaccines the child is given in a record the parents can access.

Specifically, the 1986 Act mandates that “health care providers who administer a vaccine” must give a child’s legal representative “a copy of the information materials” developed by the Centers for Disease Control “prior to the administration” of a vaccine.24,25

The 1986 law also requires each person administering a vaccine to “ensure that there is recorded in such person’s permanent medical record or in a permanent office log or file to which a legal representative shall have access upon request” certain information:

No. 1: the date of administration of the vaccine; No. 2: the vaccine manufacturer and lot number of the vaccine; and No. 3: the name and address and, if appropriate, the title of the health care provider administering the vaccine.”26

These informing and recording vaccine safety provisions were included in the 1986 Act specifically to provide parents with information they need to make well informed vaccine decisions for their minor children; to help parents recognize and prevent vaccine reactions; and to ensure a vaccine reaction is reported to the government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).27,28

If a doctor can secretly inject a young child with one or more vaccines and hide the vaccination records, how will parents know what is happening when a vaccine reaction occurs? They won’t have the information they need to take their child to an emergency room or be able to make the connection between the vaccinations and a child’s regression into poor health.

This lack of critical information about their child’s medical history also means parents will likely miss the deadline for filing a claim in the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which has awarded more than $4.5 billion to the vaccine injured over the past three decades.29

D.C.’s vaccine concealment law violates the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, known as FERPA, which guarantees parents the legal right to have access to their children’s education records, including health and vaccine records, at the primary and secondary school level.30

Vaccine Concealment Law Violates Informed Consent Rights

D.C.’s vaccine concealment law also violates the long standing ethical principle of informed consent to medical risk taking,31 which has governed the ethical practice of human research and medical practice since the Nuremberg Code was published in 1947 after the Doctors’ Trial.32,33

Informed consent is exercised on behalf of minor children by parents, who are morally and legally responsible for the well-being and financial support for their children until they are old enough to live independently.34,35,36

Child development specialists have documented how young children and teenagers lack the critical thinking skills and emotional maturity to exercise good judgment when assessing risks.37,38,39,40Preadolescents are more susceptible to pressure from peers and authority figures.41,42,43,44

Vaccine Administrators Have No Liability for Injuries, Deaths

Doctors are the ultimate authority figures in our society today, and many are serving as authoritarian implementers of one-size-fits-all federal vaccine policies and state vaccine mandates.45,46

Like vaccine manufacturers, doctors and other persons who administer vaccines cannot be held liable in civil court when a child dies or is injured.47Congress passed special legislation in 2020 to make sure that doctors or anyone else who administers a Covid-19 vaccine cannot be sued.48

When the risks of vaccination turn out to be 100 percent for a child, it is the mother and father raising that child on a day-to-day basis who will be left with the lifelong consequences — not the doctor who has been given the power to secretly persuade the child to take vaccines, and not the politician who voted to give doctors that power.

The D.C. council sponsor of the bill entitled the “Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act” originally wanted doctors to be able to vaccinate children of any age — no matter how young — without the knowledge or consent of their parents. She argued that minors of any age can get an abortion in Washington, D.C., and get treated for a sexually transmitted disease or substance abuse without the knowledge or consent of their parents.49

She told Medscape Medical News that parents with “anti-science” beliefs were not vaccinating their children based on a “disproven belief” that vaccines may cause harm, which puts other people at “extreme risk” for disease.50

A dissenting D.C. city council member countered with “Medical professionals and schools should not be permitted to coerce impressionable minors into procedures capable of causing injury or death behind their parents’ back.”51

Vaccine Concealment Law a Profound Betrayal of Public Trust

The Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights states that:52

“The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society;” and “For persons who are not capable of exercising autonomy, special measures are to be taken to protect their rights and interests;” and “Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information.”

It is a profound betrayal of public trust for any city, state or federal government to strip parents of their God-given right to protect their children from harm by allowing a doctor to give a child a pharmaceutical product without getting a parent’s permission.

Science is not perfect, doctors are not infallible, and pharmaceutical products like vaccines come with risks that can be greater for some individuals than others,53,54,55 which is why parents must retain the human right to exercise informed consent to medical risk taking on behalf of their minor children. Will the vaccine concealment bill that is now law in Washington, D.C., be exported to your state next?

Take Action Today to Protect Parental Rights

If you want to protect parental and informed consent rights, register for the free online NVIC Advocacy Portal today and stay up to date on vaccine laws being proposed in your state so you can contact your legislators and take positive action.

Never be the one who has to say you did not do today what you could have done to change tomorrow. It’s your health. Your family. Your choice. And our mission continues: No forced vaccination. Not in America.

*

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 Fisher BL. How Fear of a Virus Changed Our World. NVIC Newsletter June 1, 2020

2 Anderson A. These Endless Public Health Mandates Threaten American’s Liberty. Heritage Foundation Mar. 15, 2021

3 Weisberg L, Molnar P. LaJolla Light June 14 2021

4 Council of the District of Columbia. B23-0171-Minor Consent for Vaccination Amendment Act of 2019. (Effective from Mar. 16, 2021)

5 Al-Arshani S. Kids as young as 11 years old would be able to consent to vaccinations under a new bill proposed in Washington, DC. Business Insider

6 Richardson D. DC Bill B23-0181 Allowing Children 11 Years Old and Older to Be Vaccinated Without Parental Knowledge or Consent Advances

7 Smith W. D.C. to Legalize Vaccination of 11-Year Olds Without Parental OK. National Review Nov. 5, 2020

8 Turner M. DC Council to make final vote on bill that would allow minors to get vaccines without parental consent. WUSA-9 Nov. 12, 2020

9, 17 Austermuhle M. D.C. Activists Want Bowser to Veto Bill That Would Allow Minors to Consent to Vaccines. NPR Dec. 7, 2020

10, 22, 49, 51 Ault A. 11-Year-Olds Could Receive Vaccines Without Parental Consent in DC. Medscape Dec. 24, 2020

