All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
As reported yesterday, the CIA Director William J. Burns travelled to Brazil to meet Bolsonaro government ministers. The reason for the meetings had been kept secret, but Jair Bolsonaro during his daily social media broadcast to his supporters, claimed he had a meeting with Burns (although not on his official schedule).The Brazilian president openly admitted that the meeting was held with the purpose of discussing the political situation in South America, or more specifically the new rise of the left, and Bolsonaro attacked neighbouring countries:
“I’m not going to say that this was dealt with him, but we analyzed how things are going in South America.We can’t stand to talk about Venezuela anymore, but look at Argentina.Where is Chile going?What happened in Bolivia?The Evo Morales gang returned.And even more: the president who was there in the interim term is in prison, accused of undemocratic acts.Are you feeling any resemblance to Brazil?”.
As published here at Brasil Wire, Bolsonaro played an active role in the 2019 coup in Bolivia and in the same year aided repression promoted by Sebastian Piñera in Chile.
Before arriving in Brazil, Burns had been in Colombia.
In a speech on the 1st of July, Venezuelan President Nicolás Madurospoke about the “tour” of US authorities in the region and of a “plan against Venezuela”:
“The commander of the Southern Command and the head of the CIA are prowling around Venezuela, and they are received like heroes in Colombia, Brazil, to make plans against you,” the Venezuelan head of state said in a Television address.
“In Colombia there was the commander of Southern Command, Craig Faller, and they told me that the director of the CIA was also there recently.They are working on some secret plan to harm Venezuela,”he said.
Maduro has a point. According to the Colombian Foreign Ministry on the 28th of June, Joe Biden and Iván Duque had a phone call where they spoke about the situation in Venezuela and its regional impact, and highlighted the importance of seeking an international consensus for “free and fair elections” in the country.
Burns’ Agenda
During the day, the US authority visited the Palácio do Planalto and met with members of Jair Bolsonaro’s government.
In the afternoon, Burns attended an audience with the director of the Institutional Security Office (GSI), General Augusto Heleno.Also present at the meeting were Alexandre Ramagem, director general of ABIN, the Brazilian Intelligence Agency, and General Walter Braga Netto, Minister of Defence.
In the evening, the director of the CIA participated in a dinner with Heleno and with the Government Secretary, General Luiz Eduardo Ramos.
There is no exact information on where exactly the CIA director met with Bolsonaro. As Burns held meetings with Generals at the heart of the Bolsonaro regime, Bolsonaro announced that he would not relinquish the presidency at the 2022 election in the event of “election fraud”. The president of the TSE (Electoral Court) last week denounced Bolsonaro’s plan for Brazil’s return to a system of printed votes, as a “return to election fraud” and threat to democracy.
Bolsonaro’s statement has caused concern, especially given that baseless allegations of voter fraud were the pretext for both the 2019 US-backed coup in Bolivia, and the current situation in Peru, with efforts to prevent its election winner, socialist Pedro Castillo, from taking office. Former president Lula da Silva, Bolsonaro’s would be opponent in 2018, who led polls before being jailed in the joint US-Brazil anti-corruption operation Lava Jato, is now absolved and free to run, with opinion polls showing he that he would win the 2022 election in the first round, with a 30% lead over the sitting president.
In Brazil, Chile and Colombia, the United States’ three key allies in South America, left wing candidates currently lead election polls for forthcoming elections, against a backdrop of massive street protests against their far-right, US-supported leaders, in what many are describing as a repeat of the “pink tide” that swept the continent twenty years ago.
*
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).
Called a conspiracy theorist and vilified in the mainstream press for questioning the safety of covid vaccines while promoting the use of cheap, safe drugs that frontline doctors say work well for early treatment of their covid patients, Senator Johnson describes a mind-boggling gauntlet of roadblocks and malfeasance preventing him from conducting a proper investigation of the origins of the virus, the management of the pandemic, and the suppression of lifesaving treatment information.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
On June 27, 2021 the US carried out additional strikes against targets along the Syrian-Iraqi border. The attacks were condemned by both the Syrian and Iraqi governments and represent not only a dangerous escalation by American military aggression in the region, but the continuation of US aggression in the Middle East spanning two decades regardless of who occupies the White House or Congress.
A US Department of Defense statement dated June 27, 2021 regarding the US strikes would claim:
At President Biden’s direction, US military forces earlier this evening conducted defensive precision airstrikes against facilities used by Iran-backed militia groups in the Iraq-Syria border region. he targets were selected because these facilities are utilized by Iran-backed militias that are engaged in unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) attacks against U.S. personnel and facilities in Iraq.
The statement would also claim:
We are in Iraq at the invitation of the Government of Iraq for the sole purpose of assisting the Iraqi Security Forces in their efforts to defeat ISIS.
And that:
As a matter of international law, the United States acted pursuant to its right of self-defense. The strikes were both necessary to address the threat and appropriately limited in scope. As a matter of domestic law, the President took this action pursuant to his Article II authority to protect US personnel in Iraq.
While “assisting Iraqi Security Forces in their efforts to defeat ISIS” (a terrorist organization, banned in Russia) is the official excuse for US forces remaining in Iraq – the truth is that US forces have occupied Iraq illegally since the US-led invasion in 2003 which was deemed very much illegal by the UN.
A 2004 Guardian article titled, Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan,” would note:
The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN’s founding charter.
And despite claims that the US is in Iraq “at the invitation of the Government of Iraq” in a bid to justify its military aggression, the government of Iraq itself has unequivocally condemned the US strikes as a violation of the nation’s sovereignty.
The New York Times in a June 28, 2021 article titled, “Iraq Condemns US Airstrikes on Iran-Backed Militias,” would report:
The Iraqi government on Monday condemned US airstrikes on Iranian-backed militias near the Iraqi-Syrian border, and one of the targeted paramilitary groups vowed “open war” against American interests in Iraq.
The New York Times also notes that the militias targeted by the US and characterized as “Iranian-backed” are actually “on the [Iraqi] government payroll.”
Not mentioned by the New York Times is that these militias played a key role in the defeat of the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS) in both Iraq and neighboring Syria. The New York Times mentions the US assassination of General Qassim Suleimani, commander of Iran’s Quds Force, which – under General Suleimani’s leadership – also played a key role in the defeat of ISIS in both Syria and Iraq.
General Suleimani was also in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government when the US carried out air strikes to assassinate the Iranian military commander.
Washington’s claims of maintaining its military occupation of Iraq to “assist” in defeating ISIS is contradicted by its campaign of violence against Iraq’s Iranian allies who are likewise assisting in the defeat of extremist forces – not only in Iraq – but also in neighboring Syria.
Unlike the US, however, Iran is not allied with ISIS’ key state sponsors. In 2016, then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a leaked e-mail would mention key US allies – Saudi Arabia and Qatar – by name as providing “clandestine financial and logistical support” to ISIS and “other radical Sunni groups in the region.”
Of course, the US itself was also funding, arming, training, and otherwise equipping extremist groups fighting alongside Al Qaeda (also banned in Russia) and ISIS.
An August 2017 New York Times article titled, “Behind the Sudden Death of a $1 Billion Secret CIA War in Syria,” would mention reports that:
…some of the CIA-supplied weapons had ended up in the hands of a rebel group tied to Al Qaeda further sapped political support for the program.
The same article would claim that extremist organizations affiliated with Al Qaeda “often fought alongside the CIA-backed rebels” and admitted that by the end of the US program these extremist organizations dominated the so-called opposition in Syria.
Had the US been genuinely funding, arming, training, and otherwise equipping moderate rebels to the tune of billions of dollars, who was funding, arming, training, and otherwise equipping extremists even more – allowing them to eventually displace US-backed rebels on Syria’s battlefields?
The answer is that there never were any moderate rebels to begin with. The US set out arming extremist forces deliberately as part of its proxy war against Damascus.
As early as 2007, journalists like Seymour Hersh in his article, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?,” would expose Washington’s preparations to do exactly that, warning (emphasis added):
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
Thus it is clear that not only did the United States give rise to Al Qaeda and ISIS across the region and specifically in Syria and Iraq, it did so deliberately. It is using the threat of extremism it and its regional allies sponsored to begin with as a pretext to remain in the region militarily and as a smokescreen behind which it is carrying out an escalating campaign of aggression against Iraq and Syria’s allies who actually aided in Al Qaeda and ISIS’ defeat.
The US attempts to cite international and US domestic laws in a bid to depict its ongoing aggression as “self-defense” regarding US forces stationed thousands of miles from American shores and who are in the Middle East as a direct result of an illegal war of aggression predicated two decades ago on deliberately fabricated accusations of “weapons of mass destruction” Washington claimed the Iraqi government possessed at the time.
Today, the US is attacking militias paid by the Iraqi government – attacks protested loudly by the Iraqi government – all while claiming the US presence within Iraqi territory is “at the invitation of the Government of Iraq.”
This ongoing US aggression along the Iraqi-Syrian border is a dangerous illustration of how despite claiming US forces are essential for stability and security in the region, the US is in fact the primary driving force of instability and a constant threat to security across the Middle East. It also illustrates how much more work Syria, Iraq, and their actual allies have ahead of them in both eliminating extremists the US simultaneously sponsors and claims to be fighting, and pushing out the United States’ otherwise perpetual military occupation of the region without triggering a war with a nuclear-armed aggressor..
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from NEO
Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.
Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes the mainstream media narratives on Syria.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Militarily occupying Iraq and Syria is a thoroughly bipartisan policy in the United States. And bombing West Asia has become a favorite pastime that unites both Democrat and Republican presidents.
The United States believes it has the right to bomb, militarily occupy, and economically strangulate any country, anywhere, without consequence. But the world’s peoples are standing up more and more to the global dictatorship of US hegemony.
On June 27, Washington launched airstrikes against forces in both Iraq and Syria, two sovereign countries illegally occupied by the US military, which have repeatedly called for American troops to leave.
The US attack proved to be a gift to the genocidal extremists in ISIS: it helped provide cover as remnants of the so-called “Islamic State” launched a terror attack on a power grid in northern Iraq. Similarly, the US bombing killed several members of Iraqi government-backed units who had been protecting their nation from ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
It is far from the first time Washington has clearly been on the same side as far-right Takfiri fanatics. For example, current US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan admitted in an email to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012 that “AQ is on our side in Syria.” And the US government supported al-Qaeda extremists in its wars on Yemen and Libya.
In addition to aiding notorious terrorist groups, these US strikes on Iraq and Syria were glaringly illegal under international law. Moreover, they constitute a clear act of aggression against the peoples of West Asia, who for decades have struggled for self-determination and control over their own, plentiful natural resources – resources that the US government and its all-powerful corporations seek to control and exploit.
The Pentagon tried to justify its attack claiming it was an act of “self-defense.” Absurdly, the US Department of Defense – the world champion in violating international law – even cited international law to try to legitimize the airstrikes.
In reality, the US military’s presence in Iraq and Syria is illegal. And under international law, a military power that is illegally occupying a territory does not have the right to self-defense. That is true just as much for apartheid “Israel” in its settler-colonial aggression against Palestine as it is for the United States in its imperial wars on the peoples of Iraq and Syria.
In January 2020, in response to Washington’s assassination of top Iranian General Qasem Soleimani and Iraqi Commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis – a criminal act of war against both Iraq and Iran – the democratically elected parliament in Baghdad voted 170 to 0 to expel the thousands of US troops occupying Iraq.
Washington simply ignored the vote, silencing the voices of the Iraqi people – while threatening more economic sanctions on their government. In addition, the Pentagon stressed that the vote was nonbinding. Still, even the US government-backed RAND Corporation acknowledged that there “is no treaty or status of forces agreement (SOFA) authorizing the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq.”
Likewise, the United States is illegally occupying one-third of Syrian sovereign territory. The internationally recognized government in Damascus has repeatedly called on the US military occupiers to leave, but they have refused, in a flagrant violation of Syrian sovereignty.
“The presence of Americans in Syria is a sign of occupation, and we believe that all nations and governments must stand up to their unlawful presence in the region,” Syrian Prime Minister Imad Khamis declared in 2020, after the US assassinations of the top Iraqi and Iranian military leaders.
While former Republican President Donald Trump radiated a kind of neocolonial arrogance, boasting that US troops would illegally remain in Syria because “we want to keep the oil,” the Democratic Joe Biden administration has not acted much differently.
President Biden appointed hardline neoconservative operative Dana Stroul as the top Pentagon official for Middle East policy. In 2019, Stroul bragged that Washington “owned” one-third of Syrian territory, including its “economic powerhouse,” which includes the vast majority of its oil and wheat reserves.
Stroul’s promotion was an unambiguous sign that the Democrats are endorsing the same sadistic Trumpian strategy, to militarily occupy Syria, steal its natural resources, starve its government of revenue, deny its people bread and gasoline, and prevent reconstruction of what Stroul snidely referred to as the widespread “rubble.”
The reality is that militarily occupying Iraq and Syria is a thoroughly bipartisan policy in the United States. And bombing West Asia has become a favorite pastime that unites both Democrat and Republican presidents.
Trump launched airstrikes against Syria in April 2018 on totally unsubstantiated accusations that Damascus had carried out “gas attacks,” claims that have since been proven false by multiple whistleblowers from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
Then in December 2019, the Trump administration bombed anti-ISIS militias in both Syria and Iraq.
Biden carried out a similar, illegal attack on these same fighters in eastern Syria in February 2021. Another example of Washington serving as the de facto air force for the remnants of the so-called “Islamic State.”
The December 2019, February 2021, and June 2021 US airstrikes targeted the Iraqi government-backed Popular Mobilization Forces (PMFs), known in Arabic as the al-Hashd al-Sha’abi. In its official statement on the June bombing, the Pentagon stated unequivocally that it was attacking Kata’ib Hezbollah and Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada, two prominent Iraqi armed groups in the Hashd.
The Department of Defense misleadingly referred to these units as “Iran-backed militia groups.” The US government and the corporate media outlets that act as its obedient mouthpiece always describe the Hashd as “Iran-backed” to try to downplay their role as indigenous protectors of Iraqi sovereignty and deceptively portray them as foreign proxies of Washington’s favorite bogeyman.
In reality, the PMFs are Iraqi units supported by the elected, internationally recognized government in Baghdad. The Hashd played a leading role in the fight against ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other extremist Takfiri groups in both Iraq and Syria – while the United States, apartheid “Israel”, and NATO allies spent billions of dollars backing Salafi-jihadist death squads in their genocidal war on the people of Syria.
The Hashd do indeed receive assistance from Tehran, and they have every right to do so. After all, Iran is Iraq’s neighbor, whereas the United States is on the other side of the planet. But Washington, NATO, and their de facto stenographers in the corporate press corps seek to discredit all resistance to criminal US aggression in West Asia by erasing its organic, indigenous roots and lazily depicting it as a vast conspiracy controlled by an omnipresent Iranian controller.
The PMFs made it clear that they will not tolerate Washington’s assault on their nation’s sovereignty. “We reserve the legal right to respond to these attacks and hold the perpetrators accountable on Iraqi soil,” the Hashd declared.
Unlike the US military occupiers, the people of Iraq and Syria do have a right to exercise self-defense in response to strikes by foreign aggressors. They can legally resist American military occupation and neocolonialism, just as the people of Palestine have the right to resist Israeli military occupation and Zionist settler-colonialism. It is a right enshrined in international law – and an inalienable right that any nation would defend.
If Washington wants to stop attacks on its troops, there is an easy way to do that: withdraw them from the region where they are not wanted. American soldiers will be much safer at home.
*
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 “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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Gabriela, you are part of the four percent of the world’s population that celebrates today, July 4th, as Independence Day. We are in the extreme minority of the earth’s inhabitants that claim citizenship within the belly of the beast of the global empire, the United States.
Today, many Americans will attend parades, barbecues, and fireworks shows wearing apparel donned with the patriotic red, white, and blue. This holiday is generally a happy occasion to see family and friends for an early summer celebration. However, rarely is the cause for this celebration inspected.
Questions that usually go unasked on this day include: Why are we celebrating this nation? What, if any, benefits have been brought to the world by the existence of the United States?
My hope is that as you age you consider these questions and investigate some of the assumptions many Americans hold about their nation. This day can be an opportunity to make an honest assessment of this country’s past and present, with the goal of working toward a more humane future. During this reflection, your father hopes that you take into account the following considerations.
You have been born into an empire with asymmetric power!
Gabriela, your incidental birth within the United States means you are part of a citizenry that has a collective proverbial gun pointed at the people of the rest of the world. You are a member of a nation that holds unprecedented military and economic power on the global stage. This understanding should serve as a framework for all exploration into your nation’s relationship with the global community.
The United States spends more than the next ten highest spenders combined on power projection through military force [Source: nationalpriorities.org]
Comparing the U.S. military budget to other supposed rivals becomes almost comical, withRussia spending just over $60 billion, Iran spending $15 billion, and North Korea’s budget remaining lower than that of the New York City police department at $4 billion. Further illustrating this asymmetric power in the globe are the 800 foreign military bases possessed by the U.S. compared to a combined 70 possessed by the rest of the world’s nations.
A quick glance at a map of where the bases are should remove all doubt as to which country maintains hegemony over the world’s people. U.S. military bases and installations threateningly surround every alleged adversary from Iran, to China, to Russia. Of course, the U.S. would never permit those aforementioned adversaries to place their bases anywhere near the U.S. border.
Lastly, only the United States approaches the world with a mindset so imperial in nature that it divides the earth’s regions into different “commands” for its military to police. These include U.S. Southern Command, which “presides” over Central and South America, Central Command (Centcom) for the Middle East, and Africa Command (Africom) which, with echoes from the 19th century Berlin Conference, claims jurisdiction in Africa. Contrastingly, other nations possess neither the will nor the capability of setting up similar patrols of the earth’s surface.
Economically the United States’s treasure wields the power to cripple the economies of entire societies through sanctions. The citizens of Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, Venezuela and Syria are quite familiar with this destructive capability of the global superpower. The economic sanctions leveled on these nations by the U.S. disproportionately harm the most vulnerable, and the deprivation they cause has devastated the lives of millions in just the past few years. Conversely, no nation is capable of instituting an economic war on the U.S. that would cause proportionate levels of suffering among the populace.
The United States levels crippling economic sanctions on a significant portion of the world’s population. No nation has the ability to inflict similar levels of suffering on the U.S. (Source: newsweek.com)
An acknowledgment of this asymmetry in power between the U.S. and all other nations should underscore the importance of maintaining a critical interpretation of this nation’s historical and current affairs. Given the enormity of its potential for violence, this nation is in desperate need of being restrained from within.
Exceptional? No. We are extreme! Our “normal” is radical by global and historical standards
Gabriela, I hope you can understand that here in the U.S., what we consider to be normal is extreme in both the international and historical sense. The challenge here is reminiscent of the popular phrase, “not being able to see the forest for the trees.” Recognizing the extreme nature of the “forest” we live in is challenging because, as Americans, we are able to live amongst the trees, mostly incurious about the larger context of the world or history. Taking a wider view, it becomes clear that our society exists in a radical departure from global and historical norms. Understanding this can be useful in catalyzing resistance to our nation’s behavior.
And how are we extreme? Well, aside from the above-discussed military and economic power, other actions and policies of the U.S. are also unparalleled in the global community. One distinguishing aspect of America is that our nation has the ignominious title of the world’s largest carceral state, imprisoning some 2.3 million people. This would seem to run counter to the narrative of freedom that on this July 4th we are led to believe is such a deeply ingrained American value.
Of those millions denied basic freedom, some 80,000, at any one time, are subjected to solitary confinement, a practice the United Nations has determined to be a form of torture.Furthermore, as a testament to the vindictive rather than restorative nature of the criminal justice system, our country remains in the minority of nations that maintain the death penalty.
The United States is by far the largest penal colony in the world, contradicting the notion that this is “the land of the free.” [Source: prisonpolicy.org]
Even the “free” population of the U.S. is subject to extreme policies. The United States is alone in the industrialized world in the fact that its citizens are not guaranteed health care.
Adding to this absurdity is the fact that Americans spend far more than other wealthy nations on medical care, yet have far worse health outcomes. U.S. life expectancy is lower and infant mortality rates are higher than its international counterparts.
Another aspect of our “normal” includes being the only advanced nation to deny new parents paid family leave after the birth of a child. In that same vein of sacrificing basic needs in the interests of capitalist profiteering is the fact that the United States, unlike its industrialized counterparts, does not guarantee paid sick leave. Indeed, the status quo in this nation is anti worker, anti-family, and fundamentally callous toward the large majority of the domestic population.
The “normal” behavior of the U.S. in the international arena is even more extreme. Even an examination of U.S. foreign policy limited to your parents’ lifetimes is revealing in this regard. Just since your mother and father’s births in the mid-1980s, the United States has invaded, conducted airstrikes, and engaged in destabilizing covert operations in dozens of other nations.
A non-exhaustive list of nations victimized by U.S. violence in the last four decades would include Iraq, Panama, Afghanistan, Serbia, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Libya, and Pakistan. Needless to say, all of these actions have been in direct violation of the targeted nation’s sovereignty and international law.
Reciprocally, in that same period of time, no nation has engaged in international aggression even approaching the standard set by the U.S. China, an alleged U.S. enemy, has not engaged in a war since 1979 (a war supported by the U.S. against communist Vietnam).
Russia has engaged in comparatively few military conflicts in the same period of time, fighting several small wars in bordering states, and coming to the aid of (and at the invitation of) the Syrian government in that Arab nation’s civil war.
Also setting the United States apart from the normative behavior for nations in the global community is its conduct toward and within international institutions. The U.S. is consistently in the extreme minority in its votes in the United Nations.
The global superpower weaponized its permanent seat on the Security Council to upheld injustices such as Israeli and South African apartheids, and its Cuba embargo against overwhelming global opposition to these policies. Also at the UN, America has revealed itself to be in the extreme minority by opposing seemingly obvious policies that would serve to decrease human suffering. This has included Uncle Sam’s refusal to sign onto the Convention on Cluster Munitions, and being the only nation to vote “no” on a UN resolution to make food a human right.
America’s unique intransigence extends to other global institutions. This has included ignoring decrees by the International Court of Justice and a refusal to ratify the International Criminal Court. When a nation’s criminality is extreme in the global sense, it should not be surprising that it would go to extreme measures to avoid accountability for its behavior.
The United States infamously refused to honor a ruling by the International Court of Justice ruling that dictated that the U.S. should be held accountable for the 1980s dirty war on Nicaragua. [Source: theguardian.com]
Indeed, as the most powerful empire in human history, our nation holds many shamefully distinctive qualities. These also include the facts that the U.S. is the only nation to ever target a civilian population with nuclear weapons, that the U.S. has engaged in foreign election interference significantly more than any other nation, and that the U.S. operates international programs of kidnapping, torture, and assassination.
The fact that this extreme behavior can persist is an indication that it is acceded to, tolerated, and often supported by U.S. citizens. It demands a reconsideration of our perception of our “exceptionalism” that alleges our superiority as a nation. We need a serious reconciliation with the ignominious aspects of our society that actually do render us unique. Only then can we move toward a more humane “normal.”
Violence begets violence: You live in a nation birthed in barbarism and ensconced in violence
Gabriela, sadly another tragic feature for us in the United States is rampant gun violence. Naturally, occasions of mass shootings evoke emotional responses from much of the American public. Atrocities like the Sandy Hook shooting of 2012 or the Parkland shooting of 2018 correctly shock the conscience of most Americans. However, tragically such occasions seem less out of the ordinary when considering that this is a nation for which violence has been a foundational and consistent element of its history.
This nation was born out of the violence of genocide and race-based chattel slavery. Pre-dating the founding of the nation, the land that would become the 13 colonies and eventually the United States was taken by force by European conquerors, and utilized to build profits of elites through the exploitation of free labor.
Our foundational accounts often sanitize this legacy. For instance, while our Thanksgiving narrative points to a harmonious 17th century feast shared between the Indigenous peoples and white colonists, the reality is much harsher. In the same New England colony in which the legendary November feast took place, the white settlers carried out a campaign of extermination against the native inhabitants.
Emblematic of the brutality of this policy was the Pequot War, which saw the forebears of American society burn hundreds of Indigenous women and children alive in an attack on Fort Mystic, Connecticut.
A participant in the massacre and eventual governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, William Bradford, described the barbarity: “It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire … and horrible was the stink … but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the praise thereof to God.” Such a statement makes apparent the level of acceptance of industrial-scale violence against innocents that is ingrained into the very origins of this nation.
White settlers slaying the Pequot in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. [Source: britannica.com]
During the American Revolution, the Iroquois tribe along with many other Indigenous nations, recognized the imperial ambitions of the American colonists, and thus sided with Great Britain. This decision drew the ire of white colonists, who had already developed a racist disdain for the original inhabitants of North America.
A general in the Continental Army directed his subordinates to conduct a genocidal war on the Iroquois, demanding the “total destruction and devastation of their settlements.” He also demanded that the army ruin “their crops now in the ground and prevent their planting more.”
The campaign that proceeded was described by historian Page Smith as “the most ruthless application of scorched-earth policy in U.S. history.”
The general who ordered this violence has become appropriately known as “town destroyer” by surviving Iroquois. Simultaneously, the large majority of Americans know this same individual as the man to whom monuments are dedicated, roads and bridges are named after, and whose face graces currency: the first president of the United States, George Washington.
These signs memorialize the Iroquois victims of America’s war for independence (Source: onondaganation.org)
That the supposed heroes in this nation’s war for independence engaged in such sadism toward Native Americans would foreshadow the violent nature of the United States.
The century that followed the nation’s birth saw the new republic expand across the continent using methods similar to Washington’s during the revolution. “Manifest destiny” was accomplished by employing genocidal violence against the indigenous nations to ethnically cleanse them from lands coveted by white Americans. The “Sea to Shining Sea” continent-spanning behemoth we live in today was also attained through armed seizure of half of Mexico.
By the turn of the 20th century, the conquest of the continent had apparently not satiated the United States’s appetite for violence. To this end, the budding superpower exported atrocity to the Philippines, killing up to a million people in another blatant war of conquest.
The decades that followed would see American savagery visited on Vietnam, Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia, Nicaragua, and many more nations. History shows us that war—the purest expression of violence—is as American as apple pie. The U.S. has been at war nearly every year of its existence, including the year of your birth and the 20 years that preceded it.
I would ask that you consider the horror of domestic shootings within the context of a nation that engages in industrial-scale massacres as policy. Place these horrific events within the larger canon of a nation that perpetrates drone strikes on civilian gatherings such as weddings and funerals, bombs densely populated cities, and implements economic sanctions that kill hundreds of thousands. These atrocities hardly register as news in the United States, even as they inflict exponentially more suffering than the aforementioned mass shootings.
This inconsistency in attention paid to some instances of violence but not to others is at the heart of the understanding that I hope you gain about this country.
This is a nation that Martin Luther King, Jr., accurately characterized in his 1967 Beyond Vietnam speech as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world.”
Such a label was preceded by King considering the inconsistency of denouncing acts of violence committed by individuals within the United States, while the United States government was simultaneously conducting a war of extermination in Vietnam.
To call attention to the sadistic nature of U.S. policies does not serve to obfuscate or minimize the suffering of victims of violence at home. Rather, this approach calls for global empathy, a recognition of the equality, common humanity, and equal potential for suffering of all the earth’s peoples within the U.S. borders or outside of them.
Indeed, a visiting Martian would likely find it obvious that a nation whose foundation was based in slavery and genocide, whose proceeding three centuries have been defined by perpetual war, who devotes so much of its resources toward its armed forces, and remains the largest arms dealer on earth, is a nation with violence deeply embedded in its DNA.
The scourge of mass shootings are but a symptom of a deranged and sick society. If we wish to most effectively address this symptom, it starts with the correct diagnosis of our nation as a pathologically violent society.
The real privilege of being an American
On July 4th, along with many days on the calendar, you will be besieged by the patriotic fervor of U.S. politicians and citizens stating how proud they are to be an American. You may even be met with demands from nationalistic types that you admit how “lucky” you are to be here. (This is especially likely if you voice any of the aforementioned critiques of this nation.) The reality, though, is we are actually quite fortunate to be U.S. citizens, albeit for reasons entirely different than an American chauvinist would claim.
One of the greatest benefits of being an American citizen is that we are (mostly) shielded from the horrors inflicted by our government abroad. American wars are fought on other people’s territory, destroy foreign cities, and upend the lives of non-Americans. U.S. citizens are generally spared the agony created by their government’s foreign policies. There are of course caveats to this, including the many ways that U.S. wars come homebut, nonetheless, Americans suffer comparatively less than those in the nations targeted by our government. One could cynically argue that this is a “blessing” for U.S. citizens.
This wall of protection is also a curse: As U.S. citizens, we have become so detached from the imperial behavior of our government that it has created a total misunderstanding of other nations and historical events.
The devastation inflicted by our government has no parallel in similar American experience. For instance, after the American revolution, the U.S. was not invaded by 16 foreign nations attempting to destroy the new nation, as was the Soviet Union upon its formation.
America has never endured a genocidal aerial bombing campaign that killed millions, and leveled every major city, as North Korea suffered at the hands of the U.S. Our government has never been overthrown by a foreign power’s intelligence agency, which then installed a repressive regime to rule over Americans, as the U.S. has done dozens of times to other nations.
In the U.S., our weddings and religious gatherings are not turned into massacres by Hellfire missiles launched by Predator drones. The same cannot be said for Pakistanis and Afghans in recent years.
There has never been a scourge of hundreds of thousands of American babies dying due to the economic warfare of a foreign power, the exact punishment that the U.S. has inflicted on Iraq and Yemen in recent years.
In short, our government creates life-altering trauma for people the world over, but Americans remain blissfully detached and unempathetic to those on the receiving end of U.S. imperialism.
This detachment is, of course, all too convenient for the managers of the empire. The American populace’s ignorance of the suffering of their targeted populations is necessary to perpetuate the imperial project.
However, Gabriela, this collective apathy is not in OUR interests. The future of humanity will depend on global empathy and cooperation to combat the greatest challenges of our time, including nuclear proliferation, world hunger, and climate change.
U.S. imperialism presents a huge barrier to such cooperation. Of course, understanding that we are isolated from the effects of our nation’s violence is not sufficient alone. From there it is incumbent on us to find resources to challenge the American exceptionalist and imperialist narrative.
We already have the other side of the story! In fact, we are bombarded with it!
Gabriela, as you grow older and form your own opinions, you may read this letter and conclude that it presents a gratuitously critical perspective on the United States, its history, and its current place in the world. However, I encourage you to take stock of the sheer weight of the uncritical pro-America message we are bombarded with on a daily basis.
All of our major sporting events begin with the National Anthem. Those same events almost always are accompanied by blind worship of militarism with time devoted to “support the troops,” often accompanied by a flyover of fighter jets (as the crowd undoubtedly cheers).
Worship of militarism has become the norm at sporting events. [Source: bracingviews.com]
Popular entertainment in the form of feature films, television shows, and video games all contribute to an uncritical patriotic narrative, as imperial institutions such as the CIA and Pentagon wield tremendous influence over production of these media.
Our mainstream news media are often an instrument of imperial militaristic propaganda as well. With just six corporations owning 90% of media, the spectrum of opinion presented is extremely limited to what a small group of oligarchs considers acceptable. These same outlets are over reliant on narratives of the intelligence agencies, military, and corporate funded think tanks, rather than alternative sources of criticism such as activists or real investigative journalists.
Lastly, just take stock of the everyday features of your life, such as faces on our currency, the namesakes of major cities and infrastructure, and the commemorative statues you’ll find in municipalities around this nation. Here you’ll find that the message communicated is one of reverence not for those who challenged power but, rather, for the slave owners, militarists, and managers of an internally and externally repressive American empire.
I am stressing the importance of rejecting traditional American exceptionalist narratives because (at the risk of sounding cliché) you are the future. In spite of the injustices perpetrated by this nation historically and currently, there have been moments of hope whereby progress toward a more just world was accomplished. Positive change, however, has rarely been the result of the actions of leadership, but rather the result of bottom-up activism.
The abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, civil rights legislation, labor protections, and the end of South African apartheid was made possible, not because of top-down edicts, but because of the collective actions of grassroots movements.
Historically, agents of change have never been satisfied with the aggrandizing narratives about their nation, and looked upon their society and found it wanting in terms of equality and justice.
If a United States that is actually a force for good in the world is possible, it is only because your generation and those that follow will make it so. Each July 4th that passes is an occasion to reflect honestly on what this nation is. From there, we can direct our actions toward creating a society worthy of celebration.
*
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 Mckenna is a teacher in Bergen County New Jersey and teaches AP United States History. Prior to that job, he was a teacher for a decade in the Bronx (2007-2017). He can be reached at: [email protected]
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The reported rate of death from COVID-19 shots now exceeds the reported death rate of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years
The COVID shots are also five times more dangerous than the pandemic H1N1 vaccine, which had a 25-per-million severe side effect rate
A recent study calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) to prevent one COVID-19 death, finding that for every three people spared from COVID-19 death, the COVID gene therapy injections kill two. According to the authors, “This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy”
There’s evidence that the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is deleting reports of side effects, especially deaths related to COVID injection. So, not only does VAERS generally capture only 1% to 10% of side effects, but they also appear to be manually wiping reports
A case report reviews two neurosurgical cases in which patients developed new onset of neurological symptoms shortly after their COVID shots. The two patients were found to have two different types of brain tumors. The authors hypothesize that the shots may trigger inflammation that contributes to neuro-oncologic diseases
*
If there were any reasonable safety standard in place, the COVID injection campaign would have been halted in early January 2021. The reported rate of death from COVID-19 shots now exceeds the reported death rate of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years, and it’s about 500 times deadlier than the seasonal flu vaccine,1 which historically has been the most hazardous.
The COVID shots are also five times more dangerous than the pandemic H1N1 vaccine, which had a 25-per-million severe side effect rate.2,3 In a June 24, 2021, peer-reviewed article4 in the medical journal Vaccines, titled, “The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccination — We Should Rethink the Policy,” an international team of scientists warns that we’re killing nearly as many with the shots as would die from COVID-19 itself.
UPDATE: This peer reviewed article was retracted. Please see twitter thread for details.
For Every Three COVID Deaths Spared, Two Die From the Jabs
To compare the risks and benefits, they calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) to prevent one COVID-19 death. The data came from a large Israeli field study and two adverse drug reactions databases, one with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and one with the Dutch National Register.
To prevent one case of COVID-19 using the mRNA shot by Pfizer, the NNTV is between 200 and 700. The NNTV to prevent one death is between 9,000 and 50,000, with 16,000 as a point estimate.
Meanwhile, the number of people reporting adverse reactions from the shots is 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. For serious side effects, there are 16 reports per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is 4.11 per 100,000 vaccinations.
The final calculation suggests that for every three COVID-19 deaths prevented, two die from the shots. “This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy,” the authors state in conclusion.
Understand that doesn’t even factor in the anticipated far greater death toll from the COVID jab in the fall, as a result of paradoxical immune enhancement. These numbers will escalate to shocking ratios as the deaths start to increase in the fall.
Toxicologist Calls for End to COVID Vaccination Program
Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., a prominent toxicologist and molecular biologist who works with M.D. Anderson Cancer Center-Houston, says the current COVID-19 injection campaign is a “massive clinical trial” using the general population as subjects, and is calling for the program to end.
Lindsay, described by investigative journalist Jennifer Margulis as having “extensive experience in analyzing the molecular profile of pharmacologic responses,”5 told the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) that Pfizer’s and Moderna’s gene therapy injections have multiple safety concerns and should not be given to children or women of childbearing age.
You can hear her comment in the video above. A transcript of her three-minute comment can be found on Algora.com.6
She pointed out “there is a credible reason to believe that the COVID vaccines will cross-react with the syncytin and reproductive proteins in sperm, ova and placenta, leading to impaired fertility and impaired reproductive and gestational outcomes,” and that there are enough pregnancy losses reported thus far to warrant stopping the vaccines. Lindsay should know, seeing how she worked on a vaccine back in the ‘90s that unexpectedly ended up causing permanent sterility.
Margulis contacted Lindsay after the meeting to see what additional information she had that she was not allowed to present due to the three-minute time restriction. In a written response, Lindsay said:7
“There is strong evidence for immune escape and that inoculation under pandemic pressure with these leaky vaccines is driving the creation of more lethal mutants that are both newly infecting a younger age demographic, and causing more COVID-related deaths across the population than would have occurred without intervention. That is, there is evidence that the vaccines are making the pandemic worse.”
Spike Protein Linked to Heart Inflammation and Much More
The podcast, A Shot in the Dark, also interviewed Lindsay for nearly an hour about her concerns, June 24, 2021, which you can listen to above.8 Importantly, she points out that regulatory agencies and vaccine makers feigning surprise that the COVID shots are causing heart inflammation is completely absurd, as there are “hundreds of studies” linking coronavirus spike proteins to this effect.
She also dismisses the claim that heart inflammation is somehow only affecting younger people. Heart attacks in adults are also a clear sign of this effect, she says. Additionally, clinical evidence given to her by health care professionals who are treating patients injured by these shots suggest the spike protein your body produces in response to them have toxic effects on your bone marrow.
Disturbingly, like many others, Lindsay says there’s evidence that the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is deleting reports of side effects, especially deaths, post-COVID injection. So, not only does VAERS generally capture only 1%9,10 to 10%11 of side effects, but they also appear to be manually wiping reports.
Brain Tumors Have Developed Post-COVID Jab
In related news, a peer-reviewed case report12 published June 15, 2021, reviews two neurosurgical cases in which patients developed new onset of neurological symptoms shortly after their COVID shots. The two patients were found to have two different types of brain tumors.
The authors point out that even though these processes are considered “unrelated to vaccination,” their hypothesis is that the COVID shots “may induce an inflammatory cascade with the ability to uncover underlying sinister pathology.”
For this reason, they strongly recommend “careful evaluation in the setting of new-onset neurologic symptoms after COVID-19 vaccination.” Of course, by then, it’s going to be too late, so in my view, people need to carefully consider these risks before they submit to these shots.
The first case was a 58-year-old woman who eight years previously had surgically removed melanoma on her right arm. Within two weeks of her second dose of a COVID-19 injection, she developed slurred speech, facial droop on the left side and left arm and leg weakness. Computed tomography (CT) of the head revealed a 3.4 centimeter intraparenchymal hemorrhage in her right lobe, causing a 3-millimeter shift in the midline of the two lobes.
No overt abnormalities were found in her bloodwork. Contrast-enhanced MRI of the woman’s brain further revealed a large hemorrhagic cavity in the right frontal lobe and a hemorrhagic mass. Surgical biopsy diagnosed it as a metastatic malignant melanoma.
The second case was a 52-year-old woman with a history of hypothyroidism and breast cancer. About four days after her first dose of COVID “vaccine,” she developed a severe headache, neck stiffness and intermittent high-grade fevers.
CT imaging and contrast-enhanced MRI of her head revealed a 5.8 cm mass in her corpus callosum. No obvious problems were detected in her blood work. Biopsy revealed the mass to be an IDH-wildtype Grade IV glioblastoma. According to the authors:13
“Administration of these vaccines was unrelated to the oncologic diagnoses themselves. However, these two independent processes both came to the clinical forefront following vaccination. We hypothesize that the inflammatory response to the COVID vaccine may have played a role in increasing clinical symptoms in these patients, potentially in relation to the COVID-19 spike protein …
Although the precise mechanism of post-vaccination inflammation is unknown, it is known that spike proteins can initiate inflammatory cascades and cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB) in COVID-19 infections.
It is possible that encoded spike proteins post-vaccination therefore cross the BBB and enhance inflammatory responses to nascent pathology within the brain following vaccine administration.
We believe that an augmented inflammatory response following vaccination called attention to these neuro-oncologic diseases by exacerbating peritumoral edema and worsening clinical symptoms.”
CDC Is Hiding Breakthrough COVID Infections
VAERS is not the only place where data are being manipulated to hide problems associated with the COVID shots. The CDC is also manipulating its data collection and reporting of breakthrough cases, meaning people who contract COVID-19 after being partially or fully “vaccinated,” to make the shots appear more effective than they really are. In a June 24, 2021, Trial Site News article, Joel Hirschhorn writes:14
“How well does the artificial immunity provided by experimental COVID vaccines really work to protect people from getting infected? The answer is revealed by how many ‘breakthrough’ infections develop two weeks or more after full vaccination. But can we trust the federal government to collect comprehensive data on them? Now, the answer is NO.”
Originally, the CDC recommended labs use a PCR cycle threshold (CT) of 4015 when testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection. This, despite CTs above 35 were known to create a false positive rate of 97% or more.16 By using an exaggerated CT, healthy people were deemed to have COVID-19. The pandemic fraud was further propped up by falsely claiming that asymptomatic carriers were responsible for a large portion of the spread.
Now, in what appears to be a clear effort to hide COVID-19 breakthrough cases, the CDC has lowered the CT considerably — from 40 to 28 or lower17 — when testing “vaccinated” individuals. So, as vaccinated individuals are contracting the illness, they’re now far less likely to register as positive cases.
But that’s not all. To boost the appearance of vaccine efficacy even further, the CDC also will no longer record mild or asymptomatic infections in vaccinated individuals as “COVID cases.”
The only cases that now count as COVID cases — if the patient has been vaccinated against COVID-19 — are those that result in hospitalization or death.18 Meanwhile, if you’re unvaccinated and come down with a mild case, or if you test positive at a higher CT and have no symptoms, you still count as a COVID case.
As of April 30, 2021, the CDC had received a total of 10,262 reports of vaccine breakthrough infections,19 which it admitted was a “substantial undercount,” as they’re using a passive surveillance system that relies on voluntary reporting from state health departments.20 May 17, 2021, that number was slashed to 1,949, as the new guidance took effect.
Alas, breakthrough cases continue to rapidly accumulate, even with the laxer reporting rules. By June 21, 2021, the CDC reported 4,115 breakthrough cases resulting in hospitalization and/or death.21
COVID Shot Increases Your Susceptibility to COVID Death
As noted by Hirschhorn,22 several doctors are now reporting that the majority of COVID-19 cases they see are fully vaccinated individuals. Dr. Harvey Risch of Yale, for example, claims the fully vaccinated account for 60% of his COVID caseload.23 This clinical observation stands in stark contrast to what you’ll read in the mainstream news. Lately, a slew of articles has been published declaring that most COVID deaths are now occurring in unvaccinated people.
A June 11, 2021, report24 by Public Health England shows that as a hospital patient, you are nearly six times more likely to die of the COVID Delta variant if you are fully vaccinated, than if you got no COVID shots at all. The information shows up in Table 6 on page 15, which lists emergency care and deaths by vaccination status and confirmed Delta cases from February 1, 2021, to June 7, 2021.
Of 33,206 Delta variant cases admitted to the hospital, 19,573 were not vaccinated. Of those, 23 (0.1175%) died. But, of the 13,633 patients who were vaccinated with either one or two doses, 19 (0.1393%) died, which is an 18.6% higher death rate than for the unvaccinated patients.
Seven of the 5,393 patients who had received one dose 21 days or more before admission died (0.1297%). Of the 1,785 patients who had both vaccine doses 14 days or more before admission, 12 (0.6722%) died. This death rate is 5.72 times higher than that for unvaccinated patients. To put this into perspective, if all 33,206 patients had been fully vaccinated, there would have been 223 deaths instead of 42.
COVID Shots Are Clearly Far Riskier Than Advertised
As noted in a June 22, 2021, Wall Street Journal article,25 while VAERS cannot tell us whether the shots were causative in any given side effect report, when you see clusters of reports that form a trend, it’s time to investigate.
Four serious adverse effects that are currently trending are thrombocytopenia (low platelet count), noninfectious myocarditis (heart inflammation), especially in those under 30, deep-vein thrombosis and death.26
For such effects to be tolerable, even if rare, the vaccine (or drug) would need to be absolutely crucial for survival. That is not the case for COVID-19 however, which has a lethality rate on par with the seasonal flu for all but the elderly and those most frail. The vaccine would also need to be an actual vaccine — something that provides immunity. COVID-19 gene therapy injections don’t do that either.
Overall, it’s clear that deaths and injuries from these shots are being swept under the rug, and we cannot allow that to continue. We must keep pushing for transparency, honesty and accountability.
If you missed my interview with Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, I encourage you to listen to it now. In it, we review protocols you can use to protect yourself, your family or those that you love who now regret getting the COVID jab.
If you’ve gotten the shot and are suffering side effects, please report it to VAERS. In the video below, National Vaccine Information Center cofounder Barbara Loe Fisher discusses the importance of filing a report if your doctor won’t, and the information you’ll need to provide.
The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) recently posted more than 50 video presentations from the pay-for-view Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination held online October 16 to 18, 2020, and made them available to everyone for free.
The conference’s theme was “Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century” and it featured physicians, scientists and other health professionals, human rights activists, faith community leaders, constitutional and civil rights attorneys, authors and parents of vaccine injured children talking about vaccine science, policy, law and ethics and infectious diseases, including coronavirus and COVID-19 vaccines.
In December 2020, a U.K. company published false and misleading information about NVIC and its conference, which prompted NVIC to open up the whole conference for free viewing. The conference has everything you need to educate yourself and protect your personal freedoms and liberties with respect to your health.
Don’t miss out on this incredible opportunity. I was a speaker at this empowering conference and urge you to watch these video presentations before they’re censored and taken away by the technocratic elite.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
It’s been raining incessantly for three days. It is a cool early morning in the beginning of July and I have just made a cup of coffee. Now an electrical power outage has occurred and so I am sitting in a rocking chair in the semi-darkness savoring my coffee and feeling thankful that I made it in time. I have a close relationship with coffee and the end of night and the break of day. As for time, that is as mysterious to me as the fact that I am sitting here in its embrace. The electric clocks have stopped. I think: To exist – how amazing!
More than the coffee, however, I am luxuriating in the sound of the tumbling rain. Its beautiful music creates a cocoon of peace within which I find temporary joy. The joy of doing nothing, of pursuing no purpose. Of knowing that whatever I do it will never be enough, for me or anyone, and the world will continue turning until time stands still, or whatever time does or is according to those who invented it. I will be gone and others will have arrived and the water will flow from the skies and the clocks will still tell people what they don’t know – time – although they will continue to tell it.
Humans are the telling animals.
A few weeks ago, when this area was in a mini-drought, the local newspaper, in the typical wisdom of such cant, had a headline that said “there is a threat of rain later this week.” They are experts at threats. This is the corporate media’s purpose. Rain is a threat, joy is a threat, doing nothing is a threat, the sun is a threat – but the real threats they conceal. To create fear seems to be their purpose, as they do not tell us about the real threats. Their purpose is not to tell the truth, but if you listen closely you can hear it.
In the middle of the night I woke up to go to the bathroom, and outside the small bathroom window I watched the rain engulfing the lower roof and sluicing down the shingles in two heavy streams. I thought how the desiccated mind of the headline writer must be feeling now, but then I realized that he or she was asleep, as usual. There is a moist world and a dry one, and the corporate media is run by arid souls who would like to make the world a desert like their masters of war in Washington.
Then as I sit here my brief peace is roiled by the memory of reading Tacitus, the Roman historian, and his famous quote of Calgacus, an enemy of Rome:
These plunderers of the world [the Romans], after exhausting the land by their devastations, are rifling the ocean: stimulated by avarice, if their enemy be rich; by ambition, if poor; unsatiated by the East and by the West: the only people who behold wealth and indigence with equal avidity. To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.
I think of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on his recent deathbed. Here was a man whose entire life was dedicated to the American Empire. He spent all his allotted time making war or making money from the spoils of war. He was a desert maker, a slaughterer for the Empire. No doubt he died very rich in gold.
I can no longer hear the rain because my mind is filled with the loud thought of what Rumsfeld thought as he lay dying. Was he sorry? Did he believe in God or was his god Mars, the Roman god of war? Did he smile a bloody smile or say he was sorry and beg for forgiveness from all his innocent victims? Did he see the faces of the children of Iraq that he slaughtered? Or did he pull an Eichmann and say, “I will leap into my grave laughing”?
Your guess is as good as mine, but mine leans toward the bloody smile of a life well spent in desert making. But that is a “known unknown.”
Rolling thunder and a lightning strike in the east jolt me back from my deaf dark thoughts. The sound of the rain returns. The coffee tastes great. Peace returns with the unalloyed gift of the ravishing rain.
Yet the more I sit and listen and watch it soundly stipple the garden and grass, the more thoughts come to me, as my father once told me: Thoughts think us as much as we think thoughts. It’s what we do with our thoughts that count, he said, and like lightning, if we don’t flash when we are given the gift of life, when we’re gone, it will be as if we never were, like the lightning before it flashed.
Thomas Merton’s prophetic words from his hermitage in the Kentucky woods in 1966 think me:
Let me say this before rain becomes a utility that they can plan and distribute for money. By ‘they’ I mean the people who cannot understand that rain is a festival, who do not appreciate its gratuity, who think that what has no price has no value, that what cannot be sold is not real, so that the only way to make something actual is to place it on the market. The time will come when they will sell you even your rain. At the moment it is still free, and I am in it. I celebrate its gratuity and its meaninglessness.
There are moments in many lives when, if one is lucky, they are initiated into a ritual that sustains them throughout life. To others these experiences can easily seem paltry and meaningless, but to the receiver they offer a crack into deeper dimensions of being and becoming. For me it was my introduction to coffee during a hurricane.
My father had driven my mother, three of my sisters, and me to Jones Beach on Long Island. This was before people checked the weather every minute. The sky in the southwest grew darker as we drove, but on we went. The beach was deserted except for some gulls and the parking lot empty. My father parked the car close to the beach and while my sisters and mother sat in the car, and my mother, listening to the weather reports, issued warnings to us, my father and I ran like wild dogs into the heavy surf despite her admonitions that the hurricane from the south was arriving sooner than expected. It started to rain hard. The surf picked up. We swam and got battered and shouted exultantly and came out shaking with the chills. A pure white sea gull landed on my wet head and my father laughed. Awe-struck, I stood stock still and my shaking stopped. In its mouth the sea gull held a purple ribbon, which it dropped at my feet as it flew off. I grabbed the ribbon and we jogged up to the concession building where there was one man working. My father ordered coffee and a hot chocolate for me. But they had run out of hot chocolate. So my father ordered two coffees and filled mine with three or four sugars. I had never sampled coffee and didn’t like the smell, but my father said to drink it, with the sugar it will taste good and it will warm you up. It strangely tasted like hot chocolate. We toasted our adventure as I drank my Proustian madeleine at eleven-years-old.
I had put the ribbon on the counter as we drank. When we were going back to the car, I noticed there were words on the ribbon. They said: Rest in peace. I have long lost the ribbon but retain its message.
So now every morning between the end of night and the break of day, I sit with my coffee and listen. And even when it isn’t raining, I watch the birds emerge from their nightly rests to greet the day with their songs. They tell me many things, and they are all free.
This morning I am wondering if Donald Rumsfeld ever heard them.
I suspect their message was an “unknown unknown” for him, just like the gift of rain. He preferred the rain of death from the skies in the form of bombs and missiles. He was only doing his job.
He made a desert and called it peace.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Behind the Curtain.
Edward Curtin is prominent author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
He is the author of Seeking the Truth in a Country of Lies
“Seeking Truth in a Country of Lies is a dazzling journey into the heart of many issues — political, philosophical, and personal — that should concern us all. Ed Curtin has the touch of the poet and the eye of an eagle.” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
“Edward Curtin puts our propaganda-stuffed heads in a guillotine, then in a flash takes us on a redemptive walk in the woods — from inferno to paradiso. Walk with Ed and his friends — Daniel Berrigan, Albert Camus, George Orwell, and many others — through the darkest, most-firefly-filled woods on this earth.” James W. Douglass, author, JFK and the Unspeakable
“A powerful exposé of the CIA and our secret state… Curtin is a passionate long-time reform advocate; his stories will rouse your heart.” Oliver Stone, filmmaker, writer, and director
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Well, as a baby boomer who has seen lots of instances of the empire using MY flag as their own private property, this newest one ‘takes the cake’. I mean, my generation went through the whole ‘America, love it or leave it’ rhetoric during the Vietnam debacle. Many of us, either old or new to activism, just tossed that aside as Bullshit! Yet, a majority of my friends and neighbors unfortunately bought into the hype and spin that the flag, and our national anthem, were to be sacrosanct… beyond reproach.
Many anti war demonstrations actually had our flag burned, which this writer did disagree with as a tactic of protest. The more powerful and thought provoking protest was to turn the flag upside down to reveal the upside down manner of this empire. As with Alice in Wonderland, the opposite was usually correct in most instances.
How it sickened me and many others when we turned on the boob tube to watch Bob Hope entertaining our soldiers in the Nam… as if this was WW2 all over again. In Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now (1979) he has one scene, reminiscent of those Bob Hope ‘visiting the troops with lots of tits and ass’, which revealed the perverted sense of what phony wars do to the soldiers. The helicopter dropped off two beautiful starlets, dressed like Vegas hookers, onto a stage deep within the macabre recesses of an ‘off the radar’ jungle post. The VC across the river are held at bay by our pounding weaponry so as to allow the show to go on. Finally, the young sex starved GIs rush the stage to grab some T&A and pussy as the giant bird in the sky barely is able to whisk the lovelies away.