11 McNeely M. Bill to Let 11-Year Olds Make Medical Decision: Will Congress Say No? Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) Feb. 24, 2021

12 Parentalrights.org. Breaking DC Update: Lee Attempts “Common Consent.” Mar. 3, 2021

13 FindLaw. Understanding Informed Consent and Your Rights as a Patient. June 6, 2018

14, 40 Blakemore SJ, Robbins TW. Decision-making in the adolescent brain. Nature Neuroscience 2012; 15: 1184-1191

15, 20 Fisher BL. Do You Know How to Recognize A Vaccine Reaction? NVIC Newsletter Aug. 27, 2018

16 National Vaccine Information Center. If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions

18 CDC. Contraindications and precautions to commonly used vaccines. May 4, 2021

19 CDC. COVID-19 Vaccines: Summary Documents for Interim Clinical Considerations. June 1, 2021

21 Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA). National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. June 2021

23 English A, Shaw FE, McCauley MM et al. Legal Basis of Consent for Health Care and Vaccination for Adolescents. Pediatrics 2008; 121: S85-S87

24 42 U.S.C. United States Code, 2016 edition. Title 42 – The Public Health and Welfare Chapter 6A – Public Health Service… Vaccine information

25 CDC. Vaccine Information Statements (VISs): Required Use. July 28, 2020

26 42 U.S.C. United States Code, 2016 edition. Title 42 – The Public Health and Welfare Chapter 6A – Public… Recording and reporting of information

27 MedAlerts. Search the U.S. Government’s VAERS Data and Reporting Vaccine Reactions to VAERS

28 Fisher BL. DIY If Your Doctor Won’t Report Vaccine Reactions to VAERS. NVIC Newsletter June 2, 2021

29 Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA). National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. VICP Data & Statistics June 2021

30 Family Education and Privacy Act. Title 34: Education

31 Nunez K. What You Need to Know About Informed Consent. Healthline Oct. 11, 2019

32 Encyclopedia.com. Nuremberg Code Establishes the Principle of Informed Consent

33 Komesaroff PA, Parker M. Ethical Aspects of Consent. Issues Magazine March 2009

34 Otterstrom K. The Legal Right and Responsibilities of a Parent. Lawyers.com Apr. 9, 2015

35 Findlaw. How Long Do Parents’ Legal Obligations to Their Children Continue? Nov. 17, 2018

36 Fisher BL. The Moral Right to Conscientious, Philosophical and Personal Belief Exemption to Vaccination

37 Kelley AE, Schochet T, Landry CF. Risk taking and novelty seeking in adolescence: introduction to part I. Ann NY Acad Sci 2004; 1021-1032

38 Steinberg L. Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends Cogn Sci 2005; 9(2): 69-74

39 Harvard Mental Health Letter. The adolescent brain: Beyond raging hormones. Harvard Health Publishing Mar. 7, 2011

41 Steinberg L. Monahan KC. Age Differences in Resistance to Peer Influence. Dev Psychol 2007; 43(6): 1531-1543

42 Knoll LJ, Magis-Weinberg L, Speekenrbrink M et al. Social Influence on Risk Perception During Adolescence. Psychological Science May 25, 2015

43, 45 Koleva G. Authoritarian Doctors, Timid Patients, and a Health Care Gridlock. Forbes May 29, 2012

44 Heath S. Understanding the Power Hierarchy in Patient-Provider Relationships. Patient EngagementHIT July 23, 2019

46 Fisher BL. The National Plan to Vaccinate Every American. NVIC Newsletter Mar. 21, 2020

47 NVIC. National Vaccine Information Center Cites “Betrayal” of Consumers by US Supreme Court Giving Total Liability… Businesswire Feb. 23, 2011

48 Fisher BL, Parpia R. 2005 PREP Act and 1986 Act Shield Vaccine Manufacturers from Liability. The Vaccine Reaction Aug. 10, 2020

50 Ibid

52 United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Oct 19, 2005

53 Institute of Medicine Committee to Review Adverse Effects of Vaccines. Evaluation of Biologic Mechanisms of Adverse Effects: Increased Susceptibility

54 National Vaccine Information Center. Vaccination: Know the Risks and Failures. 2019

55 Fisher BL. Why Is Informed Consent to Vaccination a Human Right? National Vaccine Information Center June 28, 2017

Featured image is from Mercola

The Miami-Haiti Connection: Another Mercenary, Another Day

July 13th, 2021 by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

All Global Research articles 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 weekend we found out that the Colombian men arrested in connection with the assassination of Haitian president Jovenel Moïse may have been hired by a Florida private security company with Venezuelan connections. Furthermore, they might have been deployed on behalf of an Haitian ex-pat in Miami who wanted to replace Moïse as president.

Why does this sound so familiar?

Maybe because it was only last year that 13 men led an unsuccessful coup attempt — known cheekily as the “Bay of Piglets” — against Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro. Their alleged leader was a former Navy Seal, who also runs a security company in Florida. Jordan Goudreau was allegedly working with ex-Venezuelan military exiles who wanted to help overthrow Maduro for opposition leader Juan Guaido (he has denied any involvement). They led an elaborate plan to train fellow ex-Venezuelan military soldiers at a training camp in Colombia. Goudreau wasn’t on the boat that day when the May 2020 plot was foiled, but two former Green Berets (ages 34 and 41) were, and they are doing 20 years in a Venezuelan jail right now, convicted on charges of conspiracy, illicit trafficking of weapons, and terrorism.

The details in both stories are sordid, but the common thread is this: guns for hire have always been around but after our 9/11 wars the proliferation of private military companies with sophisticated weapons, well-trained leaders, and money seeming to burn cannot be ignored. As Sean McFate, author of The Modern Mercenary: Private Armies and What They Mean for World Order (2015) likes to say, it would be impossible to stuff this genie back into the bottle. Not only did we conjure the djinn of the modern industry by outsourcing security throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan wars — think Blackwater, Dyncorp, Triple Canopy — but made it a lucrative opportunity for the millions of veterans of those wars. And it’s not just an American game. Plenty of companies working with governments all over the world see the benefit of waging conflicts under the radar with hired mercenaries — just ask the Russians. According to reports, the Wagner group has been operating in Ukraine, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Madagascar, and yes, in 2019 they were reportedly working to protect Maduro in Venezuela.

And we cannot forget about our prince of peace, Erik Prince, Blackwater founder, who Time magazine just reported was allegedly approaching the Ukrainian government in 2020 with plans to build a private army to help them against the Russians. The Ukrainians smartly turned them down, as did the Trump administration when Prince was shopping around a plan to outsource Afghanistan. The Somali government shut down a Prince-related contract in 2011. Meanwhile, he was recently accused of backing an armed (but aborted) operation that would have helped insurgent Khalifa Haftar overthrow the government in Libya (in violation of UN arms embargo) in 2019. Supposedly, he even offered his services to Maduro, a year before Goudreau’s silly plot.

But the UAE was glad to take Prince’s sellswords for royal bodyguards in 2011. And guess where they were from (and trained)? Colombia. Soldiers trained there were later sent to fight (and die) in Yemen for the Emiratis.

Privateering is a lucrative business. It’s also a highly immoral trade in which governments, non-state actors, and private citizens with the right amount of money can wage an insurgency, repress local populations, or assassinate the leader of another country. The highest bidder wins.

While we are still just learning the Miami connection to Moïse’s murder, the very mention of a private security firm raises some uncomfortable questions about financing and the ease with which armed assailants can be trained and armed and transported around for these missions. As McFate would like to say, this won’t be the last time.

“A world with more mercenaries is one with more war and suffering,” he has said.

Let’s just hope Erik Prince doesn’t have his finger prints on this one. We sort of created him.

*

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 New Eastern Outlook

Cuban President’s Statement to the People of Cuba

July 13th, 2021 by President Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez

All Global Research articles 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 Sunday evening the Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel gave the following statement on national television and radio to the people of Cuba:

We have been honest, we have been transparent, we have been clear and at every moment we have been explaining to our people the complexities of the current moments. I remind you that more than a year and a half ago, when the second semester of 2019 began, we had to explain that we were entering a difficult situation. … Since then we have remained under that situation as a result of all the United States government moves led by the Trump administration in relation to Cuba.

They began to intensify a series of restrictive measures, a tightening of the blockade, of financial persecution against the energy sector with the aim of suffocating our economy and expecting that this would provoke the desired massive social outbreak, which sows the possibilities for the entire ideological campaign that it has done, to be able to call for humanitarian intervention that ends in military intervention and interference, and that affects the rights, sovereignty and independence of all peoples.

That situation continued, then came the 243 measures that we all know about [Trump’s measures tightening the blockade, banning all remittances, etc.] and finally they decided to include Cuba in a list of countries sponsoring terrorism, a spurious, illegitimate and unilateral list that the United States government has adopted, believing themselves, the United States, the emperors of the world.

Many countries suddenly submitted to these decisions, but it must be recognized that others do not allow it to be imposed on them. All these measures led to the immediate cutting off of various sources of foreign income such as tourism, Cuban-American travel to our country, and remittances. A plan was made to discredit the Cuban medical brigades and the solidarity collaborations provided by Cuba, which received an important amount of foreign exchange for that collaboration.

This whole situation caused a situation of shortages in the country, especially of food, medicines, raw materials and supplies to be able to develop our economic and productive processes that at the same time contribute to exports. Two important elements are cut off: the ability to export and the ability to invest resources. And from the productive processes, to then develop goods and services for our population.

We also have limitations on fuels and spare parts and all this has caused a level of dissatisfaction, coupled with accumulated problems that we have been able to solve and that came from the special period together with a fierce media campaign of discrediting, part of the unconventional war that tries to fracture the unity between the party, the state and people; that tries to portray the government as insufficient and incapable of providing well-being to the Cuban people whereby the U.S. government tries to convey that only with them can a country like Cuba hope to progress.

Those are well-known hypocritical recipes, speeches of double standards that we know very well throughout the history of the United States towards Cuba. How did they intervene in our country, how did they take over our island in 1902, how did they maintain domination of our island in the pseudo-republic stage, and how were those interests dealt a blow by the Cuban Revolution in its triumph?

The example of the Cuban Revolution has bothered them a lot for 60 years and their aggression has been constantly increasing. They have applied an unjust, criminal and cruel blockade, now intensified in pandemic conditions and therein lies the manifest perversity, the evil of all those intentions. Blockade and restrictive actions that they have never taken against any other country, nor against those they consider their main enemies.

Therefore, it has been a policy of viciousness against a small island that only aspires to defend its independence, its sovereignty and to build its society with self-determination according to the principles that more than 86% of the population has supported in the broad and democratic exercise that we supported a few years ago to approve the current Constitution of the Republic of Cuba.

In the midst of these conditions comes the pandemic, a pandemic that has not affected only Cuba, but the entire world, including the United States. It has affected rich countries and it must be said that in the face of this pandemic neither the United States nor those rich countries that had all the capacity to face its effects in the beginning — and in many of those first world countries — with much more wealth, their health systems and intensive therapy rooms collapsed. The poor were disadvantaged because there are no public policies aimed at the people for their salvation, and their indicators in relation to the confrontation of the pandemic have worse results than those of Cuba in many cases.

This is how we were progressing, we controlled the outbreaks and new outbreaks, with a tremendous capacity of our people, our scientists and our health personnel to sacrifice, and almost the entire country has been involved in it. We have created five vaccine candidates, of which one has already been recognized as a vaccine and which is the first in Latin America. Cuba is already vaccinating its population. It is a process that takes time. Vaccines must be produced, but at the moment we have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world and in a few weeks we have exceeded 20% of the population’s vaccination, a process that continues.