The Cheney/Bush gang (we who ‘knew better’ realized that Cheney was the controller and Junior the ‘idiot emperor’ with no clothes) lied and deceived us into this new ‘War on Terror’, holding our flag hostage. They had the suckers, saps and lollipops hang it over garage doors in my neighborhood, or on their cars and trucks (lots of pickups in Bushland), making it the phony symbol of patriotism. How many dead or wounded for life US soldiers, and (by a factor of 10 times) Iraqi and Afghan civilians before our foolish neighbors realized the truth? Sadly, most of them never did! Thus, this phony ‘War of Terror’ still goes on and on, always with new and more dangerous enemies. This empire is so ‘smoothly diabolical’.
Another July 4th once again celebrating our ‘independence’ from Britain is really counterfeit on many fronts. Researchers like Dean Henderson can give interesting and concise accounts of how our nation never was freed from the influence of England and its infamous ‘City of London’, the banking bandit center of the world. His The Federal Reserve Cartel (2014) covers most of this information. The second counterfeit point is that the celebration of not only our flag but our military in this current climate of empire is actually unpatriotic! No, to really celebrate our great flag and our military is to have this empire pulled back and save our nation from the fiscal and moral bankruptcy that is approaching. To paraphrase the great Malcolm X, from one of his fine speeches, many of my good and decent friends and neighbors have been “bamboozled, conned and lead astray!” A true ‘Independence Day’ would be a great awakening from the greedy and evil ones who run this empire.. and the many who serve 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.
Philip A Farruggio is regular columnist on It’s the Empire… stupid website. He is also frequently posted on Nation of Change, and Countercurrents.org. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 400 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America.
He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from Savvapanf Photo/Shutterstock
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
On Friday, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has approved a new military command structure that will be based out of the US embassy in Kabul, which will oversee Afghanistan operations after most US combat troops leave the country.
The new embassy-based military office, dubbed Forces Afghanistan-Forward, will be headed by Navy Rear Admiral Peter Vasely. The US has tried to portray its plans to keep troops at its embassy in Kabul as only for security purposes. But Pentagon spokesman John Kirby described what sort of operations the new office will oversee, which goes beyond guarding the embassy.
“That presence will remain focused on four things over the course of the coming period. One, protecting our diplomatic presence in the country. Two, supporting security requirements at Hamid Karzai International Airport. Three, continued advice and assistance to Afghan National Defense and Security Forces as appropriate. And four, supporting our counterterrorism efforts,” Kirby said.
Kirby said the embassy office would be supported by another Afghanistan office that will be established in Qatar. Under the plan, the authority to bomb Afghanistan will be transferred from the top US commander in the country, Gen. Scott Miller, to Gen. Frank McKenzie, the head of US Central Command. Airstrikes in Afghanistan will be carried out by warplanes based outside of the country, mostly in the Gulf region, what the Pentagon has dubbed “over the horizon capability.”
Although nothing has been confirmed, reports say the US plans to leave 650 troops at the embassy. The US embassy in Kabul is a sprawling 36-acre compound and has the room to host thousands of people. That means besides troops, there could also be CIA or civilian contractors that don’t need to have a declared presence.
The US might also leave some troops to help Turkey control the Hamid Karzai International Airport, which is also in Kabul. The US sees control of the airport as key to its post-withdrawal plans, and Washington and Ankara are working out an agreement that would keep the approximately 500 Turkish troops at the airport that are currently guarding it.
Recent media reports said the bulk of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan would be completed by July 4th. But both the Pentagon and the White House said on Friday the drawdown would probably be done by the end of August.
“We currently expect it to be completed by the end of August. So, as you know, the president decided to withdraw remaining US troops from Afghanistan and finally end the US war there after 20 years,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Friday.
While Psaki said President Biden wants to remove all “remaining troops,” it’s clear based on the fact that Austin approved a new military command for Afghanistan that troops will stay. The plan will fuel more violence since the Taliban will view it as a clear violation of the Doha agreement that called for all foreign forces to leave Afghanistan.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.
The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
NATO reports that it conducted what is described as air defense exercises in the Black Sea on July 2. Evidently the maneuvers were independent of the 32-nation Sea Breeze naval and air exercises occurring simultaneously. And of the recent port visits and participation in exercises by the HMS Defender guided-missile destroyer and the HNLMS Evertsen frigate in the same sea, the first almost triggering an international incident if not a war on June 23.
U.S. and NATO warships, military aircraft, missiles and troops are so consistently in the Black Sea region in overlapping military exercises that it’s a wonder any commercial vessels can find room to maneuver or that the sun ever breaks through on the sea’s waves.
Participating in the not in the least imaginary or abstract warfighting scenario were combat aircraft from Greece, Romania and Turkey, a NATO AWACS aircraft, a Romanian C-27 transport aircraft, a Turkish military patrol aircraft and three frigates from the Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 (SNMG 2): the Italian Navy flagship Fasan, the Romanian Navy’s Regina Maria and the Turkish Navy’s Barbaros. The three frigates are transiting across the Black Sea currently and will participate in the Sea Breeze war games – if they remember which NATO war game they’ve been assigned to on any given day.
A NATO press release on the exercise described it like this: “The air-maritime integration training demonstrates NATO’s capabilities, readiness and resolve to protect Allied populations; with our ships and aircraft peacefully operating off the Romanian coast we also assure the Allies in the region.”
This is how NATO interprets “protecting allied populations”:
“While initially Turkish Air Force F-16 fighters simulated attacks on the NATO ships which trained defence drills against these attacked, the Greek and Romanian F-16s, in a separate event, conducted similar training manoeuvres with the Greek fighters attacking the ships which responded in a joint manner with the Romanian fighters. Subsequently, the Greek and Romanian fighters conduct air-to-air combat drills.”
One wonders if the NATO ships, to lend them an air of authenticity, flew the Russian flag for the occasion.
Try to keep an image of the above in your mind as you read these words of Allied Air Command Deputy Chief of Staff Brigadier General Andrew Hansen:
“Overall the air-maritime integration training demonstrates NATO’s capabilities, readiness and resolve to protect Allied populations; with our ships and aircraft peacefully operating off the Romanian coast we also assure the Allies in the region.”
It appears the world will only learn of the ongoing war – because it is that – when it’s been declared over.
*
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).
This is tragic story out of Michigan that was disclosed by Kathryn Kendall. She lost both her father and her sister within four days of one another, and they were vaccinated with different brands of covid vaccines.
John Robert Kendall Jr. had his second Moderna vaccine in April, and within days he had a heart attack and passed away. He died on April 28, 2021.
John spent time as a U.S. Marshall, and has a lengthy resume in public service. John was also the cofounder of DK security, and is said to have been a phenomenal leader.
Kimberly St. Charles, John’s daughter, got her vaccine towards the end of April. She chose the Johnson & Johnson viral vector covid injection. Unfortunately Kimberly began showing reaction symptoms the same day she took the vaccine. She ended up in ICU within days of her shot, and never recovered. She was only 49 with no known health problems and a mother of four children.
Many are grateful and applaud Kathryn Kendall’s courage in speaking out so others are made aware of such tragic outcomes. Our thoughts will be with Robert & Kim’s friends and family as they mourn the loss of such remarkable people.
If you or a loved one have/has had an adverse reaction due to these experimental EUA covid injections, please contact me. We need more courageous people like Kathryn speaking up.
Your silence is consent.
*
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.
How do you make a potentially dangerous and ineffective drug appear like a miracle of modern science? You could, for instance, enrol only certain people in clinical trials and exclude others or bring the study to a close as soon as you see a spike in the data that implies evidence of effectiveness.
The Biden State Department has just named career diplomat Jeffrey Feltman to be Special Envoy to the Horn of Africa. Given the geopolitical powder keg in the region and given the dark history of Feltman, especially in Lebanon and during the infamous CIA Arab Spring interventions after 2009, the relevant question is whether Washington has decided to explode the entire region from Ethiopia down to Egypt into a repeat of the Syria chaos only far more dangerous. And it’s not only the US which is active in the region.
On June 22, 1633, a sick and beaten old man, on his knees, had to “abjure, curse and detest” his view that “the earth moves and is not the centre of the world.” It was “one of the most deplorable acts of the Inquisition”, relevant to our times, according to astrophysicist Maria Livio in a new book.
On Sunday February 21, 1965, at 3:00 p.m., Malcolm X was gunned down at the Audubon Ballroom on Broadway and 166th Street in Manhattan while delivering a speech to an audience of about 400 people.
While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments. At this point, it seems quite clear that this was done to protect the COVID jab rollout.
Everywhere you look, things are getting weird, and I don’t mean that in a good way. Throughout all of our ups and downs over the decades, one thing that our society could always count on for a certain degree of consistency was nature. But now nature is going haywire at the same time that the very fabric of our society seems to be unraveling all around us.
A gladiator (Latin for “swordsman”) was an armed combatant who entertained audiences in the Roman Republic and later in the Roman Empire, in violent confrontations with other gladiators, wild animals, and condemned criminals. The fights were to the people’s delight. At the end of a fight the winner looked to the yelling, hurling and screaming audience or to the “moderator” – what to do next? – Thumbs up meant give him mercy, let him live; thumbs down: kill ‘em.
On the day of the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), President Xi Jinping, in Tiananmen square, amid all the pomp and circumstance, delivered a stark geopolitical message: The Chinese people will never allow foreign forces to intimidate, oppress or subjugate them. Anyone who tries to do this will find themselves on a collision course with a large steel wall forged by more than 1.4 billion Chinese.
Vaccine “passports” being put in place by the European Union and Australia as well as some U.S. states and businesses are one of the more alarming instruments advancing the “heart and soul of Technocracy and Scientific Dictatorship.”
The Biden administration made headlines last week as it moved to shut down the websites of 33 foreign media outlets, including ones based in Iran, Bahrain, Yemen and Palestine. Officials justified the decision by claiming the organizations were agents of “disinformation.”
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The report covers data collected from December 9, 2020, through June 23, 2021, for the three experimental COVID “vaccines” currently in use in the U.K. from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna.
They report a total of 1,403 deaths and 1,007,253 injuries recorded following the experimental COVID injections.
Here are the breakdowns from the three shots:
AstraZeneca: 936 deaths and 762,706 injuries. (Source.)
Pfizer- BioNTech: 439 deaths and 223,404 injuries. (Source.)
Unspecified COVID-19 injections: 23 deaths and 2595 injuries. (Source.)
In addition to these official UK Government statistics, last Friday, 25 June 2021, Public Health England released a report showing that those dying in the UK with a diagnosis of “COVID”, usually referred to as “COVID deaths” whether or not it can be proven that a positive COVID test result means that COVID caused the death, 62% of these deaths were people who had already received one of the COVID-19 jabs.
So why are people still getting them??
*
Whilst you’ve been distracted by Hancock’s affair, PHE released a report revealing 62% of alleged Covid deaths are people who’ve been vaccinated
Breaking news on the morning of Friday June 25th revealed Matt Hancock has been having a secret affair with his aide Gina Coladangelo. We imagine it’s all the nation has been talking about since the images of Hancock embracing the millionaire lobbyist were published, it’s certainly all over the mainstream media and we doubt it will cease to be front page news any time soon.
But because you’ve been busy delighting in Hancock’s embarrassment, you’re probably not aware that Public Health England released a report on the very same day which showed the majority of alleged Covid-19 deaths are significantly higher in people who have had at least one dose of the Covid-19 vaccine, with the highest number of deaths occurring in people who are supposed to be fully vaccinated.
PHE have compiled a helpful table which shows the number of alleged confirmed Delta variant cases in the UK alongside the number of alleged deaths due to the variant. The table shows that since the 1st February 2021 up to the 21st June 2021 there have been 9,571 alleged confirmed cases of the Delta variant in people over the age of 50. Of these 8,025 had been confirmed in the past 28 days alone.
But the data shows that people over the age of 50 who are unvaccinated account for just 10% of the alleged confirm Covid cases, whilst those who are fully vaccinated account for 37% of the alleged confirmed cases. A further 40% of the alleged cases are people who had received one dose of a Covid-19 vaccine at least 21 days prior to their alleged confirmed Covid-19 infection.
As you can see from the above table the number of people over 50 who are fully vaccinated with an alleged confirmed case of the Delta variant outnumber those who are unvaccinated by 3 to 1, whilst the number of people over 50 who have had at least one dose of the Covid jab and have an alleged confirmed case of the Delta variant outnumber those who are unvaccinated by nearly 9 to 1.
When the Covid-19 vaccines were given emergency use authorisation the authorities did not have a clue as to whether they would work. The limited trials carried out only measured whether or not a vaccinated person suffered serious disease if infected with Covid-19, they did not measure whether a vaccinated person could still become infected with Covid-19, and they did not measure whether or not a vaccinated person could still spread the virus in line with the mainstream accepted germ theory.
It is claimed that the vaccines reduce the chances of suffering serious illness if infected with Covid-19 significantly, so although a significantly higher amount of vaccinated over 50’s have a confirmed case of the Delta variant compared to those who are unvaccinated, you would assume that the opposite would be seen in the number of people who have allegedly died to the Delta variant?
Because Mr Hancock has told us time and time again that the Covid-19 vaccines are our only route back to normal and we must come forward, roll up our sleeves and get the jab when called upon to do so.
So the vaccines must surely do what they say on the tin? It’s not as if Mr Hancock would lie to us, is it? He might have lied to his wife of fifteen years and engaged in an affair with an aide who he appointed to scrutinise the Department of Health as well as awarding her Taxpayers money for doing so, but he wouldn’t lie to the British people, would he?
Unfortunately, it looks like Mr Hancock has been lying again and instead of the Covid-19 vaccines being our route back to normal they are instead quite the opposite. Because the data published by Public Health England shows us that the number of alleged deaths due to the Delta variant are highest among those who have received two doses of the vaccine.
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).
VAERS data released today by the CDC showed a total of 441,931 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 6,985 deaths and 34,065 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and June 25, 2021.
This week’s number of total adverse events for all age groups following COVID vaccines surpassed 400,000, according to data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The data comes directly from reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.
Every Friday, VAERS makes public all vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date, usually about a week prior to the release date.
Data released today show that between Dec. 14, 2020 and June 25, 2021, a total of 411,931 total adverse events were reported to VAERS, including 6,985 deaths — an increase of 872 deaths over the previous week. There were 34,065 serious injury reports, up 2,825 compared with last week.
In the U.S, 321.2 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of June 25. This includes: 132 million doses of Moderna’s vaccine, 177 million doses of Pfizer and 12 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccine.
Of the 6,985 deaths reported as of June 25, 22% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, 15% occurred within 24 hours and 38% occurred in people who became ill within 48 hours of being vaccinated.
This week’s data for 12- to 17-year-olds show:
12,674 total adverse events, including 720 rated as serious and 13 reported deaths among 12- to 17-year-olds. Two of the nine deaths were suicides.The most recent reported deaths include a 16-year-old girl (VAERS I.D. 1420630) who died four weeks after her second dose of Pfizer, a 17-year-old girl (VAERS I.D. 1420762) who experienced cardiac arrest six days after receiving a Pfizer vaccine, a 16-year-old boy (VAERS I.D. 1426828) who died four days after receiving a Pfizer vaccine and a 13-year-old boy (VAERS I.D. 1406840) who died two days after receiving a Pfizer vaccine.Other deaths include three 15-year-olds (VAERS I.D. 1187918, 1382906 and 1242573) and two 16-year-olds (VAERS I.D. 1225942 and 1386841) and one 17-year-old (VAERS I.D. 1199455).
Pfizer to request emergency approval of COVID vaccine for kids ages 5-11 by fall
Fox News reported July 1, younger children could become eligible for a COVID vaccine this fall, according to a top executive at Pfizer who said the company has plans to request emergency approval of its vaccine in kids aged 5 to 11 by September or October. Pfizer’s vaccine is currently authorized for use in individuals aged 12 and older.
Dr. Alejandra Gurtman, vice president of vaccine clinical research and development at Pfizer, appeared along with representatives from other major drugmakers to discuss data and timelines behind pediatric clinical trials during a Johns Hopkins University and University of Washington virtual symposium.
Despite growing reports of heart inflammation in teens linked to the vaccine, Gurtman said Pfizer “felt very comfortable to move down in age,” speaking to the trials involving participants aged 6 months to 11 years.
Man dies after second dose of Moderna following rare blood clotting disorder linked to the vaccine
As The Defender reported June 29, doctors in Pennsylvania reported a case of a U.S. patient who developed blood clots after receiving the Moderna COVID vaccine. In a case report, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, healthcare professionals said a 65-year-old man arrived at the hospital with a serious form of blood clotting known as thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS) just 10 days after receiving his second dose of the Moderna vaccine.
Two days later, the unnamed patient died, with doctors concluding his symptoms were consistent with vaccine-induced clotting, also known as VITT. The man’s treatment providers did not recognize VITT earlier, so he did not receive the specialized treatment given to people who suffer from that condition, but instead was treated with heparin.
Doctors at Allegheny Health said their research “complicates” theories that prior clotting cases were solely caused by adenovirus-based vaccines, as some experts have previously speculated. Doctors also stated they believed this to be the first reported case of blood clots following an mRNA vaccine, despite thousands of reported cases to VAERS.
U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson holds new conference with families injured by COVID vaccines
As The Defender reported June 29, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) held a news conference Monday to discuss adverse reactions related to the COVID vaccines — giving individuals who have been “repeatedly ignored” by the medical community a platform to share their stories.
.@SenRonJohnson + former Green Bay Packers Ken Ruettgers held press conference with families who want to "be seen, heard + believed by medical community" after suffering adverse reactions to COVID vaccines.
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) June 29, 2021
The group that spoke was put together by Ken Ruettgers, a former Green Bay Packers offensive lineman, whose wife suffered an adverse reaction after receiving a COVID vaccine. Ruettgers, who now lives in Oregon, started a website to bring awareness of COVID vaccine reactions to the medical community.
“We are all pro-vaccine,” Johnson said at the onset of the news conference. In fact, Johnson has had every flu shot since the Swine flu, is current on all of his vaccines and was a huge supporter of Operation Warp Speed, though he has not had a COVID vaccine because he already had COVID.
Five people from across the U.S., including a 12-year-old girl who was part of the Pfizer clinical trial, joined the conference at the federal courthouse in Milwaukee. They described their reactions to the COVID vaccines, including neurological, cardiac and gastrointestinal issues, debilitating health problems and hospitalizations.
Johnson said his goal was to provide a platform for these individuals who were injured by COVID vaccines so the health community and mainstream media would acknowledge them and get to the root cause.
Johnson argued that while most people don’t suffer significant side effects following vaccination, he is concerned about “that small minority that are suffering severe symptoms.”
FDA adds heart inflammation warning to Pfizer, Moderna COVID vaccines
The Defender reported June 28, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on June 25 added a warning to patient and provider fact sheets for Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines indicating an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly following the second dose and with onset of symptoms within a few days after vaccination.
The FDA’s update followed a review of information and discussion by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting on June 23 where the committee acknowledged 1,200 cases of heart inflammation in 16- to 24-year-olds.
Health officials said the benefits of receiving a COVID vaccine still outweigh any risks. Physicians and other public commenters accused the CDC during the meeting of exaggerating the risk to young people of COVID, and minimizing the risk of the vaccines.
Two new studies show link between COVID vaccines and heart inflammation
As The Defender reported June 30, in a study published June 29 in JAMA Cardiology, 23 male military patients with a median age range of 25 years were evaluated between January and April 2021 for acute-onset chest pain following vaccination with an mRNA COVID vaccine.
All military members were previously healthy with a high level of fitness. They were physically fit by military standards and lacked any known history of cardiac disease, significant cardiac risk factors or exposure to cardiotoxic agents. Seven military members received Pfizer’s COVID vaccine and 16 received the Moderna vaccine.
According to the study, physicians expected to find eight or fewer cases of myocarditis among the 436,000 male military members who received two mRNA doses. But 20 military members developed inflammation after their second dose, including 14 after the Moderna shot and six after the Pfizer shot. Three developed myocarditis after their first vaccine.
Researchers stated that while the true incidence of myocarditis is unknown at this time, the presentation pattern and clinical course suggest an association with an inflammatory response to vaccination.
A separate study published in JAMA Cardiology on June 29 investigated seven cases of acute myocarditis between Feb. 1 and April 30. Four cases occurred within five days of receiving a second dose of an mRNA COVID vaccine.”
“It is possible that these four cases of acute myocarditis represent a rare, potential adverse event linked to mRNA COVID-19 vaccination,” researchers wrote. “The findings from the present report raise the possibility of an association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccination and acute myocarditis.”
CDC reports 4,115 COVID breakthrough cases resulting in hospitalization or death
As The Defender reported June 29, more than 4,100 people have been hospitalized or died with COVID in the U.S. despite having been fully vaccinated, according to new data from the CDC.
As of June 21, nearly half (49%) of cases occurred in females and 76% were aged 65 years and older. There were a total of 3,907 hospitalizations and 750 deaths among those who had breakthrough infections, although not all of the hospitalizations may have been due primarily to COVID.
According to the CDC’s website, the number of COVID vaccine breakthrough infections are likely an undercount of all SARS-CoV-2 infections among fully vaccinated persons due to passive and voluntary reporting.
On May 1, the CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough cases to only reporting cases resulting in hospitalization or death, a move the agency was criticized for by health experts.
States report increase in breakthrough cases
On July 1, Fox6 Milwaukee reported that 21 people in Wisconsin have died of COVID since March 1 despite being fully vaccinated. The median age was 82 and all 21 people had underlying health conditions. The Wisconsin Department of Health Services said no gene sequencing was conducted so it is not clear whether anyone was infected with the Delta variant.
As Tulsa World reported July 1, data released for the first time Wednesday by the Oklahoma State Department of Health showed 737 infections in people who were fully vaccinated or had previously recovered from a COVID infection. Of 737 infections, 69 resulted in hospitalization and 11 people died, according to a state epidemiology report.
On July 1, 8NewsNow reported a Southern Nevada Health District released data showing a total of 70 breakthrough hospitalizations, including 11 breakthrough deaths, in Clark County alone.
People injured by COVID vaccines turn to GoFundMe for help
The Defender reported July 2, a prominent vaccine injury law firm — Maglio Christopher & Toale— says it can’t help people injured by COVID vaccines because COVID vaccines are not covered under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), forcing many to raise funds for their injuries online.
Renée Gentry, director of the Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic at the George Washington University Law School, said COVID vaccine claimants have two rights: “You have the right to file,” she said. “And you have the right to lose.”
According to research compiled by a group in Mesa County, Colorado, as of June 25 there were 180 GoFundMe accounts seeking help for people who had suffered injuries after receiving a COVID vaccine and were left with large medical bills and other expenses.
116 days and counting, CDC ignores The Defender’s inquiries
According to the CDC website, “the CDC follows up on any report of death to request additional information and learn more about what occurred and to determine whether the death was a result of the vaccine or unrelated.”
On March 8, The Defender contacted the CDC with a written list of questions about reported deaths and injuries related to COVID vaccines. After repeated attempts, by phone and email, to obtain a response to our questions, a health communications specialist from the CDC’s Vaccine Task Force contacted us on March 29 — three weeks after our initial inquiry.
The individual received our request for information from VAERS, but said she had never received our list of questions, even though employees we talked to several times said CDC press officers were working through the questions and confirmed the representative had received them. We provided the list of questions again along with a new deadline, but never received a response.
On May 19, a CDC employee said our questions had been reviewed and our inquiry was pending in their system, but would not provide us with a copy of the response. We were told we would be contacted by phone or email with the response.
On June 24, we contacted the CDC and were told nobody knew the specialist from the agency’s Vaccine Task Force who contacted us in March, and that our request was still pending in the system. It has been 116 days since we sent our first email inquiring into VAERS data and reports and we have yet to receive a response.
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).
Britain’s Middle East minister James Cleverly is regularly refusing to provide answers to written questions posed to him by members of parliament, especially on UK arms exports to Israel, contravening House of Commons rules.
James Cleverly has been accused of breaking the UK’s Ministerial Code and of “obfuscation” in refusing to properly answer questions put to him in the House of Commons.
Declassified has found 14 recent cases where the foreign minister has failed to provide direct answers to written questions by MPs.
Cleverly, who is also a reserve officer in the British army’s royal artillery regiment, has been particularly evasive when asked if UK arms were used by Israel during its latest bombardment of Gaza, which saw 66 Palestinian children killed in May.
The UK has sold over £400-million worth of military equipment to Israel since 2015 and applies no restrictions on how these supplies might be used.
Under the Ministerial Code, ministers have a duty to “be as open as possible with parliament” and to “give accurate and truthful information”. A House of Commons guide states that “this requirement governs the answers ministers provide to parliamentary questions”.
While ministers routinely provide minimal information to parliament, it is not normal for them to refuse entirely to directly address specific questions.
Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesperson Layla Moran has asked Cleverly three times whether British arms or Land Rovervehicles have been used by Israel against Palestinians.
Cleverly’s response has been to say that the UK “takes its export control responsibilities very seriously” and that arms export applications are considered “thoroughly against a strict risk assessment framework”, but without attempting to directly answer the questions.
Moran, who is the first MP of Palestinian descent, received the same rebuff from Cleverly when she asked if the government will “investigate” whether UK arms have been used by Israel.
When Labour MP Stephen Timms put a similar question to Cleverly earlier this month, the minister responded using the same wording about the UK’s arms export “responsibilities”.
Cleverly has also failed to answer two questions from Green MP Caroline Lucas, who asked last month whether Britain collects data on the UK-funded aid structures demolished by Israel in the occupied West Bank.
Cleverly did not attempt to answer the question, noting only that the UK “regularly raises the demolition of Palestinian property with the Government of Israel”.
Another question by Lucas, asking what assessment the government has made of the effectiveness of its statements criticising Israel’s settlement expansion, was similarly not directly answered.
Ben Jamal, the director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said: “This failure by the government to answer questions about arms exports to Israel is shamefully consistent with its systematic disregard of its own regulatory guidelines regarding arms exports, and its broader unwillingness to hold Israel to account for its violations of international law and the rights of the Palestinian people.”
He added: “It also shows a contempt for Parliament’s role in holding it to account. It is shameful and it is incumbent on all MPs to pressure the government to provide the answers it has failed to.”
Cleverly is not the only minister in Boris Johnson’s government to fail to answer parliamentary questions. The Department for International Trade was recently asked by Alba MP Kenny MacAskill what assessment it had made of “similarities” between current UK arms exports to Israel and 12 licences that were temporarily suspended in 2014.
Those licences included components for tanks, combat aircraft, targeting equipment, military radars and munition launching equipment that were halted due to their potential use to the Israeli military in an attack on Gaza.
In response to the question, trade minister Ranil Jayawardena failed to comment on any similarities and repeated the government’s arms exports policy.
Another senior official, foreign minister Lord Ahmad, has also failed to recently answer parliamentary questions, although not on the scale of Cleverly.
Openness and transparency
MacAskill told us: “It’s just not good enough. Ministers are required to adhere to the Ministerial Code. It’s not optional but obligatory to be as open as possible. This is far from that. Tory sleaze may be all over papers, but sadly military relations with Israel are denied even to elected members”.
He added: “Openness and transparency are essential in government. Even more so when it relates to the military and in areas where conflict is occurring. The obfuscation here further increases concerns about a policy agenda being pursued which many would oppose.”
The Ministerial Code states that ministers have a duty to parliament to “be held to account for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments” and that “it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament”.
The Code adds that “ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Freedom of Information Act 2000”.
Cleverly has also recently failed to answer parliamentary questions about the use of UK arms exported to Turkey, and about whether foreign secretary Dominic Raab raised the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi during Raab’s meeting with the crown prince of Saudi Arabia.
Other questions the minister failed to answer include whether the UK considers Morocco to be illegallyoccupying Western Sahara.
The UK is deepening its military relationship with Israel, involving military training, joint exercises, arms deals and intelligence cooperation, outside of any significant British press coverage.
The Foreign Office did not respond to a request for comment.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Mark Curtis is editor of Declassified UK, an investigative journalism organisation that covers the UK’s role in the world.
Featured image: Official portrait of Rt Hon James Cleverly MP (CC BY 3.0)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated in black and white during a nationally telecast interview on June 30 that the mysterious incident a week earlier involving a British guided missile destroyer HMS Defender off Crimea in the Black Sea was an act of ‘provocation’. Putin called it an Anglo-American operation.
In Putin’s words,
“This is, of course, a provocation, which is absolutely clear. What did these provocateurs want to show and what goals did they seek to achieve? First of all, it [the provocation] was comprehensive and was staged not only by the British but also by the Americans because the British warship ventured into our territorial waters in the afternoon while early in the morning, at 07:30, a US strategic reconnaissance plane took off from a NATO airfield in Greece, from Crete, I believe. I later received a report on that. We saw and observed it clearly.”
Putin added,
“It was obvious that the destroyer intruded in pursuit of military aims, trying to find out with the help of a reconnaissance plane what our armed forces’ countermeasures to this sort of provocations might be, to see what facilities are activated, where they are located and how they work. We did see that and knew that, so we disclosed only the information that we found appropriate. Possibly, I’ve blabbed out a secret, my apologies to the military.”
Putin spoke with deliberation one full week after the incident of June 23. He probably wouldn’t have spoken if the Deep State in the UK and US hadn’t needled him and made him look ‘weak’. The Deep State forced him to speak up.read more
According to the Britain’s Daily Telegraph, the decision to allow HMS Defender to pass near Crimea was made at the highest level of British government by Prime Minister Boris Johnson. It is improbable that US President Joe Biden was kept in the dark, considering that the provocation was planned against the backdrop of a US-led massive military exercise in the Black Sea with the participation of many NATO countries currently under way, which Moscow says is ‘is provocative muscle flexing… conveys an obvious anti-Russian message’ and was “coordinated’ with the incident involving the British destroyer’ — ‘a clear indication NATO is pushing ahead with its aggressive policy towards Russia.’
Three days before Putin spoke, London cooked up a melodramatic event of ‘classified’ British defence documents containing details about HMS Defender having been ‘found’ in a ‘in a soggy heap behind a bus stop’ in Kent in southern England, which apparently disclosed — per the BBC who had the exclusive right to propagate the information — that the warship’s transit ‘close to the south-west tip of Crimea’ was indeed an audacious act ‘conducted in the expectation that the Kremlin might respond aggressively.’read more
The Brits literally mocked at the Kremlin. The episode was staged, in other words, to expose that the Kremlin bark actually has no bite — that Moscow lacks the grit to take on a NATO power militarily.
On the contrary, Putin disagrees. He saw a ‘political component’ in the entire episode, which didn’t exactly ‘put the world on the brink of a global war’. He paid back in the same coin, claiming that even if Russia had sunk the British warship, ‘those who did this’ wouldn’t have gone to war as they’d know ‘they could not win a war like that’ against Russia.
Putin thinks that the provocation aimed at ‘emphasising that these people do not respect the Crimeans’ choice to join the Russian Federation.’ This puts Moscow in a dilemma in terms of international law — akin to what Beijing faces in the South China Sea.
The fact is, the international community at large does not recognise Russia’s annexation of Crimea. A centerpiece of modern international law is that territory changes hands between states only by consent. Of course, Russia is a veto-holding Permanent Member of the UN Security Council and a thermonuclear power and the international community’s response to the Russian annexation of Crimea has been muted.
The international law has no policeman. Nonetheless, arguably, if Russia had used force to sink the British vessel or board the warship, it would have amounted to an act of war with profound consequences. read more
This issue is not ending here. The Kremlin senses that Washington and London have fired the opening shot to test the Russian resolve. It is like poking the bear in its den. Quite obviously, as if in anticipation of shape things to come, in a presidential decree [in Russian] published on the Kremlin’s website on July 1, Putin has allowed the Russian military to block the territories and waters around protected facilities to stop attempts of illegal infiltration.
Interestingly, the explanatory note to the document says that the Russian National Guard protects the waters of the Kerch Strait, the bridge over it and the water area around the Russian power grid link with Crimea.
Map of Sea of Azov, Kerch Strait and the Crimean Peninsula
In addition, the decree provides legal underpinning for Russian armed forces to cordon these areas during attempts of ‘illegal crossing and infiltration’ into the surrounding water area and attempts to leave it. This has come exactly a week after the the British destroyer HMS Defender allegedly entered the ‘Russian territorial waters’ in the Black Sea. The British position is that the destroyer made a peaceful passage through Ukraine’s territorial waters in accordance with international law and there were no warning shots fired.
Thus, Russia has de facto taken control of the Kerch Strait via domestic legislation. Whereas, the Kerch Strait is jointly controlled by Russia and Ukraine under a 2003 treaty. With the presidential decree, Moscow will henceforth control all access to the Sea of Azov (which is an inland sea under international law with passage to the Atlantic Ocean going through the Black, Marmara, Aegean and Mediterranean seas.)
To be sure, a new flashpoint has appeared due to Moscow’s escalation, as the economic lifeline of Mariupol, a crucial Ukrainian industrial port city with a population of around 500,000 located on the shore of the Sea of Azov turns into a choke point. The Kerch Strait is of crucial importance for the export of grain and steel from Ukraine.
Putin has flagged that if any repetition of of the July 23 provocation will be duly dealt with, but Russian reaction may be ‘asymmetrical’. This latest decree could be a telling example of the new thinking. The international community will not accept that Moscow has created another fait accompli in the Ukraine dossier but cannot do much about it, either. read more
It is entirely conceivable that the plot to poke the bear in its den would have been a grand design of British ingenuity aimed at ensuring that the EU’s sanctions against Russia over Ukraine since 2014 will remain indefinitely pending a settlement of the Crimea question.Trust post-Brexit UK to continue to set the EU’s agenda.
The big question is, what did Putin gain out of the Geneva summit? His acolytes hailed that he ‘won’. But it appears Biden walked away laughing. The fact of the matter is that the high-level decision in Washington and London to needle the Kremlin could have been taken either in the run-up to the Geneva summit or in its immediate downstream. Either way, it defines the summit.
*
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 Indian Punchline
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The foreign minister of Kyrgyzstan, Ruslan Kazakbaev, was in the capital of Azerbaijan on July 2, where he proposed a strategic partnership between the two nations, both members of NATO’s Partnership for Peace military program and of the soon-to-be-expanding Turkic Council. (Russia also touts a strategic partnership with Azerbaijan.)
In April Kyrgyzstan was involved in a deadly border clash with Tajikistan and at the time the Turkic Council met and announced, “The Turkic Council will continue to maintain close contact with brotherly Kyrgyzstan, a founding member of the Turkic Council.”
The Turkic Council, the embodiment of present-day pan-Turkism/pan-Turanism, currently consists of Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, and has made overtures to countries as diverse as Afghanistan, Hungary, Turkmenistan and Ukraine. It is a Turkish initiative or, more accurately since the Shusha Declaration of June 15, that of the Turco-Azeri “one nation, two states” pan-Turkic entity.
Turkey’s defense minister, Hulusi Akar, recently visited Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
In the visit of the Kyrgyz foreign minister to Baku on July 2, he proposed, according to Turkey’s Anadolu Agency, an alliance that many observers have anticipated since the dissolution of the Soviet Union thirty years ago: the consolidation of a bloc from the Black Sea to the Chinese border, one under Turkish and as such NATO domination (although neither would be a formal partner). In his words: “We propose the establishment of a cooperation platform between Central Asian and Southern Caucasus countries in 5+3 format [Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan + Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia]. We propose to make the dialogue between Central Asian and south Caucasian countries more active.”
All eight countries are former Soviet republics. All eight are members of NATO’s Partnership for Peace. Four – Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan – are also members of the moribund Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization, which is increasingly resembling the Robert Louis Stevenson story aptly titled The Suicide Club.
The immediate effects of such an organization would be the culmination of Russia’s quarantine in former Soviet space (once Belarus is dispensed with), Turkish-dominated oil, natural gas, railroad and mineral transport corridors, the opening up of the Caspian Sea Basin to the West and the diminution of Iranian and Russian influence in that region. That enterprise was adumbrated, and heartily endorsed, by Zbigniew Brzezinski in regard to the neo-Ottoman geopolitical blueprint of now former Turkish foreign and prime minister Ahmet Davutoğlu in his 2012 volume Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power. (Page 1361[1])
But behind those objectives, as the Shusha Declaration of Turkey and Azerbaijan foreshadows, is a military-security bloc dominated by Turkey and supported by NATO.
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.
Notes
[1] On the international scene, the increasingly modern and basically secular Turkey of today is beginning to attain a regional preeminence geographically derived from its imperial Ottoman past. Turkey’s new foreign policy, shaped by its geopolitically minded Foreign Minister (Ahmet Davutoğlo, the author of the concept of “Strategic Depth”), is premised on the notion that Turkey is a regional leader in the areas once part of the Ottoman Empire, including the Levant, North Africa, and Mesopotamia….Davutoğlo’s plan posits that Turkey should exploit its current socioeconomic dynamism – in 2010 it ranked as the world’s seventeenth-largest economy – to rebuild relationships that existed historically but faded during the twentieth century because of Kemalist concentration on internal secularization and inculcation of a specifically Turkish nationalism. (2012)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Divided strictly along ideological lines, the Supreme Court construed what was left of the historic Voting Rights Act (VRA) to uphold two Arizona voter suppression laws that civil rights organizations had challenged for disproportionately burdening voters of color. This decision sends a dangerous signal to states that the courts are likely to uphold their voter suppression laws that make it harder for people of color to vote.
In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the Court’s six right-wingers ruled, over the dissent of the three liberals, that Arizona’s “out of precinct policy” and “ballot harvesting” provision did not violate Section 2 of the VRA. Section 2 forbids any voting procedure that “results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race.”
Samuel Alito, who authored the majority opinion, wrote that voting restrictions should be struck down only if they impose substantial burdens on voters of color that prevent them from voting. He said, “where a State provides multiple ways to vote, any burden imposed on voters who choose one of the available options cannot be evaluated without also taking into account the other available means.”
Alarmingly, the majority says the prevention of “voter fraud” — that bogus mantra of Republicans and Donald Trump during the election — is a legitimate state interest that can overcome proof of a burden on voters and uphold a voting restriction.
In her dissent, Elena Kagan lambastes the majority for writing “its own set of rules” and “limiting Section 2 from multiple directions.” The majority, Kagan charges, rests its decision “on a list of mostly made-up factors, at odds with Section 2 itself.” She says the “important circumstances” that the Court invents “all cut in one direction — toward limiting liability for race-based voting inequities.”
The “out of precinct policy” requires election officials to discard a ballot that was cast at the wrong precinct. If a voter’s name does not appear on the voting rolls in a certain precinct, she can cast a provisional ballot, but if it is later determined that she voted at the wrong precinct, her ballot will be thrown out.
The other voting restriction, known as “ballot harvesting,” makes it a felony for an individual to collect and deliver another person’s ballot. Although the provision contains exceptions for family members, caregivers, election officials and letter carriers, it criminalizes the assistance of community organizers, campaign workers, and others who help deliver ballots for people.
Last year, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stuck down both provisions as violative of Section 2 because they disproportionately disadvantage voters of color.
Section 2 provides:
(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color….
(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.
The Majority’s New Rules Would Support Voter Suppression Measures
Alito wrote that “any circumstance that has a logical bearing on whether voting is ‘equally open’ and affords equal ‘opportunity’ may be considered” in the calculation of “the totality of circumstances.” Although he said this is not an exhaustive list, Alito cited five “important circumstances” that “should be mentioned.” When these circumstances are taken together, it would be difficult to prove a Section 2 violation in the future. They are:
The “highly relevant” size of the burden. “After all, every voting rule imposes a burden of some sort” and people “must tolerate the ‘usual burdens of voting,’” Alito wrote. He said that “mere inconvenience cannot be enough to demonstrate a violation of section 2.”
How much the voting rule departs from the standard practice when Section 2 was amended in 1982. “It is relevant that in 1982 States typically required nearly all voters to cast their ballots in person on election day and allowed only narrow and tightly defined categories of voters to cast absentee ballots,” Alito wrote.
The size of any disparities in the impact a rule has on members of different racial or ethnic groups. “Small disparities are less likely than large ones to indicate that a system is not equally open,” Alito said. “But the mere fact there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote.”
Other available voting opportunities provided by the state’s entire voting system.
“The strength of the state’s interest served by a challenged voting rule.” For example, Alito wrote, “[o]ne strong and entirely legitimate state interest is the prevention of fraud,” which, he said, could “undermine public confidence in the fairness of elections and the perceived legitimacy of the announced outcome.” Alito stated that even in the absence of evidence of fraud, “it should go without saying that a State may take action to prevent election fraud without waiting for it to occur and be detected within its own borders.”
The majority held, “In light of the modest burdens allegedly imposed by Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy, the small size of its disparate impact, and the State’s justifications,” the rule did not violate Section 2 of the VRA.
But Kagan pointed out that in 2012, about 35,000 ballots throughout the country were thrown out for being cast at the wrong precinct, and nearly one-third of them — 10,979 — were cast in Arizona. She noted, “Elections are often fought and won at the margins — certainly in Arizona,” adding that Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by just 10,457 votes last year.
The Court also held that the ballot harvesting provision did not create a disparate burden on the voter. The “modest evidence of racially disparate burden,” Alito wrote, was overcome by the State’s justification, which was fraud prevention.
Kagan retorted that this provision disproportionately impacted Native American communities without regular access to mail service.
Majority Creates Exceptions to Save Laws Like Arizona’s, Kagan Writes
“If a single statute represents the best of America, it is the Voting Rights Act. It marries two great ideals: democracy and racial equality,” Kagan begins her passionate dissent. But, she continues, “If a single statute reminds us of the worst of America, it is the Voting Rights Act. Because it was — and remains — so necessary.”
Kagan notes, “Rarely has a statute required so much sacrifice to ensure its passage. Never has a statute done more to advance the Nation’s highest ideals. And few laws are more vital in the current moment. Yet in the last decade, this Court has treated no statute worse.”
Indeed, the Court dealt a major blow to the Voting Rights Act in the 2013 case of Shelby County v. Holder, when it struck down Section 5 of the VRA that had required preclearance of new voting rules in jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination. Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent, “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” In his majority opinion in Shelby, John Roberts provided assurances that Section 2 was still available to protect voting rights because those aggrieved could litigate after their injuries. But in Brnovich, the Court eviscerates Section 2 as well.
Kagan takes aim at the majority’s deference to standard practice in election rules in 1982. She cites the use of fraud allegations as pretexts to defend voter suppression laws, and notes that there has never been evidence of fraud or threats of fraud involving ballot collection in Arizona.
Kagan’s dissent accuses the majority of creating “a set of extra-textual exceptions and considerations to sap the [Voting Rights] Act’s strength, and to save laws like Arizona’s.” Charging that the Court is usurping Congress’s role, Kagan adds, “No matter what Congress wanted, the majority has other ideas.”
Referring to Section 2, Kagan concludes, “That law, of all laws, should not be diminished by this Court.”
Since Shelby was decided — and exacerbated by Trump’s spurious claims of fraud — voter suppression legislation has proliferated. At least 880 bills proposing major changes have been introduced in 49 states. Of those, at least 28 major bills have been enacted in 14 states.
“In recent months, State after State has taken up or enacted legislation erecting new barriers to voting,” Kagan wrote. “Those laws shorten the time polls are open, both on Election Day and before. They impose new prerequisites to voting by mail, and shorten the windows to apply for and return mail ballots. They make it harder to register to vote, and easier to purge voters from the rolls. Two laws even ban handing out food or water to voters standing in line.”
The ball is in Congress’s court. Two federal voter protection bills are pending, the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. In addition, the Judiciary Act of 2021 would increase the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to 13. That could provide an opportunity to dilute the right-wing agenda of the current six members of the Court who voted to open the floodgates of voter suppression legislation.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and a member of the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
From the Bagram Airbase they left, leaving behind a piece of the New York World Trade Centre that collapsed with such graphic horror on September 11, 2001. As with previous occupiers and occupants, the powers that had made this venue a residence of war operations were cutting their losses and running.
Over the years, the base, originally built by the Soviets in the 1950s and known to US personnel as Bagram Airfield, became a loud statement of occupation, able to hold up to 10,000 troops and sprawling across 30 square miles. It was also replete with cholesterol hardening fast food restaurants (Pizza Hut, Burger King), jewellers, car dealerships and such amenities as swimming pools, spas and cinemas.
Bagram also had room to accommodate the unfortunates captured in that anomalously worded “War on Terror”: detainees, many al-Qaeda suspects, faced torture in what came to be known as Afghanistan’s Guantanamo. US forces relinquished control of the prison, now sporting the benign name of Parwan Detention Facility, to Afghan security forces in December 2014. Ill-treatment of prisoners continued.
After two decades, it seemed that the US armed forces could not wait to leave. The departure date, scheduled for September, was being brought forward, though President Joe Biden denied that anything had changed.
“A safe, orderly drawdown,” stated the Pentagon press secretary John Kirby, “enables us to maintain an ongoing diplomatic presence, support the Afghan people and the government, and prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming a safe haven for terrorists that threatens our homeland.”
There was little fuss in the way things unfolded on July 1 – at least initially. The New York Timesobserved that the final withdrawal “occurred with little fanfare and no public ceremony, and in an atmosphere of grave concern over the Afghan security forces’ ability to hold off Taliban advances across the country.”
The signal for chaos and mayhem had been given. Darwaish Raufi, Afghanistan’s district administrator for Bagram, found himself confronting an ominous spectacle. There had been confusion and uncertainty about the logistics of the operation. With the base unsecured, around 100 looters capitalised, seizing gas canisters and laptops. “They were stopped and some have been arrested and the rest have been cleared from the base.” The district governor was left puzzled. “American soldiers should share information with the Afghan government, especially local officials, but they didn’t let me know.”
US military spokesman Colonel Sonny Leggettdisagreed.
“All handovers of Resolute Support bases and facilities, to include Bagram Airfield, have been closely coordinated, both with senior leaders from the government and with our Afghan partners in the security forces, including leadership of the locally based units respective to each base.”
Across the country, the Taliban are smacking their lips in anticipation of further gains. “We consider this withdrawal a positive step,” said Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid. “Afghans can get closer to stability and peace with the full withdrawal of foreign forces.” So far, the peace negotiations move at snail-like speed. The Taliban refuse to declare a ceasefire. Districts in the country have been falling with regularity to their forces. Demoralised Afghan soldiers have been leaving their posts, though this is justified on the basis of strategic soundness (urban centres need protection).
With a security vacuum gapingly prominent in parts of the country, regional militias have promised to mount resistance. “Having reached home,” Nishank Motwani, Deputy Director of the Afghanistan Research and Evaluation in Unit in Kabul gloomily remarked, “Americans and allied forces will now watch what they fought so hard to build over 20 years burn down from afar and knowing that the Afghan men and women they fought with risk losing everything.”
Former UK chief of the defence staff Lord David Richards could hardly improve on that, telling the BBC that, “A country that we promised a huge amount to now faces … almost certain civil war, with the likelihood that the Taliban will get back to where they were in 2001, occupying most of the major cities and the majority of the country.”
General Richard Dannant, formerly chief of the general staff, kept matters paternalistic; as with other civilising missions of imperial days past, he wrote of a task that had failed. “Taliban force of arms has prevailed, and the people of that country have been denied the chance to choose a better way of life.”
The Biden administration continues to offer its model of hollow assurance for an ally it has cut loose, accompanied by a promise to provide security assistance to the value of $3 billion in 2022. The President’s meeting with President Ashraf Ghani and chairman of the High Council for National Reconciliation Abdullah Abdullah on June 25 saw the recapitulation of unconvincing themes. All three “concurred on the need for unity among Afghan leaders in support of peace and stability”. Biden “reaffirmed the US commitment to fully support intra-Afghan negotiations.” Despite the departure of US troops, “the strong bilateral partnership will continue.”
In a State Department briefing on July 1, officials continued to patch up the façade of support. When asked by a journalist how the US could claim to be supporting the Afghan government “when we’re not going to be there”, department spokesperson Ned Pricewas prepared with some casuistry: “we are withdrawing our military forces, as the President announced, but we intend to maintain a diplomatic presence in Kabul.” The country would not be abandoned; support would be undiminished.
At a White House press conference, Biden suggested how far down Afghanistan, and its fate, features in US policy circles. In a moment of frankness, he put a halt to questions on that doomed country and wished to “talk about happy things, man. I’m not going to answer any more questions on Afghanistan.” It was a matter of priorities. “It’s the holiday weekend. I’m going to celebrate it. There’s great things happening.” Just not in Afghanistan.
*
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: This image shows aircraft of the Afghan Air Force during U.S. President Eisenhower’s visit in 1959. (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 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was under intense political pressure to give emergency use authorization (EUA) to three experimental injections manufactured by Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson. Now that these experiments have been carried out on roughly one third of the US population, serious issues have emerged.
A well-cited petition has been filed by Children’s Health Defense and Millions Against Medical Mandates, calling on the FDA to revoke EUAs for all experimental covid vaccines. After a careful review of the evidence, the FDA is ethically obligated to pull covid injections off the market, or the agency and all its affiliates risk becoming complicit in crimes against humanity.
The CDC’s passive vaccine injury surveillance system, VAERS, has managed to capture 192,954 adverse events and 4,057 deaths between Dec. 14, 2020 and May 7, 2021. Similarly, Europe’s vaccine injury surveillance system, EudraVigilance has tallied 405,259 injuries and 10,570 deaths as of May 8, 2021. These crimes against humanity would never have been tolerated decades ago. In 1976, the swine flu vaccine campaign was cut short after thirty deaths and four hundred cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome.
The covid vaccine holocaust is coming to light, despite the censorship
Fact checking organizations that work for the vaccine industry are trying to downplay the hundreds of thousands of vaccine injuries and thousands of premature death reports, claiming that healthcare workers and patients are making their vaccine injuries up, and misleading the public with their exaggerated first-hand experiences.
The authoritarian push for vaccine compliance has led many people to hide their medical issues following vaccination or pretend their week-long sickness after vaccination is somehow a normal part of the scientific process. Some medical professionals still cling to the promise that vaccines are 100 percent safe, while many others are beginning to speak up about the problems they see with vaccinated patients.
Petition calls on FDA to pull disastrous covid vaccines from the market
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense have joined up with Millions Against Medical Mandates, challenging healthcare practitioners, military members and others to speak out to the FDA. Children’s Health Defense has filed a petition on behalf of the American people, calling on the FDA to revoke the EUAs and immediately remove covid vaccines from the market.
The petition states:
“FDA should revoke all EUAs and refrain from approving any future EUA, NDA [new drug application] or BLA [biologics license application] for any COVID vaccine for all demographic groups because the current risks of serious adverse events or deaths outweigh the benefits, and because existing, approved drugs provide highly effective prophylaxis and treatment against COVID, mooting the EUAs.”
Now is the time to speak up to the FDA, to stop the vaccine propaganda and predatory coercion. The industry has already begun to target children, with no data to justify it. The petition cites that children are at low risk to covid infection, and it calls on the FDA to revoke all EUAs that allow pharmaceutical companies to experiment on children under age 18.
The petition also urges the FDA to revoke its recommendation to inoculate pregnant women with the experimental vaccines. The petition includes seventy-two references to support the request for revocation and to stop the fraudulent marketing of COVID vaccines as “safe and effective.”
“Pending revocation of COVID vaccine EUAs, FDA should issue guidance that all marketing and promotion of COVID vaccines must refrain from labeling them “safe and effective,” as such statements violate 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3,” the petition states.
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The World Economic Forum (WEF) published its new Global Coalition for Digital Safety program this week “to counter health misinformation, violent extremist and terrorist content, and the exploitation of children online.”
Of course, they get to define all the forms of “health misinformation” which include any dissenters to the COVID-19 bioweapon shots.
And we have already seen what they mean by “the exploitation of children online” which means preventing children from getting dissenting views, as several places in Canada and around the U.S. have already started injecting children as young as 12-years-old with COVID-19 shots without their parents’ knowledge or approval.
On the WEF website explaining about this new initiative, they feature a short video of Julie Inman Grant from Australia who states “we’re not policing the Internet for harmful material,” and then proceeds to explain how they are policing the Internet for harmful material.
No, I didn’t mistype that. Listen for yourself:
They’re going to rely on citizens to spy on their friends and neighbors and then report them to Big Tech.
Leo Hohmann published an article about this today, and said one of his readers sent him a screenshot from Facebook showing that this is already being implemented.
The World Economic Forum announced June 29 it will initiate a new “public-private partnership” with Big Tech and governments around the world to identify and uproot all opinions from the Internet that it considers “harmful.”
The WEF is one of those elitist organizations that wields enormous influence over the elected leaders of Western nations but which almost nobody in the general population has heard of.
Its members are internationalist corporate honchos and technocrats who meet once a year in Davos with the stated goal of working to “shape global, regional and industry agendas.”
It made a big splash last year with its highly touted “Great Reset,” which promises to use the pandemic as an “opportunity” to crash the world’s dollar-based, capitalist economic system and “build back better” under a more socialist and globally integrated system that mirrors the United Nations Agenda 2030 goals for Sustainable Development.
Any politician you hear using the term “build back better” [Biden-Harris-Trudeau-Johnson repeat this mantra daily] you know has drunk the poisonous Kool-Aid of the World Economic Forum and its founder, Klaus Schwab.
Schwab’s latest venture is the so-called “Global Coalition for Digital Safety” that consists of execs from Big Tech and government officials with the goal of creating a “global framework” for regulating speech on the Internet, wiping it of so-called “harmful content.”
[I could not help but think of the Committee of Public Safety that conducted the reign of terror during the French Revolution.]
And who gets to define what’s “harmful”? Why, the global coalition set up by the elitist WEF of course!