In recent months, strains that are more aggressive and cause more transmission of the disease have begun to circulate. In the middle of this situation is that a group of complications begin to appear. In the first place, cases occur with a speed and accumulation that exceeds the capacities that we have to be able to create, to attend to these cases in state institutions. So we have had to go to open up capacities in other centers for the cases. By opening up more centers, we have also had to give priority for electrical energy use, even in the midst of accumulated energy problems that have caused us blackouts. The amount of electricity circuits we are having to protect so COVID patients are treated, creates a situation where more circuits are causing annoying but necessary blackouts, because we have to restore our electricity generation capacities. This has happened in recent days and has caused irritation, misunderstanding, concerns and affectations to the population.

By having more patients, there is more consumption of medications, and our stocks of drugs are also running out, the possibilities of acquiring them being very difficult. In the midst of all this, we continue with will, thinking about everything, working for everyone. Now we have to go to the experience of [COVID-positive cases] cases staying home, due to the lack of capacities in a group of provinces, and we have had to summon the family so that they have a more direct, responsible participation. We do not tire of admiring in the midst of this situation the capacity for creative resistance that our people have. And how with these values, if we maintain responsibility and unity, in the shortest possible time with vaccination and with responsible behavior, complying with hygienic sanitary measures, social isolation and physical distancing, we will leave this pandemic peak sooner rather than later, which is not just the case for Cuba.

What Cuba managed to do was postpone this pandemic peak over time with everything we did, and in the shortest time we will overcome it. This is what we have affirmed these days, in our tours of the provinces to specify all the strategies of confronting the pandemic.

In a very cowardly, subtle and opportunistic and perverse way, from the most complicated situations that we have had in provinces such as Matanzas and Ciego de Ávila, those who have always approved the blockade and who serve as mercenaries of the Yankee blockade on the streets, begin to appear with doctrines of humanitarian aid and a “humanitarian corridor.” We all know where they come from.

They do this to strengthen the claim that the Cuban government is not capable of getting out of this situation, as if they were so interested in solving the health problems of our people.

If you want to have a real gesture of support with Cuba, if you want to be concerned about the people, lift the blockade and we will see how we engage. Why don’t they do it? Why don’t they have the courage to lift the blockade? What legal and moral foundation do they have to support a foreign government that applies this policy to a small country in the midst of such an adverse situation.

Isn’t that genocide, isn’t that a crime against humanity? They make claims that we are a dictatorship. What a strange dictatorship it is that cares about giving its entire population health care, that seeks wellbeing for all, that in the midst of these situations is capable of having programs and public policies based on everyone. A dictatorship that is aspiring to vaccinate everyone with a Cuban vaccine, because we knew that no one was going to sell us vaccines and we had no money to go to the international market to buy vaccines.

Now they shout that we are murderers. Where are the murdered in Cuba? Where are the disappeared?

Why were the other countries that have suffered these events of pandemic peaks not attacked in the press? Why were they not given the solution of humanitarian intervention? They were not attacked with discrediting campaigns that they have wanted to launch against us.

Life, history and facts show what is behind all this: It is to suffocate and end the Revolution and for that they are trying to discourage our people by misleading them. When people are in severe conditions like the ones we are living in, events like the ones we saw today in San Antonio de los Baños occur.

In San Antonio de los Baños, a group of people gathered in one of the most central parks in the city to protest and demand. Who were those people? They were made up of the people who are experiencing some of the shortcomings and difficulties, there are revolutionary people who may be confused and who may not have all the arguments or who were expressing their dissatisfaction.

Those two groups of people did it in a different way and looked for an argument and asked for an explanation. The first thing they said was “I am a revolutionary” “I support the Revolution.”

This was headed by a group of manipulators who were lending themselves to the plans of those campaigns that appeared on social networks. The famous SOSMatanzas or SOSCuba, the call to the banging of pans, so that in several cities of Cuba there would be demonstrations of this type and there would be social unrest.

This is very criminal, very cruel, especially at this time where we must ensure that people remain in the houses who are protecting themselves from the pandemic. With the morale that the Revolution gives, the revolutionaries of San Antonio de los Baños, the authorities of the province, and a group of comrades from the leadership of the country presented ourselves in San Antonio de los Baños.

This mass of revolutionaries confronted the counterrevolutionaries and we spoke with the revolutionaries and some who may be non-revolutionaries but who were asking for arguments. Later we marched and toured the town to show that in Cuba the streets belong to the revolutionaries.

While this is happening, we know that there are other towns in the country, where groups of people in certain streets and squares have gathered, also motivated by such unhealthy purposes.

The state has all the political will to dialogue, but also to participate. We will not hand over our sovereignty nor the independence of this nation. They have to pass over our corpses if they want to overthrow the Revolution.

*

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 Cuba Solidarity Campaign

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Every sick fellow human and every relative of deceased fellow humans has my deepest empathy, but, first and foremost, has also the right to know the truth.

I would like to present the reality of the corona crisis, go into its chronology and confront its numerous myths and intellectual absurdities with scientificity. The most important studies are linked in the text. Further scientific information, including links to other important studies, can be found on the homepages of ‘Aletheia – Medicine and Science for Proportionality’, the ‘Corman-Drosten Review Report’, and ‘Doctors for Covid Ethics’, of which I am a member.

PCR Testing Epidemic, 2006

As responsible physicians and scientists, in the case of infections diagnosed by quick PCR tests in the context of an alleged epidemic of national or pandemic of international scope, we must always consider the possibility of a pseudo or testing epidemic.

On January 27th, 2007, the New York Times, virtually the bible of journalists whose integrity they could still trust at the time, published an important piece entitled: ‘Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t’.

Dr. Herndon, internist at a medical centre in the U.S. state of New Hampshire, coughs seemingly incessantly for a fortnight starting in mid-April 2006. Soon, an infectious disease specialist has the disturbing idea that this could be the beginning of a whooping cough epidemic. By the end of April, other hospital staff are also coughing. Severe, persistent coughing is a leading symptom of whooping cough. And if it is whooping cough, the outbreak must be contained immediately because the disease can be fatal for babies in the hospital and lead to dangerous pneumonia in frail elderly patients.

It is the start of a bizarre episode at the medical centre: the story of the epidemic that wasn’t.

For months, almost everyone involved believes there is a huge whooping cough outbreak at the medical centre with far-reaching consequences. Nearly 1,000 staff members are given a quick PCR test and put on leave from work until the results are in; 142 people, 14.2% of those tested, including Dr Herndon, are tested positive in the quick PCR test, so diagnosed with whooping cough. Thousands, including many children, receive antibiotics and a vaccine as protection. Hospital beds are taken out of service as a precaution, including some in the intensive care unit.

Months later, all those apparently suffering from whooping cough are stunned to learn that in bacterial cultures, the diagnostic gold standard for whooping cough, the bacterium that causes whooping cough could not be detected in any single sample. The whole insanity was a false alarm.

The supposed whooping cough epidemic had not taken place in reality, but only in the minds of those involved, triggered by blind faith in a highly sensitive quick PCR test that had become oh so modern. In truth, all those who had fallen ill had suffered from a harmless cold. Infectiologists and epidemiologists had put aside their expertise and common sense and blatantly ignored this most likely differential diagnosis of the symptom cough.

Many of the new molecular tests are quick but technically demanding. Each laboratory performs them in its own way as so-called ‘home brews’. Usually they are not commercially available and there are rarely good estimates of their error rates. Their high sensitivity makes false positives likely. When hundreds or thousands of people are tested, as happened here, false positive results can give the appearance of an epidemic.

An infectiologist said: I had a feeling at the time that this gave us a shadow of a hint of what it might be like during a pandemic flu epidemic.

And an epidemiologist explained: One of the most troubling aspects of the pseudo-epidemic is that all the decisions seemed so sensible at the time.

The madness of a pseudo or testing epidemic seemed perfectly normal to so many involved.

I recommend you read this article published in the New York Times in 2007 and ask yourself: “Shouldn’t we all have learned a lot from this for the future?”

Swine Flu Scandal, 2009

As responsible physicians and scientists, in an alleged or real epidemic of national or pandemic of international scope we must always remember previous alleged or real epidemics or pandemics. Here is the last one.

In spring 2009, a highly contagious, very dangerous influenza virus, H1N1, seems to threaten humanity. The disease it causes is clinically indistinguishable from seasonal flu and is called swine flu.

Experts like the German virologist Prof. Christian Drosten spread horror scenarios predicting millions of deaths worldwide. In May, the WHO relaxes the criteria for declaring a pandemic for reasons that have never been explained. It removes the dangerousness of the causative pathogen from the definition of a pandemic. Now, the rapid, massive spread of a comparatively harmless pathogen over at least two WHO regions is enough. Any endemic, seasonal wave of any flu or cold virus, no matter how harmless it is, can be called a pandemic. Promptly, the WHO declares a H1N1 pandemic on June 11th.

Politicians are taking seriously the warnings of the experts and the WHO. Without consulting the population, they are procuring hundreds of millions of packages of sparsely effective, expensive antiviral drugs and hundreds of millions of doses of hastily approved vaccines that are, after all, produced using conventional methods.

Critics who describe the virus as comparatively harmless are ridiculed or ignored initially. Finally, scientists, in Europe, especially the German microbiologist and infection epidemiologist Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi and the German pneumologist and politician Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, gain attention in mass media and politics. The global madness that was already threatening at that time can be averted just in time.

Worldwide, about 150 to 600 thousand people died with or from H1N1, which turned out to be less dangerous than seasonal influenza. Correspondingly, vaccination readiness was low. Nevertheless, in Sweden alone about 700 children contracted disabling narcolepsy, sleeping sickness, caused by hastily approved unnecessary and unsafe vaccines. In Switzerland, 1.8 million vaccine doses were sold abroad or given away, and 8.9 million were disposed of.

There was hardly any media coverage of the swine flu scandal. The temporary success of the media-fuelled panic was primarily due to the interconnectedness of experts, the pharmaceutical industry, the WHO and health politicians. In the end, the seemingly completely overwhelmed health authorities had fallen for an almost perfectly orchestrated propaganda campaign.

I recommend you watch the documentary ‘Profiteers of Fear – The Swine Flu Business’, produced in German by Arte in November 2009, and ask yourself: “Shouldn’t we all have learned a lot from this for the future?”

‘Event 201’: Corona Pandemic Simulation, 2019

The situation is threatening. A new corona virus is spreading across the world. Case numbers on Johns Hopkins University’s dashboard are rising and rising. The highly contagious, immune-resistant, dangerous virus is paralysing trade and transport globally and sending the world economy into free fall.

What sounds like the alleged outbreak of the alleged pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 in China’s Wuhan province in December 2019, is the scenario of ‘Event 201’.

On October 18th, 2019, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Johns Hopkins University and WEF are organising a pandemic simulation under this name. After the Spanish flu, the bird flu and the swine flu, as the pathogen they do not choose another influenza virus, but a coronavirus that is completely unknown to lay people so far, especially not to politicians and journalists.

This simulation of a corona pandemic that broke out in South America is not attended by doctors, but by Western representatives of the organisers, the UN, the WHO, governments, authorities and global corporations from the fields of high finance, pharmaceuticals, logistics, tourism and the media, as well as by Dr. George Gao, virologist and director of the Chinese CDC, the Chinese equivalent of the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH).

The participants agree that a corona pandemic is disruptive, can only be overcome by global governmental and private cooperation, system-relevant global corporations must be propped up financially, medium-sized businesses must be sacrificed if necessary, voices that deviate from the prevailing narrative must be censored consistently in the mass and social media, and the pandemic can only be terminated by vaccinating the entire world population.