Microsoft immediately announced it was all in with the WEF’s plan for cracking down on free speech over the internet.
Chief digital safety officer for Microsoft Courtney Gregoire stated:
“Technology offers tools to learn, play, connect, and contribute to solving some of the world’s greatest challenges. But digital safety harms remain a threat to these possibilities. As the World Economic Forum is uniquely positioned to accelerate the public-private collaboration needed to advance digital safety globally, Microsoft is eager to participate and help build whole-of-society solutions to this whole-of-society problem.”
Facebook is also excited to get started on this new project. The social media giant has begun sending cryptic messages to some of its users that read as follows:
“Are you concerned that someone you know is becoming an extremist?”
See screenshot below of this message that one user received from Facebook and sent to this reporter.
For those of you who have watched the presentation on Freemasonry y Altiyan Childs, you will know that the Satanic symbols so prevalent in our modern culture and hidden in plain sight are also shown in the WEF logo with 666:
In Canada, some places are apparently taking this one step further, and not only policing online digital communication, but preventing large gatherings in person as well, where people might talk about the wrong things.
REPORT: No longer about health. Canada will prevent groups from gathering in order to stop the spread of 'unauthorized information'. pic.twitter.com/WM381SGnCC
As I have been warning our Health Impact News readers for weeks now, the worst is yet to come!
This is an all-or-nothing gamble by the Satanic Globalists’ power grab to completely restructure society, including the financial sector, making everyone a slave to their medical procedures as these eugenicists move towards reducing the world’s population for their own purposes.
The first round in the first half of 2021 has already seen a dramatic decrease in the population of the pro-vaccine crowd. Those who are left from that demographic are now being recruited to spy on the dissenters.
The only thing standing in their way now is a non-compliant public willing to count the cost to resist.
But will that happen?
As I have recently written, I have more hope for massive resistance in the UK due to recent large protests there.
But in the U.S., I fear that the plan is to allow Donald Trump to return to power to pacify the Right into compliance, while the Left gets ready to burn down our major urban centers and cause widescale chaos, deflecting attention from banding together to fight the real enemy and the Luciferian Globalists who are the ones actually controlling the country right now from Wall Street, and the Trump family is most definitely a part of that group.
*
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).
Let us be clear. The recent rise in Wokeness is another symptom of America’s “reality deficit disorder (RDD),” a condition that continues to proliferate across the American landscape since the Age of Enlightenment and the 19th century’s advent of scientific materialism as a secular religion. The proponents of modern behaviorism and the neurosciences are likewise saturated with RDD. The gurus of modern Critical Race Theory, the Woke self-congratulating experts and false prophets, are its public face. These are plastic intellectuals who have found a righteous purpose to spread the message in the Woke Critical Race movement’s bible, Robin DiAngelo’s bestseller White Fragility. Identity politics, efforts to consolidate groupthink in order to promulgate illusions about race, social status, and gender have found their voice in DiAngelo’s and Ibram Kendi’s writings.
Despite the widespread adulation DiAngelo has received from liberal educators, the mega-corporate elite, and the liberal media, she has managed to jockey herself away from the deep scrutiny her writings and lectures deserve. An exception is Jonathan Church, author of Reinventing Racism, who brilliantly exposes DiAngelo’s flaws and deconstructs her façade of being objective. Church takes a more philosophical offensive to shed light on DiAngelo’s implicit biases and contradictions that in turn distort the very ideas she attempts to proselytize. While we agree wholeheartedly with Church’s polemic, we would take a more scientific approach and state that DiAngelo’s racial theories of irredeemable Whiteness have no basis in reality whatsoever.
White Fragility reads like a tantrum by an author deeply confused about her own identity and with a third-rate intellect. “All white people,” DiAngelo wants us to believe, “are invested in and collude with racism.” If you were born White then racism is built into your genetic inheritance. There can be no escape from this curse, DiAngelo suggests, no redemption or purification by fire regardless of how much penitence, public service or charity you perform for the greater good. We wonder whether she would include the indigenous White Finno-Ugric peoples inhabiting the most northern forests and tundra of Scandinavia and Russia’s Kola Peninsula are also genetically colluding in perpetuating the world’s racism.
The author reminds us of someone who has read every published book about chocolate and thus feels qualified to write one of their own; however, the person has never actually tasted chocolate. Philosophy and postmodern sociology in general, notably the modern philosophies of science and mind, suffer from this mental affliction. They write books about other philosophers’ books who in turn wrote books about their predecessors’ scribbling. Many authors writing about religion suffer from this same malady. Right-wing critics to RCT Wokeness likewise indulge in a similar cognitive hallucination built upon feeble-minded pre-Galilean superstitions. When the time comes to take their last breath, they will have failed to achieve any conscious lucidity to read the last page in the novel of their lives. Their perceptions of themselves and the world, their righteous anger and biases, will be revealed as dreamscapes –nevertheless the phantoms they have conjured will have had dire consequences to the welfare of innocent victims prejudiced and canceled by their vitriol and condemnation.
There have always been conflicting ideologies, cherished beliefs and inflamed emotions towards racial discrepancies, social order or how the nation should be governed. But today these cognitive afflictions, masquerading as passions and righteous causes such as Woke Culture’s anti-racism, have disintegrated into tribalism. This is now fomenting new class and racial distinctions and struggles as well as media turf wars. No one can accurately predict where this collective reality deficit disorder will lead ultimately but it certainly won’t contribute to any positive advancement of human well-being. It repeats the old adage of garbage in, garbage out.
“The greatest need of our time,” the Trappist monk Thomas Merton wrote in his Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander, “is to clean out the enormous mass of mental and emotional rubbish that clutters our minds and makes all political and social life a mass illness. Without this housecleaning we cannot begin to see. Unless we see we cannot think.” Merton believed that this “purification must begin with the mass media.” We would suggest it also begins with our educational institutions. Teachers who embrace White Fragility’s social folly, need to introspectively gaze and observe the destructive ataxia nesting in their own minds. If anyone wonders why the nation is so angry, screaming and protesting, it is because the failed neoliberal experiment, the culture of political nepotism, a captured and biased media, and a thoroughly corrupt judiciary have created this horror show. DiAngelo seemingly wants to gather tinder to keep racial conflagrations burning.
“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous,” Martin Luther King lamented, “than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” It is our deep ignorance about not knowing ourselves and appreciating our intrinsic interconnections with each other and the environment that perpetuates the suffering around us. These deeper existential relationships outsmart and surpass any value Critical Race Theory might offer. This includes our attachments to whatever accomplishments and failures we experience in our lives through racial identity, which lead to a reality deficit with all of its superiority complexes, apathy and depression.
First, there is sufficient empirical science to reach a consensus that we are a culture that has become habituated to mistaking its unfounded perceptions about itself and the world as reality-based. This applies to our cognitive conceptions of Whiteness, Blackness, Yellowness, etc. Church makes this clear; DiAngelo’s use of the term Whiteness is “nebulous” and “vague.” He points out that her logic falls into a Kafka Trap, referring to Kafka’s novel The Trial when an unassuming man is dragged into court and accused for an unspecified crime; subsequently his unwavering denial is itself interpreted as absolute proof that the accusation is true. “Yes, all white people are complicit with racism,” writes DiAngelo, “People will insist that they are not racist… This is the kind of evidence that many white people used to exempt themselves from that system. It is not possible to be exempt from it.” Consequently, for DiAngelo and Kendi, Whites can only speak about their “whiteness” in terms of how it reinforces systemic racism. But from a neuro-scientific perspective, all colored racisms are skewed perceptions of reality.
For example, when we gaze into a deep azure sky we immediately assume there is physical blue over our heads. However, there are no blue-colored photons reaching our retinas. Rather, our brains receive the emitted photons and through a complex channeling of information from the eye to the visual cortex the brain then Photoshops the color azure and projects it through our glance into the empty space of the sky. The same is true whether we gaze at a verdant forest canopy, a fiery sunset, the fluorescent, shimmering hues of a fanning peacock’s feathers or observing an African, Asian or European person crossing the street.
There is nothing mysterious behind this; it is visual brain science 101. No neuroscientist questions this visual phenomena. We reify the sensory stimuli the brain receives from the objective world and then grasp and cling to these as being factually real. Theoretically race may be understood as only a conventional or relative appearance arising to our mental perceptions. No absolutely objective claims can be made about it; therefore, there cannot be any absolute analyses or solutions for confronting racism either.
In striking contrast to White Fragility’s cognitive deficiencies, we may consider an argument posed by the great German and Jewish existentialist philosopher Martin Buber. Buber speaks of an I-You relationship when we engage with another person as another subject instead of as an object. There’s a subject there, and that subject is every bit as real as the subject over here. As much as I care about my own well-being, then so do you. To transcend Critical Race Theory’s divisions and its many shortcomings, which relate to others as I-Its — as mere objects — we simply need to be aware of Buber’s advice, and become fully engaged with that reality. Buber highlights this as a profoundly existential problem in modern society. It is debilitating. It is dehumanizing and horrid, although for DiAngelo and Critical Wokeness preserving racial I-It relationships is not only valid but essential. When we regard others simply in terms of whether the color of their skin is appealing or unappealing, pleasant or unpleasant, superior or inferior, and so forth we are bifurcating impressions that have no substance in reality. We are simply treating other sentient beings as if they have no more sentience, no more subjectivity, no more presence from their own side than a robot or computer. But that seems fine for DiAngelo and her tragic dehumanizing dogma, the output of a massive reality deficit disorder.
If DiAngelo were unintelligent or had severe brain damage, we might understand and would certainly sympathize. But she and Ibram Kendi — and we would argue all of their followers who carry White Fragility’s banner into school classrooms — are likely very educated people. That is the calamity and the clear evidence for the deep-seated spiritual impoverishment when a person is viewed as nothing more than the race of their physical bodies.
If anti-racial Wokeness is true, then the more deeply we probe and investigate it, the truer it should appear. This is one of William James’ fundamental principles when he made efforts to turn the psychology of his day into a real science. If James’ methodololgy had not been obliterated by the rise of behaviorism in 1910, psychology would be completely different today. We would actually be treating and curing people of mental disorders, and without life-long medications. On the other hand, if DiAngelo’s hypothesis is false, the more deeply you investigate, which includes introspection, the more false it will appear. That is where robust inquiry comes in: to determine what is simply true regardless of whatever your personal unsubstantiated and biased beliefs about it might be. What you believe has absolutely no impact upon whether something is true or not. This is also basic Buddhist epistemology that has been repeatedly replicated by contemplatives for several millennia. However, for the Woked who cling to their beliefs most fiercely they are trapped in a cave of their own system’s illusions.
Neuroscience, including its gross failures and tendencies towards metaphysical realism, has more to tell us about the inherent dangers in White Fragility’s doctrine. First, modern brain science has not produced an iota of evidence to confirm that the mind and consciousness are solely a product or output originating in neuron and synaptic activity. None. Contrary to the evidence, most neuroscientists and evolutionary biologists nevertheless embrace this opinion as being a settled matter. But it is ridiculous to believe that evolution somehow dragged along our ancient single-celled ancestors until some point was reached when a conscious mind — a “nothing” that is not observable, not measurable, not quantifiable, without atoms or photons, mass, electric charge or spin – mysteriously arose out of something, such as genes and biomolecular phenomena. Therefore cognitive scientists pretend to know something about the mind and consciousness when in fact they haven’t a clue.
If the genetic determinism of DiAngelo and other materialists populating the evolutionary and biological sciences is correct, then it would break the fundamental physical laws of energy conservation and causal efficacy. Rather the absolutist determinism that underpins White Fragility’s entire message is just the inverse side of the coin with Evangelical creationism. In effect, DiAngelo is saying White people have no choice. It’s genetic chemistry or its genetic chemistry; either way its genetic chemistry. By disguising and recasting an evolutionary and genetic determinism about racist Whiteness into her critical race theory, DiAngelo is in fact admitting that her own perceptions about reality are fundamentally flawed.
Why is that?
Dr. Donald Hoffman has been a professor of neuroscience at the University of California at Irvine for over three decades. He has an impeccable background having studied artificial intelligence at MIT. But unlike the vast majority of his colleagues, Hoffman broke ranks and passed beyond neuroscience’s 19th century mechanistic base and dared to study modern quantum physics and relativity theory. Theoretical physics is almost anathema in human biological research and medicine, which is why these soft sciences have made so little progress to improve human health and well-being. Hoffman has performed hundreds of thousands of simulations comparing different species and their chances for survival based upon their ability to perceive and comprehend reality more accurately or not. His discoveries are startling and utterly revolutionary.
Hoffman discovered, across the board, species that best perceive reality go extinct more rapidly than competing species that only perceive what is necessary for them to remain fit and survive. During an interview following a TED Talk, Hoffman stated, “according to evolution by natural selection,” – and here he is limiting himself solely to evolutionary biological theory not quantum theories about the natural world or the deeper theories about the nature of consciousness – “an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.” In other words, evolution has nothing to do with perceiving reality more clearly, but only to be more fit in order to adapt, survive and procreate. And now physicists are even telling us that perceiving reality accurately is consciousness itself, which has no association whatsoever with natural selection. Yet this only occurs after we have subdued our connate perceptual obscurations, which are not hardwired, and conditioned mental and emotional afflictions that keep us chained to reality deficit disorder
For example, Professor Edward Witten, regarded as “the world’s smartest” physicist at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton, has been compared to Newton and Einstein. Witten doesn’t believe science will ever understand consciousness. “I think consciousness will remain a mystery,” Witten stated during a lecture, ”I have a much easier time imagining how we understand the Big Bang than I have imagining how we can understand consciousness.” Or we can listen to Stanford University theoretical physicist Andre Linde:
“The current scientific model of the material world obeying laws of physics has been so successful that we forget our starting point as conscious observers, and conclude that matter is the only reality and that perceptions are only helpful for describing it. But in fact, we are substituting the reality of our experience of the universe with a conceptually contrived belief…”
One may feel our critique is too abstract with no practical application; however to at least conceptually understand race in terms of our sensory perceptions can have enormous benefits to cut through and lessen the false semblances that arise from reality deficit disorder and then produce books such as White Fragility and How To Be An Antiracist.
Therefore, if neuroscientists and modern neo-Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Robin DiAngelo, who believe they are telling the complete story about human existence, racial differences and a physical causality to the human mind, and that all of these emerged from natural selection, then Hoffman has shown they undermine their own credibility. The entire course of natural selection that gave rise to these scientists and the intellectuals behind Critical Race Theory has nothing to do with knowing reality as it is, including Blackness or Whiteness. Consequently, there is no reason to believe their sociological and scientific convictions are accurate. If we did not evolve to know reality as it is, then their science and philosophies are also irrelevant. They are birdbrained beliefs because none of us – if we take their Darwinian assumptions to their full conclusion — did not evolve to perceive reality in the first place. Our sole purpose is to make babies and try to survive contently into old age.
Finally, contrary to DiAngelo, British journalist Melanie Phillips offers a clearer understanding for why we should not rely upon the pundits of anti-racial wokeness to save us from ourselves. Despite disagreeing with Phillips on many of her other socio-political positions, she correctly identifies the fundamental flaws being voiced by arrested development Wokeness across our campuses and within the Democrat party. First, it is unable to establish a hierarchy of values and morals. For example, if one refuses to say that any lifestyle or culture is better than another, then it cannot be said that liberalism is better than conservatism or any other ideology. Consequently, faux Woke liberalism cannot legitimately defend the very principles upon which it defines itself: racial and gender equality, freedom of speech and religion, tolerance, and class struggle. It contradicts its own principles and follows DiAngelo’s footsteps to remove the dignity of the individual, which in the past was at the heart of authentic liberalism and once served as its moral backbone. What we are witnessing therefore in Woke liberalism – and in DiAngelo’s and Kendi’s reinvention of racism — is “the strong dominating the weak,” and this is an ill-liberal ideology that is already showing signs of having catastrophic consequences in classrooms and the workplace.
*
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.
Richard Gale and Gary Null PhD direct Progressive Radio Network. They are frequent contributors to Global Research.
First published on Global Research on July 4, 2011
.
.
A Question for Reflection
It is a shame to have to ask whether democracy is a mirage in the United States, no doubt most Americans would rather be celebrating U.S. democracy than questioning it. But the reality of the disconnect between government and the people has become so stark it is impossible to ignore.
Gallup reports that Americans belief in our form of government and how well it works is now at only 42% (in 2002 it was at 76%). Less than a quarter of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, yet because of manipulation of the political process, the drawing of voting districts, the impact of campaign money and the power of incumbency, more than 90% will be re-elected.
A major problem is the two party duopoly acts much like a two party dictatorship. Despite nearly 60% of Americans wanting a third party and only 35% believing the two parties do an adequate job, the two parties work together to prevent more choices on the ballot. They have put up road blocks to independent challengers through ballot access laws, campaign finance rules, exclusion from debates and the winner take all electoral system. The corporate media plays an important role of keeping independent candidates off the air so people do not hear about their existence or positions. As a result only the two parties, both funded by the corporate oligarchy, and their corporate-approved candidates appear on most ballots. Most Americans end up voting against their interests for what has commonly become known as voting for ‘the lesser evil.’
The courts, which play an essential role in applying constitutional limits on government in the U.S. Republic, have become a tool of the financial elite, actually weakening elections further. They have issued rulings that further empower the money-class in their control of democracy. The court has allowed unlimited spending by corporations and individuals in the Citizens United decision; and recently found the Arizona Clean Elections Act unconstitutional. Thus striking two blows for the wealthy – they can spend as much as they like, but government cannot provide matching public funds for elections.
President Obama, rather than pushing for clean elections, is going from big donor event to big donor event to become the first candidate to run a billion dollar campaign. More and more Americans recognize that his health care policy, which re-enforced and expanded the power of the insurance industry, likely resulted from their $20 million in donations to his first campaign. Obama kept single payer out of the debate despite years of polls showing large majorities of Americans want single payer and vast evidence showing it is the best model to control costs and the only model to provide health care to all. The insurance company’s profits came before the necessities and preferences of the people. We see people from Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan and other big financial institutions not only being bailed out but being put in the Obama administration rather than prosecuted for crashing the economy despite strong evidence of criminal wrongdoing. These are two examples of many. Obama has advocated corporatism on every issue and is now going to those special interests to fund the most expensive campaign in history.
In the United States more and more recognize the disconnect between government and the needs of most Americans. They see how crony capitalist policies lead to the largest wealth divide we have known with increasing poverty, joblessness, underemployment and insecurity. At the same time the Congress, Treasury and Federal Reserve funnel trillions of dollars to the big banks, but demand cuts for programs that would create jobs, fund state and local government, build the infrastructure, provide basic necessities and protect the environment. This is the first generation of Americans who see that their children are likely to be worse off than they are.
What can Americans do to create a representative democracy and shift the power to the people from major corporations? In fact, the U.S. is not the only country facing the problem of oligarchy. One example that has not gotten a lot of attention in the U.S. media is Spain. The people have been in revolt since March 15th. Hundreds of thousands have taken control of public spaces across the country. Their protests continue and more major protests are being planned. The Spanish movement has been only minimally reported in the U.S. commercial media, perhaps because some of the complaints are so similar to what we hear in living rooms, schools and restaurants when Americans talk among themselves.
Here’s a sampling of what they are saying in Spain:
– A professor from Barcelona explains – the political structures, instead of protecting our welfare and living standards the government is doing the opposite. It is the institutional machine that is creating mass unemployment, precarious employment and unprecedented limitations on future hopes and expectations.
– Another says the political parties have lost touch with the people. They have limited the exercise of democracy to every four years and have stripped democracy of its true meaning.
– “They have reduced us to nothing. They tell us go vote, go vote, go vote – you go vote, pal.”
The Spanish call themselves Real Democracy Already (Democracia Real Ya (DRY)). Like Americans they live under a two party system. There are other small parties, but they are shut out of real participation. The statement of DRY speaks mostly about creating a true democracy. They say: “Democracy belongs to the people (demos = people, krátos = government) which means that government is made of every one of us. However, in Spain most of the political class does not even listen to us. . . Lust for power and its accumulation in only a few; create inequality, tension and injustice. The obsolete and unnatural economic model fuels the social machinery in a growing spiral that consumes itself by enriching a few and sends into poverty the rest. . . The will and purpose of the current system is the accumulation of money, not regarding efficiency and the welfare of society. Wasting resources, destroying the planet, creating unemployment and unhappy consumers. Citizens are the gears of a machine designed to enrich a minority which does not regard our needs. We are anonymous, but without us none of this would exist, because we move the world.”
Sounds familiar, like echoes of conversations many Americans are having. As a result thousands of Americans have joined www.October2011.org. This is a movement to demand an end to corporatism and militarism. Like the Spanish, the Greeks, Tunisians and Egyptians, among others, October2011, will be taking over a public space, Freedom Plaza in Washington, DC beginning on October 6. This day is the beginning of the 11th year of the Afghanistan War and that week is the beginning of a new federal fiscal year with an austerity budget for everything except the military. October2011.org has written the activists around the world seeking a common agenda of economic justice and real democracy letting them know that their revolution is our revolution. It seems much of the world is waking up to the need to topple the oligarchy at the same time.
Like Spain, October2011.org is led by individuals, not organizations. People from a wide range of issues see the common problem of corporate control of government preventing the change America needs. This includes ending the ongoing wars, reducing the military budget, better pay and jobs for workers, Medicare for all, reversal of the degradation of the environment, ending the wealth divide and putting in place a clean, sustainable energy economy, among others.
The solutions to the critical issues facing the country are evident to many but the corporate interests who profit from the status quo prevent real change. The electoral system is closed to all but the corporate parties. To transform the government into one that puts the peoples interests before those of the economic elite, will require a showing of power. It will require an ongoing, independent movement that demands real change and has the power to insist on it. On October 6th a major step to showing the development of such a movement and demanding real change begins. Join us.
In Spain, the protesters sing to the tune of “If You’re Happy and You Know It”:
They call it democracy but it isn’t
Oh yes, oh yes, oh yes
They call it democracy but it isn’t
Oh yes, oh yes, oh yes
Are the people of the United States ready to face the reality of the corruption of U.S. elections and the lack of representation and do something about it? History is knocking. The time is now to answer.
This article was first published by The Progressive and Global Research in July 2010
On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.
Is not nationalism — that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder — one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?
These ways of thinking — cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on — have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.
National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours — huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction — what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves.
Our citizenry has been brought up to see our nation as different from others, an exception in the world, uniquely moral, expanding into other lands in order to bring civilization, liberty, democracy.
That self-deception started early.
When the first English settlers moved into Indian land in Massachusetts Bay and were resisted, the violence escalated into war with the Pequot Indians. The killing of Indians was seen as approved by God, the taking of land as commanded by the Bible. The Puritans cited one of the Psalms, which says: “Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession.”
When the English set fire to a Pequot village and massacred men, women and children, the Puritan theologian Cotton Mather said: “It was supposed that no less than 600 Pequot souls were brought down to hell that day.”
On the eve of the Mexican War, an American journalist declared it our “Manifest Destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence.” After the invasion of Mexico began, The New York Herald announced: “We believe it is a part of our destiny to civilize that beautiful country.”
It was always supposedly for benign purposes that our country went to war.
We invaded Cuba in 1898 to liberate the Cubans, and went to war in the Philippines shortly after, as President McKinley put it, “to civilize and Christianize” the Filipino people.
As our armies were committing massacres in the Philippines (at least 600,000 Filipinos died in a few years of conflict), Elihu Root, our secretary of war, was saying: “The American soldier is different from all other soldiers of all other countries since the war began. He is the advance guard of liberty and justice, of law and order, and of peace and happiness.”
We see in Iraq that our soldiers are not different. They have, perhaps against their better nature, killed thousands of Iraq civilians. And some soldiers have shown themselves capable of brutality, of torture.
Yet they are victims, too, of our government’s lies.
How many times have we heard President Bush tell the troops that if they die, if they return without arms or legs, or blinded, it is for “liberty,” for “democracy”?
One of the effects of nationalist thinking is a loss of a sense of proportion. The killing of 2,300 people at Pearl Harbor becomes the justification for killing 240,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The killing of 3,000 people on Sept. 11 becomes the justification for killing tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And nationalism is given a special virulence when it is said to be blessed by Providence. Today we have a president, invading two countries in four years, who announced on the campaign trail in 2004 that God speaks through him.
We need to refute the idea that our nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history.
We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation.
Howard Zinn, a World War II bombardier, was the author of the best-selling “A People’s History of the United States” (Perennial Classics, 2003, latest edition). This piece was distributed by the Progressive Media Project in 2006.
Howard Zinn died on January 7 2010. Please read Matthew Rothschild’s “Thank you, Howard Zinn,” for more about his legacy.
This incisive article was written by the late Danny Schechter, renowned author, television producer, filmmaker and contributor to Global Research, first published on July 4th, 2014. Danny’s thoughts and analysis will be remembered.
* * *
The wheel of the calendar has turned again, and July 4th is upon us once again, a day for the consumption of 155 million pounds of hot dogs, and fireworks—75% of the pyro technics industry’s revenues ignite in an average 1400 displays on the federal holiday marking the anniversary of American Independence.
Patriotric rituals r’ often us, although, never mind, that American celebrations only began after the war of 1812, and that it took quite a while for London to even respond to our declaration.
Quiet as its kept, actual independence only arrived on September, 3, 1783 when Great Britain formally abandoned its claims to its colonies and signed the Treaty of Paris.
Recall also that one of the pledges in the document of documents was a “Decent Respect for The Opinions of Mankind,” a vow undercut somewhat by a ruling by an appointed intelligence advisory body this past week—based on who knows what legal foundation—that US Spying on mankind is now and forevermore “legal” under our constitution.
Record this fact, too,that July 4th only became a holiday on June 28, 1870, a decision promulgated in the aftermath of our bloody civil war to encourage some semblance of unity in a still divided nation.
Back in ‘76, the independence war has been on for a year before the often feuding anddisunited politicians of the day decided a declaration was needed. It followed from a resolution by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia that began: “Resolved: That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”
Even as Tom Jefferson drafted the words for the document, there was discordant music in the background. In the end, of the 13 colonies, nine voted yes, two — Pennsylvania and South Carolina — voted No. Delaware was undecided and New York abstained.
And so, it was on this basis, that the “United” States decided proclaim itself.
Of all the oratory and debate that on “our” independence, nothing in the literature surpasses the speech by abolitionist, editor and former slave, Frederick Douglass, whose oration about July 4th deserves to be much better known.
His famous speech has the title, “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” It was delivered on July 5, 1852, eight years before the eruption of the war against the Confederacy’s secession from the union.
Douglass began slowly:
“Who could address this audience without a quailing sensation, has stronger nerves than I have. I do not remember ever to have appeared as a speaker before any assembly more shrinkingly, nor with greater distrust of my ability, than I do this day. A feeling has crept over me, quite unfavorable to the exercise of my limited powers of speech. The task before me is one which requires much previous thought and study for its proper performance. I know that apologies of this sort are generally considered flat and unmeaning….
The papers and placards say, that I am to deliver a 4th [of] July oration. This certainly sounds large, and out of the common way…The fact is, ladies and gentlemen, the distance between this platform and the slave plantation, from which I escaped, is considerable — and the difficulties to be overcome in getting from the latter to the former, are by no means slight. That I am here to-day is, to me, a matter of astonishment as well as of gratitude. You will not, therefore, be surprised, if in what I have to say I evince no elaborate preparation, nor grace my speech with any high sounding exordium. With little experience and with less learning, I have been able to throw my thoughts hastily and imperfectly together; and trusting to your patient and generous indulgence, I will proceed to lay them before you.
This, for the purpose of this celebration, is the 4th of July. It is the birthday of your National Independence, and of your political freedom. This, to you, is what the Passover was to the emancipated people of God. It carries your minds back to the day, and to the act of your great deliverance; and to the signs, and to the wonders, associated with that act, and that day. This celebration also marks the beginning of another year of your national life; and reminds you that the Republic of America is now 76 years old. I am glad, fellow-citizens, that your nation is so young.”
He went on and on, praising the founders and sympathizing with their cause before dropping the bomb he had, no doubt, been invited to drop—a condemnation of slavery a “peculiar institution”—what a euphemism that was– that some say now was one prime reason for the revolt in the colonies, based on the opposition to Britain’s decision to end its inhumanity, a choice many of the signatories to the Declaration opposed, no doubt, in part, because they, with whatever doubts or trepidations, held slaves themselves.
Douglass did not rush that day to get to his point, and the point, saying to all assembled, “Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. — The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn.”
Ba Boom! He did not mince words:
“Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.”
So much, back then, for American “exceptionalism,” and, so much for the deep debate that is still with us, when, in rare moments, our polity and media even recognizes the great gaps and inequalities that aredividing and impoverishing the nation.
Douglass ended his soaring declamation with hope, not despair, calling for a renewal of the values of the Declaration and arenewed commitment to justice. He quoted, the “fervent aspirations” of William Lloyd Garrison:
God speed the year of jubilee The wide world o’er
When from their galling chains set free, Th’ oppress’d shall vilely bend the knee,
And wear the yoke of tyranny Like brutes no more.
That year will come, and freedom’s reign,
To man his plundered fights again Restore.
Amen to that call to restore “plundered rights” on that July 4th and all that would follow.
Sadly, one promised set of holiday fireworks I was waiting for this year, seems to have been postponed or squashed, according to Op-ed News:
I am referring to the promised explosions by Glenn Greenwald who some see as a Douglass for our age. He had promised aJuly 4 extravaganza, writing last month:
I think we will end the big stories in about three months or so [June or July 2014]. I like to think of it as a fireworks show: You want to save your best for last. There’s a story that from the beginning I thought would be our biggest, and I’m saving that. The last one is the one where the sky is all covered in spectacular multicolored hues. This will be the finale, a big missing piece. Snowden knows about it and is excited about it.
Writes Donn Marten: “For now at least the fireworks show has been postponed, with the incessant fear-mongering that has now overtaken the USA!, USA!, USA! over the new Islamic caliphate and Obama sending more American troops back into Iraq it is probably better than even money that it will be cancelled altogether in the interests of national security.”
True? In the spirit of Frederick Douglass, this is not a time to surrender. There will be fireworks. Declare your independence.
Newsdissector Danny Schechter blogs at Newsdissector.net and works on Mediachannel.org. His latest book is Madiba A-Z: The Many Faces of Nelson Mandela. (Madibabook.com) [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).
I believe in the World Economic Forum, the Bill & Melinda Gates Founation, the World Health Organization, the digitizing of loneliness, the covering of our faces, and the lockdown everlasting.
Amen.
*
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.
Prof. Graeme MacQueen is an author and distinguished professor of religious studies, Hamilton, Ont. Canada. he is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
What does America’s national celebration mean to those under the heel of “Manifest Destiny,” at home and abroad? “
For the victims of US imperialism, the 4th of July is indeed a ‘hollow mockery’ and ‘mere bombast, fraud, and deception’ as Frederick Douglass so eloquently put it in his famous speech.”
first published on July 4, 2014
“The Declaration of Independence implicitly legalized the enslavement of Black people and the genocide of Native people within the context of the developing American capitalist nation-state.”
July 4th is once again approaching and principled left forces need to use the day as a teaching moment. In a speech given on July 4th, 1852, Frederick Douglas spoke before a packed Rochester Hall and did just that, highlighting the hypocrisy that stains the July 4th celebration of the American Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence, as Douglass emphasized, held no worth to the millions of Black people in the United States whose existence was subjected to the racism and exploitation of chattel bondage. Over a century and a half later, the celebration of July 4th remains not only a practice of hypocrisy, but also a blatant co-sign US imperialist plunder all over the planet.
Liberty, independence, and equality are abstract ideas. Their presence in the Declaration of Independence must be placed in proper political-historical context. White capitalists, many of them slave-owners, wrote the Declaration of Independence. Independence from the British Crown for the American, slave-owning colonial bourgeoisie meant the ability to develop a settler colonial-capitalist order free from the British Empire’s restrictive policies. Most notably, the likes of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were concerned about a British mandate to abolish chattel slavery in its colonies, a policy that had the potential to severely weaken the colonial bourgeoisie and prevent further expansion of the capitalist system in North America. The Declaration of Independence implicitly legalized the enslavement of Black people and the genocide of Native people within the context of the developing American capitalist nation-state.
“The likes of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were concerned about a British mandate to abolish chattel slavery in its colonies.”
This is the type of “liberty” that is celebrated annually every 4th of July. Douglass addressed the antagonisms brought forth by the July 4th “holiday” when he asked:
“What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; y our national greatness, swelling vanity; your sound of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants brass fronted impudence; your shout of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanks-givings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.”
Douglass’s indictment of the American way of life remains true. Despite the relentless misinformation war waged by the US imperialist corporate media and education system, the conditions of oppressed people are far worse now than they were at the date of Douglass’s speech. Black America and Native peoples reside in the US in a state of neo-slavery. As indigenous nations battle against President Obama’s pipe-line incursions for survival under genocidal exclusion in forced residence on reservations, Black America’s masses live with the daily colonial realities of police-state terror, mass imprisonment, and economic and social death. Undocumented immigrants, many of whom are indigenous Chicanos, are super exploited for their labor and have been deported in record numbers by Obama Administration. The internal landscape of US imperialism is by definition the highest stage of Anglo-American settler colonialism, the founding social system that inspired Douglass’s July 4th analysis.
The US settler state is now an imperialist one that ensures the exploitation and misery of billions of people around the globe. The US has nearly 1000 military bases all over the world and spends trillions per year in overt and covert military operations. Recent corporate media focus has been on the re-invasion of Iraq to “protect” the Iraqi state from terrorist insurgents. This ignores the 1.6 million Iraqi people that died during the decade-long US occupation alone. Imperialist rhetoric of bringing “stability” to Iraq flies in the face of the fact that the US military-intelligence apparatus sponsors ISIS and other terror groups all over the Middle East and North Africa inside the allied nations of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the GCC and NATO alliances. US imperialism is scorching the earth, either by militarizing neo-colonial allies or conducting “humanitarian intervention” to justify overt invasion, as was the case in Libya and now again in Iraq. For the victims of US imperialism forced to live under imperialist political instability and economic dependence, the 4th of July is indeed a “hallow mockery” and “mere bombast, fraud, and deception” as Douglass eloquently put it in his speech.
“Black America’s masses live with the daily colonial realities of police-state terror, mass imprisonment, and economic and social death.”
In the era of Obama, US imperialism has been very vocal in its disregard for humanity. In 2010, President Obama joked that he would “predator drone” the Jonas Brothers band, making a mockery out the thousands of people his Administration has murdered by drone strike. The Obama Administration’s left-flank imperial politics has branded imperialism and corporate exploitation with anti-Black racism (see Obama’s 2013 Morehouse graduation speech) and fascist nationalism (see Obama’s 2014 West Point Commencement speech). Additionally, Hilary Clinton is making quite a name for herself in mainstream political discourse after stating on CNN that “Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay.” This answer came after the question of immigration was raised in relation to the thousands of children that have been crossing the border of Mexico from Central America. The architects of imperialism are exposing their own illegitimate system, and by extension, the sham that July 4th represents. The ruling class’s vocal and visible ruthlessness is both a signal of decay in the US imperialist system and of the political crisis among left forces in the US that allow such brutality to be carried out with impunity.
In the spirit of Frederick Douglass, this July 4th should be a moment not of celebration, but of deep reflection for left political forces. What does “American Independence” really mean? Does it mean the freedom for US imperialism to destabilize nations, murder millions, and force the world into its political and economic sphere of influence? Does it mean the independence for US imperialism to imprison the largest number of (mostly Black) people in the world? Is “liberty” defined by the US imperialist system’s centuries-long colonization of Native and Black America, now taking form in the privatization of entire cities like Black Detroit? The answer is yes to all of the above. The masters of deceit can’t and won’t end the imperialist system the July 4th holiday represents. Only we can do that. Instead of going out to celebrate this farcical holiday, let’s organize our communities and people in the direction of liberation from the US imperialist system.
Danny Haiphong is an activist and case manager in the Greater Boston area. You can contact Danny at: [email protected].
On June 14, 2022. Friends and family met up to celebrate Kari Polyani Levitt’s 99th birthday.
While Kari’s health is fragile, she constitutes a powerful voice in the understanding and analysis of the global political economy. here first book, entitled with tremendous for
Below is the transcript of her interview with Michael Welch in July of last year
“Many “corrections” are still needed to rid Canada of the structural violence and systemic racism that has evolved here over the past five centuries. One step in this process is to revise our understanding of history and to do away with national creation myths that portray Cartier and Cabot as heroic founders of Canada. We should instead acknowledge them as the official founding criminals of this fictive nation which has been built on a captivating web of myths that continue to deceive.” – Richard Sanders, quoted in Press for Conversion #69
The 154th anniversary of the birth of Canada as a country was marked not by festive celebrations, but by rallies crewed by community members dressed in orange shirts to mourn the far too many victims of the nation’s residential schools.
It seems unusual to abandon, in some cases, the usual fireworks in favor of sentiments regretting the mistreatment of an entire people. Although it is well deserved. The historical persecution of those people from whom this land was gifted to us must once and for all register on those people who are rewarded for the mortal sins of our fathers.[2]
And what kind of a future can we look forward to? As the nation’s elite seemed to find wealth in more and more continental integration with the United States, a string of initiatives from growing dependence on US foreign direct investment to ‘free trade’ deals and the like saw this country seeming to lose its sovereignty to Uncle Sam.
The prime minister said days in advance that Canada Day should be a day of reflection rather than a day of merriment:
“Many, many Canadians will be reflecting on reconciliation, on our relationship with Indigenous Peoples and how it has evolved and how it needs to continue to evolve rapidly. We have so many thing we need to work on together and I think this Canada Day, it will be a time of reflection on what we’ve achieved as a country but on what more we have to do.”[3]
Looking at ourselves through the mirror of an honest ethical inventory is the theme of this week’s special audio portait on the Global Research News Hour.
In the first half of the show we have the great pleasure of having Kari Polanyi Levitt join us. She focuses her attention on how Canada is losing its sovereignty and its independence on the world stage and on how we might be able to claim the soul of a proud nation once again.
In the second half of the program, we are joined once again by Richard Sanders. He outlines more about the way we have continued to elevate our country’s history on narratives which like those that animated the Church-run residential schools, are fictitious.
Transcript- Interview with Professor Polanyi Levitt, June 30, 2021
Global Research: Since you wrote that article 50 years ago to the present, there seems to have been more integration between our two countries, right?
Kari Polanyi Levitt: There has been, yes.
GR: I mean is it something that you may have foreseen way back when? Or is this more of a, I mean, from the time you wrote that book to today, is this pretty much the kind of result you would have expected?
KPL: Well, yes, I think those of us who were concerned about the way in which Canadian business was selling themselves out to American multinationals, we were concerned that it would lead to a loss of sovereignty. And I think it has. It has happened. We have less sovereignty than we had some time ago.
GR: The growth since that time, I mean, we’ve had their Free Trade Agreements, right? In the 1980s the Canada US Free Trade Agreement, the NAFTA, and we had military…our militaries became more and more tightly connected. Which strengthened continentalism even further. Where all of these separate decisions just added onto US investments to increase US control of Canada or was it part of the same pattern. First you increase investment then you try more and more integration—
KPL: I would think, yes,part of the same pattern.
GR: Yeah, so are you saying that, what I’m asking is, how far back had the various stages of integration been planned? Is it kind of like a timeline where you say, now this, and then, and then we’re going to throw in a Free Trade Agreement when the time is right? Or did this idea of free trade and then other aspects of integration just sort of come along when the time was right?
KPL: Well, the Free Trade Agreement of the kind we’re talking about were a global phenomenon they were not unique to Canada. But we had what they like to call globalization which really meant they… the power of international capital, particularly the financial capital. What I would like us to talk about is that as we are approaching Canada Day and many people are questioning whether they should celebrate or rather concern themselves about the phenomenon of the residential schools and the young people in the unmarked graves. I like to talk about thepresent and what happened since I wrote that book. It is an important book. And it remains important.
GR: Well for certain, I mean, in 2021 we are recognizing now that the residential schools have definitely had a, have been a horrific part of our past. But have we really come to the point where…is something special happening now, or are we just seeing our whole, are we just seeing our whole… just finding a way of shifting our dependence on the residential schools to something else. Because it seems as if, for all the acco–… everything that the prime minister is saying, Indigenous peoples are still being subjected to brutal things like the higher-than-average representation in the jails for example. What is your take on that?
KPL: The fact is that the way that this country was built, it was built by, by people who saw the Indigenous people in a very negative way. And the residential schools would never have happened if it were not part of the culture of this country. And I think many people are seeing that this is regrettable and bad. And that something should be done to improve the relationship between the settler communities that constitute the Canadian population and the Indigenous people.
GR: Yeah, do you…do the signs show that we are going to be going in that direction?
KPL: I’m not sure. There are obviously an increasing number of Canadians who are only now learning about this, and they are concerned. But to tell you the truth, when you called me about discussing foreign policy, I thought that’s what we were going to do. And what I think is that Canada, in many ways, has a good name in the world but we are notacting on our own initiative. We are following in the wake of the United States in foreign policy. And I think that this is a very dangerous situation because no matter how much I consider the existence of challenges facing humanity, one of them is how to prevent ourselves from engaging in mutual destruction by the use of atomic weapons. And because we are a party to NATO, Canada is not following an independent foreign policy but his only going along with whatever is the current concern of the United States. I would like us to exert our independence, and that is one of the advantages of having nations.
GR: The military is…there’s no clear division between the militaries, but can you see the nation in any way…I mean are we so united that we can’t break loose even if we wanted to? I mean, when it comes to votes at the UN on nuclear missiles or anything like that, I mean do we even have the power any more to stand up against the United States?
KPL: We have as muchor as littleas we ever had before. We don’t have less. Although the scandal of the residential schools is a negative. It reduces the legitimacy with which Canada can play a role on the international stage. It’s a blot on our record. And for all kinds of good reasons, something has to be done. But I am thinking about is more, what could Canada do as a medium power in the world with a good reputation, and its sort of commitment to the United Nations. And I think that we should examine what has been our foreign policy.
GR: Is there a particular foreign policy where we could start expressing our independent way of thinking that we could distance ourselves from the United States?
KPL: Well, the obvious one is the field of diplomacy, I mean, we had developed a lot of independent economic and political relations with China, which is the up-and-coming power in the next century.
GR: What about in terms of military policy, getting out of any relationship with the United States on shooting down missiles, well basically what NORAD does, you know, is that something we could even break out of?
KPL: Well, maybe so, but I think more to the point, we should develop our independent relations with other countries. What is clear, is that in theworld, that we have to have a… what do they call it again…a world order that is multinational. In other words, there are a number of legitimate political entities in this world who have to be included in a multi-polarworld. And that multi-polarworld would include China and the United States and Canada. But we should be included, not as a satellite of the United States, but on our own independence. And I think we have, we, the government of Canada made a big mistakein acceding to this demand by the Americans to arrest the lady representing the very important IT company. That was a…because what she was accused of was a violation of US sanctions againIran, and this is not a criminal act in Canadian law, because Canada did not agree to sanctions against Iran. So that was a big mistake, and it was done entirely because our government said, under some compulsion to act in the way that it did. There wasacompulsion to play a subsidiary roleregarding relation with the US. And we have done huge damage to Canada’s relationship with China and there are individuals now, Canadian individuals in China who are paying the price.
GR: I know that…there’s an election coming up possibly this fall, I’m wondering if your views on Canada’s need to distinguish itself could possibly play any role in this election and who would you need more inclined to vote towards?
KPL: I don’t know…I couldn’t announce it. I know I would not vote for the Conservatives. I do not trust them. So, I don’t know yet who I’m going to vote for. But what I would like to see the Government of Canada do is to take some initiative in the matter of banning new nuclear weapons. And there was a motion introduced in the General Assembly of the UN some months ago to that effect. And Canada shamefully did not express an opinion in favour of what is clearly the popular view of the majority of member states of the UN.
GR: Kari Polanyi Levitt, I really appreciate everything you’ve had to say today, and I know that we’re kind of getting to the end of her time, but I just wanted to offer you the opportunity to close with any thoughts that you may have that you, that we as Canadians can be more alert to as we move forward toward and beyond the next election.
KPL: Well, I think that Canada should certainly consider its membership of NATO because, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and it is a military alliance andinrecent years it has been involved in military conflicts in the regions of the Middle East which are having really nothing to do with the North Atlantic. And I don’t think that…. I think we have to, we should reconsider, and the reasons why it might be difficult for the Canadian government to take a position against nuclear weapons is precisely because North America is so closely integrated with the US, and the US would never never agree to that request. I think I will just leave it there.
GR: Professor Polanyi Levitt I think we’ve come to the end, and I wanted to know how, I feel extremely privileged to have this conversation with you, and I wish you all the best in your coming years.
KPL: That is very kind of you, thank you. And I really like the work that Global Research is doing. I disagree with them about some things, about global warming, but that’s it, a minor disagreement, in my opinion. And one other thing. In order as a Canadian I canagain feel proud of, to be a national of this country, our government has to take some action, whether it’s in the area of international diplomacy or some other area, because I do not seeit as accountableto be only ashamed of the Government of Canada for what they have done relationship with the Indigenous people. I would like to feel good about the country,whichhas a lot of good things going for it.
GR: Yeah, that’s a good way to close going into Canada Day. So that’s…Well, you take care and again thank you so much for this interview.
CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.
WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.
Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.
CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am.
Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.
Honouring for the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015); ehprnh2mwo3.exactdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Executive_Summary_English_Web.pdf
First published by Global Research on May 25, 2008.
Author’s Note:
This article below was offered to the Canadian media as an exclusive piece last week, and was rejected or ignored by the following newspapers:
The Globe and Mail, The National Post, The Montreal Gazette, The Toronto Star, The Ottawa Citizen, The Ottawa Sun, The Winnipeg Free Press, The Edmonton Sun, The Vancouver Sun, The Province, The Alberni Valley Times, The Epoch Times, and the Victoria Times Colonist:
Rend your hearts, and not your garments Joel 2:17
Kevin Arnett, May 25, 2008
***
All major newspapers in Canada refused to publish the truth regarding the residential schools as conveyed by Rev. Kevin Arnett. We are reposting this important article on Canada Day 2021.
Let us reflect on our history and how our history has been the object of censorship and distortion (including online censorship and the manipulation of search engines)
Please forward Kevin Arnett’s article far and wide,
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, Canada Day 2021
***
Imagine for a moment that your own child goes missing and never comes home. Years pass, and one day, the person responsible for your child’s death is identified, but he evades arrest and imprisonment simply by issuing to you an “apology” for your loss. He even speaks of seeking “reconciliation” with you.
How would you feel?
Hold on to that feeling, and now multiply your loss by many thousands of children, and make the guilty person the government and churches of Canada. Do so, and you will have arrived in a human way at the Indian Residential Schools atrocity.
One of my former parishioners put it another way:
“What we did to those native children was an abomination, and abominations aren’t resolved with words and money. We need to have our hearts torn in two and be changed. We’ve got to stand, ourselves, under the judgment of God.”
I doubt that Stephen Harper would be satisfied with an apology if his own kids were hauled off and killed for being practicing Christians. Yet on June 11, 2008, he will stand up on our behalf and try to apologize to other nations for having exterminated their children.
The whole effort seems more than ludicrous, or obscene. One cannot, after all, apologize to the dead. But the truth is, the government’s planned “apology” to native people is an enormous exercise in deception – primarily self-deception.
Do we even know the meaning of that easily uttered term, “apologize”?
It actually has a double meaning, according to the internet Dictionary: a) “an acknowledgment of regret for a fault or offense” and b) “a formal justification, defense or excuse for one’s actions”.
That is, in our vernacular understanding of the term, an “apology” can be a genuine regret for one’s acts; but it can equally be a way to evade responsibility for one’s acts, by justifying oneself before one’s victim.
The legal understanding of the word, however, is more specific, and has nothing to do with regret: “apology” is defined simply as “a disclaimer of intentional error or offense”.
A disclaimer.
Now, I’m assuming that the government of Canada relies on legal definitions – operating, as it claims, “under the rule of law” – rather than popularly understood ones. So we must realize that when the government and its Prime Minister uses the term “apology”, its understanding of the word is the legal one: namely, “a disclaimer of intentional error or offense”.
In other words, on June 11, Stephen Harper will issue to the world a disclaimer to the effect that the Indian Residential Schools were not an intentional offense.
It’s not surprising that the Prime Minister will be making such an outrageous and unsupportable claim, since if he ever admitted that the residential schools were intentional, he’d be the first defendant in the dock at an international war crimes trial.
But more important, this effort by our government – and the churches it is protecting – to be absolved of their own crimes is taking place under the illusory pretense of making amends with native people, when its purpose is simply to legally exonerate itself of culpability for the deaths of thousands of children.
This, indeed, has been the norm for both church and state ever since the first lawsuit was launched by residential school survivors in February of 1996. An army of court scholars and legal experts has generated a mountain of “holocaust denial” at every level of Canadian society during the past dozen years, to convince the world that the daily death and torture at the residential schools was not intentional at all.
Such an “apologetic” agenda defies logic and common sense, as in the statements from the government’s misnamed “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” scholars that, while evidence shows that residential school children were being buried “four or five to a grave”, and that the death rate in these schools stayed constant at fifty percent for over forty years, these deaths were “not intended”.
To believe that, one has to ignore the evidence of senior government officials like Dr. Peter Bryce, who found that children were regularly being “deliberately exposed to communicable diseases” in residential schools, and left to die untreated. The word Bryce used was “deliberately”. How else, after all, do so many children die?
All of this legal hoop jumping and evasion of responsibility might make sense to the government, and pay the salaries of their intellectual mercenaries, but it does nothing to advance the cause of truth telling and humanity in Canada, and snuffs out the lives of our victims ever more quickly.
I know this all too well, having spent most of my waking hours for years as a counsellor, advocate and chronicler for many aboriginal survivors of the death camps we like to call residential schools. And what I’ve learned from such work is that we cannot come to grips with something that we don’t understand.
The truth is, Euro-Canadian society still doesn’t understand what these “schools” were, either at a “head” or a “heart” level. If one believes the officers of the churches and government, the residential schools “issue” is all about money and verbal gymnastics. Yet none of these officials, as far as I know, have broken down and wept in public over the deaths of so many innocent ones; nor have they even offered to return their remains to their families for a proper burial.
Oddly enough, the very same officials continually and glibly speak about “healing the past”, without even knowing their own history, and about “solutions” to the “residential school problem”, as if they understand what that problem is – not realizing that, to quote William Shakespeare, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”
For in truth, there is not now, nor has there ever been, an “Indian problem” in Canada. Rather, the problem is a “white” one. The problem is with us.
I won’t point to collapsing eco-systems or troops in Afghanistan to prove this point. Nor need I pose the paradox of how educated men and women, with families of their own and a professed “Christian morality”, could drive needles through infants’ tongues at Indian residential schools, throw three year olds down stairs, sterilize healthy kids, and deliberately allow children to cough their lives away from tuberculosis, and then bury them in secret graves.
The evidence of the problem is more immediate, and far closer to home, in our continued segregation of aboriginal people into a lower standard of humanity that allows them to die at a rate fifteen times greater than other people of this country.
After all, if we Canadians are who we imagine ourselves to be – an enlightened society that “assimilated” native people into our ranks, and made them our equals – then why has not a single person ever been brought to trial for the death of a residential school child? Why is the disappearance of tens of thousands of native children in these schools not the subject of a major criminal investigation? And why is there an Indian Act, and not an Irish or an Italian Act?
Being, in reality, an unofficially apartheid society that operates, in practice, with two standards of justice – one for native people, and one for the rest of us – Canada can no more cure the legacy of the residential schools than it can stop chewing up the earth for short-term comfort and profit. At least, not this side of a fundamental moral and social revolution.
The fact that we are far from such a change struck home to me a few months ago when the the government’s fraudulent “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” announced that, although criminal acts did indeed occur in the residential schools, there would be no criminal investigation of these schools: an unbelievably brazen subversion of justice that evoked not a murmur of protest in the media or among the good citizens and politicians of Canada.
Regardless of this, there are things that can be done to overcome the genocidal residential schools legacy, and do justice, for once, to the survivors.
Rather than issuing verbal and self-serving “apologies” which change nothing, or staging a sham “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” that has no power even to subpoena evidence, the government and all of us could take these kind of bold measures:
1. Declare an Official Nation-wide Day of Mourning for Residential School Victims, dead and living.
2. Fully disclose what happened in the residential schools – naming the crimes, the perpetrators, and the cover-up – by launching an International War Crimes Tribunal with the power to subpoena, arrest and prosecute those responsible.
3. Bring home the remains of all children who died in these schools for a proper burial, and establish public memorial sites for them.
4. Create National Aboriginal Holocaust Museums.
5. End federal tax exemption for the Catholic, Anglican and United Church of Canada, in accordance with the Nuremburg Legal Principles concerning organizations complicit in crimes against humanity.
6. Abolish the Indian Act and Indian and Northern Affairs.
7. Recognize indigenous sovereignty and return all stolen lands and resources to indigenous nations.
An Irish relative once told me that the way her country is evolving away from eight centuries of warfare is through a simple formula:
“First you remember; then you grieve; then you heal”.
Instead of skipping the first two steps, as Mr. Harper and too many of our people are trying to do “apologetically”, it is time that Canadians found the courage to truly remember and admit to the world what we did to the first peoples of this land, and grieve our actions in the manner of people who truly rend their own hearts and want to change.