The simulation ends with 65 million deaths worldwide.

I recommend you watch the documentary ‘Event 201: Corona Pandemic from the Drafting Table’, produced in German with English subtitles by ExpressZeitung in June 2020, and ask yourself: “Shouldn’t the mass media have reported on this in detail?”

Corona Scandal, 2020

Two and a half months later, on December 31st, 2019, the Chinese CDC, led by Dr. George Gao, reports 27 cases of pneumonia of unknown cause to the WHO – out of a Chinese population of 1.4 billion. On January 7th, 2020, the Chinese health authorities identify a novel coronavirus as the causative agent.

On January 21st, 2020, Prof. Christian Drosten et al. submit a paper, the recipe for which laboratories can produce a rapid RT-PCR test for the detection of the virus called 2019-nCoV. It is accepted just the next day and published in the journal Eurosurveillance another day later.

The WHO had already posted the Drosten RT-PCR quick test on its website one week earlier and recommended it as the global diagnostic gold standard.

On January 30th, Drosten et al. published the justification of the narrative of epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission of 2019-nCoV in the letter to the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, virtually one of the bibles of us doctors whose integrity we could still trust at the time, with the title ‘Transmission of 2019-nCoV Infection from an Asymptomatic Contact in Germany’.

On February 11th, the WHO names the novel corona virus SARS-CoV-2, the disease it causes COVID-19; coronavirus disease. It does so against the request of Chinese virologists. They preferred to call it HCoV-19, human coronavirus, because of the danger that the name SARS-CoV-2 could stir up unfounded fears out of its biological and epidemiological lack of similarity to the much more dangerous SARS-CoV-1.

On March 11th, the WHO declares a COVID pandemic. Meanwhile, its Director-General, the biologist, immunologist and philosopher Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has been charged with genocide in Ethiopia before the International Criminal Court in The Hague. The presumption of innocence applies, of course.

Now, almost everything is going on as it did during the swine flu scandal in 2009, but in an even more lubricated way. Experts, mostly laboratory physicians and biologists working as virologists or epidemiologists, who have never examined anyone suffering from a respiratory infection, let alone treated them, declare that SARS-CoV-2 is virtually an alien about which we know absolutely nothing and that we must regard as extremely dangerous, until largely the same experts will have proven otherwise at some point. In Switzerland, they constitute themselves as ‘Swiss National COVID-19 Science Task Force’ and offer themselves to the Swiss Federal Council as scientific advisors.

The executive and legislative politicians as well as the federal and cantonal health authorities, all panicked by them, accept their offer and seem to follow them as blindly as the Federal Council apparently blindly followed the WHO when it declared the COVID pandemic. Unlike any ninepins club, the now official scientific advisory board to the Swiss government through what is supposed to be Switzerland’s biggest crisis since the Second World War does not keep any record of its activities.

On March 16th, the Swiss Federal Council declares the ‘exceptional situation’, the highest danger level of the epidemic law, based on exactly zero scientific evidence.

The mass media, including the Swiss public service broadcaster SRG, take on the third part in this conglomerate of mutually escalating ignorance, arrogance, incompetence and organised irresponsibility. Brainless and heartless themselves, they hammer into our heads around the clock:

There is a pandemic of a highly contagious and even epidemiologically relevant asymptomatically transmissible corona killer virus. Every seemingly hale and hearty fellow human being can be your angel of death!

Unlike in 2009, the mass media consistently censor, discredit and defame questioning doctors and scientists, including luminaries such as John Ioannidis, Professor of medicine, epidemiology and public health at Stanford University School of Medicine, one of the world’s most renowned and most cited scientists, specialised in science fraud, Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg. After having been libelled, including alleged threats to politicians and my family, by a private person well known to me, myself, was brutally arrested by an anti-terrorist unit in my practice and, after it turned out immediately that I had not threatened anyone, merely the world view of insane people, I was shipped off to a closed psychiatric ward for six days because of ‘self-endangerment while in COVID insanity’.

The governments of almost all countries seem to have forgotten their epidemic plans, which wisely spare the individuals, the society and the economy. In blind obedience to the WHO and to lobbyists, called experts, they are enacting self-destructive non-pharmacological interventions, including lockdowns never considered before, following the authoritarian Chinese role model. They are doing this almost globally, in lockstep.

Without consulting the population, they procure billions of doses of emergency mRNA and DNA injections, that are even temporarily approved by Swissmedic. This technology is being widely used on humans for the first time. Almost worldwide, the constitution, the rule of law, human rights, civil liberties, ethics, scientificity, and common sense are being sacrificed in favour of a quasi-global authoritarian regime under the control of the WHO: Who controls the WHO, controls the world!

Image on the right is from Shutterstock

All elements of the prevailing corona narrative are invented out of the fact-free vacuum

1. SARS-CoV-2 did not emerge in Wuhan in December 2019. First, in November 2020, a study from Milan showed that SARS-CoV-2 was endemic in Italy as early as September 2019, before the 2019/20 flu season. Other studies showed the same later, for example in France.

2. There is no SARS-CoV-2 epidemic of national scope, thus no pandemic. This is already evident from the lack of excess mortality when corrected for demographics, and from the rather low occupancy of the intensive care units, whose capacities, in addition, have been massively reduced since April 2020.

3. The indication to test, namely not only critically ill hospitalised patients with a need for specific antiviral therapy, in the surveillance system, and in a study cohort, but to test even asymptomatic, formerly called healthy, people and, on top of that, to test only for one single of all respiratory viruses that must be considered in the differential diagnosis of respiratory infections, is wrong.

4. The Drosten RT-PCR test is neither diagnostic for an infection with SARS-CoV-2 nor for a sickness or death from COVID-19. On November 27th, 2020, an international group of 22 life scientists, including myself, published an ‘External Peer Review of the Corman-Drosten Paper’.