Perhaps then “healing and reconciliation” can become something more than an overworked political catch-phrase.
Kevin Annett is a community minister in Vancouver who is the author of two books on Indian Residential Schools and an award-winning film maker.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
How do you make a potentially dangerous and ineffective drug appear like a miracle of modern science? You could, for instance, enrol only certain people in clinical trials and exclude others or bring the study to a close as soon as you see a spike in the data that implies evidence of effectiveness.
There are many ways to do it.
According to health practitioner and writer Craig Stellpflug in his article ‘Big Pharma: Getting away with murder’ (2012), the strategy is to get in quick, design the study to get the result you want, get out fast and make lots of money.
Stellpflug says:
“If a study comes up negative for your favorite drug, just don’t publish it! 68 per cent of all drug studies are swept under the carpet to keep those pesky side effects from being reported. Only 32 per cent of studies come up positive and a lot of those studies are ‘shortened’ to limit the long-term findings. Studies cut short were found to overestimate the study drug’s effectiveness and miss dangerous side effects and complications by an average of 30 per cent. This would explain the amazing 85 per cent drug study success rate in the hands of Big Pharma according to the Annals of Internal Medicine.”
Of course, it helps to get the regulatory agencies on board and to convince the media and health officials of the need for your wonder product and its efficacy and safety. In the process, well-paid career scientists and ‘science’ effectively become shaped and led by corporate profit margins and political processes.
And what better way to make a financial killing than by making a mountain out of a molehill and calling it a ‘pandemic’?
COVID-19 vaccine concerns
The Wall Street Journal recently published an article by two health professors who said politics — not science — is behind the failure of health officials and the media to fully inform the public about the potential risks associated with COVID vaccines.
The CHD notes that Dr Joseph A Ladapo, associate professor of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine, and Dr Harvey A Risch, professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, wrote that while prominent scientists have raised concerns that the safety risks of Covid-19 vaccines have been underestimated, the politics of vaccination has relegated their concerns to the outskirts of scientific thinking.
The two professors noted that clinical studies do not always tell the full story about the safety of medications and that the health effects often remain unknown until the medicine is rolled out to the general public. Examples include Vioxx, a pain reliever that increased the risk of heart attack and stroke; antidepressants that appeared to increase suicide attempts among young adults; and an influenza vaccine used in the 2009-10 swine flu epidemic that was suspected of causing febrile convulsions and narcolepsy in children.
The authors added that clinical trials often enrol patients who are not representative of the general population and more is learnt about drug safety from real-world evidence. With this in mind, they said the large clustering of side effects following COVID vaccines is concerning as is the silence around these potential signals of harm.
They criticise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for ignoring the reported serious COVID vaccine side effects.
The authors acknowledge the risks of COVID vaccines in certain populations, not least children, may outweigh the benefits. They also state that not a single published study has demonstrated that patients with a prior infection benefit from COVID-19 vaccination. Something which is not readily acknowledged by the CDC or Anthony Fauci, an indication, according to the authors, of how deeply entangled pandemic politics is in science.
They conclude that public health authorities are making a mistake and risking public erosion of trust by not being forthcoming about the possibility of harm from the vaccines.
Merck and Vioxx
It is revealing that the two scientists refer to Vioxx, which was once popular for treating the symptoms of arthritis. It was removed from the market in 2004 after concerns that it may have injured hundreds of thousands of patients, while possibly killing tens of thousands in the US.
Dr David Graham, whistleblower and senior FDA investigator, criticised the FDA’s approval process of Vioxx (rofecoxib), an anti-inflammatory drug administered orally. In various interviews and congressional hearings, he described the outcome of Vioxx as disastrous and unparalleled in the history of the US. He added that the saga surrounding Vioxx had constituted an unprecedented failure of the nation’s system of drug approval and oversight.
In 2004, Graham argued that the painkiller had caused 88,000 to 139,000 heart attacks in the US – 30-40 per cent of which were fatal – over the previous five years. Nevertheless, manufactured by Monsanto (a company with a proven track record of corrupt practices) and co-marketed by Merck, Vioxx became a leading drug in providing pain relief from the symptoms of various forms of arthritis.
Research presented to the FDA in early 2001 showed that patients taking Vioxx had a higher risk of heart attack compared to those taking some of the older alternatives.
However, the real game-changer came in 2004 when Dr Graham released the findings that found Vioxx increased the chance of heart attack and death from cardiac arrest significantly more than its biggest rival on the market. Dosages of Vioxx in excess of the recommended daily dose of 25 milligrams were also found to more than triple a patient’s risk compared to those who had not taken painkillers.
In September 2004, Vioxx was pulled from the market. But in 2006, more damning findings were revealed by a study that showed that some patients had likely suffered from a heart attack much sooner after starting treatment with Vioxx. Appearing in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the study showed that 25 per cent of the patients who had heart attacks while taking Vioxx did so within two weeks of starting the drug. This indicated that Vioxx-related cardiovascular risks may occur much earlier than previously thought.
The FDA was criticised for its close relationship with Merck and witnesses at a senate finance committee hearing described how danger signals of Vioxx went ignored. Indeed, a 2007 article published by the National Institutes of Health alleged that even though scientists at Merck knew that the drug might adversely affect the cardiovascular system, none of the intervention studies submitted to the FDA in 1998 were designed to evaluate such risk.
Robber barons and guinea pigs
Merck reported over $11 billion in Vioxx sales during the five years the drug was on the market. To date, the company has paid nearly $6 billion in litigation settlements and criminal fines over Vioxx. Still, in hard-nosed commercial terms, it was a massive success, resulting in a $5 billion gain for the company.
In May 2021, it was reported that Covid-19 vaccines had created at least nine new billionaires. According to research by the People’s Vaccine Alliance, the new billionaires included Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel and Ugur Sahin, the CEO of BioNTech, which has produced a vaccine with Pfizer. Both CEOs were then worth around $4 billion. Senior executives from China’s CanSino Biologics and early investors in Moderna have also become billionaires.
Although the nine new billionaires are worth a combined $19.3 billion, the vaccines were largely funded by public money. For instance, according to a May 2021 report by CNN, BioNTech received €325 million from the German government for the development of the vaccine. The company made a net profit of €1.1 billion in the first three months of the year, largely thanks to its share of sales from the Covid-19 vaccine, compared with a loss of €53.4 million for the same period last year.
Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccine sales reached $1.7 billion in the first three months of this year and it had its first profitable quarter ever. Moderna is expected to make $13.2 billion in Covid-19 vaccine revenue in 2021. The company received billions of dollars in funding from the US government for development of its vaccine.
There is no need to cover ground here that has been covered extensively elsewhere but it is now abundantly clear that many continue to question the overall official COVID-19 narrative, the fear propaganda, the specific data, the PCR testing protocols, the apparent conflicts of interest and vaccine efficacy.
Moreover, A group of 57 leading scientists, doctors and policy experts recently released a report calling in to question the safety and efficacy of the current Covid-19 vaccines. They are calling for an immediate end to all vaccine programmes.
There are hundreds of scientists who have questioned government and WHO strategy and who have brought attention to the extremely low risks posed by COVID to the bulk of the population as well as the destructive (ineffective) policies and decisions pertaining to lockdowns and other restrictions.
There are many other top scientists who are questioning the need for mass vaccination and who have also pointed out credible and extremely disturbing side effects (real and potential) of such a strategy, not least Dr Robert Malone, credited with developing mRNA vaccine technology, Dr Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist, and Dr Geert Vanden Bossche, a prominent virologist and vaccine expert.
Unlike Merck and Vioxx, it will be governments (the public) that foot any future indemnity costs of these experimental vaccines that have escaped proper (long-term) testing. And given the scale of the rollout, the damage caused could make the adverse effects of Vioxx seem a mere blip.
Vaccines that were brought to market via emergency authorisation use for an ‘emergency’ constructed on the basis of deaths so often wrongly attributed to COVID-19. Brought to market on the basis of flawed PCR test protocols with magnification cycles primed to create a ‘casedemic’.
To borrow from Dr David Graham: are we currently witnessing something more disastrous and unparalleled in the history of the world, let alone the US: an unprecedented failure of gobal drug approval and oversight?
In the meantime, while billions of vaccinated people serve as human guinea pigs, the newly crowned vaccine kings will make hay while the sun shines (and the fear continues).
*
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.
Colin Todhunter is an independent writer and analyst specialising in development, food and agriculture based in Europe/India.
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).
While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments, including ivermectin. This appears to have been done to protect the COVID “vaccine” program
The COVID shots were brought to market under emergency use authorization (EUA), which can only be obtained if there are no other safe and effective alternatives available
Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies looked at ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection. A rapid review performed on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., January 3, 2021, found the drug “probably reduces deaths by an average 83% compared to no ivermectin treatment”
According to a more recent review and meta-analysis, ivermectin, when used preventatively, reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86%
Another recent scientific review concluded ivermectin produces large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance
*
While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments. At this point, it seems quite clear that this was done to protect the COVID jab rollout.
The COVID shots were brought to market under emergency use authorization (EUA), which can only be obtained if there are no other alternatives available. In a sane world, the COVID gene therapies would never have gotten an EUA, as there are several safe and effective treatment options available.
One treatment that stands out above the others is ivermectin, a decades-old antiparasitic drug that is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medications.
What makes ivermectin particularly useful in COVID-19 is the fact that it works both in the initial viral phase of the illness, when antivirals are required, as well as the inflammatory stage, when the viral load drops off and anti-inflammatories become necessary. It’s been shown to significantly inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro,1 speed up viral clearance and dramatically reduce the risk of death.
Gold Standard Review Supports Use of Ivermectin
Dr. Tess Lawrie, a medical doctor, Ph.D., researcher and director of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd (video above).2 in the U.K., has been trying to get the word out about ivermectin. To that end, she helped organize the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) panel3and the International Ivermectin for COVID Conference,4 which was held online, April 24, 2021.
Twelve medical experts5 from around the world shared their knowledge during this conference, reviewing mechanism of action, protocols for prevention and treatment, including so-called long-hauler syndrome, research findings and real world data. All of the lectures, which were recorded via Zoom, can be viewed on Bird-Group.org.6
Lawrie has published several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies looking at ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection. A rapid review performed on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., January 3, 2021, found the drug “probably reduces deaths by an average 83% compared to no ivermectin treatment.”7
Her February 2021 meta-analysis, which included 13 studies, found a 68% reduction in deaths. This is an underestimation of the beneficial effect, because one of the studies included used hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the control arm. Since HCQ is an active treatment that has also been shown to have a positive impact on outcomes, it’s not surprising that this particular study did not rate ivermectin as better than the control treatment (which was HCQ).
Two months later, March 31, 2021, Lawrie published an updated analysis that included two additional randomized controlled trials. This time, the mortality reduction was 62%. When four studies with high risk of bias were removed during a subsequent sensitivity analysis, they ended up with a 72% reduction in deaths.
(Sensitivity analyses are done to double-check and verify results. Since the sensitivity analysis rendered an even better result, it confirms the initial finding. In other words, ivermectin is unlikely to reduce mortality by anything less than 62%.)
Lawrie reviewed the February and March analyses and other meta-analyses in an interview with Dr. John Campbell, featured in “More Good News on Ivermectin.” Lawrie has now published her third systematic review. According to this paper, published June 17, 2021 in the American Journal of Therapeutics:8
“Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared to no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38 …) … Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% … Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence.
Low-certainly evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for ‘need for mechanical ventilation,’ whereas effect estimates for ‘improvement’ and ‘deterioration’ clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials …”
World Health Organization Refuses to Recommend Ivermectin
Despite the fact that most of the evidence favors ivermectin, when the WHO finally updated its guidance on ivermectin at the end of March 2021,9,10 they largely rejected it, saying more data are needed. They only recommend it for patients who are enrolled in a clinical trial.
Yet, they based their negative recommendation on a review that included just five studies, which still ended up showing a 72% reduction in deaths. What’s more, in the WHO’s summary of findings, they suddenly include data from seven studies, which combined show an 81% reduction in deaths. The confidence interval is also surprisingly high, with a 64% reduction in deaths on the low end, and 91% on the high end.
Even more remarkable, their absolute effect estimate for standard of care is 70 deaths per 1,000, compared to just 14 deaths per 1,000 when treating with ivermectin. That’s a reduction in deaths of 56 per 1,000 when using the drug. The confidence interval is between 44 and 63 fewer deaths per 1,000.
Despite that, the WHO refuses to recommend this drug for COVID-19. Rabindra Abeyasinghe, a WHO representative to the Philippines, commented that using ivermectin without “strong” evidence is “harmful” because it can give “false confidence” to the public.11
Why Ivermectin Has Been Censored
If you’ve been trying to share the good news about ivermectin, you’re undoubtedly noticed that doing so is incredibly difficult. Many social media companies are banning such posts outright.
Promoting ivermectin on YouTube, or even discussing benefits cited in published research, violates the platform’s posting policies. DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein, Ph.D., is but one of the victims of this censorship policy.
His interviews with medical and scientific experts such as Dr. Pierre Kory, a lung and ICU specialist, former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the president and chief medical officer12 of the FLCCC, and Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,13 have been deleted from the platform. The interview with Malone had more than 587,330 views by the time it was wiped from YouTube.14
But why? Why don’t they want people to feel confident that there’s treatment out there and that COVID-19 is not the death sentence they’ve been led to believe it is? The short answer is because ivermectin threatens the vaccine program. As explained by Andrew Bannister in a May 12, 2021, Biz News article:15
“What if there was a cheap drug, so old its patent had expired, so safe that it’s on the WHO’s lists of Essential and Children’s Medicines, and used in mass drug administration rollouts?
What if it can be taken at home with the first signs COVID symptoms, given to those in close contact, and significantly reduce COVID disease progression and cases, and far fewer few people would need hospitalization?
The international vaccine rollout under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) would legally have to be halted. For an EUA to be legal, ‘there must be no adequate, approved and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing or treating the disease or condition.’
The vaccines would only become legal once they passed level 4 trials and that certainly won’t happen in 2021 … The vaccine rollout, outside of trials, would become illegal.
The vaccine manufactures, having spent hundreds of million dollars developing and testing vaccines during a pandemic, would not see the $100bn they were expecting in 2021 … Allowing any existing drug, at this time, well into stage 3 trials, to challenge the legality of the EUA of vaccines, is not going to happen easily.”
The WHO and Drug Companies Are Severely Compromised
The WHO’s rejection of ivermectin only makes sense if a) you take into account the EUA requirements; and b) remember that the WHO receives a significant portion of its funding from private vaccine interests.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the second largest funder of the WHO after the United States, and The GAVI Alliance, also owned by Gates, is the fourth largest donor. The GAVI Alliance exists solely to promote and profit from vaccines, and for several years, the WHO director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, served on the GAVI board of directors.16
As reported by Bannister, Merck, the original patent holder of ivermectin, also has severe conflicts of interest that appear to have played a role in the rejection of ivermectin. He writes:17
“Ivermectin has been used in humans for 35 years and over 4 billion doses have been administered. Merck, the original patent holder,18 donated 3.7 billion doses to developing countries … Its safety is documented at doses twenty times the normal …
Merck’s patent on Ivermectin expired in 1996 and they produce less than 5% of global supply. In 2020 they were asked to assist in Nigerian and Japanese trials but declined both.
In 2021 Merck released a statement claiming that Ivermectin was not an effective treatment against Covid-19 and bizarrely claimed, ‘A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies’ of the drug they donated to be distributed in mass rollouts, by primary care workers, in mass campaigns, to millions in developing countries.
The media reported the Merck statement as a blinding truth without looking at the conflict of interests when days later, Merck received $356m from the US government to develop an investigational therapeutic.
The WHO even quoted Merck, as evidence, that it didn’t work, in their recommendation against the use of Ivermectin. It’s a dangerous world when corporate marketing determines public health policy.”
FLCCC Calls for Widespread and Early Use of Ivermectin
In the U.S., the FLCCC has been calling for widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19,19,20 and Kory has testified to the benefits of ivermectin before a number of COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in December 202021 and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel in January 2021.22
As noted by the FLCCC:23
“The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.
… numerous clinical studies — including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials — showed large magnitude benefits of Ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment and also in late-stage disease. Taken together … dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy.”
The FLCCC has published three different COVID-19 protocols, all of which include the use of ivermectin:
I-MASK+24 — a prevention and early at-home treatment protocol
I-MATH+25 — an in-hospital treatment protocol. The clinical and scientific rationale for this protocol has been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine26in mid-December 2020
I-RECOVER27 — a long-term management protocol for long-haul syndrome
In addition to Lawrie’s meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics, the FLCCC has also published a scientific review28 in that same journal.
This paper, “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19,” published in the May/June 2021 issue, found that, based on a meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials, ivermectin produces “large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.”
Ivermectin Significantly Reduces Infection Risk and Death
The FLCCC also found that when used as a preventive, ivermectin “significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19.” In one study, of those given a dose of 0.4 mg per kilo on Day 1 and a second dose on Day 7, only 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 10% of controls who did not get the drug.
In another, family members of patients who had tested positive were given two doses of 0.25 mg/kg, 72 hours apart. At follow up two weeks later, only 7.4% of the exposed family members who took ivermectin tested positive, compared to 58.4% of those who did not take ivermectin.
In a third, which unfortunately was unblended, the difference between the two groups was even greater. Only 6.7% of the ivermectin group tested positive compared to 73.3% of controls. According to the FLCCC, “the difference between the two groups was so large and similar to the other prophylaxis trial results that confounders alone are unlikely to explain such a result.”
The FLCCC also points out that ivermectin distribution campaigns have resulted in “rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality,” which indicate that ivermectin is “effective in all phases of COVID-19.” For example, in Brazil, three regions distributed ivermectin to its residents, while at least six others did not. The difference in average weekly deaths is stark.
In Santa Catarina, average weekly deaths declined by 36% after two weeks of ivermectin distribution, whereas two neighboring regions in the South saw declines of just 3% and 5%. Amapa in the North saw a 75% decline, while the Amazonas had a 42% decline and Para saw an increase of 13%.
It’s worth noting that ivermectin’s effectiveness appears largely unaffected by variants, meaning it has worked on any and all variants that have so far popped up around the world. Additional evidence for ivermectin will hopefully come from the British PRINCIPLE trial,29 which began June 23, 2021. Ivermectin will be evaluated as an outpatient treatment in this study, which will be the largest clinical trial to date.
Ivermectin in the Treatment of Long-Haul Syndrome
The FLCCC believes ivermectin may also be an important treatment adjunct for long-haul COVID syndrome. In their June 16, 2021, video update, the team reviewed the newly released I-RECOVER protocol.
Keep in mind that ivermectin is not to be used in isolation. Corticosteroids, for example, are often a crucial treatment component when organizing pneumonia-related lung damage is present. Vitamin C is also important to combat inflammation. Be sure to work with your doctor to identify the right combination of drugs and supplements for you.
Last but not least, as noted by Kory in this video, it’s really important to realize that long-haul syndrome is entirely preventable. The key is early treatment when you develop symptoms of COVID-19.
While ivermectin has a good track record when it comes to prevention and early treatment, it can be tricky to obtain, depending on where you live and who your doctor is.
A highly effective alternative that anyone can use, anywhere, is nebulized hydrogen peroxide. It’s extremely safe and very inexpensive. The biggest cost is the one-time purchase of a good tabletop jet nebulizer. To learn more, download Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery,” in which he details how to use this treatment.
The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) recently posted more than 50 video presentations from the pay-for-view Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination held online October 16 to 18, 2020, and made them available to everyone for free.
The conference’s theme was “Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century” and it featured physicians, scientists and other health professionals, human rights activists, faith community leaders, constitutional and civil rights attorneys, authors and parents of vaccine injured children talking about vaccine science, policy, law and ethics and infectious diseases, including coronavirus and COVID-19 vaccines.
In December 2020, a U.K. company published false and misleading information about NVIC and its conference, which prompted NVIC to open up the whole conference for free viewing. The conference has everything you need to educate yourself and protect your personal freedoms and liberties with respect to your health.
Don’t miss out on this incredible opportunity. I was a speaker at this empowering conference and urge you to watch these video presentations before they’re censored and taken away by the technocratic elite.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The Biden State Department has just named career diplomat Jeffrey Feltman to be Special Envoy to the Horn of Africa. Given the geopolitical powder keg in the region and given the dark history of Feltman, especially in Lebanon and during the infamous CIA Arab Spring interventions after 2009, the relevant question is whether Washington has decided to explode the entire region from Ethiopia down to Egypt into a repeat of the Syria chaos only far more dangerous. And it’s not only the US which is active in the region.
The group of African countries stretching from Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti and Somalia, astride the geopolitically strategic Gulf of Aden and Red Sea comprise the formal Horn of Africa. It is extended politically and economically often to include Sudan, South Sudan, Kenya and Uganda. This region is strategic among other reasons as the source of the Nile, Africa’s most important river, that flows some 4100 miles north to the Mediterranean in Egypt. The Horn of Africa is also a gateway to major world shipping flows via the Red Sea and the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean. The recent bizarre blockage of a huge container ship that blocked the canal for days, backing up a significant portion of world trade, is indicative of the region’s importance.
A political volcano
The Horn of Africa is clearly being made the target of a new wave of covert and overt destabilization. Now that the Democrats again took control of the US Presidency, the interventions into the region that reached a high point in 2015, with the proxy US war in Syria and the installation of US-backed Muslim Brotherhood regimes in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya in the misnamed Arab Spring Color Revolutions, are apparently resuming, as a high Washington priority.
The February 2021 UN appointment of Volker Perthes as UN Special Representative for Sudan and the June appointment by the Biden Administration State Department of Jeffrey Feltman as US Special Representative to the Horn of Africa signal what is being put into action. Feltman and Perthes worked closely together in black operations during the Arab Spring on the destruction of Lebanon and the destabilization of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Both were allegedly closely working with the CIA as well.
In accepting his new post in April, coming out of “semi-retirement,” Feltman notably told Foreign Policy magazine that the region had the potential to spiral into a full-blown regional crisis that would make Syria look like “child’s play.” Feltman said, “Ethiopia has 110 million people. If the tensions in Ethiopia would result in a widespread civil conflict that goes beyond Tigray, Syria will look like child’s play by comparison.” He outlined his intended focus: “In terms of an immediate focus, without question, there has to be attention paid to Tigray,” adding that his other leading priorities were the Ethiopia-Sudan border dispute, and the tensions over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam.
Here we have the preconditions for the destabilization of Africa and the entire region.
Tigray war
The Western powers, including the US Government’s National Endowment for Democracy, have been quietly preparing the coming destabilization for several years. A key step was the 2018 regime change in Ethiopia. In a complex agreement the minority ruling coalition of Tigrayan ethnics agreed after months of well-organized protest to cede power to a broad coalition including their bitter opponents in the Oromo ethnic group. The Tigray in the north contains a minority of 6% in Ethiopia and the Oromo are the largest minority with 34%. In April, 2018 under major international pressure and clear NED regime change intervention, the Tigray Peoples Liberation Front who had ruled with an iron fist since 2012, were forced to step down and agree a transitional coalition until elections to be held in 2020. Abiy Ahmed from the broad ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front and first Oromo to be prime minister. He immediately began steps to replace the EPRDF coalition that has been dominated by the TPLF with a new Prosperity party under his domination.
Here it gets complicated. One of his first acts as Prime Minister was a US-brokered move to end a 20 year war with neighboring Eritrea and sign a treaty which won the British-educated Abiy a Nobel Peace Prize. Eritrea fought a 30-year war until 1991 for independence from Ethiopia. Border disputes between the Tigray Region and Eritrea kept the two at war until the Abiy peace agreement. Suspiciously, Abiy excluded the Tigray TPLF from the peace talks. Now it is being claimed that Abiy had a sinister motive to move against the well-armed regional government in Tigray. Indeed he soon enlisted a willing Eritrean government to create a brutal two-front assault on Tigray forces. In August 2020 when Abiy broke the transitional agreement for national elections, the Tigray region ignored the indefinite postponement and held Tigray regional elections, resulting in armed conflict with the Ethiopian national army, which has since 2020 been joined by Eritrean forces against Tigrayans.
The Tigray group accused Nobel Peace Prize winner Abiy of moving to create an Oromo dictatorship. Oromo people were a principle target of Tigray rule before they stepped down in 2018. The transitional agreement, somewhat like that under Mandela in South Africa, was an agreement of national reconciliation despite past injustices.
It also promised the Tigray region political autonomy and protection against foreign (i.e. Eritrean) forces. But rather than prepare for free elections to create a truly federal state as agreed, Abiy began “purging, and persecution of many key members of the Tigray TPLF including army generals and businesses. This led the TPLF and majority Tigrayan elites to believe they were deceived into giving up power with false promises,” as Jawar Mohammed, an architect of the reconciliation and a leading organizer of the 2016 Ethiopian protests, described it. This is the broad background to the present situation. Jawar, an Oromo, coordinated the protests from the US where his Minneapolis-based Oromia Media Network of satellite TV was based. After he returned to Addis Ababa in 2018 hailed a hero of the liberation movement, the Stanford-educated Jawar was jailed in September 2020 as a terrorist on a phony pretext by Abiy. Abiy’s bent for power was becoming clear.
The damn dam
As he consolidated power, Abiy also refused to negotiate a compromise on one of the most explosive issues in Africa—construction of the huge Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) that, when completed has the potential not only to generate electricity for Ethiopia, but also to cut off vital water from the Nile to Sudan and Egypt. For Abiy the GERD dam is a symbol of his drive to create a national unity around his rule.
The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) on the Blue Nile that provides 85 percent of the Nile’s discharge, began construction in 2011 at an estimated cost of $4.9 billion. It is some 30 kilometers from the border with Sudan. Abiy’s regime has so far refused every attempt at negotiation on the dam with Egypt and Sudan. For around 100 million Egyptians, the Nile’s waters are their “single source of livelihood.” More than 90% of water in Egypt comes from the Blue Nile. Egypt has called for UN intervention which Ethiopia’s Abiy rejects out-of-hand. Abiy has begun filling the dam, a process that will take some 5-7 years, with no consultation on rate of fill or other vital features with either Sudan or Egypt. Egypt has threatened possible military action as has Sudan.
Enter Jeffrey Feltman
Image on the right: Jeffrey Feltman (CC BY 2.0)
Into this explosive region now the Biden State Department has sent Special Envoy Jeffrey Feltman to deal with the Horn of Africa. Feltman has a murky, even dark history. According to French strategic analyst Thierry Meyssan who lived in Damascus, Feltman as US Ambassador to Lebanon in 2005 organized the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri. He organized a UN commission that suggested Syria’s Assad was involved with the crime, part of a US plan to split Lebanon from the protection of Syria. Feltman then organized a Color revolution, dubbed the Cedar Revolution, demanding Syrian military and security forces leave Lebanon.
Feltman, working together with then-head of the German government-funded foreign policy think-tank, SWP, Volker Perthes, a Syria specialist, advanced the Obama-Clinton Arab Spring across the Middle East from Cairo to Tripoli and beyond. Their focus after 2011 was to topple Bashar al-Assad in Syria and turn the country into rubble with support from Erdogan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Their aim was to bring the Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia) into power across the Mideast. Feltman was then the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs under Secretary Clinton. The two, Feltman and Perthes, continued their regime change collusion under UN auspices after June 2012, when Feltman was appointed Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, a position he held until April 2018.
Feltman at the UN had a $250 million budget to intervene where he saw a “UN” necessity, and Syria was at the top of his list. The UN post took focus away from Washington’s role in the Arab Spring destabilizations. He oversaw the recruiting of tens of thousands of Islamist mercenaries from Al Qaeda, ISIS (terrorist organizations, both banned in Russia) and other foreign terrorists to destroy Assad and Syria. It was part of a 2010 top secret Obama Presidential Study Directive-11 (PDS-11), calling for Washington’s backing of the secret fundamentalist Islamic Muslim Brotherhood paramilitary sect across the Middle Eastern Muslim world—and with it, the unleashing of a reign of terror that would change the entire world.
Feltman, working quietly with Perthes who became UN’s Special Envoy to Syria from 2015 to 2016 under Feltman, organized the Syrian opposition as well as financial support to recruit ISIS and Al Qaeda from abroad to destroy the Syrian regime aided by Turkey. The project hit a major roadblock after September 2015 when Russia, on request of the Syrian government, entered the Syrian war. In May 2021, the European Union renewed for one year its sanctions against any person or firm participating in the reconstruction of Syria, in accordance with the secret instructions issued, in 2017, by Jeffrey Feltman when he was serving as UN Under-Secretary General. The document was made public in 2018 by Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
Now Feltman is back in the region as Envoy to the Horn of Africa. His old co-conspirator, Volker Perthes, since February , 2021 is officially UN Special Representative of the Secretary General for Sudan. To round out the old regime change team, Biden State Department has named Brett H McGurk to be National Security Council head for Near East and North Africa. When Feltman was organizing the Arab Spring and the destruction of Syria, McGurk served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq and Iran from 2014 through January 2016. McGurk previously worked as advisor in 2004 to Iraq Ambassador John Negroponte and General David Petraeus to organize the Sunni vs Shi’ite civil war in Iraq that led to the later creation of ISIS.
And China…
The regrouping of the Feltman team now in the Horn of Africa region suggests prospects for enduring peace and stability there are grim indeed. As Feltman put it, the Horn of Africa could make Syria look like “child’s play.” It remains to be seen how China, the country with the largest investment in not only Ethiopia, but also in Eritrea, Sudan and in Egypt, will react to the new US deployments in the Horn of Africa. Virtually all of the sea trade between China and Europe passes the Horn of Africa along the Red Sea on its way to the Egyptian Suez Canal.
China has extended well over $1 billion in credits to construct the electricity grid from the GERD dam to cities in Ethiopia. Beijing was far the largest foreign investor during the Tigray TPLF rule with some $14 billion in various projects as of 2018. Since the peace agreement with Ethiopia, China has bought two major mines in Eritrea for gold, copper and zinc. Previously Beijing was the largest investor in Eritrea during the years of war with Ethiopia, and has invested in modernizing of Eritrea’s Massawa port to export copper and gold from China’s mines there. In Sudan where Chinese oil companies have been active for more than two decades, China has a major stake in both Sudan and South Sudan. In Egypt where President El-Sisi has formally joined China’s Belt and Road, there are major ties as well with Chinese investments into the Suez Canal region, container port terminals, telecommunications, light railways and coal power plants to as much as $20 billion. And just to add to the complexity, since 2017 the China PLA Navy has operated China’s first overseas military base directly adjacent to the US Navy base at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti at the Horn of Africa.
All this creates a geopolitical cocktail of ominous scale, and Washington is not bringing the most honest diplomats into the cocktail bar, but rather regime change specialists like Jeffrey Feltman.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Featured image is from NEO
Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation
Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index
List Price: $25.95
Special Price: $18.00
This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”
This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.
The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.
Of relevance to the current corona crisis, this article was first published on June 15, 2020
***
On June 22, 1633, a sick and beaten old man, on his knees, had to “abjure, curse and detest” his view that “the earth moves and is not the centre of the world.” It was “one of the most deplorable acts of the Inquisition”, relevant to our times, according to astrophysicist Maria Livio in a new book. [i] He’s right, but not because of “fake news” and “alternative facts”. Galileo’s relevance hits much closer to home.
He thought abstractly. In his Discorsi he imagines how a body would behave acted upon by no force whatsoever. It is hard to do because friction is ubiquitous, slowing down every motion. Galileo had “a truly phenomenal power of abstraction”, according to Livio. It was part of his science.
He had capacity for philosophy and art. Galileo did not see mountains on the moon. He saw blemishes and reasoned they were mountains. His artistic experience, with light and perspective, helped him. Galileo had an extraordinary grasp of Aristotle. And Galileo took poetry seriously.
All this is in the book. But Livio does not follow Galileo. Worse, he is unaware. He says there should not be “two cultures”: science and humanities. But there is more to the connection between art and science than simply declaring them connected. Art and science were torn apart by a vision of human beings. José Martí, leader of Cuba’s last war of independence, found the European view so damaging he declared it a greater danger to Latin American independence than US power itself.
It undermines truth.
Livio writes that René Descartes’ individualism enabled the “Galileo phenomenon”, by which he means resistance to truth-denying convention. Descartes’ individualism, though, was unscientific. He was great, true, but for his question – how to know? — not his answer. Descartes and David Hume, also mentioned uncritically, were wrong. We study them for this, to go beyond, as Galileo with Aristotle.
Descartes separated mind and body. Hume gave us the “fact/value distinction”, saying we know what is but not what ought to be. No truth about value. They’ve been refuted, whichis progress. Or it should be, if we expected truth from philosophy, which Galileo did. It means some philosophers were wrong, like some great scientists were wrong. Cuban philosopher, Raúl Roa, argued in 1953 that the uncritical acceptance of European liberalism, solidified by the rise of US global power, was “the world’s gravest crisis,” separating art and science, feelings and intellect, body from mind.
Art gives truth. Toni Morrison’s Beloved is a work of fiction. The story is fiction. But when you feel Sethe’s reality as a dehumanized slave, and you understand her choice to kill her children out of love, you get truth. It is true about slavery that it can make it reasonable (not morally right, a different question) for a mother to kill her children out of love.
It is a truth about slavery, and colonialism and imperialism. It is why philosophers in the South, like Roa, and others – Juan Marinello, José Carlos Mariátegui, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz – did not split art and science. They knew, as Galileo did, that sensitivity and imagination permit naming what you see. Galileo did not see mountains, and many, in a dehumanizing world, do not see human beings, or some.
Descartes’ appealing (mistaken) picture presumes individuals are discreet entities, unified by some coherent story we pursue our entire lives, but which can never in fact be coherent. Dostoevsky knew this. Whatever his politics, Dostoevsky’s understanding of the human condition was closer to Marx and Lenin than Descartes. It was because he observed human beings and he trusted intuitions.
He described his writing as “experimental”.[ii] He felt ideas, but ideas “only flash; and what’s needed is full embodiment, which always comes about unexpectedly and suddenly”. That is, he follows no script but instead, like a good improvisor, has a feel for direction, grounded in real life.
Dostoevsky’s characters are contradictory. They face contradictions. In The Idiot, Ippolit, expecting death, makes a surprising declaration: “So be it! I will die looking straight into the well spring of force and life”.He speaks truth. In fact, we all die “looking straight into the well spring of force and life”. We die day by day, moment by moment, as we live. It is the nature of existence: decay, decay, decay.
We avoid this truth in ways Ippolit identifies and rejects. He decries “Christian morality”: “the happy thought that, essentially, it is even better that you’re dying. (Christians like [the prince] always get to that idea: It’s their favorite hobby horse).” The “hobby horse” is obsession with silver linings. Ippolit does not buy it. It is what Lenin called “philosophies of hope”, dependence on invented futures.
Lenin shouldn’t be buried with Stalin.[iii] In the heat of political organizing, preparing revolution, he urged revolutionaries toward Hegel, not Kant. He knew the value of abstract thinking, which is always integral to political organizing, to any organizing, just as it’s needed to identify mountains. Hegel was a relational thinker. Marx was influenced by Hegel although he turned his dialectic upside down.
Lenin knew the nature of truth has practical consequences. According to Livio this very question concerned Galileo his whole life. But Livio doesn’t address it. He tells us there is progress in the Humanities, as in science. But if he believed it, as Galileo did, he’d ask — about Galileo’s question – who got it right and who didn’t.
Marx got it more right than Descartes. Dostoevsky’s characters, realistically, lack the mythical unity Lenin called “hocus pocus of priests”, the real “opiate of the people”, namely, a “yearning for harmony” of self and community that distracts from the reality of existence, which is contradictory. “Les extremités se touchent”,[iv] Ippolit says. Unity of opposites.
It matters to how we live in the world, or ought to. Ippolit declares that his impending death does not in fact distinguish him from the wild, rich, sensual Rogozhin who leads an “immediate, full” life. He even declares that Rogozhin knows it. It is probably true. Most of us know, in quiet moments.
Galileo believed that “facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant observation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty.” This includes facts about truth and existence, which is causally interdependent. We can know from science, from philosophy that respects science, and from art showing reality as it is, even if it hurts.
In Galileo’s time, there was “almost religious acceptance of [Aristotle’s] general approach to science.” Today, the “almost religious acceptance” is of Descartes’ individualism and Hume’s denial of moral and philosophical truths. Galileo was not one for such “hocus pocus”. For this, his story matters now.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The power of the political right today in the U.S. has resulted from historical factors that were shaped by political developments in the 1960s. The assassination of magnetic liberal leaders at the time—Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., Robert Kennedy and John F. Kennedy—left a leadership vacuum in the liberal movement that has yet to be refilled. The assassinations presented would-be progressives the message that if they challenged the imperatives of class rule in the U.S. and U.S. military empire—even only mildly—then they would be toast.
This series will provide updated overviews about what we know about the four major political assassinations of the 1960s and address their political implications. We hope to contribute to a push for official reinvestigation of these crimes and uncovering of the complete truth. This would allow for a better public understanding of the forces that have corrupted and destroyed U.S. democracy, with the hope that they might be effectively counteracted.—CovertAction Magazine Editors]
*
On Sunday February 21, 1965, at 3:00 p.m., Malcolm X was gunned down at the Audubon Ballroom on Broadway and 166th Street in Manhattan while delivering a speech to an audience of about 400 people.
Born Malcolm Little, Malcolm X had converted to Islam while in prison and emerged as a powerful spokesman for the Nation of Islam (NOI)—which he broke with a year before his death—and the radical wing of the U.S. civil rights movement.[1]
Historian John Henrik Clarke wrote that Malcolm’s assassination “extinguished the brightest light we had produced in the 20th century and our movement was set back a generation.”[2]
When Malcolm began his speech at the Audubon, a man’s voice drowned him out by shouting in the middle of the ballroom, “Nigger, get your hands out of my pocket.” As heads turned to hear what the commotion was all about, an incendiary device was triggered at the back, sending smoke into the air.
With people’s attention distracted, a man stood up in the fourth row with a sawed-off shotgun and fired point blank into Malcolm’s chest.
Two men in the front row further jumped up with pistols in their hands and coolly took aim at Malcolm and shot at him like a firing squad, according to a female eyewitness in the third row. Afterwards, they emptied their revolvers into Malcolm’s prone body before fleeing the scene.[3]
As Malcolm fell backwards to the floor, the ballroom was filled with pandemonium.
Summary of the FBI investigation into Malcolm X’s assassination, February 22, 1965. [Source: cbsnews.com]
Two of the gunmen escaped through a narrow seldom-used flight of stairs leading down to the street, while the others formed a column and tried to escape through the front.[5]
Talmadge Hayer, 22, of Paterson, New Jersey, was shot in the leg, allegedly by Malcolm’s Secretary, Reuben Francis.
He was subsequently trapped by a mob and almost torn apart before he was arrested by two police officers whose squad car was cruising in the neighborhood.
Hayer was found with a clip of .45-caliber bullets in his pocket which matched the murder weapons found at the scene. In court, he confessed to the crime, though never said who sent him to kill Malcolm, only that he was a foot soldier, a “part of a machine.”[6]
The two other men convicted for Malcolm’s murder, Thomas Johnson (Khalil Islam), 30, and Norman Butler (Muhammad Aziz), 26, each spent about 20 years in prison.
At the trial, Hayer told the court that Johnson and Butler had nothing to do with Malcolm’s killing and that he did not even know them. He stated: “I was there. I know what happened. I know the people that did take part in it and they (Butler and Johnson) wasn’t any of the people that had anything to do with it. I want the jury to know.”[7]
A man named “Willie,” later identified as William Bradley (aka Al-Mustafa Shabazz), 28, a stick-up man, had a shotgun and was the first to fire on Malcolm X after the diversion.
After the assassination, Bradley served time in jail for robbery, aggravated assault and drug possession and then settled in Newark where he ran a boxing gym and even appeared in a political ad for former Newark Mayor and New Jersey Senator Corey Booker in 2010 before passing away in 2018.[11]
Baba Zak A. Kondo, author of the 1993 book Conspiracys (ies): Unraveling the Assassination of Malcolm X, said that he interviewed a retired Newark police officer who knew Bradley and contended that “a surprising number of people in Newark knew that Bradley was a killer.” The former policeman recalled once sitting in a bar talking to Bradley. Shortly after the assassin left, another brother looked at him and said, “You know, that’s a killer.” Years later, the officer learned that Malcolm had been one of Bradley’s victims.[12]
As part of the frame-up, Butler (aka Muhammad Aziz) received a fake $10,000 check right after Malcolm’s killing with a note “congratulating him for a job well done.”
The number on the check led to the Harlem Progressive Labor Party (PLP) in an account that had been closed in 1962.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)—which had the capability to discover the bank account numbers of the PLP—may have written the check in an attempt to discredit both the PLP and Butler.[13]
On the day of Malcolm’s killing, Butler, a karate expert, said he was at home recovering from thrombophlebitis of the leg, which made the scenario in which he leaped from the window of the lady’s room before making his escape implausible.
Johnson was well-known as an enforcer with the Harlem Mosque #7 and would have been recognized at the Audubon Ballroom if he was there. Later, in prison, he passed a polygraph test that had been paid for by Muhammad Ali.[16]
Another witness identified Ben Thomas of the Newark mosque as an assassin, though this lead was never followed up.[19]
The testimony of other key prosecution witnesses was riddled with exclusions, distortions and outright lies; the witnesses were coached and manipulated by the police and District Attorney’s office.
One was arrested on trumped-up charges and had to cooperate with the prosecution to avoid jail.[20]
Another “star witness,” Cary Thomas, one of Malcolm’s bodyguards, was held in jail on $50,000 bond. He had previously been admitted to a psychiatric facility for shouting in the streets about killing Jesus—a fact the judge refused to admit as evidence in court.[21]
Thomas was a heroin addict and alcoholic and told different stories before two grand juries.
Before one, he said that Hayer and Butler caused a diversion and Johnson fired the shotgun that killed X, though in the other he swore that Johnson and Butler caused the diversion and Hayer fired the shotgun.[22]
“As If They Wanted It to Happen:” Police Misconduct
Days before his assassination, Malcolm’s home in Queens had been firebombed, yet there was no police detail supplied to the Audubon when he was murdered. An exception was patrolman Gilbert Henry who was told to conceal himself some distance from the main auditorium where Malcolm spoke.[24]
Henry testified that he had been told to stay where he could not be seen and communicate by walkie-talkie with a police detail concealed across the street in the Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center complex where Malcolm’s body was taken after the shooting, and to tell them to notify police in the hospital if anything happened.
At previous Malcolm X rallies there had been at least half a dozen police officers present. In this case, with no security at the door, the assassins were easily able to walk in.
Exterior view of the Audubon Ballroom in the Harlem section of Manhattan where Malcolm was killed. [Source: pennlive.com]
The police later claimed that they offered protection, but that Malcolm refused it—though Malcolm had complained to Alex Haley that the police did not take his requests for protection seriously.
On the day of the shooting, journalist Jimmy Breslin received a tip from the NYPD that he should go to the Audubon ballroom, indicating someone in the NYPD knew what would transpire.
When the police arrived at the scene after Malcolm had been shot, according to eyewitnesses, they displayed no sense of urgency; it was “as if they wanted it to happen [Malcolm’s death].”[25]
Afterwards, the NYPD did not secure the scene of the crime as they normally would. A dance at the Audubon went on as scheduled at 7:00 p.m. with bullets still in the wall. A rostrum with bullet holes was found in the basement of the Audubon Ballroom years later; it had never been examined by the police.
Ballroom after it was roped off by police. A dance went on as scheduled that night. [Source: pennlive.com]
FBI and CIA Involvement
Historian David Garrow, a biographer of Martin Luther King, Jr., stated on the 2020 Netflix documentary Who Killed Malcolm X that by never taking a serious interest in investigating Malcolm’s death, white-run institutions and law enforcement agencies sent the message that they did not value what his life represented.
In Garrow’s view, FBI informants within the NOI were likely involved in Malcolm’s assassination—he was almost certain of this.
The FBI at the time under its infamous Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO) was promoting a war within the NOI in an attempt to destroy the organization, fearing that Malcolm was a “black messiah” who would lead a social revolution.[26]
Malcolm told Alex Haley the day before his assassination that he no longer believed it was the Muslims who were planning his death but something bigger.
Malcolm’s sister, Mrs. Ella Collins, believed that her brother had been “murdered by the CIA.”[28]
During his travels to the Middle East and Africa, CIA agents followed Malcolm’s every move—boarding every flight he took, watching his hotels and keeping him under surveillance during meal-time—and allegedly tried to poison him twice.[29]
The CIA’s Deputy Director of Plans, Richard Helms, was scrutinizing Malcolm’s activities up to the hour of his assassination.[30] The State Department had required Helms to treat X as a “foreign agent or enemy of the United States.”[31]
Mysterious Second Shooter
On the day of Malcolm’s killing, the early edition of both The New York Times and New York Herald Tribune reported that the NYPD had apprehended two suspects.
Later editions of both papers, however, changed their headlines and reported that only one suspect, Hayer, was apprehended.[32]
Discrepancy in headlines in the New York Herald Tribune about number of suspects the police arrested. [Source: Breitman, et al., The Assassination of Malcolm X, 53]
Black nationalists and Trotskyites noticing the discrepancy charged that the NYPD had covered up its involvement in the assassination and that the assailant was a BOSSI (Bureau of Special Services and Investigation) agent whom the crowd recognized as one of the killers because they had beaten and then shot him.[33]
The NYPD and mainstream journalist Peter Goldman attributed the confusion about the number of suspects to the fact that reporters had debriefed NYPD officer Thomas Hoy at the scene and another NYPD officer, Alvin Aronoff, at the station house, not realizing they were talking about the same man.[34]
Los Angeles Times article also claims more than one suspect was arrested. [Source: blog.rarenewspapers.com]
The FBI reported that Hayer was treated after being taken into custody at the Jewish Memorial Hospital across from the Audubon, where Malcolm was also taken, meaning that he was not the one witnessed by Ferguson in the patrol car.
Eric Norden reported that the olive-skinned man had been rushed into the patrol car by the cops and told to “get down between the seats.”[36] Thin-lipped and wearing a turtleneck sweater, he bore an uncanny resemblance to a man who had tailed Malcolm on a trip to London through his return flight to New York one week before the assassination.[37]
Two of the directors, Jack J. Caulfield and Anthony Ulasewicz—who got his start with BOSSI spying on New York’s annual May Day parade—were later implicated in the Watergate scandal.[38]
Ulasewicz wrote that he considered Malcolm “the flip side of George Lincoln Rockwell [American Nazi whom Ulasewicz had also shadowed]. [Malcolm’s] stated goal was to cut down the white man’s forest, move in on his land, and send him packing.”[39]
BOSSI agents—several of whom were in the ballroom—claimed that Malcolm’s assassination took them by surprise, though Chicago Police Department Captain William Duffy, head of the city’s intelligence division, based on a tip, and Sergeant Edward McLellan, of the division’s subversion unit, revealed that they had warned New York of a possible murder attempt on Malcolm.[40]
When Malcolm’s home was firebombed, the NYPD blamed Malcolm for setting the fire and BOSSI agents planted gasoline on his dresser.
Its detectives were expert in techniques of provocation, that is, in coercing subversive groups to commit violent and unlawful acts that would discredit them in the eyes of the public.[41]
A handwritten note from Japanese-American activist Yuri Kochiyama, written during a meeting of the OAAU Liberation School following Malcolm’s death, stated that “Ray Woods [sic] is said to have been seen also running out of Audubon; was one of two picked up by police. Was the second person running out.”[42]
Wood was a black NYPD officer from Chester, South Carolina with an Air Force background who began his career by infiltrating the Bronx Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) chapter in 1964 under the name Ray Woodall.
Posing as a 27-year-old graduate of Manhattan College studying law at Fordham University, Wood was named CORE’s housing chairman and talked chapter chairman Herbert Callender into making a “citizen’s arrest” of Mayor Robert Wagner for discriminating against blacks and misappropriating public monies, telling him that the arrest was legal when it was not.[43]
By 1965, “Woodall” had been reassigned under his real name to infiltrate a group calling itself the Black Liberation Movement (BLM).[44]
He was subsequently credited with foiling a bomb plot by the BLM that targeted the Statue of Liberty and other national monuments, just a week before Malcolm X’s assassination.
The idea for the bombing had been Wood’s—under the direction of an FBI agent—and he did most of the planning, though he lied about this in court to comply with his supervisor’s directions to not implicate himself.[45]
One of the four arrested and convicted in the plot was Walter Bowe, who co-chaired the cultural committee in Malcolm’s OAAU. Another, Khaleel Sayyed, was essential to Malcolm X’s security team.[46]
Culprits in Statue of Liberty bomb plot. Bowe is second from the left, and Sayyed is third from the left. Wood is featured on the far right with his back to the camera. [Source: coolopolis.blogspot.com]
Described as “the all-American boy” with tremendous “leadership abilities,” Wood was promoted to detective second grade for making the arrests in the Statue of Liberty bombing case, and received New York City’s highest award for heroism, the Medal of Honor.
U.S. Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach wrote a letter to New York City Police Commissioner Michael Murphy with a note of special congratulations to Wood for his “remarkable undercover work.”[47]
Dwayne Bey, a photography student and former activist from Brooklyn CORE, said that, “in CORE, we suspected the white folks as the cops of the organized leftists but who would have looked at him?”[48]
In a 2011 letter relayed through his cousin, Reggie Wood, Wood admitted that he had entrapped two members of Malcolm’s security team in a criminal plot to blow up the Statue of Liberty, which left Malcolm vulnerable at the Audubon Ballroom.
Reggie Wood, left, with Attorney Ben Crump and three daughters of Malcolm X and Dr. Betty Shabazz, at a press conference where Ray Wood’s confessional letter about the Statue of Liberty plot was read. [Source: bluetoad.com]
Wood said that he had been “under instructions to watch and not interfere”; thus, he did not try to stop a gunman who was running out of the ballroom.[50]
After the shooting, Wood was attacked by a mob who suspected him in the killing and then taken away from the scene in an NYPD patrol car and put in a holding cell for three hours where he realized the significance of the Statue of Liberty plot.[51]
Journalist Eric Norden wrote in a 1967 article that “[p]owerful forces, including the U.S. State Department and the CIA, had been deeply alarmed by Malcolm’s growing impact, particularly his efforts to internationalize the American racial question by bringing it before the United Nations under the Human Rights provision of the UN charter.”
At the time, Malcolm was disillusioned by growing authoritarianism and corruption within the NOI, and split with his mentor, Elijah Muhammad, to form a new movement, The Muslim Mosque Inc., which was aligned with the OAAU.
Like Martin Luther King, Jr., at the time of his death, Malcolm increasingly identified as a socialist.[54]
He established contacts with the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party (SWP), urging his followers to read its publication, The Militant, and told its 1964 presidential candidate, Clifton DeBerry, that he hoped to live long enough to build a viable organization based on his current ideas.[55]
Comparing capitalists to “vultures” and “bloodsuckers,” Malcolm said before his death that the “domestic exploitation of American Negroes was part and parcel of ‘American imperialism’s’ world-wide drive to control the poorer, predominantly non-white nations.”[56]
In an interview with the The Militant, Malcolm noted further that “this system is not only ruling us in America, it is ruling the world.”[57]
Malcolm X. speaking before a large crowd in Harlem. Before his death, Malcolm increasingly espoused socialist and anti-imperialist views. [Source: liberationschool.org]
Elsewhere, he noted that “the racists and segregationists in power exercise the same form of brutal oppression against dark-skinned people in the South and in North Vietnam, or in the Congo or in Cuba, or in any other place on this earth where they are trying to exploit and oppress; that is a society whose government doesn’t hesitate to inflict the most brutal form of punishment and oppression upon darker skinned people all over the world.”
Malcolm was an uncompromising opponent of the U.S. war in Vietnam long before Martin Luther King, Jr.
He told a meeting of the Militant Labor Forum in 1964: “What America is doing in South Vietnam is criminal, but the oppressed people of South Vietnam … have been successful in fighting off the agents of imperialism.… Little rice farmers, peasants, with a rifle, up against all the highly mechanized weapons of warfare—jets, napalm, battleships, everything else. And America can’t put those rice farmers back where they want them. Somebody’s waking up.”[58]
In 1958, Malcolm had similarly noted that Korea had “won the war against the white man with just a bowl of rice, sneakers and a gun.”[59]
By the time of his death, Malcolm was adopting mostly pro-Chinese positions on international questions, stating that the explosion of China’s first atom bomb was “one of the greatest things that has happened because up until now, the nuclear devices have been in the hands of Europeans.”
Malcolm went on to express hope that the Chinese would in the future be able to “build bigger and better nukes” because “the only language that America understands is the language of power and a dark nation has to be in a position to talk or speak the language that these imperialists understand.”[60]
Gangland Execution
The media coverage after Malcolm’s murder was indicative of the deeply engrained prejudices directed against Black Muslims and radical Black groups in the 1960s.
The New York Herald Tribune ran an editorial on February 23, 1965, titled “Hate Full Cycle,” which stated that “the slaying of Malcolm X has shown again that hatred, whatever its apparent justification, however, it may be rationalized, turns on itself in the end. Now the hatred and violence that [Malcolm X] preached has overwhelmed him and he has fallen at the hands of Negroes.”[61]
TheNew York Times, in an article entitled “Malcolm X Lived in Two Worlds White and Black,” blamed Black nationalist extremists for Malcolm’s death, describing him as “an extraordinary and twisted man, turning many true gifts to evil purpose … Malcolm had the ingredients for leadership, but his ruthless and fanatical belief in violence not only set him apart from the responsible leaders of the civil rights movement and the overwhelming majority of Negroes. It also marked him for notoriety and for a violent end.”[62]
Time magazine a few days later editorialized that Malcolm “had been a pimp, cocaine addict and a thief. He was an unashamed demagogue. His gospel was hatred.”[63]Life magazine followed suit by describing Malcolm as “the “shrilled voice for black supremacy,” while The Saturday Evening Post considered his death the result of a “gangland execution.”[64]
Spread in Life magazine after Malcolm’s death in which he was characterized as “the shrilled voice for black supremacy.” [Source: discovernikkei.org]
These depictions soured the public on an investigation and ensured that no outcry was raised when the wrong men were convicted.
Other Suspicious Deaths
Like with the Kennedy assassination, Malcolm’s assassination resulted in other suspicious deaths. One was of Louis Lomax, an African-American journalist who befriended Malcolm X in the late 1950s and claimed to have solved the riddle of the assassination.[65]
On July 31, 1970, Lomax died in an auto accident in New Mexico.[66] At the time, he had a contract from 20th Century Fox to make a movie about Malcolm that would expose the U.S. intelligence community’s role in his assassination.
Lomax believed that Malcolm X was betrayed by a former friend—thought to be John Ali—who reportedly had ties to the intelligence community. Lomax called the suspect “Judas.”[67]
The second suspicious death was of Leon Ameer, Malcolm’s New England representative and Cassius Clay’s (Muhammad Ali’s) former secretary, who had “vowed to carry on Malcolm’s work” after his assassination.[68]
The former karate teacher was found unconscious in the bathtub at Boston’s Sherry Biltmore Hotel on March 13, 1965, hours after he had appeared at the Socialist Workers meeting in Boston. In a speech there, he said that the government was responsible for Malcolm’s death and that he would shortly produce tapes and documents of Malcolm’s to prove it.
The Suffolk County medical examiner stated initially that Ameer, only 31 at the time, died of natural causes and suffered from an overdose of a medical drug called Domadeen which induces sleep.[70]
Later, it was claimed that Ameer died of an epileptic fit or heart attack and had been found with froth in his mouth. But his wife said he had a medical check-up one month before and there was no hint of epilepsy or heart trouble—and he had not had an epileptic fit in the previous 11 years.
On his death, Ameer’s blackened tongue protruded between his lips. In an epileptic seizure severe enough to cause death, the tongue is usually swallowed, causing asphyxiation.[71]
Conclusion
Malcolm’s supporters appear to have had the right intuition in thinking that he was murdered on “orders from the U.S. government.”[72]
Precisely who gave those orders, however, remains unknown.
The Innocence Project is currently working with civil rights attorney David Shanies and the Conviction Integrity Program of the New York County District Attorney’s Office to re-investigate Butler and Johnson’s convictions.
Whatever the outcome of their investigation, Malcolm X’s death, alongside those of John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., in the 1960s had a profound impact on American politics, helping to usher in a period of conservative ascendancy.
The tenets of American exceptionalism presume that political assassinations only occur in totalitarian states like Russia and China; an investigation into Malcolm X’s killing, however, reveals that this is simply not the case.
*
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.
Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].
Notes
On his life history, see The Autobiography of Malcolm X, as told to Alex Haley, rev. ed. (New York: Ballantine Books, 1992). Malcolm’s father, a follower of Marcus Garvey, was killed by the Klu Klux Klan in Lansing, Michigan. Malcolm became a delinquent in Harlem before experiencing his transformation in prison and falling under the sway of Elijah Muhammad and the Black Muslim organization, where he emerged as an important leader.
Clarke quoted in Michael Friedly, Malcolm X: The Assassination (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1992), 67.
Eric Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X,” The Realist, February 1, 1967, 1.
One guard, Charles Blackwell, took a lift afterwards to New Jersey from a suspected member of the assassination team.
Manning Marable, Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention (New York: Penguin Books, 2011), 438.
Peter Goldman, The Death and Life of Malcolm X, rev. ed. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2013), 410.
Baba Zak A. Kondo, Conspiracys (ies): Unraveling the Assassination of Malcolm X (Nubia Books, 1993).
Friedly, Malcolm X: The Assassination, 37.
Goldman, The Death and Life of Malcolm X, 341.
Historian Manning Marable said that Johnson was innocent, that as a well-known enforcer for mosque #7 in the Bronx he would have been recognized if he were present on the day of Malcolm’s killing at the Audubon Ballroom. See Mark Jacobsen, “The Man Who Didn’t Shoot Malcolm X,” New York Magazine, September 28, 2007.
Johnson was paroled in 1987 and died in 2009. Butler, who is still alive, was paroled in 1986. Journalist Peter Goldman reported that Johnson’s left thumbprint was found on a scrap of film in the smoke-bomb, insinuating his guilt in the slaying. Goldman, The Death and Life of Malcolm X, 422.
Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.” Charles Blackwell also gave a different story to the grand jury and contradicted himself.
George Breitman, Herman Porter, Baxter Smith, The Assassination of Malcolm X (New York: Pathfinder Press, 1991), 107.
Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.”
Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.” Jimmy Breslin’s recollections are highlighted in Lisa Pease, A Lie Too Big to Fail: The Real History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy (Port Townsend, WA: Feral House, 2018), 294.
Karl Evanzz, The Judas Factor: The Plot to Kill Malcolm X (New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 1992), 15; Clayborne Carson, Malcolm X: The FBI File (New York: Skyhorse, 2012); James W. Douglass, “The Murder and Martyrdom of Malcolm X,” in The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X, ed. James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease (Los Angeles, CA: Feral House, 2003), 399.The FBI spied on Malcolm as early as 1950 when he was in prison. They took special attention beginning in the late 1950s when he was appointed as Elijah Muhammed’s intermediary to foreign revolutionaries.
Ali admitted to interviewing with J. Edgar Hoover for a job at the FBI, but claimed he was not hired.
Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.”
Louis E. Lomax, To Kill a Black Man (Los Angeles, CA: Holloway House Publishing Co., 1968), 177; Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.” Allegedly, the CIA tried to poison Malcolm in Cairo in July 1964 and was about to try again in Paris, though French counterintelligence learned of this, and he was barred from entering the country.
Evanzz, The Judas Factor, xix
Evanzz, The Judas Factor, 15; Douglass, “The Murder and Martyrdom of Malcolm X,” in The Assassinations, ed. DiEugenio and Pease, 399.
The Times’s later story continued to mention a second suspect apprehended by Officer Thomas Hoy, but then mention of him disappeared. Breitman, et al., The Assassination of Malcolm X, 52.
Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X;” Brietman, et al., The Assassination of Malcolm X.
Goldman, The Death and Life of Malcolm X, 287.
Other witnesses also reported an olive-skinned man with a leg wound who had been rescued by the NYPD from a lynch mob.
Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.”
Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.” Hoy was later impossible for the media to reach. Norden believed that the mystery man was Puerto Rican or Cuban, which tied him potentially to the CIA which recruited anti-Castro Cuban exiles.
See Tony Ulasewicz, with Stuart A. McKeever, The President’s Private Eye: The Journey of Detective Tony U. from NYPD to the Nixon White House (New York: Masam Publishing, 1990). In June 1955, Ulasewicz testified before the Subversive Activities Control Board in a proceeding initiated to prove that the United May Day Committee was a Communist Party front organization. Ulasewicz first met Nixon in the early 1950s while serving on Dwight Eisenhower’s security detail. In July 1969, Ulasewicz was sent to Chappaquiddick Island, Massachusetts to investigate the car wreck incident involving Edward Kennedy that resulted in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, one of Bobby Kennedy’s former secretaries. Allegations were made that Ulasewicz was spotted on the island before news of the accident had been made public, raising questions about his involvement in a potential conspiracy.
Ulasewicz, The President’s Private Eye, 147.
Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.”
Frank Donner, Protectors of Privilege: Red Squads and Police Repression in Urban America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 169.
See Garrett Felber, “Malcolm X Assassination: 50 years on, mystery still clouds details of the case,” The Guardian, February 21, 2015.
The Ray Wood Story: Confessions of a Black NYPD Cop in the Assassination of Malcolm X, as told to Reggie Wood (New York: Madera, 2021); Donner, Protectors of Privilege, 175; Ulasewicz, The President’s Private Eye, 154, 155, 156. Callender was sent to Bellevue for psychiatric evaluation.
Once he achieved this, Wood proposed radical measures such as blowing up New York’s sewer system. Donner, Protectors of Privilege, 175.
The Ray Wood Story, as told to Reggie Wood, 75, 76.
Susan Brownmiller, “Statue of Liberty Case: View from the Inside: I Remember Ray Wood,” The Village Voice, June 3, 1965, in The Ray Wood Story, as told to Reggie Wood, vii; Ulasweicz, The President’s Private Eye, 170.
Susan Brownmiller, “Statue of Liberty Case: View from the Inside: I Remember Ray Wood,” The Village Voice, June 3, 1965, in The Ray Wood Story, as told to Reggie Wood, viii.
The Ray Wood Story, as told to Reggie Wood, 65, 101. This revelation confirmed Kochiyama’s note and journalist Eric Norden and the SWP’s suspicion about a second suspect who was an undercover agent. The question lingers as to why the crowd suspected Wood of being involved and attacked him after someone yelled “get that son of a bitch.” Perhaps someone recognized him as an undercover informant because his face had appeared in the paper after the Statue of Liberty plot, albeit with his head turned. Another unanswered question is why Wood was instructed to go to the ballroom if he was not there to protect Malcolm.
Breitman, et al., The Assassination of Malcolm X, 39; Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.” On King’s turn toward socialism, see Michael Eric Dyson, I May Not Get There with You: The True Martin Luther King, Jr. (New York: Free Press, 2001).
Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X;” Carson, Malcolm X, 448, 449; Lomax, To Kill a Black Man, 178.
Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.” Malcolm stated: “It is impossible for capitalism to survive, primarily because the system of capitalism needs some blood to suck … and it can only suck the blood of the helpless [like a vulture].”
Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.”
Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.”
In Evanzz, The Judas Factor, 15.
Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.”
Quoted in Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.”
Marable, Malcolm X, 454.
Marable, Malcolm X, 455.
Marable, Malcolm X, 455.
Lomax published the book, When the Word Is Given: A Report on Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm X and the Black Muslim World (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1963), and To Kill a Black Man: Shocking Parallel of the Lives of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr.(Los Angeles: Holloway House Publishing, 1968).
Thomas Aiello, “Louis Lomax’s Relationship with Malcolm X and Its Role in the Evolution of the Nation of Islam’s Popularity and Lomax’s Philosophy,” The Journal of African American History, 104, 4 (September 2019), 584-618.
Evanzz, The Judas Factor, xxiv.
“Malcolm X Aide Dead in Boston: Body of Leon Ameer Found in Hotel Room by Maid,” The New York Times, March 14, 1965, 57.
Goldman, The Death and Life of Malcolm X, 308; Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X”; “Malcolm X Aide Dead in Boston: Body of Leon Ameer Found in Hotel Room by Maid,” The New York Times, March 14, 1965, 57. Norden claims that Ameer was found strangled to death.
“Murder Is Doubted in Death of Leon 4X,” The New York Times, March 14, 1965; Carson, Malcolm X, 411.
Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X”; “Malcolm X Aide Dead in Boston,” 57; Carson, Malcolm X, 411.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Judge Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Tuesday granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss against CHD’s complaint filed against Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and its fact checkers in August 2020.
Judge Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Tuesday granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss against Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) complaint filed against Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and its fact checkers in August 2020.
In a 45-page decision, the judge opined that CHD’s allegations — that Facebook is effectively a “state actor” on behalf of the federal government and engaged in false advertising and racketeering — failed to state legal claims.
“While the decision is disappointing, we are not shocked,” said Mary Holland, CHD president and general counsel. “The line of Judge Illston’s questioning at oral argument suggested that she was inclined to rule in favor of Facebook’s motion to dismiss. Cases like these are challenging because they are novel; there have never been social media behemoths with such extraordinary powers. Congress explicitly created an environment where they would face few legal impediments, so it is challenging to hold them to account.”
CHD is reviewing its legal options. The fight to get truthful information to the public about vaccines and 5G technologies, without censorship and without being characterized as “misinformation” or “disinformation,” will continue.
“As emergency orders and regulations continue, more than a year after the COVID-19 pandemic started, the public is hungrier than ever for truthful information,” Holland remarked. “CHD will continue to battle censorship on Facebook and in other media. Stay tuned.”
*
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).
Yesterday, 6/25/21, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put out a poll on social media. It was a simple statement the agency interrogated as a TRUE/FALSE query: “If you’ve already had #COVID-19 and recovered, your should still get vaccinated against COVID-19.”
55,559 Twitter members participated in the poll over the course of 24 hrs. With over 70% of respondents designating the CDC statement as “FALSE”.
Of course, this is not a “scientific poll”. But it does represent the overall opinion of folks on Twitter. And we all know how powerful this social media platform is in channeling messages and revealing public sentiment. To be clear, a President of the United States was elected and governed based on Twitter messaging. So, I don’t think it’s wise for anyone to ignore the result of this CDC poll on Twitter.
In my opinion, the results of the CDC poll on vaccination of COVID-recovered Americans is pointing a serious national security threat.
If you’ve already had #COVID19 and recovered, you should still get vaccinated against COVID-19.
Wherever government policy and recommendations, especially ones that are being “mandated” and imposed on American citizens, are vastly mismatched from where the public stands — a serious threat to our republic is revealed.
Now, the CDC “experts” may claim that the public is “misinformed” on this issue. But, of course, when it comes to vaccination of the COVID-recovered they truly do not have that leg to stand on either.
In fact, within minutes of the CDC realizing that its Twitter poll is going in the opposite direction of agency policy, they put out tweet linked to their poll that read: “True! Experts do not yet know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from #COVID-19. Get your COVID-19 vaccine as soon as you can.”
In other words, they “believe” that the American people who responded to their twitter poll are wrong. And even though their own “experts do not yet know”, they want us to get these shots anyway — presumably in what their marketing and PR folks would call an “abundance of caution”.
Of course, the CDC and its director, Harvard’s Rochelle Walensky, know full well that both basic clinical/scientific principles AND emerging epidemiological data from Cleveland Clinic, Cornell University and Israel show that the COVID-recovered and naturally immune stand to gain little to no benefit from added vaccination.
In fact, to the contrary, though the COVID-19 vaccines do benefit the majority of un-immune people, they also have a range of unique and terrible risks of injury and harm to a minority subset of people. These risks include risks of blood clotting, myocarditis and neurological injury. But even more importantly, the epidemiological data is bearing out that COVID-recovered persons are at higher risk of developing adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccination.
So, really, wouldn’t acting out of an “abundance of caution” be for CDC NOT to rush into vaccinating the COVID-recovered Americans? Instead of idiotically stating “True! Experts do not yet know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from #COVID-19. Get your COVID-19 vaccine as soon as you can.”
Basically, CDC is saying to you, the American people, “we don’t know how long your immunity will last, but even though you are most likely immune and even though this vaccine has some bad side-effects that might harm previously infected people disproportionately — just, trust us, go ahead and get the shots….Because we and our ‘experts’ say so…”
And when they are called on their unsafe logic and dangerous clinical “guidance”, they simply state that they are only “guiding the American public” and that it’s up to private enterprises and individual choice to make decisions about vaccination.
I CALL BULLSHIT!
The Biden administration’s CDC is giving a green light to liability averse American enterprises to impose a draconian and incorrect vaccine mandate on millions of Americans with natural immunity from a prior infection —irrespective of the clear lack of medical necessity and the very real potential for totally avoidable bodily harm.
To be very clear, CDC is now aware, based on its own Twitter poll, that a vast majority of people in America are very likely opposed to their policy of indiscriminate vaccination of the COVID-recovered and already immune — of whom there are literally millions in America. They are also aware that basic science and clinical judgement tells us that the vast majority of infected folks ARE well immune (it’s IMMUNOLOGY 101, Dr. Walensky!). AND, they are aware that strong epidemiological data is showing that naturally infected people are well protected from re-infection — almost as well as vaccinated folks are protected from de novo infection.
Dr. Walensky and her colleagues also know that the American people are being mandated and, in many cases, coerced into getting vaccinated, based on the CDC’s “guidance”, by private American corporate enterprises and educational institutions — not nefariously, but because American private enterprises are risk averse and fear liability. So when CDC of FDA make a “guidance” private enterprises are far more likely to mindlessly create draconian and harmful policies that provide them with federal level legal defense in court. No matter how unethical or unsafe the policy at hand may be. Federal “guidances” are not benign entities, they have moving power on a broad scale!
You might ask: “why is the Biden administration’s CDC acting in such a terrible and mindlessly dangerous fashion?”
Really, the only rational explanations for the CDC’s dangerous and irrational behavior in insisting that COVID-recovered folks be vaccinated are the following: a) the agency is not operating on a well-rounded, ethical and objective scientific foundation, b) the agency “experts” are captured or brain-washed by the vaccine industry and the politics of ego and professional dynamics and c) the agency believes that the American people are stupid, misinformed and incapable of making correct choices to preserve their own health, so they are electing to use a “one-size-fits-all” guidance.
Any one or a combination of the above problems at CDC is a terrible problem and hazard to the lives of unsuspecting Americans.
But most concerning, as I stated above, is that the result of the CDC Twitter poll points to a vast and alarming chasm between public opinion and our federal government’s policy, guiding no less than a mandated bodily treatment of individual American citizens numbering in the millions. This problem the Biden administration and its CDC have created and are handling with mindless imprecision and carelessness is a serious problem of trust. Because at the root of a functional democratic republic is a requirement for voluntary public trust by a vast majority of citizens.
By last check when 70% of Americans disagree with a federal government policy affecting their very bodies — we have a very big national security problem in our republic.
When the people no longer trust government policies, governing bodies fail and fall.
It is tragic to see that the Biden administration, its CDC and its “experts” are failing to see with clarity that a vast majority of Americans oppose vaccination of COVID-recovered and naturally immune folks — AND that the feds opening the door to and allowing American private enterprises to mandate vaccination, is simply demolishing public trust in US government.
It’s time for CDC to stop its insane “one-size-fits-all” vaccine marketing campaign and become rational and clinically cogent. It’s time for CDC to stop assuming the American people are either “stupid” or “misinformed”. Because the FDA and CDC are, at the moment, posing a grave threat to US national security by directly causing the public to lose trust in government.
I suppose despite the CDC’s goal of creating a marketing tool using the poll it put out on Twitter yesterday, the fact that the poll was put out is a good thing. Because it provides an opportunity and window for CDC leaders and the Biden administration to correct a huge political and public health error they are making in this vaccine campaign.
Alas, I don’t think CDC and its leaders and “experts” are smart and savvy enough to see the problem they are causing.
My prediction is that CDC’s PR apparatus will spin the results of this Twitter poll to claim that the American people are being misled by “misinformation” from nefarious players, foreign or domestic…Or maybe they’ll try to claim that the 70% respondents are Russian, Chinese or Iranian spies and bots. But, the majority of the American people are on to that stale old narrative that’s born in elitist echo-chambers that are tearing the foundation of America apart.
Unfortunately for the Biden administration’s CDC, Twitter is actually manned mostly by Americans. And most Americans are calling the CDC on its vaccine BS using their own Twitter poll.
In summary, I write here for the record and to publicly warn the Biden administration, the CDC and FDA of a grave national security error they are committing by their “one-size-fits-all” approach to COVID-19 vaccination of the COVID-recovered in the United States — in a setting where millions of such Americans are being forced and coerced into getting shots they believe (correctly) do not benefit them, and might harm them.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
This 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.123 One of the most outrageous legislative actions violating parental and human rights took place in Washington, DC 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.45678 The DC Mayor refused to veto the bill 910 and, in January 2021, the U.S. Congress sat on its hands1112 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, DC 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.141516 The DC 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 Vaccine 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,1819 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 DC City Council, while the Mayor and the US Congress looked the other way.
Washington, DC Vaccine Concealment Law Violates Federal Laws
First, DC’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 vaccinated 23 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 QUOTE “prior to the administration” of a vaccine.2425 The 1986 law also requires each person administering a vaccine to QUOTE “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: Number 1: the date of administration of the vaccine; Number 2: the vaccine manufacturer and lot number of the vaccine; and Number 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; and 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).2728
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 dollars to the vaccine injured over the past three decades.29
DC’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
DC’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 Doctor’s Trial.3233 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.343536
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.37383940 Pre-adolescents are more susceptible to pressure from peers and authority figures.41424344
Doctors and Other Vaccine Administrators Have No Liability for Vaccine Injuries and 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.4546 Like vaccine manufacturers, doctors and other persons who administer vaccines cannot be held liable in civil court when a child dies or is injured.47 Congress 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 life-long 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 DC 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, DC 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 DC 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
DC Vaccine Concealment Law A Profound Betrayal of Public Trust
The Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights states that:
“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.”52
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,535455 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, DC 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.
24 42 U.S.C. United States Code, 2016 edition. Title 42 – The Public Health and Welfare Chapter 6A – Public Health Service. Subchapter XIX – Vaccines. Part 2 – National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Subpart c – ASSURING A SAFER CHILDHOOD VACCINATION PROGRAM IN THE UNITED STATES. Sec. 300aa-26. Vaccine information.
26 42 U.S.C. United States Code, 2016 edition. Title 42 – The Public Health and Welfare Chapter 6A – Public Health Service. Subchapter XIX – Vaccines. Part 2 – National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Subpart c – ASSURING A SAFER CHILDHOOD VACCINATION PROGRAM IN THE UNITED STATED STATES Sec. 300aa-25. Recording and reporting of information.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
A gladiator (Latin for “swordsman”) was an armed combatant who entertained audiences in the Roman Republic and later in the Roman Empire, in violent confrontations with other gladiators, wild animals, and condemned criminals. The fights were to the people’s delight. At the end of a fight the winner looked to the yelling, hurling and screaming audience or to the “moderator” – what to do next? – Thumbs up meant give him mercy, let him live; thumbs down: kill ‘em. A cheering crowd would watch these horrendous games of mostly men fighter. There were some female exceptions. As in today’s world – there are also some female gladiators.
Today, there are female competitions in almost all sports. But they are generally in lesser demand than men-events. After all, we live in a macho-world. Wars and other conflict confrontations are mostly led by men – and those who suffer most, are women, children and the elderly.
The Gladiator fights date back to the 3rd Century BC. Nowadays’ gladiator games are adapted to the 21st Century.
The origin of gladiatorial combats is not clear. There is some evidence that they were used in funeral rites during the Punic Wars of the 3rd Century BC. The Punic Wars were a series of confrontations fought between the Roman Republic and the Ancient Empire of Carthage (based in what today is Tunisia and stretching over western North Africa). Those were for pure entertainment of the masses, to deviate from war losses, and to show winner’s ego, pride – propaganda for more fighting and more violence.
The tradition of gladiator games lasted for almost a thousand years, until the 6th Century AD. Their origins appear like ceremonial, but later, when the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire – they served as brutal entertainments for the masses to deviate their attention from what the empire was doing at home, or “cooking” abroad, in foreign lands, with resources – “taxes” – taken from the people. Resources of the people being diverted to causes that served only a small elite.
Not unlike today, where resources from the people, “taxes” from peoples’ earnings are used for purposes that are decided by the elite in power to a large extent, for reasons and projects that do not serve the people at all. Just take the military budgets – they serve a small group the war and destruction industry, but not the people. People do not want wars.
In the early years of the first millennium (70 AD), the Roman Colosseum was built, where most gladiator games were fought. They were entertaining “compensation-deviation” for the people, so they would not think about what was going on with their monetary resources in foreign lands or even at home – against their vital interests of wellbeing. Their attention was focused on small-scale violence – leaving the big behind-the-scenes stuff to the elite.
The gladiator battles that pitted armed combatants against one another in brutal but often highly choreographed duels to the death, were by far the most popular kind of entertainment that unfolded in the Colosseum.
Today, modern-day Colosseums are football and soccer stadiums. Thus, modern-day gladiator fights are back. They are not as violent and as deadly as those fought in the ancient Roman Colosseum, but today’s emotion-loaded sports events are also destined to deviating peoples’ attention from the “deadly games”, games played by a minute world elite, well hidden from the entertained masses. So well hidden and prepared for decades that they hit the people like a ton of bricks, when they are finally let loose on the innocent masses – masses for years misled by their governments’ propaganda machine.
Right now, the plandemic, called covid-19, has within 18 months already devastated the lives of several billion of people throughout the UN’s 193 UN member countries – not by disease (SARS-CoV-2) caused death, but rather by a devastated economy, induced poverty, famine, despair and eventually death from desolation, famine and misery.
Within a year and a half, basic human rights have been stolen, abridged, taken away, in warp speed, and what were thought to be at least remnants of democracies, especially in the Global North, have become tyrannies, almost overnight; legalized tyrannies many of them under swiftly and semi-clandestinely passed martial law.
Driven by fake news and lavishly paid false propaganda, people have been lulled into fear – constant fear of death from an invisible enemy “V” for virus – from a monstruous fear-machine – false and fabricated disease figures, that they – and the entire society, what’s left of it, is breaking apart, incapable of living normal lives. Indeed, because normal life has been extinguished with the well-in-advance planned pandemic, i.e., plandemic.
An obscure ultra-rich world elite that pretends to call the shots on everything, ordered governments to submit to The Virus, a corona virus, SARS-Cov-2, the version two of the SARS virus launched principally on China in 2002 / 2003. The “order” came on 11 March 2020, from the pharma-compromised World Health Organization (WHO) declaring SARS-Cov-2, alias Covid-19, a worldwide pandemic. It is virology 101, no virus strikes naturally the entre world all 193 UN member countries at once. This was the beginning of the UN Agenda 2030, also called Agenda 21.
It’s also the beginning of the modern-days’ gladiator games.
In this ten-year-program, UN Agenda 2030, a complete structural change of society, if not our civilization, is planned to be implemented, leaving behind what the World Economic Forum (WEF) calls “The Great Reset”, a world that belongs to a few diabolical dark, rich beings, served by a drastically reduced world population.
The death knell to bring the population down, is a gigantic drive of “vaccination” with precisely what the CDC calls an “experimental gene-therapy”, so-called mRNA jabs. Governments around the globe lie, calling it a vaccine. They spend the peoples’ billions, if not trillions, in tax money to lavishly reward the pharmaceuticals – in return for “vaccines”.
Already the immediate reaction to the coerced jabs is a severe death toll, reaching within the first 6 months of the “vaxx-drive” reported serious injuries and deaths that are exponentially higher than those of regular vaccinations over the past 50 years together.
The European Union reports 1.5 million serious vaccine injuries and 15,500 Deaths from the mRNA-jabs, as of 25 June 2021. See this. And by far, not all injuries are reported.
That already indicates that this tyrannical drive to vaccinate more than 7 billion people on Mother Earth, against a virus which has a proven death rate of no more than 0.3% to 0.8 %, about equivalent to the common flu, has nothing to do with health; absolutely nothing. To the contrary. Its wanton injury, and even better: death. And 193 UN member governments are coopted, either by (deadly) threats or by lush rewards, or simply by being given a placebo instead of a deadly mRNA-experimental toxin.
While all is done to convert the lie – a universal crime of biblical proportions – into the truth, by billions of dollars or euros spent on false propaganda, the real truth does slowly seep through. Real science is exiting the matrix of the bought and corrupted science – and is revealing against all odds and threats the truth. It is still largely suppressed, but gradually emerging – and ever more of the lulled masses are waking up to life-threatening lies and crimes of their governments.
“It’s time to insert a break” – so, the elite, those who shall not be named, but are invisibly commanding the visible elite of our governments. And mind you, those who resist may disappear.
It’s time for the modern-days gladiator games, sports events like soccer championships, the European Cup, the American Cup, a variety of tennis championships, Wimbledon (UK), French Open, US Open, Australian Open, the summer Olympics starting these days in Japan…
Fights between today’s gladiators are normally not about death and life – but they nevertheless let bottled-up emotions explode — like you’d never think humans are capable of letting off so much steam. Just watch the slow-motion replays of a goal in one of these soccer championships matches. It is almost unbelievable the energy let loose, by the players, as well as by the public. Reality is forgotten. That’s the plan.
Just imagine the shall-remain-unnamed billionaires, and others belonging to the dark and wicked masterminds behind the scenes and above the governments – leaning back in their armchairs, watching a soccer game – elated of joy, smiling – we have them where we want them to be — giv’em another month or two of diversion, then we’ll lock them down again. This time even harsher, so they get used to it – become familiar with the method – with the infamous carrot and stick approach.
And the stick is getting bigger and bigger and the carrot proportionately smaller – just a little piece of sugar, of hope to have you accept the master’s scepter coming down on you, ever more forcefully, bringing ever more hardship, misery, disease and death. You shall learn to be obedient.
Tyrants Don’t Create Tyranny. Our Obedience Does. See also this.
This may well be the plan. The covid-tyrants will tell the media: After all, it’s their fault. We told them to be careful, to wear masks, keep social distancing; get vaccinated….
And the media go in over-drive: The new strong variants, like the ever-stronger Delta variant is spreading rapidly. It’s affecting sports players as well as spectators. The media is already warning – that “infection cases” are rising, related to the sports events, that people were careless in their behavior – and may have to bear the consequences at the end of summer, or before, when the virus – or new “variants” of the virus hit and over-buren hospitals.
The Fourth Wave is in the coming – its already being announced openly by the media. They never fail to announce their plan in advance – it’s part of the “diabolical ritual”?
In Australia the “Delta Variant” has already locked down, Sydney, Brisbane, Perth and maybe other cities. This is scary. Others be prepared, You may be next.
In the meantime, to keep spirits up and going, to incite even more “transgressions” against obedience, marketing outlets (are being sold to) say that flying in the Global North may be back to “normal” by 2022. Giving hope to normalcy. Nothing is more deceiving than one’s hopes being crashed – and that for “mea-culpa” because we, the people, transgressed against all precautions, against risks.
The winter may hit us hard. Lower our moral. Make us more obedient. Make us see the stick, the ever-present stick.
They say, the “D” for Delta Variant is so much stronger – they are already developing a new vaccine for it. So, those who have had already their two shots and are still alive, may need to get a third one, to ward off the Delta Variant. Such a nonsense. Variants are usually weaker than the original virus and they usually differ no more than 5% from the original in the case of corona viruses.
But in the meantime, and while we live the northern summer, lets enjoy, football, soccer, tennis, Olympics – what have you – all sorts of sports that brings out the animal in us, in terms of emotions, and yelling and screaming and mass waving for a team, a player , mass celebrations — thumbs up, and thumbs down – lets do and be gladiators and enjoy their game.
It’s nothing but a prep for the real killing game, where We, The People, are in the arena, exposed to the “swordsmen” – and those high above us, social media giants, computer moguls, eugenists, bankers of the “chosen ones” – again, they shall remain unnamed – those above the UN and all the member governments, those who are watching us, have been watching us for at least the last century – these un-people, will eventually lift or lower their thumbs, when they see us crumbling and already beaten by fear.
Shall we live or die?
It really depends on us.
Do we want to wake up, step out of the Matrix and take the Red Pill, taking responsibility for a new world which WE, the People are to create in solidarity? – Or do we – as a majority – submit to comfort and to the agenda of the WEF’s Global Resetters, and those that command the Global Resetters, hoping and trusting to be happy at the end when we own nothing.
Mind you, this gladiator game – call it also “the process”, is currently planned to end by 2030 – or earlier, if we continue the way we have been. The way it looks right now, from the Global Gladiators vintage point – we will continue to just submitting to massive vaxxing, followed by horrifying “side effects” and death, hoping to survive, being happy as digitized humanoids, owning nothing and being managed by AI robots, becoming the new norm.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Everywhere you look, things are getting weird, and I don’t mean that in a good way. Throughout all of our ups and downs over the decades, one thing that our society could always count on for a certain degree of consistency was nature. But now nature is going haywire at the same time that the very fabric of our society seems to be unraveling all around us. In this article, I am going to share with you a number of items that have been brought to my attention over the past month. On their own, each one of these items is “unusual”, but the fact that so many really strange things are all happening simultaneously is definitely cause for alarm.
In this article, I am not even going to bring in stories from the rest of the globe. For example, right now a horrific plague of mice is causing massive problems in Australia. Perhaps I will talk about this in a future article, but in this one I am just going to focus on this country.
The following are 5 bizarre new plagues that have made headlines in the United States within the last 30 days…
#1 A Plague Of Rattlesnakes
The endless megadrought in our western states is having a lot of unexpected consequences, and this includes a plague of rattlesnakes. According to the Daily Mail, rattlesnakes have been moving into urban areas in California in large numbers because of the exceedingly dry conditions…
Much of the US west is currently undergoing a record heatwave and its worst drought in at least 20 years, with temperatures soaring into the triple digits this weekend, and wildlife experts are saying the extreme weather is creating the perfect conditions for increased interactions between humans and animals.
Rattlesnakes, in particular, have been seen moving into urban areas in larger numbers, and are being found on porches, yards, nearby pools and under children’s play equipment.
Len Ramirez catches rattlesnakes for a living, and he says that they are being found “everywhere” at this point…
Len Ramirez stalked through the dried landscape, scanning the ground ahead searching for movement. Called out to an estate in Napa Valley, the owner of Ramirez Rattlesnake Removal company was finishing up his last job of another busy day wrangling, removing and relocating snakes from homes across northern California. He’d found three in just this yard, including one nestled roughly 1,000 yards from the pool.
Rattlesnakes are everywhere these days, he says – on front porches, in potted plants, and under children’s play equipment. “I am busier than I have ever been. Complaints are coming in from all over the state.”
A punishing drought in the U.S. West is drying up waterways, sparking wildfires and leaving farmers scrambling for water. Next up: a plague of voracious grasshoppers.
Federal agriculture officials are launching what could become their largest grasshopper-killing campaign since the 1980s amid an outbreak of the drought-loving insects that cattle ranchers fear will strip bare public and private rangelands.
#3 Birds Dropping Dead In Very Large Numbers
As I discussed last week, birds are suddenly dropping dead in very large numbers in multiple U.S. states. In Indiana, unusual bird deaths have now been reported in fifteen different counties, and authorities have absolutely no idea why this is happening…
The Department of Natural Resources warns that songbirds have now died in fifteen counties across Indiana and more across the region.
“I’ve never seen them exhibit the gooey eyes and crustiness in addition to the neurological symptoms,” Allisyn Gillet, DNR ornithologist said.
Gillet says she’s getting reports of nearly a dozen songbirds a week. in the last month, she says they’ve had at least 100 reports and no one knows exactly what’s causing it.
In addition to Indiana, large numbers of birds are also dropping dead in Washington D.C., Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky and Ohio.
#4 Unprecedented Flooding In Detroit
A massive storm last Friday turned I-94 into a lake and caused horrific flooding in both Detroit and Dearborn.
Many areas remain underwater as I write this article, and police are warning people not to play in the water because there is “a good chance” that it contains raw sewage…
Historic rainfall on Friday caused power outages in metro Detroit, at least 1,000 cars abandoned as highways filled up with water, and countless flooded residential basements in the area. The flooding produced more viral videos, including one showing a man jet-skiing down the street in Dearborn, as well as a surreal image of people playing in a flooded part of a highway as if it were a beach on one of the Great Lakes, prompting an even more surreal tweet from Michigan State Police. (“Finally in the things I would never thought I would have to say: Do not go into the water,” an MSP officer tweeted. “This water has debris, sharp metal, submerged cars, gasoline and oil floating in it. There is also a good chance that there is sewage also in the water. In other words it’s gross!”)
#5 The Worst Heatwave To Ever Hit The Northwest
We have just seen the highest temperature that has ever been recorded in the city of Portland.
The same thing is true for Seattle.
And the same thing is true for dozens of other cities in the Northwest. In fact, the little community of Lytton in British Columbia actually just recorded the hottest temperature in the history of Canada.
This unprecedented heatwave is being caused by an absolutely massive “heat dome”, and CBS News Meteorologist Jeff Berardelli says that there is only a “1/10,000+ chance” that something like this could happen.
Unfortunately, this heat dome looks like it is going to be around for a while…
There is no timetable for how long a heat dome can last, but things won’t immediately cool down in much of the Pacific Northwest. Forecasts have inland areas such as Spokane, Washington and Boise, Idaho reaching triple-digit temperatures for the rest of the week. The National Weather Service’s excessive heat warning is in effect until 11 p.m. PT on Thursday.
So why are so many crazy things happening to the United States all at the same time?
I don’t know.
But I do believe that our nation has entered a time of tremendous instability, and I believe that it is going to get a whole lot worse.
The stable conditions of the last several decades are disappearing, and I believe that we have now entered an era when global events are going to get really wild.
Unfortunately, most Americans are still anticipating that things will get back to the way they were in the “old days”, but at this point the “old days” are gone for good.
*
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).
Vaccine “passports” being put in place by the European Union and Australia as well as some U.S. states and businesses are one of the more alarming instruments advancing the “heart and soul of Technocracy and Scientific Dictatorship.”
As must be increasingly apparent to anyone capable of digging beneath the media’s daily outpouring of Orwellian propaganda, the planet-wide changes ushered in by the conveniently timed COVID crisis have surprisingly little to do with health. Facilitated by big tech, big military, big pharma’s injectable operating systems and other tools of “biofascism,” the takeover being engineered by private central bankers and their technocratic partners represents no less than a complete end-run around human freedom.
Vaccine “passports” or “certificates,” being put in place by the European Union and Australia as well as some U.S. states and businesses, are one of the more alarming instruments advancing this tyrannical centralization and control agenda. Not one to mince words, author Naomi Wolf makes the case that the “passports,” if allowed to become the norm, could trigger “the end of civil society” and “literally the end of human liberty in the West.”
Why is there such a strong push to make travel and commerce contingent on vaccine passports? One important answer, well understood by Wolf as CEO of a tech company, is “location intelligence” — what technocracy expert Patrick Wood calls the “heart and soul of Technocracy and Scientific Dictatorship.” Without irony, the champions of location data rhapsodize that such data are “a powerful way to connect people to place, transactions to actions, responses to trends, and customers to where they do business and the kind of business they do” — ultimately facilitating the “digital transformation of society on the whole.”
Less cheerfully, technocrats understand, even if the general public does not, that location data permit control at the most granular levels and provide “a platform for understanding what’s going on at all scales.” This point was disturbingly illustrated in a June 21 study in JAMA Internal Medicine, which essentially denounced “small and informal social gatherings,” positing that children’s birthday parties are potential hotbeds of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
This willingness on the part of technocracy’s foot soldiers to be party poopers — literally — would be silly were it not for the study’s baleful messaging, which confirms Wolf’s concerns that we are not only in a battle for liberty but in “a war against human beings and the qualities that make us human.”
No fun allowed
On its webpage devoted to “small gatherings,” updated May 6, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) addresses the topic of social gatherings with family and friends, “such as small holiday parties, family dinners and small special celebrations.” To make such events “safer,” CDC counsels hosts and attendees to limit the number of guests, wear a mask “with two or more layers…indoors and outdoors except when eating or drinking,” socially distance, avoid handshakes and hugs, supply one’s own food and dishes — and (precluding any “Happy Birthday” songs) avoid any loud cheering or singing. Better yet, CDC says, simply have a virtual gathering!
The JAMA birthday party study helpfully reinforces the CDC’s dour advice. Conducted by private-sector researchers from RAND Corporation, Harvard and “healthcare navigation” company Castlight Health, the study looked at privately insured households whose members did or did not have a birthday in the preceding two weeks and county-level COVID-19 prevalence data — but included no data from actual social gatherings.
Taken at face value, one can see how the study’s take-home message — that households in certain counties were possibly a little bit more likely to receive a COVID diagnosis subsequent to an adult or child having a birthday — could direct worriers toward the CDC’s “virtual gathering” solution. However, one needs to parse the study’s definition of risk. As has become par for the course in risk pronouncements designed to steer COVID-related behavior in a particular direction, the researchers said nothing about absolute risk, even though many consider absolute risk statistics to be “the most useful way of presenting research results to help … decision-making.”
Thus, while the study reported a 31% “relative increase” in COVID diagnoses “associated with birthdays” — a finding, moreover, that pertained solely to households in the 10% of counties with the highest background prevalence of COVID — the increased absolute risk (again, only in the 10% of high-background-prevalence counties) amounted to a flimsy 0.086 increase over the COVID “background rate” of .278/100. Nevertheless, the researchers augmented their antisocial message with the conclusion that “policy interventions designed to limit disease transmission should also focus on informal gatherings.”
Defending freedom
The heavy-handed marketing of COVID injections and COVID vaccine passports as tickets to “freedom” has brought George Orwell’s inverted “freedom is slavery” logic fully to the fore. The “appendix” to 1984 explains that while the fictional totalitarian regime Oceania could readily condone use of the word “free” in statements such as “This dog is free from lice” or “This field is free from weeds,” usages such as “politically free” or “intellectually free” had gone entirely and intentionally extinct because the concepts themselves had been erased.
The alarming rapidity with which the U.S. and once “robust” Western democracies were able to implement “elements of a locked-in, 360-degree totalitarianism” was facilitated not just by a heretofore unimaginable level of global policy coordination but also by the public’s complacency. The pressing question of the day, therefore, is whether citizens will continue to tolerate blatant efforts to memory-hole freedom.
Lobbying for COVID vaccine mandates and passports in the U.S., one of the latest darlings of vaccine coercion recently argued that the Biden administration “shouldn’t be so squeamish about vaccine verification,” openly calling mandates and “verification” desirable tools to “push [the unvaccinated] in the right direction.”
And if we are to believe Gallup poll propaganda, more than half of Americans are already on board, supporting policies such as having to show proof of vaccination to fly or attend sporting events or concerts. On the other hand, in an “unscientific” poll on independent journalist Sharyl Attkisson’s website, 97% of respondents answered “absolutely not!” to the question “Do you support requiring ‘vaccine passports’?”
The dispiriting cold water now being thrown on children’s birthday parties is part and parcel of a set of COVID-inaugurated policies that, in Naomi Wolf’s words, “seem designed to ensure that humans will have no ‘analog’ space or ‘analog’ culture left — no way to feel comfortable simply gathering in a room, touching one another as friends or allies, or joining together.”
Fortunately, as writer Allan Stevo has noted, Americans “are becoming increasingly firm and resolute” about freedom, “saying ‘Yes!’ to good things” and “saying ‘No!’ to bad things” — and that, says Stevo, “is exactly how bad times turn into good times.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
On June 28, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet released a stunning 23-page report accompanied by a 95-page conference room paper for the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) documenting systemic racism and human rights violations by police forces against Africans and people of African descent throughout the world. The report considered more than 340 interviews and more than 100 written submissions from civil society organizations.
Bachelet grounded her analysis in “the long-overdue need to confront the legacies of enslavement, the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans and colonialism and to seek reparatory justice.” She took aim at “misconceptions that the abolition of slavery, the end of the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans and colonialism” and subsequent reforms have eliminated “the racially discriminatory structures built by those practices and created equal societies.”
The report finds:
The dehumanization of people of African descent — a practice rooted in false social constructions of race created to justify enslavement, pervasive racial stereotypes and widely accepted harmful practices and traditions — has sustained and cultivated a tolerance for racial discrimination, inequality and violence, which continues to have a disproportionate impact on the enjoyment of their human rights.
“Systemic racism needs a systemic response,” Bachelet wrote. “States should adopt a systemic approach to combating racial discrimination through the adoption and monitoring of whole-of-government and whole-of-society responses.” They should be designed “to dismantle systemic racism.”
Hailing the report as “a victory,” the U.S. Human Rights Network (USHRN) issued a statement saying it “reflects the efforts of civil society to educate UN officials about human rights violations and the peoples’ solutions … even convening a peoples’ commission of inquiry to take on what the UN declined to do last year.”
After the killing of George Floyd and subsequent mass protests, the USHRN and the ACLU organized an international coalition that urged the HRC to establish a commission of inquiry to investigate systemic racism and police violence against people of African descent in the United States. Instead, on June 19, 2020, after intensive lobbying by the Trump administration, the HRC adopted resolution 43/1, directing the High Commissioner to prepare a report on police violence and other human rights violations against Africans and people of African descent around the world (not limited to the United States).
“The worldwide mobilization of people calling for racial justice has forced a long-delayed reckoning with racism and shifted debates towards a focus on the systemic nature of racism and the institutions that perpetrate it,” Bachelet wrote.
Bachelet’s report indicts the cultures of systemic racism, denial and impunity of law enforcement officials for violating the human rights of people of African descent. She lays blame for “the racialization of poverty” at the feet of insufficient meaningful participation of people of African descent in decision making and impediments to their right to vote. Bachelet charges that “the dehumanization of people of African descent” is “rooted in false social constructions of race historically created to justify enslavement, pervasive racial stereotypes” and false narratives that associate people of African descent with criminal activities.
Discriminatory identity checks and stops-and-searches are attributable to racial profiling, according to Bachelet, and she condemns disproportionate stops, arrests and imprisonment for drug-related offenses.
Bachelet’s analysis of 190 cases globally (most from the United States) revealed that at least 85 percent of police-related deaths could be attributed to: (1) policing of minor offenses, traffic stops and stops-and-searches (such as the case of George Floyd); (2) intervention of police as first responders to mental health crises; and (3) special police operations (like the case of Breonna Taylor). Many of the victims did not pose an imminent threat of death or serious injury to justify lethal force under international legal standards.
Citing our commission report, Bachelet decries the militarization of law enforcement, including the deployment of military personnel and equipment, which often leads to “a rapid escalation in the use of force” particularly “in the context of the war on drugs.”
She also cites our commission report’s analysis that the lack of clarity in use-of-force laws about obligations under international human rights law increases the risk of violations and poses an impediment to accountability.
Harmful stereotypes shape encounters between people of African descent and law enforcement, and gang-related police operations in communities of African descent are frequently influenced by racial bias and stereotypes that associate those communities with criminality, Bachelet found, citing our commission report.
Challenges to holding police officers accountable for violating the human rights of people of African descent detailed by Bachelet include: (1) the absence of independent accountability mechanisms and deficient investigations; (2) prosecutorial discretion and reluctance to file charges against police; (3) “qualified immunity;” and police unions (citing our commission report’s discussion of these issues).
As did our commission report, Bachelet cited a 2021 University of Chicago study, which found that use of force legislation and directives in the largest cities of the 29 wealthiest countries often did not comply with international human rights law.
A Transformative Agenda With Calls for Reparatory Justice
“[N]o State has comprehensively accounted for the past or for the current impact of systemic racism,” Bachelet notes. “Structures and systems that were designed and shaped by enslavement, colonialism and successive racially discriminatory policies and systems must be transformed.”
“A comprehensive approach to repair the legacies of the past must be grounded in an intersectional and intergenerational analysis of the impacts of enslavement, the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans, colonialism and successive racially discriminatory policies and systems,” Bachelet writes. “These impacts should be recognized, acknowledged and redressed.”
The transformative agenda in the report’s annex includes: “Dismantle structures and systems designed and shaped by enslavement, colonialism and successive racially discriminatory policies and systems.”
Additionally, the annex states: “Reimagine policing and the criminal justice system by supporting and implementing community-driven models for dignity and collective safety that protect and serve all members of communities without discrimination.”
Collette Flanagan, founder and CEO of Mothers Against Police Brutality, who testified in the commission’s hearings, said,
“The release of the U.N. High Commissioner’s report is not only historic, but hopefully it will be a beacon of light for other countries to unite and stand against the egregious extrajudicial killings at the hands of U.S. law enforcement; holding the United States accountable for their shameful police brutality history.”
Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU’s Human Rights Program, also responded to Bachelet’s report, stating,
“This historic report provides a blueprint for the United States and other countries to begin reckoning with the long history of systemic racism that permeates through policing and other state violence and structural discrimination against Black people. We welcome this report and urge the Biden administration and Congress to heed the recommendations and take bold action to eliminate systemic racism in the United States, starting with our policing institutions.”
“Reparatory justice requires a multipronged approach that is grounded in international human rights law,” Bachelet writes. “Reparations are one element of accountability and redress. For every violation, there should be repair of the harms caused through adequate, effective and prompt reparation.” She notes that reparations are not limited to monetary compensation but also include formal apologies, memorialization, institutional and educational reforms, and acknowledgement of the legal responsibility of the State for violations “linked to truth, justice and guarantees of non-recurrence.”
Bachelet’s report is a powerful call to arms to states around the world to dismantle systemic racism against Africans and people of African descent. Activists as well as legislators must use this report to effect real change and dismantle systemic racism.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and a member of the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Angry crowd of demonstrators toppled the statue of Queen Victoria to the ground off its base on the front lawn of the Manitoba Legislative Building in Winnipeg, Canada, according to the visuals that emerged late Thursday. In the declaration of their rage brought by the impact of the recent discovery of 182 unmarked graves in British Columbia and Saskatchewan with remains of Indigenous children aged between seven and 15, a large mob pulled the monument from the pedestal base.
The crowd rallied at an Every Child Matters walk on the Canada Day (observed on July 1) against the country’s residential schools system. It daubed the statue, unveiled in 1904, in red hand prints and smears. The historical monument was built during Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee. The monarch had reigned the country when the treaties for the residential school system were negotiated by the First Nations and the federal government. The monument was designed by British sculptor George Frampton and it depicts the queen seated on throne and displaying an orb and a scepter, seen as two of the most authoritative monarchical symbols.
A statue of Queen Elizabeth II was also torn down that had stood east side of the grounds near Governor Janice Filmon’s House. People then climbed atop the downed statues, while several others shot images.
Winnipeg police force was summoned at the scene, and at least one person was taken into detention on Legislative Grounds regarding a disturbance. Although it appears that the person taken into custody was indulged in a brawl attempting to stop the revolting, largely indigenous mob from destroying the statue that they had tied a long rope to at the time, wrapped around the front. A probe was ordered by the police, according to the local press reports. A spokesperson for the police department told reporters that enforcement action will be taken at some point, in the near future.
Addressing Canadians, PM Justin Trudeau said, “If this difficult time has taught us all one thing, it’s that in times of challenge or crisis Canadians are there for one another,” he said. “We’ve all helped our communities stay safe and healthy.”
Canda Day’s toned down celebratory fervour
Canada Day on July 1 toned down the celebratory fervour, as the country in its entirety reflected on the way it has and continues to treat the indigenous population, immigrant Canadians, and Indian communities after the residential school incident, a system that began operating in the 1880s with last of them closing down as early as 1996. The system forcibly snatched Indigenous children from their families and put into these schools where they were forbidden from acknowledge their heritage and culture, and prohibited to speak in their own languages.
Indigenous children were subjected to physical, sexual, emotional, and psychological abuse if they broke the rules that concentrated in “civilising” Indigenous peoples. As many as 150,000 First Nations, Inuit, and Metis children were confined in these conditions, which the historians have dubbed as “cultural genocide”. As many as 4,100 children succumbed in these systems that reflect on the past’s harrowing realities.
*
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 @GraffitiRadical/Twitter/AP
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
“On the morning of September 11, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld ran to the fire at the Pentagon to assist the wounded and ensure the safety of survivors,” expressed a mournful George W. Bush in a statement. “For the next five years, he was in steady service as a wartime secretary of defense – a duty he carried out with strength, skill, and honor.”
Long before Donald Trump took aim at irritating facts and dissenting eggheads, Donald Rumsfeld, two times defense secretary and key planner behind the invasion of Iraq in 2003, was doing his far from negligible bit. When asked at his confirmation hearing about what worried him most when he went to bed at night, he responded accordingly: intelligence. “The danger that we can be surprised because of a failure of imagining what might happen in the world.”
Hailing from Chicago, he remained an almost continuous feature of the Republic’s politics for decades, burying himself in the business-government matrix. He was a Congressman three times. He marked the Nixon and Ford administrations, respectively serving as head of the Office of Economic Opportunity and Defense Secretary. At 43, he was the youngest defense secretary appointee in the imperium’s history.
He returned to the role of Pentagon chief in 2001, though not before running the pharmaceutical firm G.D. Searle and making it as a Fortune 500 CEO. It was under his stewardship that the US Food and Drugs Administration finally approved the controversial artificial sweetener aspartame. A report by a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry had claimed that the drug “might induce brain tumors.” This did not phase Rumsfeld, undeterred by such fanciful notions as evidence.
With Ronald Reagan’s victory in 1980, and Rumsfeld’s membership of the transition team, the revolving door could go to work. The new FDA Commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., was selected while Rumsfeld remained Searle’s CEO. When Searle reapplied for approval of aspartame, Hayes, as the new FDA commissioner, appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the 1980 findings. When it became evident that a 3-2 outcome approving the ban was in the offing, Hayes appointed a sixth person. The deadlocked vote was broken by Hayes, who favoured aspartame.
In responding to the attacks of September 11, 2001 on US soil, Rumsfeld laid the ground for an assault on inconvenient evidence. As with aspartame, he was already certain about what he wanted. Even as smoke filled the corridors of the Pentagon, punctured by the smouldering remains of American Airlines Flight 77, Rumsfeld was already telling the vice-chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff General Richard Myers to find the “best info fast … judge whether good enough [to] hit SH@same time – not only UBL.” (Little effort is needed to work out that SH was Saddam Hussein and UBL Usama/Osama Bin Laden.)