We explain that conflicts of interest exist, that the alleged peer review within 24 hours is absurd, and ten fundamental scientific flaws. This most important medical publication of 2020, which can hardly be surpassed in terms of lack of scientificity, should never have been published.

The Corman-Drosten RT-PCR test protocol is fabricated poorly and vaguely, without validation and standardisation. As a result of cross reaction with other coronaviruses, its specificity of about 98.6%, corresponding to 1.4% false positives, which is already low in the absence of any virus, is further reduced to up to 92.4%, corresponding to 7.6% false positives, during the flu season. Everywhere, the test is performed differently and at too high cycle thresholds. Although studies have shown that no culturable viruses are present in samples with a Ct value above 28, the tests are still carried out with cycle threshold values above 35. Their results are reported worldwide without reference to clinical symptoms.

5. The symptoms, clinical, laboratory and radiological findings of COVID-19 are not clearly distinguishable from diseases caused by other respiratory viruses.

6. There is no epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission of respiratory viruses. What we learned in medical school has meanwhile been confirmed also for SARS-CoV-2 by numerous studies. The ‘asymptomatic contact’ invented by Prof. Drosten in the Letter to the Editor of January 30th, 2020 was very much symptomatic: the patient had suppressed her symptoms with medication.

Therefore, all non-pharmacological interventions for asymptomatic, formerly called healthy, people beyond the proven effective measures to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2, hygiene and self-isolation of sick people, are ineffective.

7. The long quoted high case fatality rate (CFR) of 2% was misleading. Every primary school student knows that it is not the CFR that is relevant, but the infection fatality rate (IFR), which can easily be lower by a factor of about one hundred because of the number of undetected cases.

8. The initial claim that 5% of the infected people would need intensive care treatment was wrong, for the same reasons that every primary school studentunderstands. It led to the procurement of about 1,000 ventilators and to the postponement of non-emergency but of necessary operations.

9. SARS-CoV-2 is not a mass murderer. The most recent realistic estimate of the global IFR is 0.15%, below 0.05% for under 70s. After replacing the number of deceased within 28 days with a positive PCR test on whatever cause by the number of deceased from COVID-19, it is even much lower, well below that of seasonal influenza.

10. An epidemic does not spread exponentially, but according to a logistic or Gompertz function.

11. Due to basic and cross-immunity only about 10-20% of the people contract the seasonal corona and influenza viruses during each flu season. Herd immunity is likely to exist since the end of the Corona-19 season, in our mid-northern latitudes in April 2020. Therefore, an ‘nth wave of a respiratory virus’ is also a biological impossibility.

12. There is effective prophylaxis: for example healthy lifestyle, lots of social contacts, and vitamin D3.

13. There is effective, well tolerated, low cost therapy: for example topical budesonide, normal doses of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

14. The serial experimental mRNA and DNA injections are unnecessary (IFR 0.15%, for <70a: <0.05%, even much lower after replacing the number of deceased from whatever cause within 28 days with a positive PCR test by the number of deceased from COVID-19, moreover SARS-CoV-2 is mutating permanently and in the sense that it becomes more infectious while less dangerous), ineffective (according to the registration studies, which are not worth the paper they are written on, the mRNA injections reduce the risk of mild COVID-19 disease absolutely(!) by <1%, there are no data for severe courses and in >75-year-olds), and unsafe (anaphylactic reactions, thromboembolism, thrombocytopenia, DIC, and myocarditis in the short term, possible ADE in the medium term, possible autoimmune diseases, cancer, and others in the medium to long term).

SARS-CoV-2 is not an alien! It is a newly discovered member of the well-known beta coronavirus family. Therefore, it self-evidently occurs seasonally from November to April and mutates, without human intervention, in such a way that it becomes ever more contagious but less dangerous. Because of existing basic and cross-immunity, only a fraction of the population falls ill. The disease is usually self-limiting and leaves immunity, possibly for life, and better than the best vaccination ever could. It kills comparatively few people and, unlike influenza, no children.

The entire prevailing corona narrative is nonsense. It justifies the globally dominating unscientific, inhumane madness. Such can be wrought with any respiratory virus: if we no longer test all people with a hypersensitive, low-specific RT-PCR test that cross-reacts with other viruses for theoretically one RNA fragment of SARS-CoV-2, but for one of, say, influenza or metapneumoviruses, we immediately have an influenza or metapneumo testing pandemic.

Incidentally, every second-year medical student must study the basics of epidemiology. There, he or she learns that when an epidemic of national scope is declared, a study cohort representative of the population must be formed immediately. It is used to monitor the number of cases, the severity of the disease and the status of immunity, in this case by determining antibodies and T-cell immunity.

Although it has been more than a year since the WHO declared the COVID pandemic, such a representative surveillance cohort does not exist. Even worse: from week 13 to 44, the FOPH had also paused the surveillance system, thus completing the total blind flight.

The epidemic is largely an unreal PCR testing epidemic, but the oppressive measures which it has produced are real; they threaten our freedom, our livelihoods and even our lives.

Dear responsible colleagues!

Please remember the Hippocratic Oath (“Primum non nocere, secundum cavere, tertium sanare”) and the Geneva Declaration of the World Medical Association:

I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat.

Dear responsible fellow humans!

Wake up, stand up and fight, peacefully but firmly; if not for yourself, then for your children’s future and that of your 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.

This article was originally published on Doctors for COVID Ethics.

Dr Binder is specialised in Cardiology and Internal Medicine, with a thesis in Immunology and Virology, and 32 years experience in diagnosis and treatment of Acute Respiratory Illness. This text is largely based on his presentation (German text / German video) held at the press conference of ‘Aletheia – Medicine and Science for Proportionality’, May 28th, 2021.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

On June 12 NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg met with Israeli Foreign Minister and Alternate Prime Minister Yair Lapid at the military bloc’s headquarters in Brussels.