Experts were given a firm trouncing – what would they know? With Rumsfeld running the Pentagon, the scare mongers and ideologues took the reins, all working on the Weltanschauung summed up at that infamous press conference of February 12, 2002. When asked if there was any evidence as to whether Iraq had attempted to or was willing to supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction, given “reports that there is no evidence of a direct link”, Rumsfeld was ready with a tongue twister. “There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know.” This was being frightfully disingenuous, given that the great known for Rumsfeld was the need to attack Iraq.
To that end, he authorised the creation of a unit run by the under-secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith, known as the Office of Special Plans, to examine intelligence on Iraq’s capabilities independently of the CIA. Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, who served in the Pentagon’s Near East and South Asia (NESA) unit a year prior to the invasion, described the OSP’s operations in withering terms. “They’d take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don’t belong together.”
One of Rumsfeld’s favourite assertions – that Iraq had a viable nuclear weapons program – did not match the findings behind closed doors. “Our knowledge of the Iraqi (nuclear) weapons program,” claimed a report by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “is based largely – perhaps 90% – on analysis of imprecise intelligence.”
None of this derailed the juggernaut: the US was going to war. Not that Rumsfeld was keen to emphasise his role in it. “While the president and I had many discussions about the war preparations,” he notes in his memoirs, “I do not recall him ever asking me if I thought going to war with Iraq was the right decision.”
With forces committed to both Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States found itself in the situation Rumsfeld boastfully claimed would never happen. Of this ruinously bloody fiasco, Rumsfeld was dismissive: “stuff happens.” Despite such failings, a list of words he forbade staff from using was compiled, among them “quagmire”, “resistance” and “insurgents”. Rumsfeld, it transpired, had tried regime change on the cheap, hoping that a modest military imprint was all that was necessary. The result: the US found itself in Iraq from March 2003 to December 2011, and then again in 2013 with the rise of Islamic State. Afghanistan continues to be garrisoned, with the US scheduled to leave a savaged country by September.
Rumsfeld was not merely a foe of facts that might interfere with his policy objective. Conventions and laws prohibiting torture were also sneered at. On December 2, 2002, he signed a memorandum from General Counsel William J. Haynes II authorising the use of 20-hour interrogations, stress positions and the use of phobias for Guantanamo Bay detainees. In hand writing scrawled at the bottom of the document, the secretary reveals why personnel should not be too soft on their quarry, as he would “stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?” The results were predictably awful, and revelations of torture by US troops at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison in 2004 led him to offer his resignation, which President Bush initially rejected.
By November 2006, military voices had turned against him. With the insurgency in full swing and Iraq sliding into chaos, the Army Timescalled for the secretary’s resignation. “Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear the brunt.” Bush eventually relented.
It is interesting that so little of this was remarked upon during the Trump era, seen as a disturbing diversion from the American project. When Trump came to office, Democrats and others forgave all that came before, ignoring the manure that enriched the tree of mendacity. The administration of George W. Bush was rehabilitated.
In reflecting on his documentary on Rumsfeld Errol Morris found himself musing like his protagonist. “He’s a mystery to me, and in many ways, he remains a mystery to me – except for the possibility that there might not be a mystery.” The interlocutor had turned into his subject.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Reports of deaths and serious injuries from the COVID-19 jabs mount by the day. As of June 11, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) had posted 358,379 adverse events, including 5,993 deaths and 29,871 serious injuries
In the European Union’s database of adverse drug reactions from COVID shorts, called EudraVigilance, there were 1,509,266 reported injuries, including 15,472 deaths as of June 19, 2021. EudraVigilance only accepts reports from EU members, so it covers only 27 countries. Remarkably, about HALF of all reported injuries — 753,657 — are listed as “serious”
The British Yellow Card system had, as of June 9, 2021, received 276,867 adverse event reports following COVID “vaccination,” including 1,332 deaths
Before you make the decision to participate in this unprecedented health experiment, it may be wise to assess your personal insurance and financial ability to handle a serious injury, as pandemic vaccine manufacturers are indemnified against lawsuits
If you are injured by a COVID shot and live in the U.S., your only recourse is to apply for compensation from the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Act (CICP). Payouts are rare, cover only lost wages and unpaid medical bills, cannot be appealed, are capped around $370,000 for death, and require you to exhaust your private insurance before kicking in
*
Reports of deaths and serious injuries from the COVID-19 jabs have been mounting with breakneck rapidity. Those who look at the numbers and have some awareness of historical vaccine injury rates agree we’ve never seen anything like it, anywhere in the world. While data can be hard to come by for some countries, the ones we can check reveal deeply troubling patterns.
United States — As of June 11, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) had posted 358,379 adverse events,1 including 5,993 deaths and 29,871 serious injuries. In the 12- to 17-year-old age group, there were 271 serious injuries2 and seven deaths. Among pregnant women, there were 2,136 adverse events, including 707 miscarriages or premature births.3
All of these are bound to be undercounts as, historically, less than 10% of vaccine side effects are reported to VAERS.4 An investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services put it as low as 1%.5,6
Be that as it may, the reported rate of death from COVID-19 shots now exceeds the reported death rate of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years, and it’s about 500 times deadlier than the seasonal flu vaccine,7 which historically has been the most hazardous.
The COVID shots are also five times more dangerous than the pandemic H1N1 vaccine, which had a 25-per-million severe side effect rate.8,9 Assuming the COVID shots had the same side effect rate, and assuming some 200 million got the vaccine, the estimated number of people suffering a serious side effect would be about 5,000. We’re well past that already, as 35,86410people have been seriously injured or killed.
Even though there are nearly 6,000 reported deaths in VAERS, this number is likely seriously compromised. I recently interviewed Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, who has treated COVID patients quite successfully, and we discussed the very distinct possibility that everyone who receives the COVID jab may die from complications in the next two to three years.
He personally knows of 28 COVID jab deaths that were not accepted by VAERS. Zelenko suspects the number of deaths may exceed 100,000 already.
Getting the COVID jab immediately places the injected individual in the very high risk of dying from COVID. Most have the false assurance that they are protected, but in reality, they are far more vulnerable and as a result will not take very aggressive proactive measures to avoid dying from pathogenic priming or paradoxical immune enhancement before it is too late.
Please be sure and make a notation in your calendar to review my groundbreaking interview with Zelenko this Sunday, July 4, 2021, which is only three days away. We will review protocols you can use to protect you and your family or those you love, who now regret getting the COVID jab.
European Union — In the European Union’s database of adverse drug reactions from COVID shots, called EudraVigilance, there were 1,509,266 reported injuries, including 15,472 deaths as of June 19, 2021.11 EudraVigilance only accepts reports from EU members, so it covers only 27 of the 50 European countries.
Remarkably, about HALF of all reported injuries — 753,657 — are listed as “serious,” meaning the injury is life-threatening, requires hospitalization, results in a medically important condition, significant disability or persistent incapacity.
U.K. — The British Yellow Card system had received, as of June 9, 2021, 276,867 adverse event reports following COVID “vaccination,” including 1,332 deaths.12
Israel — According to a report by the Israeli People Committee, a civilian body of health experts, “there has never been a vaccine that has harmed as many people.”13 For example, Israeli data show boys and men between the ages of 16 and 24 who have been vaccinated have 25 times the rate of myocarditis (heart inflammation) than normal.14
(Myocarditis is also affecting teens and young adults in the U.S. Although CDC officials say no confirmed deaths have been reported, at least two deaths have been linked temporally to the vaccine.15,16,17,18,19)
Australia — In Australia, two people have died from blood clots after taking AstraZeneca’s COVID shot. Meanwhile, only one person — an elderly woman — has died from COVID-19 this year.20,21
If Something Goes Wrong, You’re on Your Own
The pain and suffering these shots have already created is hard to imagine. Clearly, millions around the world have had their lives turned upside down by them. Many may not recover, physically or financially. It’s really important to realize that if something goes wrong, you’re largely on your own.
Before you make the decision to participate in this unprecedented health experiment, it may be wise to assess your personal insurance and financial ability to handle a serious injury, as pandemic vaccine manufacturers are indemnified against lawsuits. You cannot sue them for damages. Nor can you sue the government or anyone else.
If you are injured by a COVID shot and live in the U.S., your only recourse is to apply for compensation from the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Act (CICP), under which COVID-19 vaccines are a covered countermeasure.22 The CICP is run by a sparsely staffed agency under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Details and hyperlinks to benefit request forms can be found in the Congressional Research Service’s legal sidebar, “Compensation Programs for Potential COVID-19 Vaccine Injuries.”23 You cannot apply for and will not receive compensation from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which covers other vaccines, including the flu vaccine.
Compensation from CICP is very limited and hard to get. In its 15-year history, it has paid out just 29 claims, fewer than 1 in 10.24,25,26 You only qualify if your injury requires hospitalization and results in significant disability and/or death, and even if you meet the eligibility criteria, it requires you to use up your private health insurance before it kicks in to pay the difference.
There’s no reimbursement for pain and suffering, only lost wages and unpaid medical bills. This means a retired person cannot qualify even if they die or end up in a wheelchair. Salary compensation is of limited duration, and capped at $50,000 a year. On top of all that, you cannot appeal the CICP’s decision. Appeals simply get reviewed by another staff member in the same office.
Can You Afford a COVID Shot Injury?
Even if they can get it, CICP awards are likely to be a drop in the bucket for most people. The average award is $200,000, and death cases are capped at $370,376.27 Meanwhile, you can easily rack up a $1 million hospital bill if you suffer a serious thrombotic event.28 You must also pay for your own legal help and any professional witnesses you may need to support your claim.
In early June 2021, KRDO news reported29 on the case of Kendra Lippy, a 38-year-old woman who had no health complaints prior to getting her Johnson & Johnson shot. Within a week, she developed headaches, abdominal pain and nausea. Her diagnosis: Severe blood clots that progressed into multiple organ failure and coma.
She had to have most of her small intestine removed and will need total parenteral nutrition for the rest of her life — a feeding method that bypasses her gastrointestinal tract. She was hospitalized for 33 days, including 22 days in the intensive care unit. She now needs occupational and physical therapy to regain basic functions like walking, writing and holding a fork.
Lippy’s hospital bill already exceeds $1 million, a sum she’ll likely never be able to pay off, and there’s no telling what kind of medical treatment she’ll need in years to come. Clearly Lippy is headed for bankruptcy, and medical bills are the most common cause in the U.S.
Additional Stipulations That Make Payouts Rare
There are also time stipulations. You must file a request for benefits within one year of the date the vaccine was administered in order to qualify. This is a serious barrier, as serious side effects can take time to develop. For example, after the 2009 swine flu pandemic, people started reporting Guillain-Barre syndrome years after getting the pandemic H1N1 vaccine. At that point, they no longer qualified.30
Worst of all, however, is the fact that it is now your responsibility to prove your injury was the “direct result of the countermeasure’s administration based on compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence beyond mere temporal association.”
In other words, you basically have to prove what the vaccine developer itself has yet to ascertain, seeing how you are part of their still-ongoing study! The CICP is also notoriously secretive about why claims are approved or rejected. As reported by the Insurance Journal, “it doesn’t release even the most basic details such as the kinds of sicknesses people claim they got from vaccines.”31
As of June 1, 2021, 1,360 Americans had sought compensation from the CICP for injuries and deaths arising from pandemic countermeasures, but only 869 were deemed eligible to file a claim.32None has been adjudicated. Professor Peter Meyers, a former director of the Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic, who has referred to the CICP as a “black hole process,”33 warns that it’s a “lousy program.” He told Life Site News:34
“It’s a secretive, opaque program whereby some unknown officials within the Department of Health and Human Services will make decisions; we don’t know how many people are adjudicating, who they are, or what the process is.”
The secrecy means there are no official statistics on the types of injuries people are filing for, or what countermeasure is said to have caused their injury. By the way, vaccines are not the only countermeasures shielded from liability. Hospital treatment errors are shielded too, and we know some hospitals routinely killed patients, whether they had confirmed COVID-19 or not, by placing them on ventilators even when they didn’t need it.35
Can You Trust These White-Collar Criminals?
As mentioned, pandemic vaccine makers are shielded from financial liability. The only way you can sue is if you can prove “willful misconduct,” such as deliberate deception, fraudulent behavior or hiding relevant information. To get around this, vaccine makers may simply not look for certain problems.
The potential for infertility is a perfect example. The spike protein is suspected of having reproductive toxicity, and Pfizer’s biodistribution data show it accumulates in women’s ovaries.36Despite that, Pfizer did not perform any reproductive toxicology tests. Since they didn’t look, they can with a straight face say they “didn’t know” the shot might cause reproductive failure. The thing is, they should have suspected it, and done the tests to make sure.
Already, we’re seeing signs of reproductive toxicity. Data suggest the miscarriage rate among women who get the COVID “vaccine” within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy is a whopping 82%. The normal rate is 10%, so this is no minor increase. Infertility will be far more difficult to ascertain, and could take decades.37
In a May 28, 2021, letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, Drs. Ira Bernstein and Sanja Jovanovic and Deann McLeod, HBSc, of Toronto, pointed this out by highlighting that preliminary safety studies published in the NEJM in April 2021 were in error by including “clinically unrecognized pregnancies” in them.38
They included adjusted graphs reflecting this, and asked the study’s authors to remove the erroneous data but, interestingly, their letter disappeared from the internet the last week of June, although it was still in Wayback archives as of June 27, 2021. Coincidentally, June 17, 2021, the NEJM republished the April study with no explanation as to why it was being republished and with no adjustments to the data.
Considering the criminal history of Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca, it’s hard to understand how millions of people trust these companies not to lie in order to make a buck. As reported by Life Site News:39
“Just three main vaccine makers, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca, have been ordered by state and federal courts to pay a combined more than $8.6 billion in fines to resolve dozens of allegations of criminal and civil misconduct.
Pfizer alone was fined $2.3 billion — the largest such settlement in history, according to the Department of Justice — for willfully defrauding and misbranding its drugs that had already been yanked from shelves for their documented dangers.
But for six whistleblowers who brought evidence forward against the company, it may have continued misbranding and selling its dangerous wares.
‘We’ve made a trade-off in America,’ said Meyers, in giving vaccine manufacturers liability protection to ensure that they will keep making vaccines that, before legal immunity, were bogged down in lawsuit litigation for side effects.
Manufacturers who make cars or ladders or other products can be sued if they are faulty. Vaccine makers have blanket liability to ensure their products are produced, government funding to produce them, ensured government orders for products, government-paid mass-marketing and mandates …
‘The tradeoff seems unfair today because the CICP program is such as flawed program,’ said Meyers, particularly when vaccine companies are raking in colossal profits (Pfizer is set to haul in $26 billion from its COVID vaccines this year and COVID vaccine manufacturing is churning out billionaires whose annual salaries are multiples of a decade of CICP payouts to dozens of people).
The CICP benefits are ‘stingy compensations,’ he added, for people who are suffering and waiting in the face of corporate greed and government opacity. Notwithstanding the drug companies’ criminal records, Meyers thinks they would be ‘crazy to risk misconduct.’ If it turned out that vaccine makers were actually hiding information on risks of COVID vaccines, he said, ‘it would be a catastrophe.'”
Are Government and Big Pharma Guilty of Willful Misconduct?
I don’t know about you, but the feeling I get when I look at the cascade of injuries and deaths occurring within days or in many cases mere hours after injection is that something is terribly amiss, and vaccine makers are sweeping it all under the rug. Isn’t that willful misconduct? Failing to perform reproductive toxicology tests after they discover that spike protein accumulates in the ovaries — isn’t that reprehensible willful misconduct?
Continuing to claim that the mRNA stays in the shoulder muscle when they have data showing it gets distributed into virtually all organs in the human body — isn’t that hiding important information? Isn’t that reprehensible willful misconduct?
I would argue that government officials are also guilty of medical maleficence. As noted by Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,40 the most current version of the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that governs these COVID shots reveals the FDA opted not to require stringent post-vaccination data collection and evaluation, even though they had the power to do so.
Again, if you don’t look for injuries, you’re unlikely to find them. If there’s no robust data collection and review process, they can say the shots are safe and shuttle them through the licensing process far more easily. The problem they’re now facing is that VAERS is getting such an overwhelming number of reports that even if they account for only 10% of actual injuries, or less, it’s absolutely unmistakable that there are serious problems.
Failing to require vaccine makers to put together a comprehensive system to capture adverse event data is a sign of incompetence at best. But that’s not all. The FDA really starts appearing deceitful when refusing to acknowledge that the VAERS reports indicate there are problems.
To call “coincidence” more than 35,000 times is simply not believable, and to dismiss the risks of permanent disability and death as being “worth it” is beyond heartless, seeing how we have safe and effective treatments and no one actually needs to gamble their health on an experimental gene therapy.
COVID Shots Are Clearly Riskier Than Advertised
As noted in a June 22, 2021, Wall Street Journal article,41 while VAERS cannot tell us whether the shots were causative in any given side effect report, when you see clusters of reports that form a trend, it’s time to investigate.
Four serious adverse effects that are currently trending are thrombocytopenia (low platelet count), noninfectious myocarditis (heart inflammation), especially in those under 30, deep-vein thrombosis and death.42
In order for such effects to be tolerable, even if rare, the vaccine (or drug) would need to be absolutely crucial for survival. Think of a highly infectious pandemic of Ebola, for example — something where death is swift and virtually assured, and treatment, once infected, is ineffective.
None of those criteria apply to COVID-19, which has a lethality rate on par with the seasonal flu for all but the elderly and those most frail. The vaccine would also need to be an actual vaccine — something that provides immunity. COVID-19 gene therapy injections don’t do that either.
Overall, it’s clear that deaths and injuries from these shots are being swept under the rug, and we cannot allow that to continue. We must keep pushing for transparency, honesty and accountability.
Remember, mark your calendar to view my groundbreaking interview with Dr. Vladimir Zelenko this Sunday, which is only three days away. We will review protocols you can use to protect you and your family or those that you love who now regret getting the COVID jab.
The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) recently posted more than 50 video presentations from the pay-for-view Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination held online October 16 to 18, 2020, and made them available to everyone for free.
The conference’s theme was “Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century” and it featured physicians, scientists and other health professionals, human rights activists, faith community leaders, constitutional and civil rights attorneys, authors and parents of vaccine injured children talking about vaccine science, policy, law and ethics and infectious diseases, including coronavirus and COVID-19 vaccines.
In December 2020, a U.K. company published false and misleading information about NVIC and its conference, which prompted NVIC to open up the whole conference for free viewing. The conference has everything you need to educate yourself and protect your personal freedoms and liberties with respect to your health.
Don’t miss out on this incredible opportunity. I was a speaker at this empowering conference and urge you to watch these video presentations before they’re censored and taken away by the technocratic elite.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
On the day of the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), President Xi Jinping, in Tiananmen square, amid all the pomp and circumstance, delivered a stark geopolitical message:
The Chinese people will never allow foreign forces to intimidate, oppress or subjugate them. Anyone who tries to do this will find themselves on a collision course with a large steel wall forged by more than 1.4 billion Chinese.
I have offered a concise version of the modern Chinese miracle – which has nothing to do with divine intervention, but “searching truth from facts” (copyright Deng Xiaoping), inspired by a solid cultural and historical tradition.
The “large steel wall” evoked by Xi now permeates a dynamic “moderately prosperous society” – a goal achieved by the CCP on the eve of the centennial. Lifting over 800 million people out of poverty is a historical first – in every aspect.
As in all things China, the past informs the future. This is all about xiaokang – which may be loosely translated as “moderately prosperous society”.
The concept first appeared no less than 2,500 years ago, in the classic Shijing (“The Book of Poetry”). The Little Helmsman Deng, with his historical eagle eye, revived it in 1979, right at the start of the “opening up” economic reforms.
Now compare the breakthrough celebrated in Tiananmen – which will be interpreted all across the Global South as evidence of the success of a Chinese model for economic development – with footage being circulated of the Taliban riding captured T-55 tanks across impoverished villages in northern Afghanistan.
History Repeating: this is something I saw with my own eyes over twenty years ago.
The Taliban now control nearly the same amount of Afghan territory they did immediately before 9/11. They control the border with Tajikistan and are closing in on the border with Uzbekistan.
Exactly twenty years ago I was deep into yet another epic journey across Karachi, Peshawar, the Pakistan tribal areas, Tajikistan and finally the Panjshir valley, where I interviewed Commander Masoud – who told me the Taliban at the time were controlling 85% of Afghanistan.
Three weeks later Masoud was assassinated by an al-Qaeda-linked commando disguised as “journalists” – two days before 9/11. The empire – at the height of the unipolar moment – went into Forever Wars on overdrive, while China – and Russia – went deep into consolidating their emergence, geopolitically and geoeconomically.
We are now living the consequences of these opposed strategies.
That strategic partnership
President Putin has just spent three hours and fifty minutes answering non pre-screened questions, live, from Russian citizens during his annual ‘Direct Line’ session. The notion that Western “leaders” of the Biden, BoJo, Merkel and Macron kind would be able to handle something even remotely similar, non-scripted, is laughable.
The key takeaway: Putin stressed US elites understand that the world is changing but still want to preserve their dominant position. He illustrated it with the recent British caper in Crimea straight out of a Monty Python fail, a “complex provocation” that was in fact Anglo-American: a NATO aircraft had previously conducted a reconnaissance flight. Putin: “It was obvious that the destroyer entered [Crimean waters] pursuing military goals.”
Earlier this week Putin and Xi held a videoconference. One of the key items was quite significant: the extension of the China-Russia Treaty of Good Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation, originally signed 20 years ago.
A key provision: “When a situation arises in which one of the contracting parties deems that…it is confronted with the threat of aggression, the contracting parties shall immediately hold contacts and consultations in order to eliminate such threats.”
This treaty is at the heart of what is now officially described – by Moscow and Beijing – as a “comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for a new era”. Such a broad definition is warranted because this is a complex multi-level partnership, not an “alliance”, designed as a counterbalance and viable alternative to hegemony and unilateralism.
A graphic example is provided by the progressive interpolation of two trade/development strategies, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU), which Putin and Xi again discussed, in connection with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which was founded only three months before 9/11.
It’s no wonder that one of the highlights in Beijing this week were trade talks between the Chinese and four Central Asia “stans” – all of them SCO members.
“Law” and “rule”
The defining multipolarity road map has been sketched in an essay by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that deserves careful examination.
Lavrov surveys the results of the recent G7, NATO and US-EU summits prior to Putin-Biden in Geneva:
These meetings were carefully prepared in a way that leaves no doubt that the West wanted to send a clear message: it stands united like never before and will do what it believes to be right in international affairs, while forcing others, primarily Russia and China, to follow its lead. The documents adopted at the Cornwall and Brussels summits cemented the rules-based world order concept as a counterweight to the universal principles of international law with the UN Charter as its primary source. In doing so, the West deliberately shies away from spelling out the rules it purports to follow, just as it refrains from explaining why they are needed.
As he dismisses how Russia and China have been labeled as “authoritarian powers” (or “illiberal”, according to the favorite New York-Paris-London mantra), Lavrov smashes Western hypocrisy:
While proclaiming the ‘right’ to interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries for the sake of promoting democracy as it understands it, the West instantly loses all interest when we raise the prospect of making international relations more democratic, including renouncing arrogant behavior and committing to abide by the universally recognized tenets of international law instead of ‘rules’.
That provides Lavrov with an opening for a linguistic analysis of “law” and “rule”:
In Russian, the words “law” and “rule” share a single root. To us, a rule that is genuine and just is inseparable from the law. This is not the case for Western languages. For instance, in English, the words “law” and “rule” do not share any resemblance. See the difference? “Rule” is not so much about the law, in the sense of generally accepted laws, as it is about the decisions taken by the one who rules or governs. It is also worth noting that “rule” shares a single root with “ruler,” with the latter’s meanings including the commonplace device for measuring and drawing straight lines. It can be inferred that through its concept of “rules” the West seeks to align everyone around its vision or apply the same yardstick to everybody, so that everyone falls into a single file.
In a nutshell: the road to multipolarity will not follow “ultimatums”. The G20, where the BRICS are represented, is a “natural platform” for “mutually accepted agreements”. Russia for its part is driving a Greater Eurasia Partnership. And a “polycentric world order” implies the necessary reform of the UN Security Council, “strengthening it with Asian, African and Latin American countries”.
Will the Unilateral Masters ply this road? Over their dead bodies: after all, Russia and China are “existential threats”. Hence our collective angst, spectators under the volcano.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The Biden administration made headlines last week as it moved to shut down the websites of 33 foreign media outlets, including ones based in Iran, Bahrain, Yemen and Palestine. Officials justified the decision by claiming the organizations were agents of “disinformation.”
The most notable of these is probably English-language Iranian state broadcaster Press TV. Visitors to PressTV.com are now met with the seal of the Department of Justice and the FBI, and a message notifying them that the domain “has been seized by the United States government.” (The site has since migrated to an Iranian-based domain, PressTV.ir.)
This is far from the first time Press TV has been targeted. Eighteen months ago, Google deleted the Iranian channel’s YouTube account; earlier this year, Facebook did the same, banning its page, which had over 4 million followers. In 2019, the US also arrested American Press TV presenter Marzieh Hashemi, holding her without charge for over a week. Hashemi, a Muslim, said her headscarf was forcibly removed, and she was offered only pork to eat.
Western outlets covering the new seizures did not frame them as an attack on the First Amendment (Washington Post, 6/23/21; CNN, 6/23/21; Fox News, 6/23/21), many preferring instead to discuss the shortcomings of the Iranian media landscape. Slate (6/24/21), for example, reminded readers that Iran “blocks foreign social media sites, censors critical foreign outlets and jails reporters.” While this may be perfectly true, Slate suggested it was possible for the Biden administration to make a “clear distinction” between when Iran does it and when the US carries out similar actions; “disinformation and election interference are serious problems,” it helpfully noted.
Nosediving press freedom
Decrying the state of press freedoms in official enemy states is a favorite pastime of corporate media (FAIR.org, 11/1/06, 5/20/19, 10/20/19). It is a point of pride in the US that freedom of speech is written into the Constitution. Increasingly, however, if we want to find direct government censorship of speech, we don’t have to travel far.
Under President Donald Trump’s leadership, freedom of the press nosedived. Reporters working for foreign outlets like RT America were forced to register as “foreign agents,” under a 1938 law passed to counter Nazi propaganda. The channel was subsequently taken off the air in Washington, DC.
Donald Trump’s claim that his anti-BDS order “targets antisemitism” was presented as fact in the New York Times headline (12/10/19); the perspective of “critics” that it was “an attack on free speech” was treated as an allegation in the subhead.
Meanwhile, critics or opponents of US foreign policy have been constantly penalized and often pulled off major social media platforms (FAIR.org, 4/16/19). The Trump administration also attempted to force the sale of Chinese-owned social media app TikTok to an American company, and to halt Huawei’s spread as 5G network provider of choice to the globe.
Internally, Trump demanded the NFL fire star quarterback Colin Kaepernick for peacefully protesting during the national anthem. He also directly interfered in the university curriculum; his Department of Education ordered the universities of Duke and North Carolina at Chapel Hill to rewrite their Middle Eastern Studies programs, as they were overly “positive” towards Islam and did not promote US national security goals.
Trump also issued an order all but outlawing the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. Since the Civil Rights era, boycotts have been understood to be protected speech under the First Amendment. Nevertheless, since 2015, 35 US states have approved laws penalizing BDS. Effectively, anyone wanting to take public money in any form must sign a pledge to never boycott the state of Israel.
Last year, journalist Abby Martin (herself a target of social media censorship) was blocked from giving a lecture at Georgia Southern University because she refused to sign those First Amendment rights away. Public school staff have been fired for the same thing.
Perhaps most worryingly, Trump’s base is on board with tearing up the First Amendment. A 2018 poll found that 43% of Republicans agreed that “the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior.”
State censorship by states
Even after Trump’s defeat, the GOP is still pushing through regulations limiting speech across America. A new Ohio law making filming police illegal is currently rapidly advancing (News 5 Cleveland, 6/24/21). Critics note that the bill would outlaw recording crimes like the murder of George Floyd.
A proposed Ohio law could outlaw videos like the one that led to Derek Chauvin’s conviction for murdering George Floyd (News 5 Cleveland, 6/24/21).
Meanwhile, laws banning the teaching of Critical Race Theory—a paradigm that examines structural racism in US institutions—have been passed or are being considered in at least 21 states (US News, 6/23/21). This has been egged on by the conservative press, who have turned the school of thought into an ideological fixation, mentioning it nearly 1,300 times in the past three and a half months (Media Matters, 6/15/21).
These bans on Critical Race Theory are mirrored by new “Don’t Say Gay” laws, which forbid the teaching of LGBT history in K-12 schools, or give parents the opportunity to pull children from classes mentioning key historical events like the Stonewall Riots. A swath of red states have either passed or are currently considering such legislation (New Republic, 6/28/21).
In another worrying move for free speech advocates, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has just signed a bill requiring both university students and their professors to register their ideological views with the state (Salon, 6/23/21), supposedly in a bid to promote “intellectual diversity” on campus. Staff fear the results will be used to purge or deny employment to those deemed insufficiently conservative.
DeSantis is also currently overseeing a huge rewrite of the state’s school curriculum, in an effort to ensure that children are definitively instructed that “communism is evil,” in his own words (WBNS, 6/22/21). Children will be provided with “first-person accounts of victims of other nations’ governing philosophies who can compare those philosophies with those of the United States.” DeSantis presents the move as providing children with facts rather than “trying to indoctrinate them with ideology.”
Long before Trump
Image below: The offices of Radio TV Serbia after being deliberately targeted by US bombers.
The attempts to muzzle the press did not start with Trump, however. President Obama oversaw a war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden, and ensured that Julian Assange has spent the best part of a decade in hiding or in prison. Assange’s most notable journalistic action was to release the Iraq War Logs and the Collateral Murder video, which showed US pilots massacring civilians—including two Reuters journalists—in cold blood.
Outright attacking media outlets is a common tactic for the US military. During the Kosovo War, the US deliberately targeted the buildings of Serbian state broadcaster RTS, killing 16 people (FAIR.org, 8/2/00). Four years later, it conducted airstrikes on the offices of Abu Dhabi TV and Al Jazeera in Baghdad at the same time as American tanks shelled the Hotel Palestine. On the incident, Reporters Without Borders, stated: “We can only conclude that the US Army deliberately and without warning targeted journalists” (FAIR.org, 4/10/03). This was far from the only military attack on Al Jazeera during the invasion. The Bush administration even had the network’s journalist Sami al-Hajj kidnapped, holding him inside the notorious Guantánamo Bay prison camp for six years without charge.
Although many still like to hold up the United States as a bastion of free speech uninhibited by government censorship, in this new era, the idea is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. While corporate media like to highlight the many press freedom shortcomings of hostile foreign nations, the censorship worries start much closer to home.
*
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 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has spent nearly US$6 billion over the past 17 years trying to improve agriculture, mainly in Africa. This is a lot of money for an underfunded sector, and, as such, carries great weight. To better understand how the Gates Foundation is shaping the global agriculture agenda, GRAIN analysed all the food and agriculture grants the foundation has made up until 2020.
Eighteen years ago, the American public and countries that belonged in the “coalition of the willing” were duped into a war with Iraq that led to a genocide. At least 600,000 Iraqis perished over the span of a decade as innocent men, women and children were burnt at the altar of the military-financial complex based on a discredited theory that Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction and was intent on unleashing them against the West.
Even the weather seemed to be obeying the script. At 9am on Thursday morning a brief thunder storm hit northern Beijing. Nothing unusual in that, it is after all the height of summer and the rainy season. But about 20 km away in central Tiananmen Square where President Xi Jinping was leading celebrations to mark the communist party’s 100th anniversary the massed ranks remained largely dry. The storm passed. Nothing, it seemed, would get in the way of the party’s party.
The legendary Chinese success story goes hand-in-hand with the evolution of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and China’s Communist Revolution that began in 1945. The foundation of the CPC on 1 July 1921 signaled the end of some 200 years of China’s oppression by foreign powers, to western invasions and exploitation, grabbing China’s territories and especially her rich natural resources – and to gain trading advantages, including from the riches of China’s resources and crafts.
As a Canadian journalist, I could be subject to a censorship bill which, if passed in Senate, means the government in Canada can effectively shadow-ban and censor my voice into oblivion, along with other dissenting voices.
Despite a lack of evidence that plastic shields would reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission and documentation that children are at a much lower risk for COVID than adults, officials recommended masks and plastic boxes to separate and socially distance children.
After only five months in office, President Joe Biden has already become notorious for his verbal gaffes and mis-spokes, so much so that an admittedly Republican-partisan physician has suggested that he be tested to determine his cognitive abilities.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) centennial takes place this week at the heart of an incandescent geopolitical equation. China, the emerging superpower, is back to the global prominence it enjoyed throughout centuries of recorded history, while the declining Hegemon is paralyzed by the “existential challenge” posed to its fleeting, unilateral dominance.
Among the millions of Canadians celebrating the 154th anniversary of the signing of the British North American Act (July 1st 1867) how many are actually aware that our Southern neighbour, the United States of America had formulated in 1924 a carefully designed plan to invade Canada and bomb Montreal, Quebec City, Halifax and Vancouver.
Comments Off on Selected Articles: “Bad for African Farmers, Bad for the Planet”: How the Gates Foundation Is Driving the Food System in the Wrong Direction
This important article by Colin Todhunter published more than five years ago (on January 21, 2016) analyses how the Gates Foundation had contributed to exacerbating social inequalities and “uprooting indigenous agriculture for the benefit of global agribusiness”.
***
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) is dangerously and unaccountably distorting the direction of international development, according to a new report by the campaign group Global Justice Now. With assets of $43.5 billion, the BMGF is the largest charitable foundation in the world. It actually distributes more aid for global health than any government. As a result, it has a major influence on issues of global health and agriculture.
‘Gated Development – Is the Gates Foundation always a force for good?’ argues that what BMGF is doing could end up exacerbating global inequality and entrenching corporate power globally. Global Justice Now’s analysis of the BMGF’s programmes shows that the foundation’s senior staff are overwhelmingly drawn from corporate America. As a result, the question is: whose interests are being promoted – those of corporate America or those of ordinary people who seek social and economic justice rather than charity?
According to the report, the foundation’s strategy is intended to deepen the role of multinational companies in global health and agriculture especially, even though these corporations are responsible for much of the poverty and injustice that already plagues the global south. The report concludes that the foundation’s programmes have a specific ideological strategy that promotes neo-liberal economic policies, corporate globalisation, the technology this brings (such as GMOs) and an outdated view of the centrality of aid in ‘helping’ the poor.
The report raises a series criticisms including:
1) The relationship between the foundation and Microsoft’s tax practices. A 2012 report from the US Senate found that Microsoft’s use of offshore subsidiaries enabled it to avoid taxes of $4.5 billion, a sum greater than the BMGF’s annual grant making ($3.6 billion in 2014).
2) The close relationship that BMGF has with many corporations whose role and policies contribute to ongoing poverty. Not only is BMGF profiting from numerous investments in a series of controversial companies which contribute to economic and social injustice, it is also actively supporting a series of those companies, including Monsanto, Dupont and Bayer through a variety of pro-corporate initiatives around the world.
3) The foundation’s promotion of industrial agriculture across Africa, pushing for the adoption of GM, patented seed systems and chemical fertilisers, all of which undermine existing sustainable, small-scale farming that is providing the vast majority of food security across the continent.
4) The foundation’s promotion of projects around the world pushing private healthcare and education. Numerous agencies have raised concerns that such projects exacerbate inequality and undermine the universal provision of such basic human necessities.
5) BMGF’s funding of a series of vaccine programmes that have reportedly lead to illnesses or even deaths with little official or media scrutiny.
Polly Jones the head of campaigns and policy at Global Justice Now says:
“The Gates Foundation has rapidly become the most influential actor in the world of global health and agricultural policies, but there’s no oversight or accountability in how that influence is managed. This concentration of power and influence is even more problematic when you consider that the philanthropic vision of the Gates Foundation seems to be largely based on the values of corporate America. The foundation is relentlessly promoting big business-based initiatives such as industrial agriculture, private health care and education. But these are all potentially exacerbating the problems of poverty and lack of access to basic resources that the foundation is supposed to be alleviating.”
The report states that that Bill Gates has regular access to world leaders and is in effect personally bankrolling hundreds of universities, international organisations, NGOs and media outlets. As the single most influential voice in international development, the foundation’s strategy is a major challenge to progressive development actors and activists around the world who want to see the influence of multinational corporations in global markets reduced or eliminated.
The foundation not only funds projects in which agricultural and pharmaceutical corporations are among the leading beneficiaries, but it often invests in the same companies as it is funding, meaning the foundation has an interest in the ongoing profitability of these corporations. According to the report, this is “a corporate merry-go-round where the BMGF consistently acts in the interests of corporations.”
Uprooting indigenous agriculture for the benefit of global agribusiness
The report notes that the BMGF’s close relationship with seed and chemical giant Monsanto is well known. It previously owned shares in the company and continues to promote several projects in which Monsanto is a beneficiary, not least the wholly inappropriate and fraudulent GMO project which promotes a technical quick-fix ahead of tackling the structural issues that create hunger, poverty and food insecurity But, as the report notes, the BMGF partners with many other multinational agribusiness corporations.
Many examples where this is the case are highlighted by the report. For instance, the foundation is working with US trader Cargill in an $8 million project to “develop the soya value chain” in southern Africa. Cargill is the biggest global player in the production of and trade in soya with heavy investments in South America where GM soya mono-crops have displaced rural populations and caused great environmental damage. According to Global Justice Now, the BMGF-funded project will likely enable Cargill to capture a hitherto untapped African soya market and eventually introduce GM soya onto the continent. The end markets for this soya are companies with relationships with the fast food outlet, KFC, whose expansion in Africa is being aided by the project.
Specific examples are given which highlight how BMGF is also supporting projects involving other chemicals and seed corporations, including DuPont Pioneer, Syngenta and Bayer.
According to the report, the BMGF is promoting a model of industrial agriculture, the increasing use of chemical fertilisers and expensive, patented seeds, the privatisation of extension services and a very large focus on genetically modified seeds. The foundation bankrolls the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) in pushing industrial agriculture.
A key area for AGRA is seed policy. The report notes that currently over 80 per cent of Africa’s seed supply comes from millions of small-scale farmers recycling and exchanging seed from year to year. But AGRA is promoting the commercial production of seed and is thus supporting the introduction of commercial seed systems, which risk enabling a few large companies to control seed research and development, production and distribution.
In order for commercial seed companies to invest in research and development, they first want to protect their ‘intellectual property’. According to the report, this requires a fundamental restructuring of seed laws to allow for certification systems that not only protect certified varieties and royalties derived from them, but which actually criminalise all non-certified seed.
The report notes that over the past two decades a long and slow process of national seed law reviews, sponsored by USAID and the G8 along with the BMGF and others, has opened the door to multinational corporations’ involvement in seed production, including the acquisition of every sizeable seed enterprise on the African continent.
At the same time, AGRA is working to promote costly inputs, notably fertiliser, despite evidence to suggest chemical fertilisers have significant health risks for farm workers, increase soil erosion and can trap small-scale farmers in unsustainable debt. The BMGF, through AGRA, is one of the world’s largest promoters of chemical fertiliser.
Some grants given by the BMGF to AGRA have been specifically intended to “help AGRA build the fertiliser supply chain” in Africa. The report describes how one of the largest of AGRA’s grants, worth $25 million, was used to help establish the African Fertiliser Agribusiness Partnership (AFAP) in 2012, whose very goal is to “at least double total fertiliser use” in Africa. The AFAP project is being pursued in partnership with the International Fertiliser Development Centre, a body which represents the fertiliser industry.
Another of AGRA’s key programmes since its inception has been support to agro-dealer networks – small, private stockists of transnational companies’ chemicals and seeds who sell these to farmers in several African countries. This is increasing the reliance of farmers on chemical inputs and marginalising sustainable agriculture alternatives, thereby undermining any notion that farmers are exercising their ‘free choice’ (as the neo-liberal evangelists are keen to tell everyone) when it comes to adopting certain agricultural practices.
The report concludes that AGRA’s agenda is the biggest direct threat to the growing movement in support of food sovereignty and agroecological farming methods in Africa. This movement opposes reliance on chemicals, expensive seeds and GM and instead promotes an approach which allows communities control over the way food is produced, traded and consumed. It is seeking to create a food system that is designed to help people and the environment rather than make profits for multinational corporations. Priority is given to promoting healthy farming and healthy food by protecting soil, water and climate, and promoting biodiversity.
Recent evidence from Greenpeace and the Oakland Institute shows that in Africa agroecological farming can increase yields significantly (often greater than industrial agriculture), and that it is more profitable for small farmers. In 2011, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food (Olivier de Schutter) called on countries to reorient their agriculture policies to promote sustainable systems – not least agroecology – that realise the right to food. Moreover, the International Assessmentof Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) was the work of over 400 scientists and took four years to complete. It was twice peer reviewed and states we must look to smallholder, traditional farming to deliver food security in third world countries through agri-ecological systems which are sustainable.
In a January 2015 piece in The Guardian, Director of Global Justice Now said that ‘development’ was once regarded as a process of breaking with colonial exploitation and transferring power over resources from the ‘first’ to the ‘third world’, involving a revolutionary struggle over the world’s resources. However, the current paradigm is based on the assumption that developing countries need to adopt neo-liberal policies and that public money in the guise of aid should facilitate this.
If this new report shows anything, it is that the notion of ‘development’ has become hijacked by rich corporations and a super-rich ‘philanthrocapitalist’ (whose own corporate practices have been questionable to say the least, as highlighted by the report). In effect, the model of ‘development’ being facilitated is married to the ideology and structurally embedded power relations of an exploitative global capitalism.
The BMGF is spearheading the ambitions of corporate America and the scramble for Africa by global agribusiness.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Eighteen years ago, the American public and countries that belonged in the “coalition of the willing” were duped into a war with Iraq that led to a genocide. At least 600,000 Iraqis perished over the span of a decade as innocent men, women and children were burnt at the altar of the military-financial complex based on a discredited theory that Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destructionand was intent on unleashing them against the West.
The crimes against humanity that were committed against a nation that never attacked us would not have been possible had it not been for the ever obsequious mainstream media. Instead of pushing back against talking points and doing independent validation of the lies they were being sold by George Tenet and his ilk, the supposed “free-press” parroted Bush and Blair administrations’ propaganda and crippled society with fears of mushroom clouds blanketing America, the UK and beyond.
The non-stop stories of chemical weapons being unleashed against the United States and the malicious alliterations of biological bombs unleashing hell from Tikrit to Topeka conditioned Americans to accept a war that was planned by Project for a New American Century four years before the Twin Towers fell. On the eve of the “Operation Iraqi Freedom”, what was in reality Operation Iraqi Liquidation, an astounding 72% of Americans supported a war against Iraq. At one point, George Bush’s approval rating was 90%, the highest approval ratings in the history of polls.
Not even ice cream and birthday cakes enjoy such astronomical popularity; which goes to show the mind-bending powers of media narratives.
While Americans and the rest of the world were being hoodwinked and gaslighted to endorse an invasion that would eventually lead to crimes against humanity in Iraq, dissenting voices were sounding the alarm and stating that Saddam no longer had WMDs. The UN weapons inspector Hans Blix headed a team that was tasked with verifying if Iraq actually possessed chemical, biological and/or nuclear armaments. In his report to the UN Security Council on February 14th, 2003—a month before the invasion of Iraq was launched—he stated, “so far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons [of mass destruction], only a small number of empty chemical munitions”.
Blix was immediately lambasted by warmongers in America, the UK and beyond and his reputation sullied because he had the decency to state the truth in the face of unyielding war propaganda. Blix was not the only one who was savaged for daring to push back against the establishment; Chris Hedges gave a speech at a college where he came out in opposition against the Iraq War. Not only did he get booed off the stage, within short order, he was drummed out of his job at the New York Times and banished to the gulag and banished from mainstream media. The Grey Lady had no need for a Pulitzer Prize winning war correspondent, they were too busy echoing Bush administration and selling the Iraq War. After all, if it bleeds, it leads—there are fortunes to be made in carnage.
I cite the criminal conducts of Bush, Blair and their enablers in the press for a reason. The same actors who once fear-mongered about WMDs in Iraq are back at it again as they emotionally manipulate us in an effort to manufacture “vaccine” consent. This time around, they are denying the existence of WMDs which are the mRNA and adenovirus biological agents they are pumping into the arms of billions of people around the world. Just like the Iraq War, people who are sounding the alarm about these experimental “vaccines” are being vilified and marginalized in order to further an insane mass-“vaccination” campaign that could lead to a global genocide that will make the mass-killings that took place in Iraq look like child’s play if what we have been warning about becomes reality.
Three days ago, after I wrote about how a group of doctors with Yetena Weg were dangerously advising people to get jabbed without giving them the full picture of the risks involved with the “vaccines”. I was promptly suspended by Twitter for making factual statements about these unsafe and ineffective boosters that were based on research. One of the founders of Yetene Weg by the name of Dr. Fitsum Tilahun took to Twitter to advocate for my silencing because I had the audacity to question his “vaccine” propaganda. That type of dangerous rhetoric was perfectly acceptable during the heyday of the TPLF junta in Ethiopia, a terrorist group he supports, but it has no place in America.
Instead of responding in kind, I asked him nine questions about the safety and efficacy of the boosters he is promoting. Dr. Tilahun promptly blocked me and went back to advising men, women and children to get injected with snake oils that are causing harm and deaths to thousands of people. This imperious disposition and cavalier disregard of concerns that people have about these “vaccines” is commonplace among doctors who are promoting them. Another group of doctors called “Evidence Base” hosted a room on Clubhouse where they said that people who question the “vaccines” are exhibiting cult-like tendencies who need an intervention.
Four years after the Iraq War was initiated, dissenters in Wall Street were warning about Credit Default Swaps and how banks were repackaging toxic mortgages. Some regulators who were not in cahoots with Wall Street were telling their higher-ups about CDS and how toxic debt could cripple the global economy. To our demise, their admonitions fell on deaf ears. In 2008, what they feared became reality as the markets imploded and wiped away the life savings of tens of millions of Americans and billions of people around the world. Demonizing dissenters is a tried and true playbook of fascists which eventually leads to blowbacks that unleash massive human suffering.
Of course, this is nothing new; Galileo and Copernicus were persecuted for going against the “settled science” that earth was the center of the universe. Every generation, people who refuse to blindly follow authority and instead question the status quo are demonized, ostracized and in some cases killed. I’m pretty sure that the first person who invented the wheel was labeled a “conspiracy theorist” because he came up with a more effective way of transporting rocks. Think of where humanity would be at this moment if it was not for dissenters who had the courage to ask “why” while everyone else was complying with “conventional wisdom”.
I write this article for all dissenters who are being berated, excommunicated by their friends and family and censored for seeking truth instead of acting like Jim Jones’s adherents. You are right to be inquisitive instead of “trusting the science”; science is not supposed to be trusted, it demands continuous inspection. We were once bashed for stating that Covid-19 was man-made, that children should not get jabbed and that the “vaccines” were far from safe. Just like Hans Blix and Chris Hedges were eventually vindicated, we too are being exonerated as more information surfaces about the origins of this the Coronavirus and as horrific news keeps dripping out about people who have been “vaccinated” dying by the droves.
There are many people who fall prey to the malicious propaganda of the establishment as they unquestioningly follow authority and repeat the malicious ad hominem that are weaponized against people who question the intentions of Big Pharma. Instead of putting the burden of proof on biotech corporations like Pfizer, that was levied one of the largest fine in human history in 2009 for medical fraud, they libel us for doubting their dubious talking points. To which I ask this one question: what if we are right? The worst that will happen if we are wrong is dealing with the status quo of a virus that has a mortality rate of 0.66%, but if we are correct in our assessments about these “vaccines”, I shudder at the thought of the implications.
I hope, for the sake of humanity, that I am eventually proven wrong about the worst-case scenario that I fear about these “vaccines”. Being proven right about the emergence of Antibody-Dependent Enhancement—a condition that wiped out the lab animals that were injected with mRNA “vaccines” in past studies—would not be vindication but a source of my greatest depression. I have family members who got jabbed; I pray for them daily and for the rest of humanity. We listened to warmongers once and that led to a genocide in Iraq, I hope for all our sakes that heeding Covid-19 fearmongers will not lead to a global holocaust.
“It’s so easy for propaganda to work, and dissent to be mocked.” ~ Harold Pinter
*
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).
Even the weather seemed to be obeying the script. At 9am on Thursday morning a brief thunder storm hit northern Beijing. Nothing unusual in that, it is after all the height of summer and the rainy season. But about 20 km away in central Tiananmen Square where President Xi Jinping was leading celebrations to mark the communist party’s 100th anniversary the massed ranks remained largely dry. The storm passed. Nothing, it seemed, would get in the way of the party’s party.
Napoleon may not have actually said it but the quote attributed to him has taken on a prophetic air. China has awakened, it has shaken the world but perhaps not in the way envisaged by the Corsican. Wherever Covid originated, the first major impact of the virus was in the Chinese city of Wuhan and since then quarantine and lockdown, either real or potential, have dominated the lives of billions.
With more than 90 million members China’s communist party is now the world’s largest and most powerful political movement, controlling a fifth of the globe’s population and the world’s second-largest economy. For the first time the world is seeing a China setting the agenda that matters to it. It claims much of the South China Sea and has expanded internationally through the Belt and Road initiative, which has built ports, power stations, train lines and other infrastructure overseas.
The ruling party was established in secrecy in 1921, in the vacuum following the collapse of the Qing dynasty in 1912. It held its first session at a girl’s school in Shanghai, on Xintiandi, in the French Concession. The concessions to foreign powers in Shanghai highlighted China’s humiliation. It quickly moved from the school to a boat on a nearby lake to escape the attention of the police.
The birthplace of Chinese communism is now deep in the heart of one of Shanghai’s brightly lit shopping and entertainment areas, selling French designer clothing and perfumes.
When the Soviet Union imploded in 1991, many pundits thought that the other great communist power would be next. Understandable, but wide of the mark. President Joe Biden, at the G7 summit on June 13, stated not only that America had profound differences with China, but also that much of the world questioned “whether or not democracies can compete’’.
Under Xi the party has yet again undergone a transformation, one of many.
As Xi was preparing to take power 10 years ago, local party bosses appeared in public more like a business group, with men and women, donning sharply cut suits, shiny shoes, crisp white shirts. Expensive brandy (always French) was consumed at almost every party banquet, regardless of how modest the occasion or the surroundings. That is no longer the case. Study sessions are again mandatory where party theory and Xi Jinping Thought are discussed. Apps monitor the reading habits of cadres. Party bosses’ business suits have been replaced by blue zip-up jackets, white open shirts, no tie.
Xi places the onus on political loyalty and discipline. He can handle a slowing, even shrinking economy. What he fears most is a champagne-swilling Charleston-swinging economy where people forget or disregard party discipline. He has also made the selection for party membership more rigorous. Applicants must now undergo an investigation (neighbors and colleagues are asked about them) and take a battery of tests and interviews, before years of waiting for full membership. Previously, formalities could be concluded in a matter of weeks.
Over the decades, the party has adapted like a chameleon. It has survived and thrived after suppression and brutal conflict, vicious purges, famine and political turmoil. Its secret? Simple; jettison ideology that was once at its core in favor of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” – today’s blending of rampant capitalism and the heavy hand of the state.Even communism hasbeen ditched in favor of a Han (the largest ethnic group not just in China but the world and they make up about 90 percent of the country’s population) nationalism.
But, and this is often overlooked, Chinese citizens feel secure. Their borders are not threatened. The streets are safe. Yes, corruption is rife, the state is intrusive, connections count, favors can be bought, courts dispense party discipline and there is huge income inequality. These problems are not unique to communism. They have plagued China for millennia. But in the sweep of Chinese history, this is the blessed generation and they know it.
But this alone will not be enough to ensure stability. The World Bank considers China an upper-middle-income country and the income required to combat poverty in this category is set at $5.50 a day. China proudly proclaims that it has abolished “absolute poverty” and it has.
But according to the World Bank, about a quarter of China’s population, by this measure, still remain in poverty.
And income inequality is widespread as Premier Li Keqiang, who was heavily criticized at the time, pointed out in May last year.
The Chinese dream much heralded in the early part of the last decade is now rarely mentioned. Social immobility and income inequality have markedly increased social friction. Economic stagnation is a real possibility. The world has seen China rise. It may not go into a sharp decline but its economic engines are stalling. Storm clouds do not always follow script.
*
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 Clifford is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Award winning journalist Julian Assange will spend his 50th birthday in a UK supermax prison for exposing the war crimes of American imperialism.
In early January of 2021 a UK judge, Vanessa Baraitser, blocked the US attempt to extradite Assange on humanitarian grounds. In her judgement she agreed with all of the American claims against Assange. She agreed the central claim that Assange was a hacker who conspired with Chelsea Manning to steal American intelligence documents.
In 2017 the US Department of Justice (DOJ) decided to apply for the extradition of Julian Assange who at that time was holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. They decided not to pursue Assange on the grounds of leaking documents to media outlets such as the New York Times and Guardian.
This is based on the deliberations of the DOJ during the Obama presidency. During the Obama presidency the Department of Justice reached the conclusion that media outlets which published documents given to them by WikiLeaks were protected under the 1stamendment. Therefore they decided not to pursue an extradition application for Assange.
William Barr, Attorney General under Trump, decided that the extradition case against Assange had to be based on other grounds. The central charge against Assange was to be the claim that he conspired with Chelsea Manning to hack US military computers to illegally obtain classified documents.
This claim that Julian Assange conspired with Manning to hack US military systems was supported by the claims made by Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson. Thordarson’s claims formed a key part of the second superseding indictment against Assange that the US Department of Justice presented last summer to Judge Baraitser.
Stundin journalists Bjartmar Oddur Þeyr Alexanderssonand Gunnar Hrafn Jónsson have written an article that deals a huge blow to the American case against the WikiLeaks publisher. They note that the second superseding indictment from the DOJ purported to:
“… show that Assange instructed Thordarson to commit computer intrusions or hacking in Iceland.
The aim of this addition to the indictment was apparently to shore up and support the conspiracy charge against Assange in relation to his interactions with Chelsea Manning. Those occurred around the same time he resided in Iceland and the authors of the indictment felt they could strengthen their case by alleging he was involved in illegal activity there as well.’’
“Nonetheless, the tactics employed by US officials appear to have been successful as can be gleaned from the ruling of Magistrate Court Judge Vanessa Baraitser on January 4th of this year. Although she ruled against extradition, she did so purely on humanitarian grounds relating to Assange’s health concerns, suicide risk and the conditions he would face in confinement in US prisons. With regards to the actual accusations made in the indictment Baraitser sided with the arguments of the American legal team, including citing the specific samples from Iceland which are now seriously called into question.’’
Thordarson, a serial criminal with convictions for child abuse and fraud, has admitted in a recent interview with Stundin that he made up the claims about Assange. Thordarson now admits that he lied about the claim that Assange instructed him to hack into the computers of Icelandic members of parliament and steal files from a bank in that country.
Thordarson who stole over $50,000 from WikiLeaks while working as a volunteer, spent several hours with the journalists from Stundin where he admitted to numerous crimes. Thordarson tells the story of how the FBI offered him an immunity deal in May 2019 in return for his testimony against Assange.
“The deal, seen in writing by Stundin, also guarantees that the Do J would not share any such information to other prosecutorial or law enforcement agencies. That would include Icelandic ones, meaning that the Americans will not share information on crimes he might have committed threatening Icelandic security interests – and the Americans apparently had plenty of those but had over the years failed to share them with their Icelandic counterparts.’’
These journalists from Stundin have revealed how Thordarson has continued committing financial crimes of fraud during the period of his work with the DOJ. Icelandic authorities seem oblivious to his criminal activity. It would appear that this key witness against Julian Assange was emboldened by his immunity deal. Alexandersson and Jónsson note:
“It is as if the offer of immunity, later secured and sealed in a meeting in DC, had encouraged Thordarson to take bolder steps in crime. He started to fleece individuals and companies on a grander scale than ever; usually by either acquiring or forming legal entities he then used to borrow merchandise, rent luxury cars, even order large quantities of goods from wholesalers without any intention to pay for these goods and services.’’
So there you have it. A key witness for the US case against Julian Assange has admitted that his testimony against the WikiLeaks editor was a pack of lies. It would appear that Thordarson was incentivised to lie by the promise of immunity from his many crimes.
The US case against Julian Assange has been dealt a huge blow by this revelation. However, it remains to be seen if the High Court in London will take this into consideration when it finally hears the US appeal against the decision not to extradite Assange.
All people of good conscience should step up their efforts in support of a journalist imprisoned for exposing American war crimes.
*
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).
As a Canadian journalist, I could be subject to a censorship bill which, if passed in Senate, means the government in Canada can effectively shadow-ban and censor my voice into oblivion, along with other dissenting voices.
After seeing his tweet on the issue of Bill C-10, recently passed in the House of Commons, I spoke with Canadian journalist Dan Dicks about this. He explained that the bill is being presented as being about Canada bringing Big Tech companies under the regulation of the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission), to have them display more Canadian content.
“But what people are missing,” he cautioned, “is that there were clauses put into this bill, protections for certain publishers and content creators that would protect people like myself and yourself.”
Those clauses, he said, were recently removed from the bill, leading many content-creating Canadians aware of the bill to worry they will be treated the same as a broadcaster or a programmer, subject to the regulations of the CRTC.
The bottom line is that, beyond the mumbo jumbo of the government, this is the latest attack on freedom of expression, and on dissent.
“It really appears that it’s a backdoor to be able to control the free flow of information online, and to begin to silence voices that go against the status quo,” Dicks said, warning that fines for violators could follow.
“It’s not looking good for individual content creators. Anybody who has any kind of a voice or a significant audience, where they have the ability to affect the minds of the masses, to reach millions of people, they are going to be the ones who are on the chopping block moving forward.”
Names like James Corbett come to mind. Although based in Japan, as a Canadian he would be subject to the bill. And with his very harsh criticisms of many issues pertaining to the Canadian government, he is a thorn they would surely be happy to remove under the pretext of this bill.
Or Dicks, who likewise creates videos often critiquing Canadian government actions.
An article on the Law & Liberty website, which describes itself as focussing on “the classical liberal tradition of law and how it shapes a society of free and responsible persons,” notes the bill enables “ample discretion to filter out content made by Canadians that doesn’t carry a desirable ideological posture and [to] prioritize content that does.”
The article emphasizes that the bill violates Canadians’ right to free expression, as well as “the right to express oneself through artistic and political creations, and the right to not be unfairly suppressed by a nebulous government algorithm.”
It noted that Canadians with large followings, like Jordan Peterson, Gad Saad and Steven Crowder, “each enjoy audiences which far exceed any cable television program.”
As with my examples above, these prominent Canadian voices likewise risk shadow-banning under this bill.
But, worse, there is another bill, C-36, that also portends heavy censorship: the “Reducing Online Harms” bill. This one not only involves censorship, but hefty fines and house arrests for violators
The same Law & Liberty article notes, “Canada is also expected to follow the template of Germany’s NetzDG law, which mandates that platforms take down posts that are determined to constitute hate speech—which requires no actual demonstrated discrimination or potential harm, and is thus mostly subjective—within 24 hours or to face hefty fines. This obviously will incentivize platforms to remove content liberally and avoid paying up.”
The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), rightly, contests this bill, noting, “the proposed definition of hate speech as speech that is ‘likely’ to foment detestation or vilification is vague and subjective.”
Maxime Bernier, leader of the People’s Party of Canada, is likewise extremely critical of the bills.
Trudeau has made every issue about race, gender and religion since his election.
Now he wants to criminalize everyone who disagrees with his tribalist vision.
The CCF points out the potential complete loss of Canadians’ fundamental rights with these bills.
It should be common sense that these bills are extremely dangerous to Canadians, however cloaked in talk of levelling playing fields and of combating hate speech they may be.
*
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.
Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist and activist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine (where she lived for nearly four years). Follow her on Twitter @EvaKBartlett
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has spent nearly US$6 billion over the past 17 years trying to improve agriculture, mainly in Africa. This is a lot of money for an underfunded sector, and, as such, carries great weight. To better understand how the Gates Foundation is shaping the global agriculture agenda, GRAIN analysed all the food and agriculture grants the foundation has made up until 2020.
We found that, while the Foundation’s grants focus on African farmers, the vast majority of its funding goes to groups in North America and Europe. The grants are also heavily skewed to technologies developed by research centres and corporations in the North for poor farmers in the South, completely ignoring the knowledge, technologies and biodiversity that these farmers already possess.
Also, despite the Foundation’s focus on techno-fixes, much of its grants are given to groups that lobby on behalf of industrial farming and undermine alternatives. This is bad for African farmers and bad for the planet. It is time to pull the plug on the Gates’ outsized influence over global agriculture.
In 2014 GRAIN published a detailed breakdown of the grants made by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to promote agricultural development in Africa and other parts of the world.1 Our main conclusion then was that the vast majority of those grants were channelled to groups in the US and Europe, not Africa nor other parts of the global South. The funding overwhelmingly went to research institutes rather than farmers. They were also mainly directed at shaping policies to support industrial farming, not smallholders.
Much has happened since then. For starters, Bill and Melinda Gates announced their divorce in May this year, leaving the future of the Foundation and its grant-making in doubt. The news came as Bill Gates himself came under fire for supporting Big Pharma’s patent monopoly on COVID-19 vaccines, for effectively preventing people’s access across much of the world, and for how he treats – or mistreats – women.2 The Foundation’s agenda with agriculture has also been coming under increased scrutiny. A 2020 report from Tufts University concluded that its work in Africa completely failed to meet the objectives that it had set itself.3 The African Centre for Biodiversity published a string of reports denouncing the Gates Foundation for pushing GMOs and other harmful technologies onto Africa.4 Amongst all this, the US Right to Know collective started a “Bill Gates Food Tracker” to monitor the multiple initiatives that Gates is involved in to reshape the global food system.5
GRAIN wondered whether the Gates Foundation had been receptive to the criticism of its food and agriculture funding. So we set out to update our 2014 report, downloaded the Foundation’s publicly available grant records and created a database of all of the Foundation’s grants in the area of food and agriculture from 2003 to 2020 – almost two decades worth of grant-making.6
The results are sobering. From 2003 to 2020 the Foundation dished out a total of 1130 grants for food and agriculture, worth nearly $US6 billion of which almost US$5 billion is supposed to service Africa.
There was no shift to try and reach groups in Africa directly, no refocusing away from the narrow technological approach, and no moves to embrace a more holistic and inclusive policy agenda. Of course, the Gates Foundation is about much more than just making grants.
The Foundation’s Trust Fund, which manages the Foundation’s endowment, has big investments in food and agribusiness companies, buys up farmland, and has equity investments in many financial companies around the world.7 These, and other activities of Gates in the area of food and agriculture, are illustrated in the infographic that accompanies this report.8
The Gates Foundation fights hunger in the South by giving money to the North
Graph 1 and Table 1 provide an overall picture of GRAIN’s research results. Almost half of the Foundation’s grants for agriculture went to four big groupings: the global agriculture research network of the Consortium Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA – set up in 2006 by the Gates Foundation itself together with the Rockefeller Foundation), the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF – another technology centre pushing Green Revolution technology and GMOs into Africa) and a number of international organisations (World Bank, UN agencies, etc.). The other half ended up with hundreds of research, development and policy organisations across the world. The Gates Foundation claims that 80% of their grants are meant to serve African farmers. But of the funding to these hundreds of organisations a staggering 82% was channelled to groups based in North America and Europe while less than 10% went to Africa-based groups.
The breakdown of the NGOs that the Gates Foundation funds is even worse. Almost 90% of this funding goes to groups in North American and Europe whilst just 5% is directly channelled to African NGOs. The Gates Foundation seems to have very little trust in African organisations serving African farmers. Not that we would want the Gates Foundation to just send more of its grants directly to Africa if it comes with the same corporate industrial farming agenda. But it illustrates the point of where the priorities of the Foundation lie.
For contrast, Oxfam spends over half of all its funding directly in Africa, and over a third in Asia and Latin America, a lot of it through local NGOs in these regions.9
The Gates Foundation gives to scientists, not farmers
As can be seen in Graph 2, the single biggest recipient of grants from the Gates Foundation is the CGIAR- a consortium of 15 international research centres launched in the 1960s and 70s to promote the Green Revolution with new seeds, fertilisers and chemical inputs. The Gates Foundation has given CGIAR centres US$1.4 billion since 2003. Another priority for the Gates Foundation in its funding is to support research at universities and national research centres. Again, the vast majority of the Gates’ grants go to universities and research centres in North America and Europe. Together, all this research gets almost half (47%) of the Gates Foundation’s funding.
The Gates Foundation’s support for Green Revolution-style research extends beyond the scientists. One of the most significant recipients of Gates Foundation funding is a high-profile advocacy organisation called the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). The Gates and Rockefeller Foundations launched AGRA in 2006 as a “farmer-centered” and “African-led” institution. The reality is anything but. AGRA implements a top-down Green Revolution agenda with the main focus being to get new seeds and chemicals developed by Gates funded research centres and corporations into the hands of African farmers. AGRA establishes, funds, coordinates and promotes networks of pesticide and seed companies and public agencies to sell and supply agriculture inputs to farmers across Africa. It also actively lobbies African governments to implement policies that favour seed and pesticide companies, such as patents on seeds or regulations that allow for GMOs.
The Gates Foundation has given AGRA a whopping US$638 million since 2006, covering almost two thirds of its overall budget. But AGRA’s results are underwhelming to say the least. In the countries where AGRA is active, yields of staple crops increased only 18% over the past 12 years- far short of AGRA’s goal of doubling yields. Meanwhile, undernourishment (as measured by the FAO) increased by 30% in those countries.10
Instead of acknowledging that their data shows a complete failure to achieve their objectives and changing their approach accordingly, Bill and Melinda are doubling down. In early 2020 they launched their own new research institute called “Gates Ag One”. This enterprise claims to speed up the development of new seeds and chemicals and get them to farmers in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia more quickly.11 Where will the institute be based? Not in Ethiopia or Sri Lanka but in St. Louis, USA, home of Monsanto and other GMO and pesticide giants.
The Gates Foundation buys political influence
In many subtle and not so subtle ways the Gates Foundation grants are used to push policy makers to implement its top-down industrial farming agenda.
Gates at the 2006 World Economic Forum advising policy makers. Photo: World Economic Forum; Peter Klaunzer- Flickr
One recent example is the 2021 “High-Level Dialogue on Feeding Africa” that was held on 29-30 April this year.12 This forum, funded by the Gates Foundation, and organised by a number of Gates Foundation grantees such as the African Development Bank, CGIAR and AGRA, was meant to launch a policy and funding agenda to further push the Green Revolution into Africa. The event attracted no less than 18 African heads of state and several other high-profile personalities. But, most remarkable of all, is that of all the international organisations with activities in Africa on the long speakers list of the dialogue, virtually all are Gates grantees. The forum concluded with a commitment to double agricultural productivity, something AGRA and the Gates Foundation have been promising and failing to deliver for the last decade and a half.
Of course, AGRA itself is also actively pushing the African policy agenda. AGRA is among the key conveners of the annual Africa Green Revolution Forum (AGRF) which calls itself the world’s premier forum for African agriculture and has been convening annual meetings for the past decade. Partners include some of the main global agrochemical corporations, such as Bayer, Corteva and Yara, and of course the Gates Foundation itself. Unsurprisingly, its agenda is clearly oriented to push government policies towards more chemical inputs, fertilisers and hybrid seeds. On its website, AGRF has a special section it calls the Agribusiness deal room, which “has directly facilitated over 400 companies with targeted investor matchmaking and hosted more than 800 companies to explore networking opportunities”.13 This is clearly market matchmaking serving corporate interests, not farmers.
While most of the Gates grants are aimed at pushing technological solutions, many are also oriented towards policy change. A total of 45 grants address policy or policy makers. For example, Iowa State University got a grant to support implementation of policy changes aimed at increasing the supply of new seeds to farmers in Africa. The World Economic Forum received a grant to support a “policy platform for ag innovation and value chain development”, whilst the African Centre for Economic Transformation got a grant to promote agricultural transformation in Africa aimed at policy reforms. In addition, the Foundation is actively involved in bankrolling the “Enabling the Business of Agriculture” project, implemented by the World Bank, amongst many other initiatives.14
Gates’ enthusiasm for GMOs is made clear through its grant database. Michigan State University received US$13 million to create a centre in Africa that provides training for African policy makers on how to use and promote biotechnology. The African Seed Trade Association got a grant to increase farmers’ awareness “of the benefits of replacing their older varieties of crops with newer seed”. AATF got US$32 million to increase awareness on the benefits of agricultural biotechnology and another US$27 million to fund the approval and commercialization GMO maize in at least four African countries. So the Gates Foundation is not only funding public acceptance of GMOs, it is also directly funding the approval and commercialisation of GMOs in Africa.
Gates grantees are clearly carrying the Gates agenda and influencing global agricultural policy. In just over a decade, the Gates brainchild in Africa, AGRA, has managed to manoeuvre itself from nowhere right into the centre of agricultural policy discussions across the continent. Similarly, while resistance to GMOs in Africa remains high, the AATF is managing to get legislation adopted to accept GMOs, as seen most recently in Ghana. It’s just as important to look at who the Gates Foundation is supporting as who they are not supporting; African farmers. The Foundation provides zero funding to support farmer seed systems, which supply 80 to 90% of all the seeds used in Africa. Instead, it provides a lot of funds to initiatives that destroy them. Furthermore, the Gates Foundation props up biofortification as a solution to malnutrition, taking funds and attention away from much more practical and culturally appropriate efforts to improve nutrition by enhancing on-farm biodiversity and people’s access to it.15 Over the last decade or so, the Gates Foundation has given US$73 million to biofortification initiatives that essentially seek to artificially pack nutrients into single crop commodities.
Then, of course, there is Bill Gates himself. Sitting down with heads of state, policy makers and business leaders, Gates tries to convince them that his view of the world is the one to go after. The world has gotten used to pictures of him shaking hands or sitting shoulder to shoulder with the leaders of the world. Indeed, many of those leaders seem very eager to be in these pictures and heed his advice. The most recent display of this was at Joe Biden’s virtual “Leaders Summit on Climate” where Gates shared his vision on how to fight the climate crisis.16 His recipe to tackle the climate crisis is very similar and equally dangerous to how he wants to feed the world: develop new technologies, trust the market, and put in place policies so that corporations can make it all happen faster.17
Gates clearly isn’t listening to or learning from the people on the ground. So why should anyone listen to him? Rather than being listened to, Gates and his top down corporate technology agenda must be resisted and stopped in its tracks.
*
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 GRAIN, “How does the Gates Foundation spend its money to feed the world?”, Nov 2014. https://grain.org/e/5064
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The legendary Chinese success story goes hand-in-hand with the evolution of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and China’s Communist Revolution that began in 1945. The foundation of the CPC on 1 July 1921 signaled the end of some 200 years of China’s oppression by foreign powers, to western invasions and exploitation, grabbing China’s territories and especially her rich natural resources – and to gain trading advantages, including from the riches of China’s resources and crafts.
Background and History
About two centuries ago, foreign interferences were dominated by illegal Opium Trade that eventually culminated in two Opium Wars. In the 18th and 19th centuries Western countries, mostly Great Britain, exported opium grown in India to China. In turn, the Brits used the profits from opium sales largely to buy Chinese luxury goods, like porcelain, silk, and tea. These goods were in high demand in the west.
Much of this opium export was illegitimate and created widespread addiction throughout China, causing serious social and economic calamities. The wars were triggered by China’s attempting to suppress the trade, that grew tremendously from about 1820 onwards. In early 1839 the Chinese government confiscated and destroyed more than 20,000 chests of opium (chest = about 63.5 kg) — some 1,400 tons of the drug—that were warehoused at Canton (Guangzhou), Guangdong Province by British merchants. By 1838 imports had grown to some 40,000 chests annually.
In July 1839, British sailors killed a Chinese villager. The British government refused to turn the accused over to be judged in Chinese courts. The Brits did not wish its subjects to be tried in the Chinese legal system, and refused to turn the accused men over to the Chinese courts.
The East India Company iron steam ship Nemesis, commanded by Lieutenant W. H. Hall, with boats from the Sulphur, Calliope, Larne and Starling, destroying the Chinese war junks in Anson’s Bay, on 7 January 1841. (Public Domain)
This conflict prompted the first Opium War (1839 – 1842), fought between the UK and the Qing dynasty (1644 to 1912), with the British objective to legalize the opium trade. This did not happen, which led to the Second Opium war (1856 – 1860), also called the Anglo-French war. But China did not win the wars and the nefarious addiction-causing trade continued for several more decades.
China’s British forced war-concession to the winner, was to hand over the island of Hong Kong to British administration. In addition, China had to legalize the opium trade and concede a number of trading ports to the Brits, as well as opening travel for foreigners into China and granting residencies for Wester envoys to China. And an important concession for a predominantly Buddhist country was that China had to grant freedom of movement to Christian missionaries throughout China.
The wars and the resulting multiple concession of China, prompted an era of unequal treaties between China and foreign imperialist powers, aka, the UK, France, Germany, the United States, Russia and Japan. China was forced to concede many of her territorial and sovereignty rights. These encroachments on Chinese sovereignty weakened and eventually brought down the Qing dynasty, leading to a revolution on October 10, 1911, bringing the Kuomintang (KMT) to power. They are also referred to as the Chinese National Party and founded the Republic of China on 1 January 1912.
The founder of the KMT and initial ruler of China after the 1911 revolution, Sun Yat-sen attempted to modernize China along western lines and values – which was not accepted by the Chinese people. The next couple of decades of KMT rule were rather chaotic times, during which Sun Yat-sen was unable to control China which fractured into many regions controlled by warlords. To strengthen its position and to gain back control of the country, the KMT was seeking alliance with the new fledgling Communist Party, forging the first United Front, but was still unable to control all of China. After Sun Yat-sen died in 1925, Chiang Kai-shek (1887–1975) took over and became the KMT strong man.
*
The creation of the Communist Party of China on 1 July 1921, was deeply marked by the preceding history. One of the CPC’s key objective was that China would never again be dominated by wester colonial powers. The CPC became a force to be reckoned with, as it grew stronger by increased solidarity forged throughout communities and regions of China which all pursued the same goal – independence from foreign colonization and exploitation and the creation of a sovereign communist China, with a sovereign socialist economy.
Site of the first CCP Congress, in the former Shanghai French Concession (CC BY-SA 3.0)
With the support of the west, notably the UK and the United States, the KMT-led government of the Republic of China (ROC) entered in 1927 into a civil war with the forces of the CPC. The war was intermittent, but basically played out in two major phases, until 1949. The first phase can be described as a war of attrition. It lasted until 1937, when due to the Japanese invasion of China, KMT-CPC hostilities were put on hold. Instead, a KMT-CPC alliance fought and defeated the Japanese. This was also called the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression(1937–1945).
The KMT – CPC civil war resumed with the victory over the Japanese forces, and entered its second, but most violent and decisive final phase from 1945 to 1949. This phase is also called the beginning of the Chinese Communist Revolution, during which the CPC gained the upper hand and finally defeated the Kuomintang on the Chinese mainland.
The leader of KMT (1928 – 1975), Chiang Kai-shek, fled the mainland and established himself and the KMT in what was originally called by her Portuguese discoverers in 1542, Ilha Formosa (“beautiful island”), located north of the Philippines and the South China Sea, some 180 km off the Southeastern coast of China.
In 1895 Formosa became “Taiwan” meaning “foreigners” referring to the early Chinese settlers on the island. Today Taiwan is again integral part of China, since the Treaty of San Francisco (WWII Allied Forces Peace Agreement with Japan, signed on 8 September 1951), when Japan ceased its occupation of Taiwan, returning the island back to China.
Though an integral part of China, Taiwan is still occupied by the KMT Regime, calling it the Republic of China or ROC, the name taken over from KMT’s reign over mainland China until their defeat by the CPC in 1949, which also marked the beginning of the new communist People’s Republic of China (PRC).
This internationally illegal control of Taiwan by the KMT has been going on since 1949, but especially for the last 50 years, when on 25 October 1971, the United Nations General Assembly recognized the PRC, led by the CPC, as “the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations” and removed the representatives of the Chiang Kai-shek ROC regime of Taiwan from the United Nations. Nevertheless, today still 15 nations, including the Vatican, of the 193 UN member nations recognize Taiwan as the official China. Many of them would like to switch to the officially recognized CPC-led mainland China, but are coerced, predominantly by the US and the UK, not to do so.
Over the past several decades, the United States, the UK and other western allies have continually sought to destabilize China by interfering in Taiwan, meaning in China’s internal affairs. The latest such events include the US weapons sale for US$ 5 billion to Taiwan in December 2020, and earlier this year, the U.S. Ambassador to the Pacific Island of Palau (Palau being one of the states recognizing Taiwan), became the first US envoy to travel to Taiwan in an official capacity, since Washington cut formal ties with Taipei in favor of Beijing in 1979.
In addition, the US is promoting closer relations with Taiwan through the so-called Taipei Act, signed in April 2020, calling for strengthening trade relations and diplomatic ties between the US and Taiwan to bring Taiwan closer into “international space”, meaning politically distancing the island territory from the mainland.
This and other interferences of the US in China’s internal affairs, are attempts at disrupting peaceful co-existence with China. They include the US-provoked trade war with Beijing, during the last almost 4 years; the stationing of about 60% of the American Navy in the South China Sea; the Washington orchestrated interference in Honk Kong, seeking independence from Beijing; and wildly falsified accusation of Human Rights abuses of the Uyghurs in the officially known as the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, in Northwestern China; as well as similar claims in Tibet.
Thanks to the steadfast leadership of President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China and of the Communist Party of China, these interferences are being dealt with carefully by Beijing, always trying to find diplomatic and non-belligerent solutions.
China is a master in following the paths of non-aggression, while constantly creating and moving peacefully forward – always with the goal of achieving a multipolar world, where people of different nations, regions, races, roots, cultures and believes can prosper peacefully together.
*
Present – and Vision for the Future
Since the foundation of the Communist Party on 1 July 1921, China strove for total independence, and never surrendered to foreign invasions or attempts to influence China’s internal, as well as foreign relations policies. What the CPC has attained over the past 100 years is truly remarkable. It comprises not only maintaining internal solidarity, but also and foremost, people’s trust in the government, moving peacefully forward, becoming food, health and education-wise autonomous and self-sufficient and, not least, lifting 800 million people out of poverty. No other nation in the world has achieved such extraordinary objectives for their people’s well-being.
The CPC has today 91 million members. It is by far the largest single party in the world. In addition, thanks to her leadership, starting with Mao Tse Tung in 1949 and today by President Xi Jinping, China, with a population of 1.4 billion people, has become the second largest economy in the world in absolute terms, and since 2017 already the largest, assessed by the only real measure – the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). This is an indicator of how much people can buy for their money. Within a few years, China is expected to surpass the currently largest economy, the United States, also in absolute terms.
A political slogan on the wall in Longhua District, it reads: “Holding high the great banner of socialism with Chinese characteristics for the Xi Jinping Era. We should fully implement the of spirit of the 19th CPC National Congress.” (CC0)
This is, of course, representing a threat for the country that has declared itself as THE Empire of the world, controlling all vital essentials, like energy, food supply and the international monetary system – though faltering, but still dominated by the US-dollar. The self-styled empire is already crumbling. And Washington knows it. Its strongest asset, the US-dollar, is gradually being dismantled. The US-currency has been widely used throughout the world, almost exclusively, to buy vital goods and services, like energy, food and communication services, as well as for other international trade, but it is losing its weight in the international arena.
The reasons for this are both political and economic. On the economic front, the US have created by their 1913 Federal Reserve Act, a fiat currency without any backing, a currency of which the flow and money mass can be expanded at will. This allowed and still allows Washington to “print” money as per necessities, i.e. to finance extensive wars and conflicts around the globe and to accumulate debts that the US Treasury and Federal Reserve (the totally privately owned US Central Bank), will never be able to pay back.
The US-dollar has absolutely no backing whatsoever. When Washington abandoned in 1971 their self-designed so-called gold-standard (Bretton Woods Conference, 1944), the US-dollar became de facto the “new gold standard”, since the gold standard was based on the value of the US-dollar (US$35 / troy ounce, about 31 grams), instead of on a basket of currencies. Since everybody needed US dollars for their reserves, this gave the US Treasury free range to increase its money supply almost infinitely.
When the US, also at the beginning of the 1970s, negotiated with Saudi Arabia, head of OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries), that all hydrocarbons, petrol gas and coal, should be traded in US-dollars, it gave the US another dollar boost – printing freely dollars in abundance, because the entire world needed US-dollars to buy hydrocarbon energy. Even today about 84% of all energy consumed worldwide consists of hydrocarbons (2019 Forbes).
As a counter-measure, the US promised the House of Saud to always protect Saudi Arabia, and proceeded almost immediately building numerous military bases in Saudi Arabia, from which they are now waging different wars in the Middle East.
Due to this phenomenon of freely generating new US-dollars, creating new debt, the US is by far the most indebted country in the world, with currently US$ 49.8 trillion debt, compared with a 2020 GDP of about US$ 21 trillion (Debt – GDP ratio 2.3 = 237% debt over GDP).
There is another important component of US debt, called by the General Accounting Office (GAO), “Unfunded Liabilities”, US$ 213 trillion (all figures 16 April 2021: US Debt Clock). These exceptionally high ratios have undoubtedly also to do with incurred covid-debt.
Unfunded liabilities are debt obligations that do not have sufficient funds or assets set aside to pay them. These liabilities generally refer to the U.S. government’s debt-service (unpaid interest on debt), or pension plans and their impact on savings and investment securities, as well as health-insurance and social support coverage for soldiers returning from wars.
These astronomical debt figures and an unbacked fiat currency are even further reducing worldwide confidence in the US-dollar. It is clear, the US debt will never be paid-off. The Federal Reserve Chair, Allan Greenspan (1987 – 2006), once answered to a journalist’s question, when will the US pay back her debt: Never. We just print new money. So, spoken, so it was and so it is.
*
Today and for the last about 10 years the US-dollar has no longer a hydrocarbon trade monopoly, nor are other international contracts primarily established in US-dollars as used to be the case a couple of decades ago. China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela and others have stopped using the US-dollar and are trading in local currencies and increasingly in Chinese yuan.
Why? – Countries’ treasurers around the world started realizing that the dollar is a highly volatile fiat currency, based on nothing, as shown by the above figures. Equally important for the loss of trust in the US-currency is that dollar-denominated international assets and the US banking system are frequently used by Washington to impose draconian, illegal economic sanction on countries that do not follow Washington’s dictate, including blocking countries’ foreign placed reserve assets. These economic and political realities are signaling the end of the US-dollar hegemony.
The trend of diminishing trust in the US-dollar may increase when China rolls out her digital Renminbi (RMB = people’s money) or international Yuan (the terms RMB and Yuan are used interchangeably) which may be used for international trade without touching the international US-dominated SWIFT transfer and US banking system. The Chinese currency being backed by a strong and solid Chinese economy, confidence in the Chinese currency is growing rapidly. Already today, the Chinese currency’s use as an international reserve asset is increasing quickly.
While the US Federal Reserve (FED) is also contemplating a new digital currency, it is not clear to what extent it can be detached from the current dollar and its debt burden. In any case, with US international trade waning, and Chinese trade rapidly increasing, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for a declining empire to catch up with China.
For example, in the first quarter of 2021, Chinas foreign trade (exports and imports) soared by 29.2%, with Exports jumping 38.7% from the year before, while imports climbed 19.3 percent in yuan terms, according to the General Administration of Customs (GAC).
If anything, these developments – plus the fact that China has been highly successful in overcoming the covid-crisis – within less than 6 months – and putting her industrial apparatus back on line, are testimony for a solid CPC leadership, a sound Chinese economy and fiscal policy. China is the world’s only major economy reporting economic growth in 2020, amounting to 2.3% according to the Wall Street Journal. It is what China calls “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” – a feature demonstrating a spirit of constant creation and evolution of the CPC.
These facts will further enhance international trust in the Chinese economy, as well as in the Chinese way of seeking a more equal, more egalitarian and more just multipolar world, where nations may keep their national sovereignty over their internal and external political inclinations, their culture, national resources, monetary policies and foreign relations – and live peacefully together.
*
CPC and the Chinese Vision
The New Silk Road, or Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), is President Xi Jinping’s brilliant brainchild. It’s based on the same ancient principles as was the original Silk Road, adjusted to the 21st Century, building bridges between peoples, exchanging goods and services, research, education, knowledge, cultural wisdom, peacefully, harmoniously and ‘win-win’ style. On 7 September 2013, President Xi presented BRI at Kazakhstan’s Nazarbayev University. He spoke about “People-to-People Friendship and Creating a better Future”. He referred to the Ancient Silk Road of more than 2,100 years ago, that flourished during China’s Western Han Dynasty (206 BC to 24 AD).
Referring to this epoch of more than two millenniums back, President Xi pointed to the history of exchanges under the Ancient Silk Road, saying, “they had proven that countries with differences in race, belief and cultural background can absolutely share peace and development as long as they persist in unity and mutual trust, equality and mutual benefit, mutual tolerance and learning from each other, as well as cooperation and win-win outcomes.”
President Xi’s vision may be shaping the world of the 21st Century. The Belt and Road Initiative is designed and modeled loosely according to the Ancient Silk Road. President Xi launched this ground-breaking project soon after assuming the Presidency in 2013. The endeavor’s idea is to connect the world with transport routes, infrastructure, industrial joint ventures, teaching and research institutions, cultural exchange and much more. Since 2017, enshrined in China’s Constitution, BRI has become the flagship for China’s foreign policy.
BRI is literally building bridges and connecting people of different continents and nations. The purpose of the New Silk Road is “to construct a unified large market and make full use of both international and domestic markets, through cultural exchange and integration, to enhance mutual understanding and trust of member nations, ending up in an innovative pattern with capital inflows, talent pool, and technology database”.
BRI is a global development strategy adopted by the Chinese Government. Already today BRI has investments involving more than 150 countries and international organizations – and growing – in Asia, Africa, Europe, the Middle East and the Americas. Since the onset of BRI in 2013, BRI investments have exceeded US$ 5 trillion equivalent.
BRI is a long-term multi-trillion investment scheme for transport routes on land and sea, as well as construction of industrial and energy infrastructure and energy exploration – as well as trade among connected countries. Unlike WTO (World Trade Organization), BRI is encouraging nations to benefit from their comparative advantages, creating win-win situations. In essence, BRI is to develop mutual understanding and trust among member nations, allowing for free capital flows, a pool of experts and access to a BRI-based technology data base.
At present, BRI’s closing date is foreseen for 2049 which coincides with the People’s Republic of China’s 100th Anniversary. The size and likely success of the program indicates, however, already today that it will most probably be extended way beyond that date. It is worth noting, though, that only in 2019, six years after its inception, BRI has become a news item in the West. Remarkably, for six years, the west was in denial of BRI, in the hope it may go away. But away it didn’t go. To the contrary, many European Union members have already subscribed to BRI, including Greece, Italy, France, Portugal – and more will follow, as the temptation to participate in this projected socioeconomic boom is overwhelming.
The BRI, also called Belt and Road, or One Belt One Road, is not the only initiative that will enhance China’s economy and standing in the world.
After decades of western aggressions, denigrations and belligerence towards China, in a precautionary detachment from western dependence, China is focusing trade development and cooperation on her ASEAN partners. In November 2020, after 8 years of negotiations, China signed a free trade agreement with the ten ASEAN nations, plus Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, altogether 15 countries, including China.
The so-called Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, or RCEP, covers some 2.2 billion people, commanding some 30% of the world’s GDP. This is a never before reached agreement in size, value and tenor.
The RCEP’s trade deals will be carried out in local currencies and in yuan – no US dollars. The RCEP is, therefore, also an instrument for dedollarizing, primarily in the Asia-Pacific Region, and gradually moving across the globe. Moving away from the dollar-based economies may be an effective way to stem against the western “sanctions culture”. China is soon rolling-out her new digital Renminbi (RMB) or yuan, internationally, as legal tender for inter-country payments and transfers. The digital RMB is primed to become also an international reserve currency, thereby further reducing demand for the US-dollar.
Orientation towards China’s internal economic development – so-called horizontal instead of vertical growth – is a strategy to develop local Chinese internal production and infrastructure to build up and enhance Chinese internal capacities and markets and bringing about wellbeing and a better equilibrium between China’s vast hinterland and China’s prosperous eastern coastal areas.
The future belongs to China
After two thousand years of western “white supremacy”, relentless exploitation, colonization, discrimination and outright enslavement of other colored people, other cultures, throughout the world, the time has come to turn the wheel – and to veer the future of mankind into a more peaceful, more just and more egalitarian world.
During the next hundred years and under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party – China will guide the East into the era of the Rising Sun – prosperity and good health for all.
This new epoch will strive for a multi-polar world, with win-win trade relations, and bringing about new environmental, social and technological challenges, but also a new awakening for a social consciousness and solidarity. A key instrument for achieving major goals for human wellbeing is the Belt and Road Initiative, providing a steady flow of new ideas, creations, cultural exchange and mutual learning. The future focus may be on:
Renewable sources of energy, based mainly on hydro- and solar power, developed with cutting edge technologies, i.e. capturing solar power with a process of photosynthesis, producing high efficiency energy yields;
Increasing green areas in urban centers to bring about a balance of natural CO2 absorption and Oxygen production, aiming at zero pollution;
Protecting the world’s rain forests and water resources;
Keeping natural resources and public services – health, education, food supply, water and sanitation services, electricity, and public transport – in the public domain;
Promoting biological and multi-crop agriculture;
Developing Artificial Intelligence (AI) to help increase production and transport efficiency and to serve humanity; and
Adopting public banking as the primary means of socioeconomic development funding, Leading humanity to building a community with a shared future for mankind.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals. He is also the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization and a Non-resident senior fellow of Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Without research evidence to suggest that plastic desk shields effectively reduce the transmission of COVID-19, many schools purchased them for their students and teachers, for all practical purposes putting the students in a plastic box
One school principal called it keeping the children “in their bubble.” However, evidence shows that air flow restriction by the shields and masks may increase the risk of acquiring COVID-19
Plastic pollution is mounting quickly as 129 billion face masks are discarded monthly and the plexiglass desk shields are moved out of schools
The CDC relied on anecdotal evidence to support the recommendation for mandatory masks and their own data showed 85% of those with confirmed COVID-19 reported they either “often” or “always” wore a face mask
*
Despite a lack of evidence that plastic shields would reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission and documentation that children are at a much lower risk for COVID than adults, officials recommended masks and plastic boxes to separate and socially distance children.1
Not long after China announced the novel coronavirus, researchers began collecting data. Within months many scientists realized that COVID-19 does not affect children at the same rate that it affects adults. There have been many theories as to why this is the case.2 For one thing, children do not have the same types of comorbidities that increase the risk for adults and older adults. Their immune systems are also different.
Experts postulated that another difference was the expression of the angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) 2 receptor that is necessary for the virus to infect cells. Some suggested that other viruses common to the mucosa and airways in young children may limit the growth of the virus, which reduced the rate of severe illness.
Available data3 in the early months from the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed a cohort of 44,672 confirmed cases of COVID-19 indicated 2.1% of patients were aged zero to 19 years. As more data were collected throughout 2020, researchers continued to report that children have a much lower risk of severe disease and mortality from COVID-19 than do adults.4
According to the CDC,5 since children are hospitalized significantly less often than adults, it suggests that children may have less severe illness. They also attribute the lack of transmission in children to school closures in the spring and early summer of 2020, keeping children at home. And yet, children were still exposed to adults in their home who were symptomatic for the viral illness.
The lack of severe symptoms in children infected with SARS-CoV-2 is in stark contrast to the history of significant symptoms with other respiratory viruses in children.6
No Evidence Portable School Desk Shields Are Effective
Dystopian: President Joe Biden visits school kids wearing masks sitting behind plastic protective shields pic.twitter.com/tmfsWzVkNd
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) May 3, 2021
In this 44-second clip, a masked President Biden is visiting a school where the children are all wearing masks behind plastic shields. It’s a disturbing sight that the mainstream media appears to take in stride as they try to convince you that this is the way we should live.
Mid-March 2021, the CDC released new guidelines, which reduced the social distance in schools to 3 feet and removed the recommendations for barriers between school desks. Greta Massetti leads the CDC’s community interventions task force and said about the plastic shields, “We don’t have a lot of evidence of their effectiveness” in preventing transmission.7
The new recommendations triggered a variety of responses in teachers and parents, some of whom are not comfortable sending their children to school where they may be allowed within 3 feet of another child or teacher.8
If you haven’t seen the plastic boxes being purchased in bulk by school systems for students at each of their desks, try imagining a three-sided transparent plexiglass shield that measures about 22 inches high9 and surrounds the front and two sides of the student’s desk.
Some school systems are excited by the prospect of adding another layer of distance between people. One school in Hawaii recently purchased 460 shields for students and teachers. Principal James Denight said, “Our focus is the health and safety of students and staff. We’re going to keep them in their bubble.”10
Mainstream media outlets covering the story are calling face masks and plastic shields “the new normal.”11 In one school in Ohio, students and staff spend the day wearing a mask and carry a foldable plastic shield they set up on their desks.
Unfortunately, the vast fortune the school systems and retail businesses are spending on plastic is not supported by scientific evidence. In the early months, health authorities told the public that the virus was spread by large droplets. Yet, scientists and researchers like Joseph Allen from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, protested, saying the virus could travel farther, making plastic shields ineffective.12
Nearly one year after the novel coronavirus began infecting people, the World Health Organization and the U.S. CDC finally accepted what researchers had been arguing — the virus can spread through the air.13 A recently released study14 by the CDC of COVID-19 transmission in elementary schools in Georgia demonstrated that plastic barriers on desks or tables were not effective.
Building scientist Marwa Zaatari spoke with a reporter from Bloomberg about plastic desk shields, saying they create15 “a false sense of security. Especially when we use it in offices or in schools specifically, plexiglass does not help. If you have plexiglass, you’re still breathing the same shared air of another person.”
Air Flow Restriction May Raise Risk of Transmission
One study published in the journal Science16 has suggested desk shields used in multiple school systems across the U.S. “are associated with lower risk reductions (or even risk increases).”
A preprint paper17 released from Japan investigated the effect plastic shields would have in areas with poor ventilation. They found the plexiglass blocked the air flow and may increase the risk for infection. The CDC study concluded that the results:18
“… highlighted the importance of masking and ventilation for preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in elementary schools and revealed important opportunities for increasing their use among schools.”
Yet, the published data do not support their statement supporting masking. It’s important to note that the incidence of COVID-19 in the schools evaluated was extremely low. Among students and staff members, there were only 3.08 COVID-19 cases per 500 enrolled students during the study period.
The analysis of the numbers showed the incidence of COVID was 37% lower in schools where teachers and staff used masks and 39% lower where ventilation was improved, as compared to schools that did not use these strategies. However, in absolute numbers, a 37% reduction is only about one case in the school — hardly a supportive statistic for requiring schoolchildren to wear masks all day long.
Especially interesting is that the statistic was for teachers and staff and not for students. When the researchers looked at masking students they found, “The 21% lower incidence in schools that required mask use among students was not statistically significant compared with schools where mask use was optional.”19
The data suggest that masks are not as effective as government health experts would like you to believe, even though viral experts have been outspoken about the dangers of wearing face masks. Virus expert Judy Mikovits is one of those who have posted on social media. According to Weblyf.com, Mikovits wrote:20
“Do you not know how unhealthy it is to keep inhaling your carbon dioxide and restricting proper oxygen flow? … The body requires AMPLE amounts of oxygen for optimal immune health. Proper oxygenation of your cells and blood is ESSENTIAL for the body to function as it needs to in order to fight off any illness. Masks will hamper oxygen intake.”
Mikovits is joined by Dr. Jenny Harries, England’s deputy chief medical officer. According to News-Medical.Net, she warned the public against wearing face masks “as the virus can get trapped in the material and cause infection when the wearer breathes in.”21 Nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock also believes face masks may cause serious harm:22
“Now that we have established that there is no scientific evidence necessitating the wearing of a face mask for prevention, are there dangers to wearing a face mask, especially for long periods? Several studies have indeed found significant problems with wearing such a mask.
This can vary from headaches, to increased airway resistance, carbon dioxide accumulation, to hypoxia, all the way to serious life-threatening complications … By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.”
Where Will All the Plastic Go?
Interestingly, the sale of plexiglass has roughly tripled since the beginning of 2020, rising to roughly $750 million in the U.S.23 Sales were fueled by offices, restaurants and retail stores that scrambled to put up plastic shields after being told it would reduce the spread of the virus.
Tufts Medical Center epidemiologist Shira Doron supports the use of plastic shields but acknowledges “there’s no research” to support plexiglass barriers against coronavirus spread. She spoke with a reporter from Bloomberg, saying: “We don’t know a lot.” However, she believes that it comes down to, “If it might help, and it makes sense, and it doesn’t hurt, then do it.”24
Unfortunately, it doesn’t make sense and, ultimately, it may trigger mental health issues for children and adds to the growing plastic problem. Zaatari and Allen believe that plastic shields may make sense in certain settings, such as in front of cashiers if it doesn’t impede airflow. However, money would have been better spent on improving ventilation and air filtration in the school systems.
Craig Saunders, president of the International Association of Plastics Distribution, spoke with a reporter from Bloomberg about the future of those plexiglass shields when they are no longer used. He said, “It’s 100% recyclable thermoplastic. [It] just comes down to the logistics.”25
Yet, the logistics of recycling plastic are not a societal strong suit as has been demonstrated in the past 30 years. This begs the question of whether the additional plastic garbage from discarded plexiglass shields will join the trillions of pieces of plastic that litter the oceans and beaches.26
The planet is also facing a new plastic crisis brought on by discarded face masks. Each month there’s an estimated 129 billion face masks being used,27 most of which are disposable, made from plastic microfibers. Before wearing a mask became a daily habit, more than 300 million tons of plastic were already produced globally each year.
Most of it has ended up as waste, which led researchers from the University of Southern Denmark and Princeton University to warn that masks could quickly become “the next plastic problem.”28Bottled water containers have been a leading source of environmental plastic pollution, but will likely be outpaced by disposable masks.
While about 25% of plastic bottles are recycled, “there is no official guidance on mask recycle, making it more likely to be disposed of as solid waste,”29 the researchers stated. “With increasing reports on inappropriate disposal of masks, it is urgent to recognize this potential environmental threat.”30
No matter what the ultimate goal was in pushing the COVID-19 pandemic, it appears that ensuring the safety of the Earth on which we live was not a priority. It is essential we protect the ecosystem, and therefore our food supply.
Mindless Mask Mandates Likely Ineffective and Harmful
The evidence that masks do not work to prevent the spread of viruses has been demonstrated using influenza and COVID-19. The first COVID-19 specific randomized controlled surgical mask trial was published in November 2020,31 and it confirmed previous, conflicting32 findings showing that:
Masks may reduce your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by as much as 46%, or it may increase your risk by 23%
The vast majority — 97.9% of those who didn’t wear masks, and 98.2% of those who did — remained infection-free
Despite scientific evidence, the CDC has relied on anecdotal stories about hair stylists and retrospective reports to prop up their recommendation for universal mask-wearing to prevent the spread of infection.33 In addition to this, their own data34,35,36 also show 70.6% of patients with confirmed COVID-19 reported always wearing a cloth mask or face covering in the 14 days preceding their illness and 14.4% wore it often.
This means a total of 85% of people who had confirmed cases of COVID-19 either “often” or “always” wore a face mask. For a discussion of more science-based evidence about face masks, see “Mindless Mask Mandates Likely Do More Harm Than Good.”
Denight’s focus on keeping children “in their bubble” is not far from what’s happening across the world. Data from a study37 using Germany’s first registry recorded the experiences of children wearing masks. It shows there are physical, behavioral and psychological harms38 being perpetrated on children in the name of science.
Data from 25,930 children found the average child was wearing a mask 270 minutes each day and parents, doctors and others reported 24 health issues associated with that mask wearing. These problems:39
“… included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%), impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%).”
Added to these concerning symptoms, they also found 29.7% reported feeling short of breath, 26.4% being dizzy and 17.9% were unwilling to move or play.40 Hundreds more experienced “accelerated respiration, tightness in chest, weakness and short-term impairment of consciousness.”41
Push Back Against Tyranny
Measurements of anxiety or depressive disorder have also jumped dramatically for adults. Data from the CDC42 show the percentage of adults reporting symptoms of anxiety disorder and/or depressive disorder was 11% in the first quarter of 2019 but jumped dramatically to 41.1%43 across the U.S. by January 2021.
This jump in anxiety and depression in adults is significant for children since there is a positive relationship between a child’s behavioral problems and mental health with maternal mental health44and parental mental health.45
This means that independent of their own stress and psychological harm from mask-wearing, lockdowns and plastic shields, children also respond negatively to the rising rate of anxiety and depression exhibited by adults. Thus, the impact on a child’s mental health is the result of both their own stress and that of their parents.
March 20, 2021, marked the 1-year anniversary of the first COVID-19 lockdown. On that day, people in more than 40 countries took to the streets to peacefully demonstrate against the lies and tyrannical measures being taken by governmental agencies and experts in the name of a viral pandemic.
Chances are you didn’t hear about this global rallying cry for freedom since the mainstream media have near-universally censored any news of it. However, this information is vital to understanding how your freedoms are being stripped and what you can do to protect your rights.
Our children and our children’s children are depending on us to ensure they have the freedom and the right to make decisions for themselves about their health, wellness and finances. Read more at “Global Pushback Against Tyranny Has Begun.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
We are a group of doctors, dentists and scientists who are concerned about the roll-out of the COVID-19 vaccine to the general population, along with the implication from the Medical Council of New Zealand and the Dental Council of New Zealand of incompetence if we do not fully support the COVID-19 vaccination program, or indeed get vaccinated ourselves.
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.
In a recent paper entitled ‘Tomorrow’s Arctic: Theatre of War or Cooperation?’ I introduced readers to the US-Russian grand design which shaped not only the sale of Alaska in October 1867 to the USA for $7.5 million, but also Russia’s involvement in the American Civil War as Czar Alexander II arranged the deployment of Russian military fleets to San Francisco and New York.
Even though President Lincoln and Czar Alexander II were both known as great reformers and emancipators for their common commitment to free slaves and serfs, both leaders were assassinated before their grand visions could come to fruition.
In this article, I would like to present another chapter of this forgotten history: The creation of modern Canada as a confederation designed explicitly to prevent the inevitable construction of a Russian-American rail connection through the Bering Strait in the wake of the Civil War.
The Strategic Value of the Bering Strait Tunnel in History
For those who are not aware, the Bering Strait Rail tunnel project is a 150 year idea which was formulated by allies of Lincoln and Alexander II after America’s Civil War.
The original grand design was driven by a plan to connect telegraph lines between continents, followed soon thereafter by a connection of the Trans Siberian Railway and America’s Trans Continental Railways through British Columbia, Alaska and into Eurasia, as laid out spectacularly by former Colorado Governor William Gilpin in his 1890 book the Cosmopolitan Railway.
Echoing today’s Belt and Road Initiativewhich is quickly growing to become a world land bridge, Gilpin described what this new paradigm of human civilization was destined to look like:
“The weapons of mutual slaughter are hurled away; the sanguinary passions find a check, a majority of the human family is found to accept the essential teachings of Christianity IN PRACTICE… Room is discovered for industrial virtue and industrial power. The civilized masses of the world meet; they are mutually enlightened, and fraternize to reconstitute human relations in harmony with nature and with God. The world ceases to be a military camp, incubated only by the military principles of arbitrary force and abject submission. A new and grand order in human affairs inaugurates itself out of these immense concurrent discoveries and events” [Cosmopolitan Railway p. 213]
The idea of the Bering Strait tunnel was supported by Czar Nicholas II who, in 1906 hired a team of American engineers to conduct feasibility studies on the initiative which then had an estimated cost of $350 million.
Sadly a couple of World Wars and disastrous revolution kept this project from blossoming as it was intended.
This idea was revived again by FDR’s great Vice President Henry Wallace who discussed the project at length with Russia’s Foreign Minister Molotov in 1942. In this meeting Wallace declared that “It would mean much to the peace of the future if there could be some tangible link of this sort between the pioneer spirit of our own West and the frontier spirit of the Russian East.”
Again, the Cold War derailed this project and it was only in 2007 that the Russian Government revived it once again with Putin even offering to pay 2/3of the $65 billion estimated cost to construct the 100 km tunnel across the Bering Strait. This project was offered to the west more loudly in 2011 and in May 2014, China unofficially gave their backing to the initiative. Sadly, unipolar technocrats and neocons controlling NATO foreign policy had not the eyes to see what benefits such projects offered those who joined in its construction, and instead continued onto their zero-sum game plan for full spectrum dominance.
With the 2018 unveiling of the Polar Silk Road extending the east-west development corridors into the Arctic, which have merged increasingly with Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union and Putin’s Northern Vision, the Bering Strait connection has again been given new life. If nations of the west find the courage to let go of the Titanic before the hellish chaos of the oncoming financial meltdown erupts, then the projects animating the new multi polar paradigm will undoubtedly look a lot like the World Land bridge concept illustrated by the Schiller Institute below.
Arctic development remains one of the best strategic points of alliance and cooperation needed to re-organize the collapsing world economic order around firm principles of multipolar cooperation and value and as such is not too different from the dynamic shaping the world when Lincoln took office in 1860.
The 19th century Clash of Two Systems
Lincoln’s economic advisor and leader of the international export of the American System of Political economy, Henry C. Carey, described this clash between two systems in his 1851 Harmony of Interests:
“Two systems are before the world; the one looks to increasing the proportion of persons and of capital engaged in trade and transportation, and therefore to diminishing the proportion engaged in producing commodities with which to trade, with necessarily diminished return to the labor of all; while the other looks to increasing the proportion engaged in the work of production, and diminishing that engaged in trade and transportation, with increased return to all, giving to the laborer good wages, and to the owner of capital good profits… One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other in increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace. One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.”
Carey, just like the British Empire’s Lord Palmerston, clearly recognized that America had not completed “the mission of 1776” since not one but TWO Americas existed within Washington: One positive America representing the anti-slavery/anti-colonial principles of the 1789 constitution vs. another hypocritical slave power that never believed that “all men were created equal”. Just as two antithetical impulses existed within America, so too did two opposing views of “Manifest Destiny” co-evolve since 1776: One hellish version driven by the ‘principle’ of spreading slavery and suppressing the weak while the other more noble impulse was represented by the spirits of Lincoln, Carey and Gilpin illustrated above.