Stoltenberg praised Israel as “one of NATO’s most engaged and capable partners,” one of over twenty years’ standing, and a member of the bloc’s Mediterranean Dialogue military partnership.

He chose the occasion to hold Iran to account over its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and its agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and demanded it “refrain from all activities which are inconsistent with the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (on endorsing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action).

The Israeli minister in turn “declared Israel’s readiness to support the alliance on matters of intelligence, cybersecurity, counter-terrorism, climate change, maritime security, missile defense, and civilian emergency management,” and invited the NATO chief to visit Israel. Stoltenberg visted Israel, both Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, in 2019.

In 2006 NATO granted Israel an Individual Partnership Cooperation Programme (the first ever given) under enhanced Mediterranean Dialogue and Operation Active Endeavour auspices.

In 2016 Israel opened a liaison office (effectively an embassy) at NATO headquarters.

NATO’s Stoltenberg also met with the foreign minister of Egypt, Sameh Shoukry, on July 12. He thanked the latter’s nation for over 25 years of military partnership with NATO, also through the Mediterranean Dialogue. Egypt was given a NATO Individual Partnership Cooperation Programme the year after Israel was.

Both nations have participated in NATO naval exercises in the Mediterranean Sea and both participated in the U.S.- and Ukraine- hosted 32-nation Sea Breeze war games in the Black Sea which ended on July 10.

Stoltenberg commended the Egyptian foreign minister on the recent renewal of the Individual Partnership Cooperation Programme between the bloc and his country under enhanced Mediterranean Dialogue provisions and pledged to expand military cooperation with the North African nation in new directions.

Of the 22 nations bordering the Mediterranean, including Britain (Gibraltar) but excluding minuscule Monaco and Gaza, all but four are NATO members or partners: Cyprus, Lebanon, Libya and Syria. Libya was being promoted as a Mediterranean Dialogue member after NATO’s air war against it a decade ago, and may be considered for a partnership again now that it is effectively under Turkish military control. Similarly, more than a third of Cyprus is occupied by troops from NATO member Turkey.

What Rome once possessed and Napoleon, Mussolini and Hitler attempted to replicate – undisputed control of the Mediterranean – has been accomplished by a U.S.-dominated military alliance.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on NATO Chief Meets with Egyptian, Israeli Foreign Ministers at Alliance Headquarters
  • Tags: , , ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A new report, released today by Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), presents evidence that oil and gas companies including ExxonMobil and Chevron have used per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and/or substances that can degrade into PFAS, in hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) for oil and gas in more than 1,200 wells in six U.S. states between 2012 and 2020.

The report also notes that, due to the lack of full disclosure concerning chemicals used, PFAS could have been used in additional states and in drilling and other extraction techniques that precede the underground injections known as fracking.

PFAS have been linked to cancer, birth defects, pre-eclampsia, and other serious health effects. Toxic in minuscule concentrations, they accumulate inside the human body and do not break down in the environment – hence their nickname, “forever chemicals.”

Evidence related to the use of PFAS or PFAS precursors in oil and gas operations has not been previously publicized.

The report, Fracking with “Forever Chemicals,” also documents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s approval of three chemicals for use in oil and gas drilling and/or fracking, despite EPA’s written observation that the chemicals could degrade into substances similar to PFOA, the most infamous PFAS, highlighted in the 2019 feature film Dark Waters. EPA regulators wrote,

EPA has concerns that these degradation products will persist in the environment, could bioaccumulate or biomagnify, and could be toxic (PBT) to people, wild mammals, and birds based on data on analog chemicals, including PFOA and [REDACTED].

One of these chemicals was used commercially for unspecified purposes as recently as 2018, according to EPA records.

On Monday, July 12 at noon Eastern time, Physicians for Social Responsibility will host a webinar where report findings will be presented. Speakers will be:

  • Dusty Horwitt, author, researcher and attorney. Horwitt, now consulting for PSR, has researched chemical use in the oil and gas industry for over a decade. His reports and investigations have received media coverage in the New York Times, Dallas Morning News, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Charleston Gazette, and ProPublica.
  • Linda Birnbaum, board-certified Ph.D. toxicologist and former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
  • Silverio Caggiano, recently retired Battalion Chief and hazardous materials expert with the Youngstown, Ohio fire department.
  • Wilma Subra, Louisiana-based chemist and MacArthur Foundation “Genius” award winner who has spent decades working to protect people from oil- and gas-related pollution.

Representatives of the press will have the opportunity to direct questions to the speakers.

“The evidence that people could be unknowingly exposed to these extremely toxic chemicals through oil and gas operations is disturbing,” said Horwitt. “Considering the terrible history of pollution associated with PFAS, EPA and state governments need to move quickly to ensure that the public knows where these chemicals have been used and is protected from their impacts.”

“It’s very disturbing to see the extent to which critical information about these chemicals is shielded from public view,” added Barbara Gottlieb, PSR’s Environment & Health Program Director. “The lack of transparency about fracking chemicals puts human health at risk.” “PFAS have negative health effects, including cancer, that encompass virtually every system in the human body: the immune system, our reproductive systems, the liver, kidneys,” stated Birnbaum. “The potential that these chemicals are being used in oil and gas operations should prompt regulators to take swift action to investigate the extent of this use, pathways of exposure, and whether people are being harmed.”

“Fire departments are scrambling to get rid of firefighting foam with PFAS in it because EPA says it’s toxic,” said Caggiano, who retired in June 2021 and has trained with fire-fighting foam that contains PFAS. “So if it’s too dangerous for us to use, why should oil and gas companies get to use it?” Youngstown is located near oil and gas production wells and underground injection disposal wells where oil and gas companies inject wastewater from their operations for permanent disposal.

“There’s a potential for [PFAS] to contaminate a huge amount of water or soil or sediment if it were to spill on the surface,” Subra noted. “It doesn’t take much to be present in those media to be a threat to health.”

The report is available to be downloaded at www.psr.org/frackingchemicals.

*

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 OtherWords.org