This fatal contradiction within the republic was exploited fervently by Anglo-American intelligence for 80 years before the inevitable civil war finally broke out in 1861.
President Lincoln defined the terms of this contradiction and immanent war in an 1858 debate with the Slave Power’s champion Stephen Douglas saying:
“That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles – right and wrong – throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings.“
This quote is important as it addresses the fact that Lincoln recognized correctly the inextricable connection between the institution of slavery (even when it masqueraded under a republican veneer) and monarchical principles of colonialism which saw mankind’s right to rule defined not by morality, or merit but rather by “principles” of hereditary right.
The Stage is Set for a Forgotten Battle
By now most informed people are aware of Russia’s 1863 intervention into the Civil War as a turning point that blocked British and French imperialist forces from entering the war militarily on the side of the Southern rebels. What is not so well established is how Russian and American grand strategy to connect the continents by rail did not occur as it was intended after the sale of Alaska.
There are several convergent factors at play during the 1865-1867 period which presented a major challenge to the weakening British Empire strategists:
The need to confederate British territories in North America as possession of the Empire instead of allowing them to either become independent nations or annexing to Lincoln’s republic.
If this first task could be done by ousting pro-Lincoln forces in Canadian political power and killing Lincoln, then the next task involved transferring the vast private territories owned by the Hudson Bay Company separating eastern colonies from the lone western outpost of British Columbia on the Pacific. The majority of Canada during this pre-1867 period was private Hudson Bay land as it had been since it was chartered in 1670 by Prince Rupert.
If this transfer of Hudson Bay possessions into federal hands could be affected, then it would still be necessary to somehow persuade the fiercely independent British Columbian subjects to join Confederation. This was not a simple task as the vast majority were in favor of annexing to the USA due to the economic despair of their colony caused by the collapse of the Gold rush bubbles in 1858 and total isolation from the other British American colonies.
The Anti Union Confederacy That Succeeded
On July 1, 1867, the British North America Act was enacted consolidating Britain’s “other” anti-American confederacy operation under a new constitution dedicating the new federation’s existence to be conducive“to the Welfare of the Provinces and promote the interests of the British Empire”.
It should be kept in mind that the project to confederate actually began during the Civil War in the form of a week-long booze-soaked orgy of the Charlottetown convention of 1864 which hammered out the resolutions later put into law in 1867.
Some have wondered why just days before the July 1, 1867 enactment, would-be confederate President Jefferson Davis gave a speech to cheering crowds in Lennoxville Quebec stating:
“I hope that you will hold fast to [your] British principles and that you may ever strive to cultivate close and affectionate connections with the mother country”.
This pro-British gushing from a confederate traitor in Quebec shouldn’t be surprising at all if we take into account the fact that Montreal and Toronto served as Southern confederacy bases of operations used with the full support of the British Empire to run terrorist operations, raids, espionage and financing of the war against Lincoln’s forces from the North (while Canada “officially” maintained an air of neutrality). Even Lincoln’s assassin, John Wilkes Boothe was discovered to have been deployed from Montreal to kill Lincoln, with union officers discovering a $500 cheque amidst his possessions signed directly by none other than Ontario Bank President Henry Starnes (who would later become Mayor of Montreal).
As Barry Sheehy pointed out in Montreal: City of Secrets, during the Civil War, “the largest Confederate Secret Service base outside Richmond was located in Montreal” under the direct control of confederate Secretary of State Judah Benjamin- himself an asset of British Intelligence.
Much like the exiled Russian and Hong Kong oligarchs and traitors of the modern day, Jefferson Davis, Judah Benjamin and many other confederate rebels lived out their days in comfort in both Canada and Britain (Benjamin becoming an English Barrister in London from 1865 until his death in 1884).
The Sale of Alaska and the Rush for British Columbia
On October 1867, the British Empire was caught off guard with the news that Russia’s Alaskan possessions had been sold to America for $7.2 million in a secretive diplomatic maneuver which Secretary of State William Seward described as the most important deal of his life.
The sale had suddenly made the isolated colony of British Columbia very hot real estate. During this 1867 purchase, Lincoln’s Trans Continental Railway, begun in 1863 at the height of the Civil War was a mere two years from completion, linking the Pacific to Atlantic for the first time in history and thus destroying the British monopoly over maritime shipping routes.
With students of Lincoln’s program to be found among the intelligentsia of Russia, led by Count Sergei Witte and Dimitri Mendeleyev, the American modeled (and largely American-built) Trans-Siberian Railway’s construction was not far away, and the linking of rail across the two continents was discussed as a real possibility by republican visionaries the world over.
The chances that British Columbia would join confederation were minute at this time as the broken colony had no ties of commerce to Britain or the east coast confederacy 3500 km away. In fact, on July 2, 1867 the first of several petitions was sent to Queen Victoria requesting that either the colony’s debt burdens and economic woes be alleviated by the Mother country or that the queen grant them permission to annex to the USA!
At this time, American consul to Victoria Allen Francis, wrote a letter to the president stating:
“Even the colonists claiming most loyalty to the queen, are now urging with great unanimity annexation to the United States as their only salvation- as the only means of retrieving the colonies from their present embarrassment and decline.”
BC’s Colonialist Newspaper described the situation in the following terms:
“Since no change would be for the worse, they (British Columbians) would welcome annexation to the United States to continuing in a state of poverty and wretchedness. In writing this we know we speak the mind of 9 out of every 10 men in the colony… the sentiment is heard at every gathering street corner- at social gatherings, in business circles- in all places”
On July 18, 1868 the Hudson Bay territories (aka: Rupert’s Land) were sold to Ottawa under an operation led by Sir Georges Etienne Cartier who stated “in this country we must have a distinct form of government in which the monarchical spirit will be found.”
Cartier’s monarchical spirit was reflected in Canada’s leading fathers of confederation such as Sir John A. Macdonald who famously stated “a Britisher I was born and a Britisher I will die”and who looked to the vast wilderness west of Toronto saying in 1867: “I would be quite willing, personally to leave the whole country a wilderness for the next half century, but I fear if Englishmen do not go there the Yankees will.”
On May 22, 1867, Father of Confederation Sir Alexander Galt stated British policy for western expansion (to block the connection between Russia and the USA) saying: “If the United States desire to outflank us on the west, we must accept the situation and lay our hand on British Columbia and the Pacific Ocean. This country cannot be surrounded by the Unites States- We are gone if we allow it… ‘From the Atlantic to the Pacific’ must be the cry in British America as much as it has ever been in the United States”
The last serious effort by British Columbians to join America was made with the Annexation petition of 1869listing BC’s desperate grievances with the empire and appealing to President Grant:
“The only remedy for the evils which beset us, we believe to be in a close union with the adjoining States and Territories, we are already bound to them by a unity of object and interest; nearly all our commercial relations are with them; They furnish the Chief Markets we have for the products of our mines, lands and waters; They supply the Colony with most of the necessities of life; They furnish us the only means of communication with the outer world… For these reasons we earnestly desire the ACQUISITION of this Colony by the United States.”
The Alabama Claims
The last great hope for extending Lincoln’s rail through BC into Alaska at this time arose amidst the 1869-1871 Alabama Claims affair which saw the world’s first international trial in Geneva address the matter of Britain’s military support for the confederacy during the Civil War (reflecting the irony of America’s recent covert support for Syrian rebels). Britain’s air of neutrality was betrayed by her construction of Confederate war ships that unleashed havoc on Lincoln’s Navy. The court ruled in favor of America and soon Britain came close to loosing it’s Canadian possessions as payment for their sin (Senator Charles Sumner and Secretary Seward both advocated this course), although weaker figures in America ended up agreeing to a measly $15 million settlement in 1872 while all wrongs were forgotten.
With these failures to capture the pregnant moment, the effort to assimilate BC into London’s northern confederacy was accelerated.
Ottawa negotiations began on June 7, 1870 and within weeks nearly all resolutions and clauses were agreed upon. The two biggest impediments to B.C.’s entry into the Confederacy were dealt with by the payment of all of the colony’s debts by Ottawa and the promise made by Sir Macdonald to construct a rail line linking the new province with Montreal and Quebec “within ten years”. This promised rail line was necessary in order to sabotage the intention of the American Manifest Destiny policy.
With these arrangements agreed upon (paralleling similar arrangements in the former Red River Settlement in today’s Manitoba), British Columbia was admitted into Confederation as the 6th Canadian Province. Within the coming decades, as Canada was opened up to form a British-controlled Northern Confederacy blockade against the civilizing progress of the sovereign nation state intention of the United States, Saskatchewan and Alberta were formed as provinces where there had formerly been only Hudson’s Bay land. The lack of progress on Canada’s rail by 1878 had resulted in renewed disenchantment on the part of British Columbians who demanded once more for annexation into the USA resulting in Sir John A. Macdonald’s “National Policy of 1878-1885” which forced the construction of Canada’s own trans continental rail (with the inaugural train cars arriving in BC’s Port Moody from Montreal on the 4thof July, 1885).
By the time of the 1876 Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia, the American System of Political Economy had resulted in the greatest explosion of wealth in the United States and became a model for the whole civilized world seeking to break free of British colonial hegemony.
Converts to the American System were made by all lovers of progress from around the world who came to the Convention. Germany under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck vigorously applied American System practices of high protective tariffs and vast internal improvements under his Zollverein. Czars Alexander II and III and their close circle of Russian advisors applied the American model for the vast modernization of Russia vectored around the Trans-Siberian Rail. Even Japan under the Meiji Restoration applied the American model to escape feudalism and enter the modern age.
Sadly, an age of London-financed revolutions, assassinations and wars mis-shaped the 1880s, 1890s, and 20thcentury, preventing this system of win-win cooperation from evolving as it was destined.
Today the world is again pulled by two opposing systems represented by Lincoln’s international allies on the one hand and British Intelligence on the other… although today’s champions of the multi polar world of cooperation have names like Xi Jinping and Putin. These Eurasian statesmen have ushered in a new system of credit, diplomacy, security, economic and science policy governed by the best principles displayed by the American System of the 19thcentury and occasionally revived albeit only briefly under such 20thcentury leaders like Franklin Rooseveltand John F. Kennedy.
Whether the western nations have the moral fitness to recover their lost traditions and join in this new paradigm or not yet remains to be seen…
The author delivered a lecture on this topic which can be viewed here:
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
First published on February 5, 2021
Bill Gates has quietly made himself the largest owner of farmland in the United States. For a man obsessed with monopoly control, the opportunity to also dominate food production must seem irresistible.
“Gates has a Napoleonic concept of himself, an appetite that derives from power and unalloyed success, with no leavening hard experience, no reverses.” — Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, presiding judge in the Gates/Microsoft antitrust-fraud case
Thomas Jefferson believed that the success of America’s exemplary struggle to supplant the yoke of European feudalism with a noble experiment in self-governance depended on the perpetual control of the nation’s land base by tens of thousands of independent farmers, each with a stake in our democracy.
So at best, Gates’ campaign to scarf up America’s agricultural real estate is a signal that feudalism may again be in vogue. At worst, his buying spree is a harbinger of something far more alarming — the control of global food supplies by a power-hungry megalomaniac with a Napoleon complex.
Let’s explore the context of Gates’ stealth purchases as part of his long-term strategy of mastery over agriculture and food production globally.
As usual, Gates coordinates these personal investments with taxpayer-subsidized grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the richest and most powerful organization in all of international aid, his financial partnerships with Big Ag, Big Chemical, and Big Food, and his control of international agencies — including some of his own creation — with awesome power to create captive markets for his products.
Characteristically, Gates’ approach to global problems put technology and his chemical, pharmaceutical and oil industry partners at the center of every solution. As it turned out, Gates’ “innovative strategy” for food production was to force America’s failed system of GMO, chemical and fossil fuel-based agriculture on poor African farmers.
African agricultural practices have evolved from the land over 10,000 years in forms that promote crop diversity, decentralization, sustainability, private property, self-organization and local control of seeds. The personal freedom inherent in these localized systems leaves farm families making their own decisions: the masters on their lands, the sovereigns of their destinies. Continuous innovation by millions of small farmers maximized sustainable yields and biodiversity.
In his ruthless reinvention of colonialism, Gates spent $4.9 billion dollars to dismantle this ancient system and replace it with high-tech corporatized and industrialized agriculture, chemically dependent monocultures, extreme centralization and top-down control. He forced small African farms to transition to imported commercial seeds, petroleum fertilizers and pesticides.
Gates built the supply chain infrastructure for chemicals and seeds and pressured African governments to spend huge sums on subsidies and to use draconian penalties and authoritarian control to force farmers to buy his expensive inputs and comply with his diktats. Gates made farmers replace traditional nutritious subsistence crops like sorghum, millet, sweet potato and cassava with high-yield industrial cash crops, like soy and corn, which benefit elite commodity traders but leave poor Africans with little to eat. Both nutrition and productivity plummeted. Soils grew more acidic with every application of petrochemical fertilizers.
As with Gates’ African vaccine enterprise, there was neither internal evaluation nor public accountability. The 2020 study “False Promises: The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)” is the report card on the Gates’ cartel’s 14-year effort. The investigation concludes that the number of Africans suffering extreme hunger has increased by 30 percent in the 18 countries that Gates targeted. Rural poverty has metastasized dramatically, and the number of hungry people in these nations has risen to 131 million.
Under Gates’ plantation system, Africa’s rural populations have become slaves on their own land to a tyrannical serfdom of high-tech inputs, mechanization, rigid schedules, burdensome conditionalities, credits and subsidies that are the defining features of Bill Gates’ “Green Revolution.”
The only entities benefiting from Gates’ program are his international corporate partners — and particularly Monsanto, in which the Gates Foundation Trust purchased 500,000 shares worth $23 million in 2010 (but later divested those shares after pressure from civil society groups). Gates himself even filmed commercials for Monsanto’s GMOs, touting them as the “solution” to world hunger.
The AGRA Watch initiative of Seattle-based Community Alliance for Global Justice follows Gates’ agricultural and food policies. According to Heather Day, an AGRA Watch spokesperson, AGRA is a trojan horse for corporate kleptocracy.
“The Gates Foundation and AGRA claim to be ‘pro-farmer,’ ‘pro-poor’ and ‘pro-environment,’” Day told me. “But their approach is closely aligned with transnational corporations, like Monsanto, and foreign policy actors like USAID [United States Agency for International Development]. They take advantage of food and global climate crises to promote high-tech, centralized, industrial agriculture that generate profits for Gates’ corporate partners while degrading the environment and disempowering farmers. Their programs are a dark form of philanthrocapitalism based on biopiracy and corporate biopiracy.”
Gates’ climate activism (A memo to my environmental colleagues)
To cloak his dystopian plans for humanity in benign intentions, Gates has expropriated the rhetoric of “sustainability,” “biodiversity,” “good stewardship” and “climate.” These causes are all grim realities that pose existential threats to our children and require urgent attention. However, Gates’ record exposes his benevolent intentions as masquerades for his agenda to maximize personal profit and control.
It’s baffling to me how so many of my friends in the environmental movement have swallowed Gates’ chicanery. In my 40 years as a climate activist, I saw zero evidence of Gates’ funding of genuine climate advocacy; the Gates Foundation is AWOL in the climate wars.
The leading climate groups, National Resource Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Waterkeepers, etc., receive virtually nothing from the world’s largest philanthropy. His investment history suggests that the climate crisis, for Gates and his cronies, is no more than an alibi for intrusive social control, “Great Reset”-scale surveillance, and massive science fiction geoengineering boondoggles, including his demented and terrifying vanity projects to spray the stratosphere with calcium chloride or seawater to slow warming, to deploy giant balloons to saturate our atmosphere with reflective particles to blot out the sun, or his perilous gambit of releasing millions of genetically modified mosquitoes in South Florida.
When we place these nightmare schemes in context alongside the battery of experimental vaccines he forces on 161 million African children annually, it’s pretty clear that Gates regards us all as his lab rats.
Gates has learned to fatten himself on global crises, whether it’s pandemics, climate, famine or mass extinction. Climate change has given Gates an excuse to create monopolies over seed, food and agriculture.
In other words, climate change was the guise for more mischievous geoengineering. Meanwhile, Gates’ ag policies are destroying our planet’s climate systems, pushing millions of species to extinction, desertifying the soil, destroying water systems and enriching the Poison Cartel.
So, a note to my fellow environmental leaders: Bill Gates is not our amigo! Furthermore, Gates has put climate reform in malodour with millions of Americans, who see his climate pretenses in context of his ambitions to control humanity and put an end to economic activity and personal freedom.
It’s largely Gates’ doing that half of America sees climate change as either a “Great Reset” flimflam to shift wealth upward, or a geoengineering boondoggle. It’s on them that they don’t recognize the serious peril of climate change. It’s on us that we seem deliberately blinded to the peril of Bill Gates.
Gates profits from all this confusion; the polarization of the climate debate paralyzes reform efforts thereby preserving the value of his carbon stakes. We all need to recognize who is really behind that Green mask!
Biopiracy
“A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself.” — President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s letter to all state governors, February 1937
Long experience and research have shown that agroecology based on biodiversity, Seed Freedom and Food Freedom is essential not just to civil liberties and democracy, but to the future of food and farming.
For thousands of years, farmers’ innovation and biodiversity evolved together to create the most efficient practices for sustainable food production and biodiversity. The United Nations’ seminal 2009 study by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) documents the incontrovertible evidence demonstrating the abject failure of the Gates/Rockefeller “Green Revolution” to improve on traditional agriculture.
IAASTD deployed a team of 900 leading scientists, agronomists, and researchers to study the issue of world hunger. Their comprehensive and definitive report showed that GMO crops are not the answer to food shortfalls or rural poverty. That report definitively concludes that neither Gates’ Green Revolution nor his GMOs can feed the world and at the same time protect the planet.
Green Revolution policies subvert food and nutritional security, and dispossess small farmers through debt for external inputs. IAASTD and numerous other studies show that Seed Sovereignty, Food Sovereignty and Knowledge Sovereignty are the only viable future for food and farming. The United Nations and the world’s top agricultural scientists have admitted that GMOs cannot fight hunger as effectively as traditional farming.
Bill Gates has opted to ignore this reality, dismissing science-based evidence in favor of his messianic faith that he is ordained by God to save the world with technology. According to Dr. Gates, M.D., good health only comes in a syringe (he is the world’s biggest vaccine producer).
Likewise, Farmer Bill preaches that good food only comes from monocultures, chemical pesticides and fertilizers, GMO crops and patented seeds that he happens to own. In constructing his agriculture empire, Gates has repeatedly shown himself willing to ignore the voices of scientists and farmers, and to trample laws, treaties, traditions, civil rights, science, and sensibilities.
Stealing seeds
Since the onset of the Neolithic Revolution some 10,000 years ago, farmers and communities have worked to improve yield, taste, nutrition, robust seed qualities that enhance peculiar growth, medicinal and nutritional attributes, and the genetic resilience that allows certain seeds to flourish in particular soil and water conditions or resist predators.
These vigorous, ingenious genetics are the products of a miraculous collaboration between humans, nature and their Creator during humanity’s 1,000 generations of intense agricultural innovation. The free exchange of knowledge and seeds among farmers has been the basis for maintaining biodiversity and food security.
Since 1979, under World Bank auspices, a consortium of agricultural research centers known as the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) has been collecting these premier seeds from small farmers across the globe and preserving them in 15 independent Public Seed Banks stationed in different countries. That venture sought to archive a complete inventory of heritage seed stocks for the benefit of all humanity so as to preserve crop diversity for the millennia.
In the last 17 years, Gates has successfully maneuvered to gain control of those collections — comprising 768,578 seeds — and to assert monopoly ownership of the world’s premier seed inventories.
Beginning in 2003, working in coordination with the Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation pumped $720 million into CGIAR’s Seed Bank project. As the largest funder of the CGIAR, Gates used his financial leverage to force the merger of the CGIAR’s 15 legally independent centers into one legal entity, a sinister initiative that he calls “Gates Ag One.” He then moved to orchestrate the transfer of research and seeds from scientific research institutions to commodity-based corporations like Bayer and Cargill with which he partners. In this way he is raiding, plundering and privatizing the seed stockpile for the most promising seeds from indigenous farmers around the world.
Gates Ag One’s director, Joe Cornelius, is a former executive at Bayer Crop Science. Prior to that, he was Monsanto’s Director of International Development. Working with Cornelius, Gates has perfected the techniques Monsanto pioneered in the 1980s when it led the push to propagate GMOs, and to patent seeds. Gates has made himself the Commanding General in Big Data’s pirate war to plunder and monopolize the common genomic data of millions of plants bred by peasants over the millennia.
Gates funds Diversity Seek (DivSeek), a global project he launched in 2015 to map the genomes and genome sequences of the peasant seed stocks held in seed banks. DivSeek and Gates Ag One are the tips of his spears, “mining” seed data to “censor” out the commons. In other words — to terminate the public’s ownership claims.
Using artificial intelligence (AI) and digital technologies, Gates’ minions at DivSeek and Gates AG One scan these seeds and categorize their genetic data to map, patent and pilfer humanity’s global seedstock heritage. Gates bolsters his patent rationale by using CRISPR technology to selectively edit the heritage seed genomes, making changes sufficient to withstand patent challenges.
Gates’ principal objective is to breed Green Revolution varieties engineered to respond to chemical inputs produced by Gates’ “Poison Cartel” partners: Monsanto, Bayer, Dow/DuPont, CropLife, BASF, Syngenta, Corteva, etc. In short, Gates deliberately robs the seed of its integrity and diversity, erasing evolutionary history and its links to the soil, reducing it all to a simple “code.” In this way, Gates captures our planet’s genetic diversity, rewrites it, patents its code, steals the seeds from humanity and marries them off to the chemical conglomerates.
By centralizing the Seed Banks and manipulating intellectual property laws, Gates has launched a campaign of “genetic colonialism” to rob the world’s peasants and indigenous farmers of their hard-earned seeds and knowledge.
“Gates Ag One’s aim is to take control over the genetic diversity of this planet,” agricultural freedom activist Dr. Vandana Shiva told me. According to Shiva, Gates “continues to subvert and sabotage both farmers’ seed sovereignty and the seed sovereignty of countries. ‘Gates Ag One’ is a clear declaration of his intent to create an empire over life and biodiversity, over food and farming, and over our sustenance.” In the process, says Shiva, “Gates is financing infernal Frankenstein experiments that defile God’s creation.”
Citizens, governments and farm organizations have written many laws and governments have adopted international treaties on biodiversity protection, including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol to the CBD. By conning government officials, manipulating intellectual property law and rewriting seed regulations, Gates has been able to bypass or trample these statutes and treaties, and to evade the multilateral governance structures that governments put in place to prevent global corporations from hijacking the planet’s biodiversity and the seed commonwealth of peasants and farmers.
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
Gates’ missionary faith in technology as the solution for every human ill, from food insecurity and disease to climate health, explains his obsessive promotion of GMOs. Gates’ zealous GMOs idolatry and gene-editing technologies leave him deaf to the mountains of peer-reviewed scientific evidence and warnings by agronomists, nutritionists, toxicologists and other scientists who question their safety.
GMO vaccines and medicines are mainstays of his public health enterprise, and Gates finances research, development and proliferation of GMOs as the fix for every agricultural problem. He funded, for example, Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna, the two CRISPR chemists who won 2020 Nobel prizes for gene editing.
Gates was also one of the largest shareholders of Monsanto — the world’s most aggressive promoter of GMOs and pesticides. The central mission of Gates Ag One is to fly into the face of virtually every independent science and safety assessment in a blind rush to impose Gates’ untested GMOs, patented seeds, synthetic foods and experimental medicines on humanity.
One might expect his Monsanto stake and his partnerships with processed food, chemical and oil companies to discredit Gates’ pretensions as a public health advocate. But Gates’ massive investments in media journalism (a March 2020 Nation magazine exposé reveals the Gates Foundation has bought Gates guarantees of favorable coverage with $250 million in grants to mediaoutlets including NBC/Universal, BBC, NPR, The Guardian, Le Mond, Al Jazeera, and others “to influence the news”) have insulated him from the scrutiny and skepticism the media historically applied to fiendish profiteering schemes and rank hypocrisy by power-mad billionaires.
Money talks, and the billions that Gates and his pharma allies annually pour into public and commercial journalism have instead made Gates the media’s chief darling. He uses his biweekly “satellite tours” of leading cable and network news shows to showcase his mesmerizing power to command softball questioning and fawning deference from obsequious hosts (with the exception of Norah O’Donnell) including Anderson Cooper (CNN), David Muir (ABC), Ari Melber (MSNBC), and Chuck Todd (NBC), who gratefully entertain his lofty prognostication on topics ranging from public health to the economy and agriculture policy.
Gates is currently deploying his billions to orchestrate attacks against GMO and gene editing laws in many of the countries that have imposed safety standards. When scientists and regulators plead that time is essential to accurately assess the safety of gene editing and GMOs, Gates declares that “Time is the enemy!”
In 2017, a German human rights group, Heinrich Böll Stiftung (HBS), published evidence of a Gates’ secretive campaign to evade democratically imposed restraints on his high-risk gene manipulation experiments. HBS released more than 1,200 emails the group obtained under U.S. Freedom of Information laws. Those documents show that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation hired a shady Big Ag/Biotech spy and propaganda outfit to mount an undercover espionage attack aimed at corrupting United Nations officials and sabotaging international efforts to ban a diabolical new technology called “gene drive.”
Gene drives are at the cutting edge of genetic engineering, synthetic biology and gene editing. They are the tools of choice for eugenicists and for those seeking to build the technocratic “transhuman future” championed by Gates and his Silicon Valley cronies.
Scientists use CRISPR technology to edit genes into an organism’s chromosomes to reprogram DNA to switch off the normal rules of genetic inheritance and “drive” the artificially introduced trait through an entire population and spread it to all future generations. Their capacity to permanently alter the genome of an entire species makes gene drives the biological instrument of ultimate power.
Gene-editing technology could facilitate Gates’ schemes to create and patent new-and-improved species of plants and animals, or to exterminate species of which he disapproves. One of his aims is to use gene drives to insert “suicide genes” to eradicate entire mosquito species that spread Zika or malaria — a goal of the Target Malaria Project, in which the Gates Foundation has invested$40 million. Dr. Anthony Fauci, a long-time protégé and partner of Gates and an enthusiastic cheerleader for gene drive, told StatNews, “Getting rid of them would be a blessing.”
Critics argue that gene drives pose an existential biosecurity risk to humanity due to their capacity to change or eliminate entire species and to catastrophically alter ecosystems. They are, also, the ultimate biological weapon; the most satanic minds in various military and intelligence agencies covet gene drives to breed supersoldiers or to mint “apocalypse genes.” Critics fear that nations might one day use “genocide genes” to eradicate certain races or undesirable traits.
HBS’s Gene Drive Files expose the leading role of the U.S. military in the development of gene drive technology. The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has spent approximately $100 million researching gene drives. The other primary Gene Drive investors are Dr. Fauci’s National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has invested $75 million in researching suicide and anti-fertility genes.
At the 2016 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (COP 13) in Cancun, 179 international organizations, including the Heinrich Böll Foundation, voted for the UN to impose a global moratorium on gene drives. The opponents of this technology also circulated a letter, “A Call for Conservation with a Conscience: No Place for Gene Drives in Conservation.” Environmentalists worry about unintended consequences if suicide or extinction genes leap species.
The Gene Drive emails reveal that in reaction to the COP 13 resolution, the Gates Foundation hired “Emerging Ag,” a sketchy espionage concern with its own sinister entanglements with Big Pharma and Big Ag, to sabotage and shut down the diverse and unified international coalition opposing gene drive.
The Gates Foundation gave Emerging Ag $1.6 million to “recruit a covert coalition of academics to manipulate the UN decision-making process over gene drives.” The emails reveal that the Gates’ campaign was part of the billionaire’s plan to “fight back against gene drive moratorium proponents.” Emerging Ag secretly mobilized some 65 allegedly “independent scientists” for hire — “Biostitutes,” in the industry vernacular — and public officials to an online expert group, the UN CBD Online Forum on Synthetic Biology. A senior executive of the Gates Foundation provided these crooked operatives with daily instructions on how to sabotage regulations, undermine the science, discredit advocates, corrupt the process, and subvert democracy.
In furtherance of its campaign, Gates simultaneously funded a 2016 report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences endorsing gene driving. The DARPA co-funded the whitewash report with the Gates Foundation. As The Guardian noted after the release of the NAS report:
“The same US defense research agency (DARPA) who paid for the NAS study have made it known that they are going all-in on gene drive research and development of ‘robust’ synthetic organisms. There is good reason to be worried.”
As Jim Thomas of the ETC Group observed: “The fact that gene drive development is now being primarily funded and structured by the US military raises alarming questions about this entire field.”
In furtherance of its coordinated campaign with Emerging Ag, the Gates Foundation manipulated three members, who were under Gates’ control, of the relevant UN expert committee known as AHTEG (Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group) on Synthetic Biology. Gates and Emerging Ag were successful and the UN shot down the moratorium.
Mounting evidence points to the kind of industrially grown and processed foods that Gates favors as leading culprits in the chronic disease epidemics that are devastating human health and debilitating children across the globe.
The world’s most popular GMOs function to facilitate aerial spraying of pesticides. Monsanto’s technique of inserting genes to make agricultural crops resistant to weed-killing poisons allows Big Ag to fire ground-based farm workers, replacing them with airplanes (or drones) that saturate landscapes (and food) with aerosolized toxins like glyphosate and neonicotinoids.
Since the proliferation of chemical pesticides in the 1940s, more than half of American songbirds have disappeared, most of the world’s bee and insect populations have collapsed and chronic disease rates in America have risen to 54% in lockstep with increased pesticide use.
As Vandana Shiva pointed out, “Gates has declared chemical warfare not just on nature but on our body’s metabolic systems and the symbiosis in the gut microbiome with his pesticides and herbicides obsession, and his campaign to switch humanity to GMOs.”
Synthetic foods: soylent ‘Gates’
“Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.” — CIA propagandist Bertrand Russell, an advocate of one world government, dictatorship, and top-down control of the masses by a privileged oligarchal class (1952).
Gates’ power, profit and control agenda appears to drive his commitment to synthesize so-called “transhuman” laboratory foods and his massive investments in processed food manufacturing.
That collaboration has large stakes in Beyond Meat, which they co-own with Tyson Foods and Cargill. Beyond Meat makes plant-based GMO and pesticide-laden chicken tacos. Gates and his Billionaire Boys Club also have big positions in Impossible Foods, which uses heat and pressure to produce synthetic burgers and bratwurst from GMO soy. Lab results show the company’s imitation meat contained glyphosate levels 11 times higher than its closest competitor. Seth Itzkan from Soil4Climatewrote:
“Impossible Foods should really be called ‘Impossible Patents.’ It’s not food; it’s software, intellectual property — 14 patents, in fact, in each bite of Impossible Burger. It’s IFood, the next killer app. Just download your flavor. This is its likely appeal to Bill Gates, their über investor.”
Another of Breakthrough’s ventures is Memphis Meats, which formulates an engineered meat-like tissue on a substrate of calf’s blood. A bullish Bloomberg predicts that synthetic meat revenues will reach $3.5 billion by 2026.
In June 2020, the “Breakthrough Bros” invested $3.5 million in Biomilq, a company that produces synthetic breast milk from “cultured human mammary glands and epithelial cells.” Gates has not explained whether the milk will contain the maternal antibodies — present in authentic mother’s milk — that function to protect infants from infectious diseases, or whether the coming generations of Biomilq kids will need to rely, instead, on additional batteries of Gates’ GMO vaccines.
Unimpressed, Vandana Shiva observes that Bill Gates “wants to deprive us of good, healthy proteins and fats and get us hooked on his synthetic lab-grown trash.”
Following Gates’ lead, GAVI is optimistic that bugs will soon be an important food supplement for impoverished and undernourished children.
Perhaps in anticipation of that happy day, the Gates Foundation has invested in a South African company that makes edible protein from cultivated maggots. The company’s factory houses a billion flies and produces 22 tons of maggots daily that graze on slaughterhouse, municipal and household waste. Since markets are still immature for maggots as human food, Gates sells his maggot-meal to factory meat operations like those owned by Gates’ partner, Tyson Foods, to feed battery-caged chickens, and to large-scale fish farms, like those owned by Unilever, a $58 billion multinational, which is both a business partner to Gates and a grant beneficiary of his peculiar public charity.
As usual, Gates has also mobilized the international agencies that he controls and the large corporations with which he partners to drive his fake food agenda including, most notably, The Gates-funded World Economic Forum (WEF), which assembles the world’s billionaires in Davos each year to plan and plot out humanity’s political and economic future.
Schwab makes the case that powerful people should use the COVID crisis to impose authoritarian controls, pervasive surveillance, oppressive new economic models and one-world government on a beleaguered, terrified and compliant humanity. The Great Reset is WEF’s plan to rebuild a new controlled economy systematically after the COVID-19 pandemic.
Schwab and Prince Charles unveiled “The Great Reset” at a WEF summit in May 2020. It is a vision for transferring the world into a totalitarian and authoritarian surveillance state manipulated by technocrats to manage traumatized populations, to shift wealth upward, and serve the interests of elite billionaire oligarchs. To “reset” global food policies, the WEF has promoted and partnered with an organization called EAT Forum, which describes itself as the “Davos for food.”
EAT’s co-founder is Wellcome Trust, an organization founded, funded by and strategically linked to vaccine maker GlaxoSmithKline, in which Gates is heavily invested. EAT’s biggest initiative is called FReSH, which the organization describes as an effort to drive the transformation of the food system. The project’s partners include Bayer, Cargill, Syngenta, Unilever, and tech giant Google.
The EAT Forum works with these companies to “add value to business and industry” and “set the political agenda.” To further this profit-making enterprise, EAT collaborates with nearly 40 city governments in Europe, Africa, Asia, North America, South America and Australia. The organization also assists the Gates-funded United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in the “creation of new dietary guidelines” and sustainable development initiatives.
According to Frederic Leroy, a food science and biotechnology professor at University of Brussels, EAT network is working closely with some of the biggest imitation meat companies, including Impossible Foods and other biotech companies, to replace wholesome nutritious foods with Gates’ genetically modified lab concoctions.
“They frame it as healthy and sustainable, which of course it is neither,” Leroy told The Defender.
Dr. Shiva also scoffs at Gates’ perennial propaganda claims that his GMO meats are about feeding kids and derailing climate change:
“Lab-processed fake food is really about patenting our food, not about feeding people or saving the climate, as Gates and his fellow biotech friends pretend. EAT’s proposed diet is not about nutrition at all, it’s about big business and it’s about a corporate takeover of the food system.”
“Companies like Unilever and Bayer and other pharmaceutical companies are already chemical processors, so many of these companies are very well positioned to profit off of this new food business which revolves around processing chemicals and extracts needed to produce these lab-made foods on a global scale.”
Fortified foods
Synthetic and GMO foods tend to be low in the vital micronutrients that support human health. Glyphosate, for example, functions as a chelator. It kills weeds by leaching out the mineral building blocks of life. Farm crops exposed to glyphosate have far less nutritional value than natural foods.
People eating Gates’ processed, synthetic and GMO foods may have full stomachs, while being clinically malnourished. Gates is rushing to solve this problem by buying technologies and partnering with companies like Roche and Kraft that fortify foods artificially with minerals and vitamins. He is simultaneously promoting laws in developing nations to mandate food fortification. Those laws benefit pesticide and processed food companies to the disadvantage of traditional and organic farmers. Since U.S. companies, like Roche, Kraft, General Foods and Philip Morris already fortify their processed cheese and cereals, they are Gates’ enthusiastic partners in this grift.
I saw this hustle perpetrated by another Big Food swindler earlier in my career. In 2003, I was representing thousands of small-plot Polish farmers in the battle to keep Smithfield Foods’ industrial pork factories out of Poland. Poland’s Deputy Prime Minister, Andrzej Lepper, told me that Smithfield officials offered him a $1 million bribe to support a law requiring slaughterhouses to install high tech hygiene technology including laser-operated restroom faucets. Smithfield knew the law would have the effect of shuttering the 2,600 family operated abattoirs that made Poland’s signature kielbasa sausage. As the only entity that could afford the lasers, Smithfield would thereby gain monopoly control of Poland’s slaughter capacity and 100% of its lucrative kielbasa exports.
Gates took his food fortification laws from Smithfield’s playbook. By mandating that all foods be fortified, Kraft products like Cheez Whiz and American Singles, and its vitamin-fortified Kool-Aid and Tang, are positioned to displace locally produced goat cheese and goat milk in village markets and put small African farmers out of business.
To promote his mandatory fortified foods agenda, Gates created another of his useful quasi-governmental organizations, the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) to assist multinational food companies (Gates’ business partners) in lobbying for favorable tariffs and tax rates for processed and fortified foods, and speedier regulatory review of new products in targeted countries. Gates’ GAIN consortium also gives local governments money to stimulate demand for fortified foods through large-scale public relations campaigns or by offering governmental “seals of approval” for corporate food products.
Gates, GAVI and GAIN
Gates modeled his GAIN project after his billion-dollar global vaccine program (GAVI). By masquerading as a public health agency, GAVI has successfully mobilized public agencies and private industry to profitably dump untested, experimental or discredited, and often deadly vaccines to inoculatepoor children in developing nations.
According to Vandana Shiva, GAIN’s objective is to “coordinate campaigns that pressure African and Asian countries to give obscene subsidies, tax breaks and tariff exemptions and other preferences for processed foods.”
Some experts are troubled by the idea of Bill Gates and multinational food companies teaming up to colonize food systems in underdeveloped countries, and hawking processed foods under a public health banner.
Dr. Mark Hyman, the New York Times bestselling author and Head of Strategy and Innovation at the Cleveland Clinic Center for Functional Medicine, told me:
“ … despite occasionally being fortified with vitamins and minerals processed foods are loaded with sugar, starch, processed oils, artificial colors, preservatives, pesticides and sodium which contribute to the double burden of obesity and malnutrition, and the chronic disease epidemic. Globally 11 million die every year from an excess of ultra-processed foods and lack of protective whole foods, making processed food the number one killer in the world.”
Dr. Hyman calls those foods “the opposite” of nutrition. Shiva agrees. “The GAIN program,” says Shiva, “is less about solving malnutrition than a heavy-handed way to force poor nations to open access to their markets, to obliterate local producers.”
“With one exception, iodized salt, fortified foods cost too much, fail to reach their intended targets, or are too limited in scope to do what they are intended to do. I see these laws as solving a problem for the companies that make these products, not addressing nutrient and calorie deficiencies. I’m not a fan of fortified foods. I want a wide variety of real foods made more available and less expensive, and locally produced. So I would agree with the critics. I wish the Gates Foundation would invest in projects to promote small, local food production.”
Artificial intelligence: ridding the world of farmers
“We used to all have to go out and farm. We barely got enough food, when the weather was bad people would starve. Now through better seeds, fertilizer, lots of things, most people are not farmers. And so AI will bring us immense new productivity.”
Above all, he wants it to work fast. Gates’ “computational acceleration” will hasten the adoption of these beneficial innovations to achieve his ambitious schemes to deliver scientific breakthroughs to small farmers before climate change destroys their yields.
But Shiva warns American farmers, already drowning in debt, to be wary of Gates’ promises to throw them a line:
“When Bill Gates forced his devilish ‘rescue’ technologies on Indian farmers, the only one to benefit was Gates and his multinational partners. He gave money to the government and a company called Digital Green and made extravagant promises to digitally transform Indian agriculture. Then with the cooperation of his purchased government officials.
“Bill Gates put cameras and electronic sensors in the homes and fields of Indian farmers. He used their cell phones, which he gave them for free, and his fiber optic and 5G installations — which he persuaded the Indian Telecom Company to finance — to catalog, study, and steal farmers’ crop data, indigenous practices, and agricultural knowledge for free. Then he sold it back to them as new data. Instead of digitally transforming farms as he promised, he transformed Indian farmers into digital information. He privatized their seeds and harvested the work of the public system. He ripped out their knowledge assets and heirloom genetics, and installed GMO seeds and other ridiculous practices.” Shiva adds, “His clear agenda was to drive small farmers from the land and eventually mechanize and privatize food production.”
Christian Westbrook, an agricultural researcher and the founder of the online podcast, “Ice Age Farmer,” takes comfort that American farmers know Gates’ history in India and Africa: “We know who Bill Gates is, and we know the mischief he made for small farmers in Mexico, Africa and India. We know that his recent land purchases here are just the start of the Green Revolution 3.0. He wants to suck out the democratic essence of America’s pastoral landscapes and our farm families — to steal our livelihoods, our knowledge, our seeds, and our land.”
Westbrook takes note of the fact that like all chiselers, Gates is always in a rush:
“His strategy is to keep everyone moving so fast they can’t see the scam. He’s always telling us that climate change can’t wait, that we need to accelerate access to these products and adoption of his technologies, that research isn’t happening fast enough.”
Westbrook told me that Gates’ endless talk about “accelerating the process” and his extravagant promises of miraculous new technologies, of “investment,” and of “public-private” partnerships, are all part of his con. “He keeps telling everyone we need to ‘accelerate, accelerate, accelerate.’”
Many farmers say they don’t care to be rescued by Gates. Westbrook says he thinks Gates intends his baronial U.S. spreads to serve as flagships — showcases for his retinue of digital technologies for American farmers. “He’s doing it for the same reasons he brought his technology to Indian farms — to steal their knowledge, and move them off the land.”
Trent Loos, a sixth-generation Midwestern rancher and farm activist, told me that farmers have a knee-jerk reaction against billionaires “playing Monopoly” with American farmland:
“It makes it difficult for young farmers or even those who have farmed for generations, to compete with such deep pockets. It certainly creates a barrier for them. When people with this type of wealth start to buy farms, it makes us wonder what they are really up to. Nobody wants to rent land from Bill Gates, or work as his sharecropper.”
Westbrook says he believes Gates is pursuing a darker agenda. Like Shiva, Westbrook believes that Gates and the other robber barons are using the pretexts of climate, biodiversity, and the zoonotic pandemic threat to get human beings out of the ag business and off the farm. And there is evidence to support him. The Gates Foundation is significantly invested in Alphabet, Google’sparent company. Alphabet has invented “crop sniffing” robots, designed to replace farmers and ranchers, as part of its “Mineral” project. Its “Moonshot” project is “developing and testing a range of software and hardware prototypes based on breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, simulation, sensors, robotics, and more.”
Says Westbrook, “He wants to get the people off of the farms, get the animals off, and get us all eating his plant-based meats and bug protein.”
“Gates talks about farming as an archaic, quaint, dirty, dangerous, inefficient, barbarous relic from the past that threatens us by increasing the menace of climate change and the risks of global pandemics by putting humans in dangerous contact with microbes,” says Howard Vlieger, an Iowa farmer who has worked as a crop and livestock consultant in the U.S. and Canada since 1992.
Vlieger is an expert on the impacts of pesticides and GMOs on food products and soils. “Gates’ objective is to move the world “away from sustainable and humane animal agriculture that celebrates our contact with the soil and finds good health in our respectful interactions with nature — and toward artificial cows and a grim chemical paradigm that are all features of top-down dystopia. His vision is one of contaminated and unsavory foods and separation of man from nature.”
“Gates seems to have no concept of the joy that ordinary people — people like our family — take in farming,” Nicolette Niman told me. Niman is a California rancher and farmer, and the author of the books “Righteous Porkchop” and “Defending Beef.” Her husband Bill is the founder of Niman Ranch, a co-op of hundreds of small sustainable U.S. cattle and hog growers who market high-quality organic beef and pork from sustainable grass-fed operations.
“Regenerative farming and ranching immeasurably enriches human lives. It’s challenging work, based upon our intimate contact with the earth. At its best, good farming is a quest to understand and follow nature’s models,” Niman said. Niman says that Gates seems to have little interest in nature’s wisdom:
“He doesn’t seem to understand that our engagement with the soil, and joy we get from our contact with the earth, our complex relationship with our animals, even with all the hardships and difficulties, are sources of our freedom and our pride, and happiness at being masters of our destinies.”
“We need to build a world that respects individual self-determination, the humane treatment of animals, and good stewardship of our soils. We need to understand that a wholesome relationship with nature is not only vital to our health and climate, it’s the source of dignity, liberty, and enrichment in our post-industrial era.”
Using wide-ranging technologies, all of these activists from various continents expressed their discomfort with Gates’ tendency to look at population, rather than people, and to see the management of population as a problem in urgent need of his technological solutions.
“Gates sees the forest, not the trees,” Vlieger observes. “And even when he looks at the forest, he only seems to see board feet of lumber — how he can leverage the landscapes for cash and commoditize people.” Vlieger continues:
“Gates’ habit of seeing every human difficulty through the lens of some technological solution from which he can profit is beyond myopic. It’s pathology — sociopathology, really. Gates is a dangerously powerful sociopath with $137 billion and a vision for a top-down technocracy. Does that worry anybody?”
Westbrook says Gates, Cargill and Tyson are a powerful cartel on a mission to end animal agriculture and drive human beings from farms. “It is ‘replacement agriculture,’” says Westbrook. “They even use that word, ‘alternative agriculture.’”
Westbrook’s view of the dystopian future of technocratic totalitarianism envisioned by Bill Gates sounds like a baseless conspiracy theory if one ignores all the evidence supporting him. He predicts that we will very soon — in months, not years — see engineered food shortages and pressures to empty and “improve” the rural landscapes by idling farmland and replacing farm jobs with robots and artificial intelligence.
Westbrook predicts government efforts to push populations toward mega cities and smart cities where businesses are closed, jobs are scarce, and most of us will rely on universal basic income paid in digital currencies — revocable, of course, in cases of noncompliance and disobedience. Westbrook predicts a scenario “where the human cattle are completely dependent on the government for money and food, and all the folks are in one place in the smart cities and they’re easily monitored by the technocrats of Gates’ Great Reset.” Westbrook continued:
“They’re shutting down food production and actually more, more broadly, they’re shutting down all economic activity, all human activity, corralling us into their smart cities. It’s pretty appalling. And now that we’ve got these pandemics, we had to implement medical martial law, and since it’s all a health crisis, we’re also going to have to take over all of your food productions and your nutritional needs. They’ve married these two things.”
Time will tell us if Westbrook’s nightmare is merely a paranoid conspiracy theory — I hope so.
Food Systems Summit
In 2009, Bill Gates, an unelected billionaire with no governmental office or diplomatic portfolio, kicked off his global vaccine enterprise with a speech to the United Nations. He announced the $10 billion donation and declared the launch of his “Decade of Vaccines.” His scheme unfolded like clockwork. Gates’ contributions secured him ironclad control over WHO. As Foreign Affairs has reported, “Few policy initiatives or normative standards set by the World Health Organization are announced before they have been casually, unofficially vetted by Gates Foundation staff.”
Gates created and funded powerful faux-governmental agencies like PATH, GAVI, CEPI, and the Brighton Collaboration, to push vaccines in developing countries, to consolidate his control over public health, and to prepare the groundwork for the global vaccine putsch he had pre-scheduled for 2020.
In January 2019, the WHO dutifully declared — citing no specific evidence — that “vaccine hesitancy” was one of the principal threats to global health. The Gates’ Medical Cartel followed that statement with orchestrated campaigns in every U.S. state and in countries around the globe by pharma-financed politicians introducing laws to mandate vaccines and end exemptions.
Two months later, the powerful House Intelligence Committee chair, Adam Schiff — yet another of Gates’ financial beneficiaries — demanded social media and media companies begin censoring “vaccine misinformation” — a euphemism for any assertion that departs from official pharma and government pronouncements. Gates has giant stakes in Google, Apple, Amazon and Facebook. Those companies all began enthusiastically censoring criticism of vaccines.
A year later, the COVID-19 outbreak provided an opportunity of convenience for Gates and his vaccine cartel to consolidate their control of humanity. A May 2020 article by Derrick Broze in The Last American Vagabond observed that, “By tracing the Foundation’s investments and Gates’ relationships we can see that nearly every person involved in the fight against COVID-19 is tied to Gates or his Foundation by two degrees or less.” Their relationship gave Bill Gates and his Foundation an unchallenged influence over the response to the pandemic.
Gates repeatedly declared, in appearances on virtually every network and cable show and on every media platform, that all economic activity must cease until all 7 billion humans were vaccinated and possessedimmunization passports. His ten-year Decade of Vaccines that began with his UN appearance had gone off without a hitch. Under the leadership of Gates’ old protégé and loyalist, Fauci, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services arranged immunity from liability for COVID vaccines and committed $48 billion in taxpayer money to buy and distribute a retinue of new experimental vaccines, many of them owned by Gates.
Gates’ control of the process has been complete. His execution of his vaccine prediction was elegant and flawless. And now Gates’ surrogates are rolling out the same playbook to push through his totalitarian food agenda.
During the October 14 -18 plenary of the 46th Session of the UN Committee on World Food Security, the UN Secretary General, António Guterres, announced the convening of a UN Food Systems Summit in 2021. Guterres acknowledged that the Summit had been jointly requested by the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the World Food Programme (WFP) and the World Economic Forum (WEF). Bill Gates and his foundation generously fund and control all four organizations.
The UN Food Systems Summit effectively announced a parallel agenda to the one launched by the WEF when it hosted its Great Reset conference in June, 2020. In their research into the UN Food Systems Summit, AGRA Watch (the grassroots advocacy group that follows Gates and his foundation’s failed Green Revolution in Africa) found that of the 12 individuals involved in the Summit, 11 have strong connections to the Gates Foundation.
According to Heather Day of AGRA Watch, in some instances, these organizations were directly funded by the Gates Foundation and others Gates-funded specific programs that had major roles: “So his fingers aren’t just in it; almost every single one of the participants is working for Bill Gates. These are the authors of the UN food systems summit.” The Food Systems Summit is a 100% Gates project.
Kalibata reminded Food Systems Summit participants of the urgency. They had, she said, only 10 years left to accelerate the transformation of our food systems to meet Sustainable Development Goals for climate, nutrition and pandemic response.
The UN Food Systems Summit will lay out Gates’ “Decade of Food” blueprint for the global food agenda to be completed by 2030. We can only pray that Gates’ next new health plan for humanity won’t involve the same level of traumatic violence to our civil rights, to our global economy, to the traditions of our civilization, to the idealism of democracies, and to our self-determination, that accompanied his 2020 “Decade of Vaccines.”
Day is pessimistic: “Gates’ plan will be a roadmap of how to replace everything that is good about farming with the technocrats’ own systems for jobless farming, chemical food and bug protein,” predicts Day.
Conclusion
The Gates Foundation is not conventional philanthropy. It gives miniscule, if any, support to popular causes like the Wounded Warrior Foundation, ASPCA, environmental, or voting rights or civil rights groups.
It is a weaponized philanthropy that Gates launched in 1994 to resuscitate his reputation after the Microsoft antitrust case exposed him as a lying, cheating, thieving, manipulator intent on felonious monopoly control of global information conduits.
Gates has since invested $36 billion into the Gates Foundation, which has a value of $46.9 billionover which he and his wife exercise total control. The foundation has given away only $23.6 billionin charitable grants, and these “gifts” include billions in tax-deductible donations to companies in which Gates is invested, like Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi.
Gates’ brilliant mind devised this scheme to form a foundation that shelters his income, and allows him to leverage taxpayer dollars by investing the foundation’s earnings in projects that multiply his wealth and expand his power and public prestige, while avoiding taxes.
Using this structure, he can give tax-deductible donations to companies he partly owns and reap personal and foundation profits while avoiding taxes — and allowing him to hide his money in myriad ways. It’s a win-win! Gates has deployed his foundation as the embodiment of his base instincts for monopoly and control — a vehicle for ruthless philanthrocapitalism that hijacks public access and blurs the lines between corporate and public interests, cloaks private profit agendas with lofty public-spirited rhetoric and gives himself monopoly control over public health, our planet’s life support systems, our economics and people.
Gates has made his foundation a tool for consolidating the efforts of his fellow billionaires, captured regulators, and his business partners from Big Pharma, Dirty Energy, GMO food, Telecom and Big Data, and the bought and brain-dead journalists who collectively profit from the multiplying miseries of the dystopian world they have arranged for the rest of us. Gates and his cronies, toadies and minions pump up fear of pandemics, climate change, mass extinction — and offer his vision of new technologies as the salvation, which only he possesses the genius to deploy.
Gates is planning a satellite fleet that will be able to survey every square inch of the planet 24 hours per day. Such systems will no doubt be useful should populations become restless with political and economic structures that strip citizens of power, shift wealth ever upward, and doom most of humanity to meaningless, hopeless survival.
Democracy and farm freedom advocate Dr. Vandana Shiva says that Gates’ philanthrocapitalism is a “destructive force with the potential to push the future of our planet towards extinction and ecological collapse.” Shiva accuses Gates of using philanthropic capitalism to accelerate the corporate takeover of our seed, agriculture, food, knowledge and global health systems. “He funds the manipulation of information and promotes the erosion of democracy — all in pursuit of personal power and profits.”
Shiva says the Gates Foundation has powered an “unholy alliance” between big capital, science and technology institutions and governments to establish a global empire over life, through monocultures, patents and monopolies designed to destroy the natural world of diversity, self-organization and freedom.
“You have seen the wickedness they can do with vaccines in the name of public health,” Shiva told me. “Well, now he controls the land. He controls the seed. He controls the food. He has the ultimate power to starve us all to death.”
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s reputation as a resolute defender of the environment stems from a litany of successful legal actions.
